Talk:Death of Marilyn Monroe

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 July 2019 and 22 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tiax22x. Peer reviewers: Riven1726, BenN57.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 17 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Myrandasmithburger.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Comparison to Elvis Presley's death

In the trivia section, it states that Monroe's death is "extremely similar" to Presley's death. I have two things to ask about this: 1) Why is this important and 2) Monroe died from a drug overdose. Presley died from a heart condition caused by years of drug abuse and an otherwise unhealthy lifestyle. Hence, I dispute why this "fact" needs to be included at all. Naysie 06:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. I don't understand "He excluded all he deemed morally responsible for her death." Can someone fix this sentence or explain what is meant?

"FBI Agent"

I've just removed a section that was titled "FBI Agent", and that read:

The New York Daily News reported on August 2, 2007 that Producer Keya Morgan had interviewed an FBI agent for his upcoming documentary who says he was sitting outside of Marilyn Monroe's house in a surveillance van the night Marilyn died. The agent claims to have seen Robert Kennedy and other men go inside her home at the time of her death.[1]

The NYDN is not a reliable source. If this documentary comes out and is taken seriously by the NYT or similar, this factoid can go back in. -- Hoary 01:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The NYT is a serious rag, I don't believe a word they print :). Anyways --Tom 14:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to brake the news, but millions of people every day do. They are the largest paper in NYC. You should not let your personals feeling about the paper get in the way of your editing.--Bobtoo 21:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed sources

User:Bobtoo maintains that the FBI Agent section presents important information from reliable sources. User:Gyrofrog and User:Hoary counter that the only attributed source is a gossip column, which they feel is unreliable. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your information is not true and incorrect. 1. The New York Daily News is the largest mainstream newspaper in New York, NOT A TABLOID as you claim. 2. CNN aired a 5 minute special about it as did other stations. 3. FBI.com has over three hundred pages pertaining to Marilyn Monroe and this case. 4. The Internet Movie Database which is IMDB.com the most respected and only mainstream database about the film world has a lot of the same details. 5. There are over a dozen officials according to the news and IMDB. You really think dozens of officials, producers, the FBI, the director, Chris Rock's brother, and many more people would let there names be thrown around like that?--Bobtoo 05:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not the only person, trust me. Other than myself and "USA1812", there are many millions of people out there who know of the involvement of the Kennedy's and the FBI. It is about time the truth be told! You must be a Kennedy or government employ for trying so hard to cover this up.--Bobtoo 05:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Bobtoo, you are free to post in this section (as far as I know), but the intent of this section is to request outside input in hopes of resolving the dispute (which I figure you might appreciate as well as I would). Your responses to me or Hoary (and vice versa) belong in the previous section. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction www.FBI.gov NOT .COM--Bobtoo 19:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• RfC response - This should be taken out unless it can be confirmed by multiple sources.. WP:REDFLAG - Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources Dlabtot 07:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

FBI website about Marilyn Monroe--Sarazip1 08:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Sarazip1, but there is nothing in here (it's actually two PDF files) mentioning an FBI agent waiting outside in a van while "Robert Kennedy and other men go inside her home at the time of her death." Pages 20 - 21 of the first document discredit news articles which hint at the identity of the person who killed Monroe (the articles themselves follow on pages 22 - 27); pages 32 -34 discuss Norman Mailer's book Marilyn; pages 17 - 20 of the second document deal with Robert Kennedy, which is already in the previous "Kennedy connection" section (and whoever wrote the report indicated "he does not know the source and cannot evaluate the authenticity of this information"). Most of the content in both PDF files is from before her death, and for that matter from the 1950s concerning Arthur Miller. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I also saw a little clip on TV about the FBI agent and the Morgan producer. Thank God this is all coming up. I always knew the Kennedy's and FBI had something to do with her death. AND OF COURSE she was killed!--67.100.51.173 03:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, would you be more specific? What was the TV show, when did it air, what channel, etc.? Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You always knew this? And you withheld your evidence from the authorities? This is shocking, shocking news. -- Hoary 04:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Dlabtot provides the only serious comment on this link to a gossip column, and it's a clear "no". I have therefore removed the link. If this documentary is completed and has a theatrical release, surely it will prompt scrupulous people to reinvestigate the story; the results will appear credible sources, which can be used and credited. -- Hoary 01:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the {{RFCbio}} template, as per its instructions. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Bobtoo seems uninterested in the discussion above. Perhaps the high sales figure of this rag is supposed to add credibility to a gossip column within it. But it doesn't. -- Hoary 06:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you dislike the New York Daily News so much, but they are the largest paper in New York City. Plus IMDB.com, 300 websites, FBI.GOV. The FBI agent, LAPD police, etc. have all spoke on air about it. Do you work for the kennedy family?--Bobtoo 08:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That it is the Daily News is immaterial, the text cites a gossip column that, in turn, cites an unfinished film. Let's not start over. We have yet to see a citation for CNN. The FBI documents cited in this discussion do not corroborate the film producer's claims. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not dislike the NYDN at all. I'm not familiar with it. The WP article about it clearly says that it's in tabloid format, the illustrations of it make it look like a tabloid, you keep pointing out that it has an enormous circulation, and my knowledge of newspapers tells me that those with the highest circulations are usually crap. Still, I keep an open mind about it. (After all, even USA Today publishes worthwhile articles on occasion.)

IMDB.com happily recycles press releases (as stated above).

A figure of "300 websites" can mean anything or nothing: all we need is a single reliable website saying something of note seriously. (Thus not a gossip column within an otherwise serious website.)

You've already conspicuously failed to show how any FBI website has shown anything. Mere repetition doesn't make you any more persuasive.

If this FBI agent or the LAPD have said anything, in any place worth being taken seriously, specify that place.

Your last question (whether I "work for the kennedy family") is a hilarious one, and much though I like to "assume good faith" (despite the "Takashi Oyama" debacle, etc) it doesn't seem incompatible with a conspiracy theory. In conspiracy-theoretic terms, my admission that I work for the Kennedy family would show that you were right, and my denial that I worked for the Kennedy family would be more evidence of, well, "denial", and thus be more evidence that you were right. So I shan't bother to explain that I don't work for the Kennedy family, the Gambino family, the Osmonds or the Jackson Five.

Meanwhile, in your "real life" you can be working for Le Monde at the one extreme or the Weekly World News at the other, for all anyone here cares. The important questions are instead:

1. Can you come up with some credible source for this Kennedy tittle-tattle? (A gossip column's recycling of what some obscure movie producer claims that an FBI agent says doesn't hack it.) And/or:

2. Can you come up with any rationale for the newsworthiness of the claim that this obscure movie producer said whatever he said? (No evidence has been presented that the movie-to-be has generated any more than the most cursory interest, in broadsheet newspapers etc. The blogosphere doesn't count.)

I'm also most interested in your non-answer to a third question:

3. Why the rush? (Granted that a substantial portion of the US population is still obsessed with Kennedys and Monroe, this movie is sure to make a big splash, unless it's a turkey or mere dreck-to-video. So let it make the big splash. Then cite what the LA Times or some other serious source says about its content.)

Together with a small number of special-purpose accounts, you continue to waste a considerable amount of other editors' time over this dreadfully sourced factoid. Please either answer the questions above or drop the whole thing. Your reintroduction of the same tittle tattle for the same old non-reasons will be treated as disruptive behavior, triggering the standard measures that both protect readers from being served substandard material and prevent other editors from wasting yet more of their time removing it. -- Hoary 09:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The New York Daily News article is written by Ben Widdicombe who is one of the main writers for the NYDN, NOT BY SOME SHADY TABLOID! His section is always factual information about the entertainment world. So of course he would write about Marilyn. She was an actress and that is the correct section. There is no way the largest paper in New York City is going to drop the names of the FBI, Chief of Police of the LAPD, Beverly Hills Police, District Attorney, and a Hollywood producer without getting sued or in trouble. You obviously do not know anything about New York City and it's largest paper. The FBI, LAPD, Chief Darryl Gates who is the father of the S.W.A.T. team are all going to sit back and not care. Get real buddy!--USA1812 10:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well well, it's "USA1812" again. I've been to NYC. I don't know much about its largest paper (other than that it's a tabloid), but I know that this factoid is from a gossip column within it. Gossip columns aren't good sources, unless of course you can find some authority for your surprising assertion that His section is always factual information about the entertainment world. Moreover, even if it were true that some obscure movie producer told him blah blah blah, why should this be of any interest? -- Hoary 11:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, "Hoary" or is it "gyrofrog" or is it one of the hundreds of Kennedy kids? It is obvious you are absolutely obsessed with covering up this crucial information. It is also obvious you must be a giant Kennedy supporter. The Kennedy's was not the greatest people on earth, that I promise you. Look how they were all wiped out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.71.240 (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Come come, IP, get your hyperbole consistent. Are there hundreds of Kennedy kids, or are all the Kennedys wiped out? One or the other perhaps, not both. If "crucial information" appears somewhere a lot more impressive than in a gossip column on the say-so of an obscure movie producer, Wikipedia can sit up and take notice. -- Hoary 06:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So now the largest paper in NYC is bad and the producer and the FBI agent, WHAT'S NEXT? The point is your information is not true and incorrect. 1. The New York Daily News is the largest mainstream newspaper in New York, NOT A TABLOID as you claim. 2. CNN aired a 5 minute special about it as did other stations. 3. FBI.gov has close to one hundred pages pertaining to Marilyn Monroe and this case. There are a lot of inofrmation about her death. 4. The Internet Movie Database which is IMDB.com the most respected and only mainstream database about the film world has a lot of the same details. 5. There are over a dozen officials according to the news and IMDB. You really think dozens of officials, producers, the FBI, the director, Chris Rock's brother, and many more people would let there names be thrown around like that?--Bobtoo 10:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Bobtoo: (1) WP says that NYDN is a tabloid. Even if it's a fine, upstanding newspaper, this factoid comes via a gossip column within it. ¶ (2) Your CNN claim: Provide evidence for it. ¶ (3) Nobody has denied that fbi.gov has loads of stuff about Monroe. You haven't said where in all of this is the evidence for your particular claim. ¶ (4) Imdb.com is the most respected database as it has little or no competition. This as-yet nonexistent documentary in which you, "USA1812" and the IP have such an extraordinary interest is of little demonstrable interest to anybody else; therefore its publicist can have imdb.com say whatever he wants. ¶ (5) I don't know what you're on about. Your beloved paragraph says The New York Daily News reported on August 2, 2007 that Producer Keya Morgan had interviewed an FBI agent for his upcoming documentary who says he was sitting outside of Marilyn Monroe's house in a surveillance van the night Marilyn [sic] died. The agent claims to have seen Robert Kennedy and other men go inside her home at the time of her death. This mentions one retired official, one obscure producer, one retired FBI person (same as the retired official), no director, no person identifiable as a brother of Chris Rock, and indeed no other people whatever, aside from unspecified "other men". I start to wonder whether you've even read the paragraph you're so keen to reinsert. -- Hoary 11:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Deja vu. I did read the FBI documents for which Sarazip1 provided a link, and there is no mention of Robert Kennedy and other men going inside her home at the time of her death. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

A pure lie about no mention of Robert Kennedy the night she died. Many pages about it! Read it again! About no mention of others "Morgan additionally interviewed former L.A. Police Chief Darryl Gates, first LAPD officer on the scene Jack Clements, Monroe neighbor Abe Landau and Beverly Hills Police detective Lynn Franklin..." Again, you did not read it! By the way, there are hundreds of books and millions of people interested in Marilyn. Look at you, you have written page after page. If you are not interested in the subject why bother? Also, you are dead wrong about everything also. Look at the cast of name on IMDB. Again learn to read!--Bobtoo 03:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Bobtoo, you say: "Morgan additionally interviewed former L.A. Police Chief Darryl Gates, first LAPD officer on the scene Jack Clements, Monroe neighbor Abe Landau and Beverly Hills Police detective Lynn Franklin..." Again, you did not read it! I read it. It's in the gossip column you repeatedly link to. The gossip columnist says that Morgan says he interviewed them. Big deal, not. Let Morgan make his movie, let it be reviewed and discussed by broadsheet newspapers; then it will be of encyclopedic interest. ¶ If you are not interested in the subject why bother? Could be that, like me, Gyrofrog, wants to prevent an increase in the crappiness level of Wikipedia. ¶ Also, you are dead wrong about everything also. And in addition, besides and too! ¶ Look at the cast of name on IMDB. And when you do so, ask yourself how much editorial effort went into checking a PR release. -- Hoary 06:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC) ..... deleted by User:Sarazip1 (Contributions) in this edit.

A pure lie about no mention of Robert Kennedy the night she died. Many pages about it! Read it again! About no mention of others "Morgan additionally interviewed former L.A. Police Chief Darryl Gates, first LAPD officer on the scene Jack Clements, Monroe neighbor Abe Landau and Beverly Hills Police detective Lynn Franklin..." Again, you did not read it! By the way, there are hundreds of books and millions of people interested in Marilyn. Look at you, you have written page after page. If you are not interested in the subject why bother? Also, you are dead wrong about everything also. Look at the cast of name on IMDB. Again learn to read!--Bobtoo 03:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC) .... added by User:Bobtoo (Contributions) in this edit of 11:12, 9 October 2007.

Yes thank you Bobtoo, but I heard you the first time. -- Hoary 13:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[Bouncing left.] I self-reverted. After all, I mustn't tot up too many reversions in one day, even if the reversions consist of removing tiresome readditions of gossip-column-sourced tittle-tattle.

Say, Bobtoo, you write FBI.gov has close to one hundred pages pertaining to Marilyn Monroe and this case. There are a lot of inofrmation about her death. [Sprinkle "sic" to taste.] Precisely what claim do you want to make, and on precisely which of these close to one hundred pages is your evidence for this? You could cite this, instead of resorting to some gossip columnist's account of what some obscure producer of a non-existent movie is said to have said. -- Hoary 13:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Main Point

You guys are all missing the main point. This is about Marilyn Monroe, and should not be about your egos and writing wars. How childish! How old are you guys? We should be discussing how she was killed. Anyone in there right mind knows she did not kill herself. The question should be, who? Stop the fighting, she was a living human being who lost her life at a very young age. VERY SAD! Please remember that she was a real person, not a puppet. R.I.P. PS-My father was married to her.--Julia0101 05:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case please be careful that you don't breach WP:COI. And yes she was a real life person, but emphasis on the was. She was also a very public person therefore both negative and positive exists about her, as such both may exist in this article ---- WebHamster 17:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not unsympathetic, but we need WP:reliable sources. You can't make assertions or implicate people without supporting your assertations with references, citations, and specific details as to the sources of your information. For Wikipedia, you can't just say, "I know." -Jmh123 05:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and there are a lot of documentation to prove that she was killed. I have a copy of her "Office Of County Coroner" report, file 81128, Aug 5, 1962, which has been published many times. Her death was a result of "Acute Barbiturate Poisoning", "The stomach is almost completely empty... No residue of pills is noted. A smear made from the gastric contents and examined under the polarized microscope shows no refractile crystals." If there were no pills in her system, and they were digested, then there had to be refractile crystals. That is the reason her cause of death was declared a “Probable suicide" and not “Suicide”.--Julia0101 06:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't our job here to decide, simply to present the evidence. Provide sourcing for the various theories, and you may present them--by sourcing I mean citations that we can all look at online, or that were originally published in a reliable source such as the LA Times (which means there is access online or in newspaper archives). -Jmh123 07:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"We should be discussing how she was killed… The question should be, who?" This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Death of Marilyn Monroe article, and not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. "How childish! How old are you guys?… Anyone in there [sic] right mind…" Please read Wikipedia's policy prohibiting personal attacks. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

When I delete something saying "no reference" or "no source," I'm not saying none exists, I'm saying that none is provided in the article. For example, the CBS material for which a ref was provided yesterday: stick to that source when you are crediting it (I deleted all claims that weren't supported by that reference), attribute statements to those who made them (Assistant Attorney General Carroll, who conducted the investigation said), identify the sources of the research that's being presented (biographer and journalist Anthony Summers; 1982 investigation by the LAPD, and so forth). When or if you re-add material, please provide a source for it, and present it in the same manner. Thanks. -Jmh123 17:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No source for Jack Clemmons

I removed the sentence "Many individuals, including Jack Clemmons, the first Los Angeles Police Department officer to arrive at the death scene,[1] believe that she was murdered." The source makes no mention of Clemmons and is not a reliable source anyway. 24.189.171.34 (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

beginning

it says he was preparing to marry him i think this is wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.117.246 (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

All questions were answered?

The article for "Marilyn Monroe" says about her death: "Many questions remain unanswered about the circumstances of her death..." However, this article claims that "All questions were answered after Monroe's death." Perhaps one of these articles need to be reworded to avoid confusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BozoDawg (talk • contribs) 01:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe's Will

It's not a broken link, but it doesn't show the will. Would anyone like to fix the link or remove it? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

timeline

The timeline information is 60% false and made up. Not a single reference or citation is given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackio573h (talk • contribs) 11:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right that it's barely referenced. For all I know it's 60% false.

Even if it were factually correct I'd wonder why it's in the article. -- Hoary (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This timeline is a ridiculous embarrassment. It's conspiracy theory crap, and as the first person noted, 60% of it is false. What is it doing on Wikipedia?

68.200.180.97 (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

I have just reverted a series of edits that asserted (among other things) that a 20th Century Fox documentary is "highly valuable"; that "we know that Marilyn was under attack by Fox Studios"; that "her death is still felt by millions as one of the great individual tragedies of her time"; and that The DD Group: An Online Investigation Into the Death of Marilyn Monroe "stands as the definitive investigative study, and report, on the issues leading up to and occurring in the death of Marilyn Monroe...."; note that it's a self-published source. See WP:NPOV and WP:SPS. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

When was the cell phone invented ?

"10:30 p.m.: According to actress Natalie Trundy (later Mrs. Arthur P. Jacobs), Monroe's agent Arthur P. Jacobs hurriedly leaves a concert at the Hollywood Bowl that he is attending with Trundy and director Mervyn LeRoy and his wife, after being informed by Monroe's lawyer Mickey Rudin that she has overdosed. Trundy's timeline fits with undertaker Guy Hockett's (see below) estimation that Monroe died sometime between 9:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eregli bob (talk • contribs) 07:24, 5 August 2012

Did you mean, how was Jacobs notified at the concert? Maybe someone called the venue and an usher was dispatched. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

.== Citation needed, citation needed, citation needed ==

Why is there so much unsourced information in this page? It appears to have been tagged as such for over 4 years, shouldn't it just be removed? 122.59.195.213 (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

"Most conspiracy theories of all time?"

I'm not sure I understand this statement in the lede. MM's death isn't really mentioned in sources discussing "top conspiracy theories". Two examples: Time [1] and Telegraph [2]. Is this statement based on a single source? Can we get further confirmation of this? And what exactly does the Vankin & Whalen source say on this? I cannot imagine that any conspiracy theory has more variations than the 9/11 conspiracies, or even the JFK assassination, so I don't really think this is an accurate statement. Thoughts? --Louisstar (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

FBI agent who worked for gobernor Pat Brown?

"Written by an unnamed former FBI agent working for the then-California Governor Pat Brown," This is confusing because why would the federal govt FBI work for a governor of a state? I think it could be clarified a bit to help with confusion. On page 18 of this source: http://web.archive.org/web/20011030085124/http://foia.fbi.gov/monroe/monroe2.pdf

It says the special agent is "former special agent, field representative, appointment section, governors office, state of california." I'm not 100% sure and don't mean to do original research but I think he had previously worked for the FBI but then worked for the governor. But why did he make an FBI report then? This source http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/03/16/1173722744304.html says "It was compiled by an unnamed former special agent working for the then Democrat governor of California, Pat Brown, and forwarded to Washington by Curtis Lynum, then head of the San Francisco FBI." I think we should include how he forwarded it to Curtis Lynum who did work for the FBI at the time. Popish Plot (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Monroe 10-year death tribute

[[:File:Marilyn Monroe 10 year death tribute 1972 (v2).jpg|thumb|Thousands of tributes and memorials since 1962 included Lars Jacob's 1972 procession "Marilyn from Everyone" in Miami Beach on the 10th anniversary of her death.]] TrueHeartSusie3: If we can get the black blocks removed, where do you think this might fit in? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If we had a section similar to 'Legacy' in the main article, then I think it could be appropriate.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Thank you! I will try to get that done. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

But what kind of a 'legacy' does a person's death have? Monroe's death is famous only because it was so sudden and happened when she was still young, and because of all the various conspiracy theories. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I have now done as you so kindly suggested. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but that's not what I suggested, and I've reverted your edit. What I meant was if this article, "Death of Marilyn Monroe", had a section similar to 'Legacy' in MM, then the photograph could maybe be used there. But as we don't have such a section in the article, and quite frankly I'm not sure if there's enough material to create one, I don't think the image should be included at the moment. The celebration seems to be of only limited local importance as well.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Took me hours to find originals, rescan one of them, rework and reupload a version of this image, done exactly as per your suggestion, and add it to the Legacy section of the main article, as you specifically suggested, but then you deleted it there yourself! You can certainly understand how tricked I feel now, being treated like a pingpong ball? Thank you for apologizing for the runaround you gave me here! I accept your apology and can easily forgive. Forget, I'm not so sure. I think I'll just stay away from a few articles where I'm not a dominant contributor. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

PS The involvement in that tribute, early in their careers, of underground legends like Lars Jacob and Roxanne Russell make it far from "of only limited local importance", in my opinion, but that's just one man's opinion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

PS2 I've reinstated the image, adjusted the caption, written on that talk page, and am asking you kindly to leave it for someone else to remove, if needed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I never said you should add it to the 'Legacy' section, this is what I've written above: "If we had a section similar to 'Legacy' in the main article, then I think it could be appropriate." That's why I deleted it, you simply misread what I wrote. This memorial is simply not notable enough to be included in the main article, and there's currently no space in the Death of MM article, sorry. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I did not know then that you are so active on both articles, so I thought you didn't know there already was a section. "If we had a section similar to 'Legacy' in the main article, then I think it could be appropriate" (quoting you). That's when I did all that work. Why won't you leave the image for someone else to delete, if needed? To me that's such a reasonable request, after what you did to me, that I'm tempted to start a big bruhaha about all this. Wasn't your apology sincere? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm very confused, as I've not done anything to you, you simply misread what I wrote. I've written the majority of the text in both articles, and took MM to FA. Sorry, but especially in the case of a star like Monroe, who has had thousands of photographs taken of her, we have to be very selective about which images we choose for the article. We cannot fit all of them. I understand it is frustrating when you've worked for a long time and then someone reverts your change, but I ask you to consider whether you're arguing for the inclusion of this image because you think it best represents Marilyn Monroe's career and legacy or because of your interest in Lars Jacob and because you've spent so much time on finding and editing the image. It seems that you're very frustrated, so I suggest you take a breather from this article.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

If we had a section similar to 'Legacy' in the main article, then I think it could be appropriate (quoting you above). English is my first language, and I taught it for 40 years. I did not "misread" anything. You miswrote, for which I thought you apologized (?) 4 hours later, which however did not seem to have been sincere (?). Since, based on what you miswrote, and before you explained anything else, I did lots of work, according to what you clearly had written, I just feel you could have left it up to someone else to remove this. Common courtesy. That is my only interest now. I did not need your advice about taking a breather from this article, since I had already noticed (as anyone can see) that you control it, and the main article, and so I do not intent to ever try to touch either one of them again. My advice to you is that you let a few others in at times, especially when you obviously owe a bit of common courtesy to another editor who had the best of intentions. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You're right, now I see that it was more likely a mutual misunderstanding. You thought that I wasn't aware that the MM article has a section about her legacy, and I thought it was obvious that we were talking about this article not having one. I still think your reaction to my removing one image is unreasonably strong. I've done a lot of research on Monroe, and have chosen the images based on that research. I'm open for image changes and certainly don't 'own' the article, but when it appears to me that the rationale behind the change is not based on insight about Monroe but on other, non-related reasons, I think it's fair to oppose the change. If you're thinking of adding material to articles you've never edited before and which are on a subject you've not done a great deal of research on, it's a good idea to first ask whether the editors who are most active on editing the article (if the article is being actively edited) think adding the material is a good idea. That way you'll avoid the irritation of having spent time working on something, only to have your changes reverted. I hope we can put this behind us and move on. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

My issue with you is that you removed the image yourself, when you (as I saw it) tricked me into doing hours of work to comply with your own requests. You should have let someone else remove it, if is was to be removed. That would have been perfectly OK with me. Your removing is was very inconsiderate, in my opinion, and so typical of the type of WP:OWN behavior I've seen so many examples of in editing for so many years. So is your (completely incorrect) assumption that I am not knowledgeable about Monroe (some of my best friends knew her well), and your suggestion that people should ask you first before adding to this article or any other article which you "steward". My suggestion is that you leave these 2 articles alone for at least a month or two. I'm sure lots of other capable editors can "steward" them in the meantime. I'd be able to "leave this behind us and move on" if I saw any evidence at all that you do not wish to control them entirely, rather than evidence to the contrary, which is what I'm still seeing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry not to have let this go entirely, as discussed in principle, but should something like this be removed? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The Prince image is appropriate for the section because the First Avenue club was so closely linked with him, and became one of the main memorials in the days after his death. Presumably images from the nightclub were also featured in mainstream media coverages of reactions to his death. The image you want to be included is a minor memorial from 1972 (ten years after her death) with zero links to Monroe and probably no mainstream media coverage. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

'Against Monroe's wishes'?

I quote the article: 'Against Monroe's wishes, Lee Strasberg had never distributed her effects amongst her friends,..'

I think this could be described as promoting a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one. Perhaps we agree that there was something creepy, almost obscene, about selling a celebrity’s personal belongings to strangers. Perhaps one wondered how Monroe would have reacted. However, Monroe’s will stipulated that 'I give and bequeath all of my personal effects and clothing to LEE STRASBERG, or if he should predecease me, then to my Executor hereinafter named, it being my desire that he distribute these, in his sole discretion, among my friends, colleagues and those to whom I am devoted.' So I think I have a quibble here, concerning what we take 'in his sole discretion' to mean, first of all, and secondly, what we take 'among my friends, colleagues and those to whom I am devoted' to mean. I hate to stick my nose into making updates to these Marilyn Monroe articles, because I see that there is much contention. However, I'm reading about something being against Monroe's wishes, which seems to imply that something is against her 'will'. Maybe so, but that would be illegal. Maybe take it to court, if you have a strong opinion about it, but does such an opinion belong here?DanLanglois (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you might want to read the article about what Wikipedia is and isn't. As an encyclopedia, we rely on the information provided by experts in the subject; and this is what the experts on Monroe say. We cannot add our own commentary or analysis. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Agree with TrueHeartSusie3. Our opinions are not what matters, that is considered WP:OR. We have to go by what the WP:RS sources state. Kierzek (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'm seeing two points, one about 'experts', and one about 'opinions'. I agree about opinions, I said this myself, that I don't think opinions belong here. In particular, I'm not interested in opinions which second-guess actions of the beneficiary of Marilyn Monroe's will. And it is simply a fact, that Marilyn Monroe left her belongings to Lee Strasberg, who has, and I quote, 'sole discretion'.

Secondly, as to your experts, my only hint as to who are these experts is the reference given, to Vanity Fair -- Patricia Bosworth. If she's an expert of any sort, in addition to being a former actress (one who had attended sessions at the Actors Studio in the 1950s and 60s), then okay, here's the link:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2003/06/marilyn-monroe-and-lee-strasberg-200306

And, here's a quote: 'Monroe’s will stipulated that Lee Strasberg “distribute these, in his sole discretion, among my friends, colleagues and those to whom I am devoted.' So you see, the idea here is to interpret Marilyn Monroe's will. However, interpreting a will is a job for lawyers. Patricia Bosworth has a memoir, you know, about how she eloped with a dead-broke fortune-hunter who beat her up. I think her intention is to entertain with such stuff, about countless passes she rebuffed and such. I wonder if there are any alternative 'experts' on Marilyn Monroe's will, to consult? I'm simply seriously feeling misled by Wiki, I'm glad you brought up the standards, let's read them together. But I gave a fuller quote of that will of Marilyn Monroe's, and I note that this wiki article does not even clearly state that it is interpreting the wording of Marilyn Monroe's will. And as such an interpretation, of course I think it rather obviously mischievous. If it's not obvious then okay about that much I am wrong. However, Marilyn Monroe left her belongings to Lee Strasberg. Furthermore, let's recall that Monroe’s image and likeness were so valuable that a multi-million dollar lawsuit over her publicity rights raged on, more than fifty years after she died, until it was finally resolved by a federal court of appeals. Lawyers have been over this will, to say the least. I will offer my quote from Marilyn Monroe's will again: 'I give and bequeath all of my personal effects and clothing to Lee Strasberg, or if he should predecease me, then to my Executor hereinafter named, it being my desire that he distribute these, in his sole discretion, among my friends, colleagues and those to whom I am devoted.'

What does this mean? Does it specify an ascertainable beneficiary? Does this language express an intent to create a trust? My point here is that it's not our business to second guess the beneficiary of the will who has 'sole discretion'. DanLanglois (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you always read the whole article before making such comments. In the first para: "...and 75 percent, including her personal effects, film royalties and real estate, to Lee Strasberg, whom she instructed to distribute her effects "among my friends, colleagues and those to whom I am devoted"." I've referenced Churchwell, but I could easily add others to the footnote, such as Spoto, page 454 (https://books.google.fi/books?id=r2W9SGUyRmgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=spoto+marilyn+monroe&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7pIP5pI7XAhWBJFAKHcb5AKUQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=effects&f=false). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Do you also reference Spoto for his view that Marilyn Monroe was killed by a enema filled with broken-down pills? That's a rhetorical question, and I'm glad you brought up reading the entire article. Of course, I can see that the article does do exactly this. I give up, people. My parting shot is that you couldn't have referenced the actual coroner's report, eh? DanLanglois (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course, confused as to why this is supposedly wrong? Spoto's conspiracy theory is listed in the section on said theories and correctly referenced, and it's also explained why his theory is easily debunked. As for referencing the coroner's report, that would be considered original research and has no place here. Also, as I said, the enema theory stems from one pervert and not from the coroner. Again, it is suggested you take a closer look at the Wiki guides as suggested above.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I was being sarcastic, as the article certainly does quote from the coroner's report. Look, I do not feel that my little quibble has even been understood -- interpreting a will is not as easy as all that, it's a matter of law. I don't want to just repeat myself. I think Marilyn Monroe's will needs to be quoted accurately, and interpreted gingerly, and I'd like to keep my scope narrowly on that point, we can debate Spoto's nonsense in another thread.DanLanglois (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

And once again, we can only go by what reliable books and articles say. We CANNOT include our own analysis, it's strictly against Wikipedia's rules. If you are annoyed by the fact that you have to adhere by these rules, then I don't think WP is the place for you. (I'm actually starting to wonder whether you're a sockpuppet of a certain user banned from editing biographies...) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Furthermore, the coroner's report is not used as a source. Secondary sources which analyse and quote from the coroner's report are used. It's also really unclear what your beef with Spoto is – we both seem to agree that the enema theory is complete hogwash, and this is also clearly indicated in the article, which reflects current consensus. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

In the quoted passage under the Inquest and 1982 review section

I believe the word "clews" in the text below:

"Additional clews for suicide provided by the physical evidence ..."

Should be "clues", or "clews [sic]".

"Female models who committed suicide"

So, "Death of Marilyn Monroe" is in category 'Female models who committed suicide'. But Marilyn Monroe is not. Logical? I think not. 109.240.142.169 (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Date of death

Changed the date from August 5 to the 4th, per the sources on the page (inquest determined that she died on the evening of the 4th). Reverted with a mention of the death certificate saying August 5 (the death certificate lists 3 a.m. on the 5th, the time her body was found). Would the inquest estimate be used and sourced, or use the death certificate which, because of the inquest findings and because it lists the time of body-discovery, may be in error as to the exact time of death? thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, you raise a valid point. @TrueHeartSusie3: - what do you think and what do your main RS sources state. I await further input, information. Kierzek (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I reverted at first to August 5 because of the death certificate. But since then I think August 4 is appropriate. Sebastian James (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

You raise a good point! I think that indeed that inquest states 5th, which is confusing if indeed it was estimated she had died already on the 4th. Unfortunately I'm unable to check my sources right now due to busy off-wiki week, but I will try to get back to this on the weekend! Please ping again if I forget!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

To finally get back to this, yes indeed the death certificate may state 5 August, but she died on the 4th. This is due to estimations based on the level of rigor mortis, placing her death between 8:30PM and 10:30PM. So August 4 is correct. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3