Talk:Marilyn Monroe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the assessment scale. The following comments have been left for this page: Marilyn Monroe did actually not like being played as a "dumb blond" in the comedy movies or for that fact any movie! (edit)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: Marilyn Monroe did actually not like being played as a "dumb blond" in the comedy movies or for that fact any movie! (edit)

	California Portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Southern California, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage and content of articles relating to Southern California, its people, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
	This article is also supported by WikiProject California.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) Marilyn Monroe did actually not like being played as a "dumb blond" in the comedy movies or for that fact any movie!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marilyn Monroe article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

• talk page archive

Contents 1 Jewish 2 Cultural icon 3 Was Marylin Monroe blonde? 4 Marilyn Monroe wine 5 Marilyn lovers 6 Porn film tittle-tattle 7 Body Type 8 Quotes about Monroe section

[edit] Jewish

Shes jewish by race or religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.226.157 (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The article says:

Nominally raised as a Christian, she converted to Judaism before marrying Miller.

So she was no ethnic Jew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.36.198.72 (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think she went back to being Christian after she left Miller.--Star-in-law (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural icon

Monroe is referred to, almost de riguer as a "cultural icon", so it's a little ridiculous to be championing its removal from this article. Encyclopedia Brittanica refers to her by that term, as does the wiki article on "cultural icons", not to mention the New York Times (frequently). Ford MF (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The recent references to Monroe are to her as fellating star of something one Keya Morgan claims to have fobbed off for $1.5MB, not as a cultural icon.

This article starts by referring to Monroe as a Hollywood icon, cultural icon, beauty ideal, fashion icon, pop icon and sex symbol. (And I'd always thought she was an actress and occasional crooner.) What does "cultural icon" mean that's not explained by one or more of the others? Indeed, what does "cultural icon" mean at all? I skimread its article and don't understand. And I glanced at the single source and it's some graphic designer's PhD-in-progress so gave up.

Or is there some rule that if Britannica attaches an impressive but vacant buzzword to a subject, Wikipedia should do so as well? -- Hoary (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Was Marylin Monroe blonde?

It seems mind boggling to read the paragraph in this article as quoted:

'He encouraged her to apply to the The Blue Book modeling agency. She signed with the agency and began researching the work of famous actresses Jean Harlow and Lana Turner. Monroe enrolled in drama and singing classes and had her hair cut, straightened and lightened to golden blonde.[14]'

And then see the black and white photograph of her during the marriage to Dougherty or while she was working at Radioplane Company. Are there any clear color photographs of her before she worked for the Blue Book modeling agency? Was she originally a dark blonde, or a brunette? 4.242.174.43 (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Good question! It has always been my understanding that she was somewhere in between. I have read in books sentences such as "her hair was a dark blond, almost brown and long and heavy in its ringlets". Andre de Dienes, Jim Dougherty and David Conover in their books called her an "ash blond", Emmeline Snively said she was a "dirty blond which photographs much too brunette" and I also read she called her a "California Blond, dark in the Winter, light in the Summer when the sun bleached it". Etc, etc. Sometimes you will see pics (esp. shoots done by Conover & de Dienes) taken on the same day but because of lighting in some she appears blonde and in others more of a light brunette. So I guess it's a matter of opinion! For me she was a dishwater blond which photographed sometimes brunette. In some pictures she looks to have not an ash hue but almost reddish! Again, a matter of opinion. What is unquestionable is that she was born blond (and childhood pictures show her to have VERY blond hair, similar to the "Marilyn Monroe blond")until puberty when it began to darken and that she was told by Miss Snively to lighten her hair to a golden blond and have it cut and straightened. I hope this helps. :-)Crcam (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marilyn Monroe wine

Do you think there should be a section about the Marilyn Monroe wine and other products?--Star-in-law (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No. -- Hoary (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marilyn lovers

Should there be a section about her lovers?--Star-in-law (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No. But any who had a proven effect on her film work should be mentioned. -- Hoary (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Porn film tittle-tattle

I was away from this article, such stuff as this came out -- by an "NBC News Senior Investigative Producer"; does NBC really think that obvious crapola such as Morgan's unsubstantiated claim of the sale of a porno film from one unnamed person to another is the best use of a "Senior Investigative Producer"? -- and I return to find that the article in this "encyclopedia" still devotes an entire section to this stuff.

The titillating claim at the end of it that Though there is an FBI document addressed to J. Edgar Hoover indicating that a "French type" film of Monroe "committing a perverted act upon an unknown male" was seen by an informant in 1965, and that Joe DiMaggio had offered $25,000 to obtain the film is sourced to foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/monroe.htm. But this page says no such thing; all it says is Marilyn Monroe / 97 pages / This FBI material concerning Marilyn Monroe contains published information concerning her alleged affairs and circumstances surrounding her death.

If this non-story still merits a section (which I don't believe), then I suggest changing "memorabilia collector" to "memorabilia dealer", and sourcing the FBI tittle-tattle more usefully and moving it up, so that the section ends with what's now Certain sources had doubts about the authenticity of the film and the broker who handled the alleged sale, rephrased as The dealer's claims have not been substantiated by any evidence and are widely discredited. -- Hoary (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if it should stay or not, but the page does exist and it is one of the last three pages of the 97 pages on the FBI site. The letter is address to the "director" (who is J. Edgar Hoover) of the FBI by an agent and is dated 1965. It's also posted in dozens of main stream media such as the cover of the New York Post April 14, 2008 and Reuters Marilyn Monroe sex film to be kept private.

Not to defend the Morgan guy who sold it, but the guy has bought dozens of the most important collections, such as the Joe DiMaggio estate stuff, and Marilyn Monroe estates items in 1999, and his collection was on the cover of Time magazine, New York Times, plus he’s put collections together for the White House and Congress White House letter. MSNBC did not actually view the film, and scientifically it would be impossible for them or FBI to disprove something they did not see. Plus, the same article states that NBC who wrote the article is trying to strike a deal with him as a producer, so there may be some other motives involved, strange. I am not saying the film is real, just that logically something could not be disproved unless it is seen. Plus, what if the film is authentic?--Star-in-law (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[T]he page does exist and it is one of the last three pages of the 97 pages on the FBI site. Then let's have a precise URL.

A better URL for the Reuters story is this. It merely refers to the FBI material. It does not post any letter. (I didn't bother looking at the NY Post page.)

The claims you make for Morgan are based on claims Morgan makes for himself.

MSNBC hasn't claimed anything. With no more important news to investigate -- and perhaps Michael Moore's next film should look into the fatuousness of the US infotainment industry -- an "NBC News Senior Investigative Producer" found no evidence for the existence of the film.

Listen, just last week I negotiated the sale of a live dodo from one collector who wishes to remain anonymous to another who wishes to remain anonymous. (Note for the young and easily excited: dodoes aren't the same as dildoes.) And since you didn't see the dodo, scientifically it would be impossible for you to --

No, that's ludicrous. I made a claim that I sold a dodo. Nobody expects you to see the dodo in order to prove that the dodo doesn't exist. Instead, they expect you to wield Occam's razor on this cock-and-bull story: the onus is on me to provide proof for any of this.

Morgan has provided no evidence. Apparently there's a single reference indicating that a "French type" film of Monroe "committing a perverted act upon an unknown male" was seen by an informant in 1965. (NB this says it was seen by an informant, not by any FBI employee.) And that's all there is, although you say it's quoted here and there.

Meanwhile, Morgan has been obviously and rather desperately hawking some schlockumentary about Monroe. He'd have an obvious motive for getting himself quoted in the mass media.

Plus, what if the film is authentic? You mean, what if there were a genuine, undoctored film of Monroe giving Kennedy a blowjob? A reasonable question, and one I answered a month or so ago, here. -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Star-in-law, I wouldn’t be so impressed with the claims that Keya Morgan makes on his own website. Clearly he has a habit of making up some pretty tall tales. There was a whole discussion about this which you archived after you made your changes to the article. It’s best to not archive a discussion about a section that’s still being worked on, since it’s obviously still relevant. As for the not being able to logically prove that something that hasn’t been seen doesn’t exist… well I’m sure that’s the same faulty logic that Morgan thought would help make his publicity stunt float. I’m sure now that it’s been exposed as a hoax he’s trying to do some damage control and make it all go away, but since it’s still being covered by the media it should still be mentioned here. Teleomatic (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the best question is WHO CARES even is there was such a film. We all know Marilyn Monroe was probably very talented at blowjobs, but she is dead for the past 50 years. I can't believe the media cares so much, I saw this crap on every station, it was all over the place and on CNN. I can't believe they would waste so much time being obsessed over a sex tape. God, what is the world coming to? It reminds me of the Bill Clinton scandal and the Paris Hilton crap.--Star-in-law (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This again? I thought we settled this satisfactorily? Anyway, yeah, there is a 99.999...(repeating) percent chance that Morgan's claims are bullshit but they have been reported very, very widely in a large number of major media sources, and are therefore notable, if only to report the existence of the claims and their prevalence, dubious though they may be. It's like conspiracy theories, which are basically silly stories made up by liars and crazy people. We don't have to report them as truth, but if we are to be a serious encyclopedia, we must report on the existence of such things. Ford MF (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, FMF, I think that you and I have different conceptions of what constitutes very, very wide reporting in a large number of major media sources. Certainly this non-story was written up in a non-trivial number of newspapers: Reuters (inexplicably) took it seriously, whereby it got into some newspapers worth reading, and of course it was also taken up by the tabloids. My impression is that it made far less of an impact than great steaming piles of other sleb non-stories as, say, Britney Spears having all her hair cut off. Morgan's claim that he sold a film is just one non-story in a million.

Repeat from above: If this non-story still merits a section (which I don't believe), then I suggest changing "memorabilia collector" to "memorabilia dealer", and sourcing the FBI tittle-tattle more usefully and moving it up, so that the section ends with what's now Certain sources had doubts about the authenticity of the film and the broker who handled the alleged sale, rephrased as The dealer's claims have not been substantiated by any evidence and are widely discredited. Would that be OK?

(Incidentally, I'm still waiting for a more precise URL for the FBI doc that says some informant said blah blah blah.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hoary, I understand you really dislike the Morgan guy, but there absolutely is an FBI document addressed to J. Edgar Hoover indicating that a "French type" film of Monroe "committing a perverted act upon an unknown male" was seen by an informant in 1965, and that Joe DiMaggio had offered $25,000 to obtain the film. That is a fact and the link is correct.

Also "widely discredited" would be wrong. Reuters, CNN, New York Post, Fox New, ABC, NBC, CBS, Today show, MSNBC, the Washington post, and thousands of other reputable sources all said it was authentic and never changed there report. CNN even said they saw the sales document and some proof. The report that was on the MSNBC website does not say the video sold was not authentic, they only state that the FBI claims it does not have a copy (I don't believe anything the FBI says!). The Morgan guy is in hundreds of books and newspapers, TV show, etc. as a "collector". It is obvious you really hate this guy, but lets look at the facts. I don't know if it is really Marilyn on the tape, but FBI document from the 1960s does speak of a tape, so all the mainstream news may be right?--Star-in-law (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. I don't absolutely hate Morgan. I don't hate him. I don't even dislike him. I have next to no interest in him, though I do find his desperation to be photographed (cynics have alleged photoshopped) next to slebs rather amusing.

I have repeatedly read of this FBI document. The article still points to foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/monroe.htm for it. Again, this says nothing. So, I've just now clicked the link from it to foia.fbi.gov/monroe/monroe2.pdf, 3.7 MB of cloak 'n' dagger, seemingly from an overworked server or anyway a slow one. Right, it's on the last page of that. It does not say that DiMaggio had offered 25 grand; it says instead that According to [blacked out] claimed that former baseball star JOSEPH DI MAGGIO [sic] in the past had offered him $25,000 for this film [...]. Now, "according to [name] claimed that" is syntactically impossible, and there are all sorts of possibilities. These are enriched by the start of this exciting letter, which makes it clear that at least three people are involved, and suggests that all three are shady: stoolies, or smut-peddlers, or conmen, or a mixture thereof.

You say Reuters, CNN, New York Post, Fox New, ABC, NBC, CBS, Today show, MSNBC, the Washington post, and thousands of other reputable sources all said it was authentic and never changed there report. Let's discount the TV shows. I don't remember seeing any article that said anything was authentic. All I remember them doing was uncritically citing Morgan, directly or indirectly, and perhaps tricking this out with a reference to the letter that's at the end of this PDF file. And of course they didn't change their reports: there's no risk of libel if the story was mistaken, and the masses' interests have presumably moved on.

You say The Morgan guy is in hundreds of books and newspapers, TV show, etc. as a "collector". Forget the TV shows. Which hundreds of books and newspapers?

You say: I don't know if it is really Marilyn on the tape, but FBI document from the 1960s does speak of a tape, so all the mainstream news may be right? Actually the FBI document speaks of a "motion picture". Yes, it may exist. Yes, Morgan might have bought it and might have sold it. Where's the evidence? It all looks like crap to me, as some fellow called Star-in-law memorably phrased it in this recent edit.

I wonder if some "memorabilia collector" will next pop up to claim a sale -- strictly between honorably-intentioned if necessarily anonymous collectors of historical memorabilia, of course! -- of stockpiles of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. -- Hoary (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that User:Star-in-law is currently indisposed, being the latest incarnation of banned user Octavian history/Persian history, etc. [1]. I'm undoing his "improvements" to the article, and we can go from there. I do think the phrasing you suggested above is appropriate. As for the world's most photoshopped porn peddler memorabilia collector, I wouldn't fill his head with ideas about what stunts to pull next. Teleomatic (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but point out that he repeatedly made reference to the FBI document, only to later claim "I don't believe anything the FBI says." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like someone's trying to run up the price of something grainy and out of focus. More flogging of codswallop to the down market over the faded images of dead celebrities if you ask me (erm, yeah, I guess someone did ask!) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Whereupon Gwen deleted a large section of it. Something clearly went wrong, but I'm pretty sure she intended to delete the whole section. I went in and deleted the remaining half of it.

In its final stage, it was nowhere near as awful as it had been a little earlier. If there's evidence that more than a tiny number of people remember this non-news and might come to en:WP to look it up, then I suppose it might be plonked within some wikiwastebin such as Marilyn Monroe in popular culture. Anyway, you see it below. -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary, yes, I'd meant to rm it all.

The below was ok but for WP:WEIGHT: The encyclopedic bearing of this dead celebrity scam (over 45 years after she died) on her career and pop-cultural legacy as described in an article of this length is less than zero. Meanwhile if Keya Morgan meets Wikipedia's notability standards enough for a BLP, now or later, this content could easily go there. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It may have been in the news, but this is an encyclopedia and must have a certain level of academic value. Who cares if some guy says that someone else said the Marilyn sucked some guys ****. I don't care if its a real story or not, if Marilyn sucked some guy off or not. I just don't see the academic value. Sorry thats just me :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ae2578277 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with the removal of this material. As with conspiracy theories, the persistent rumor and reporting in a broad cross-section of media is what is being reported on. Yeah, it's widely discredited, yeah, it's bullshit. But it's in (non-tabloid) newspapers, it's on television, it's in that Smoking Gun book that my bookstore has a pile of. It is a thing about which someone might read and say, "Wait, what? Is that real?" It'd be nice to have a definitive answer instead of telling our readers to take their unseemly curiosity elsewhere. As far as WP:WEIGHT goes, the section is incrementally longer than I think it needs to be, but not egregiously. Ford MF (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As for newspapers and TV, is this non-story really in/on them? I thought it had been in/on them, but that it had quickly been supplanted by some other gossip. If you really think that something is necessary, how about the following within some section on apocrypha? -- Hoary (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Hoary wrote before about not having it in the article. It may have been in the news, but this is an encyclopedia and must have a certain level of academic value. Who cares if some guy says that someone else said the Marilyn sucked some guys ****. Is this a real story? Maybe it should be in the porn section? I don't care if its a real story or not, if Marilyn sucked some guy off or not. I just don't see the academic value of a blow*ob story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ae2578277 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's pretty much what it was before, no? I thought that that was a satisfactory version that addressed my concern we were throwing away information that "wasn't good enough", and does not stretch the boundaries of WP:WEIGHT. Ford MF (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol!, I can't beleive we have all this text about if some woman sucked some guys **** 50 years ago. Is this funny or what? What a sick world. I agree with what Hoary wrote before about not having it in the article. It may have been in the news, but its really sick, and the media is even more sick! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ae2578277 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still for inclusion at this point. Either version seems fine to me, though the second is more concise and yet retains all the references so that one may be preferable. Teleomatic (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Body Type

I remember hearing somewhere that Marilyn Monroe was a size 12. Today, that's a plus size model. She is such an icon for beauty that I'd love to see a reference to how much the idealized body type has changed since her time. Today, she would be laughed out of the casting director's office for being too fat. I don't want to add anything because I can't verify this, but perhaps there is someone more familiar with Marilyn trivia who can substantiate this fact? Vanessa 65.38.40.224 (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that there are a few things that need to be taken into consideration: A. Sizes have changed DRASTICALLY in the past 50-60 years and B. Women's lives & lifestyles have changed as well to where their bodies have changed. On the first theme I mention, a size 12 back in the 40's & 50's is closer to a size 8 or a size 6 of today. Sometimes even a 4 of today will be close to a 12 of back then! On the average, a size 12 dress from the 40's & 50's has a 25 inch waist. One just has to look at Marilyn Monroe's measurements throughout the years which were anywhere from (depending on the sourse) 35 to 38 bust, 22 to 25 waist & 34 to 37 hips. If you go to a vintage shop searching for a 40's dress and you wear a 6 of today, you may find yourself fitting into a 12 of then. So at the vintage shop a young woman who is a 6 of today and trys on the 12 of the 1940's and it may fit ok, but the shoulders may be a bit snug. Why? Now, on to the lives of women. A woman of today who grew up in the 70's & 80's also grew up being much more athletic than a girl in the 30's & 40's. Women of now may have been in soccer teams as girls, where encouraged to be play sports, they may have done aerobics in the 80's and they go to the gym now. Women during the time Norma Jeane was growing up were not as active. This makes the young women of today to have slimmer hips & thighs, but they also may have broader shoulders. I hope this makes sense. Crcam (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes about Monroe section

The section which contains quotes about Monroe has a final entry with the song "Candle in the Wind". Should the song be in a different and possibly new section, perhaps a trivia or pop culture section? Or has a trivia section been tried on this article already and been removed? The song appears out of place with the quotes about Monroe, but should be included somewhere because of its impact on her posthumous popularity. --Monnai (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)