Talk:Jeanne Carmen

message: I've removed the section entitled "Marilyn Monroe and the Kennedys" because all that info was not needed and bordered on opinion and hearsay. Even though the section was sourced, there was an apparent POV slant to the section and frankly, it was repetitive. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. The article should note why Carmen was notable (ie for her acting roles, etc). Her alleged friendships and relationships did not make her notable and that section did nothing but dwell on those allegations. The section also included way too much information about Monroe (this article is about Carmen, not Monroe) and others. The section about the E! THS provides enough neutral info about Carmen's friendship with Monroe and the Kennedys and whomever else. Before re-adding any more info regarding that situation, please express your thoughts on this page as to why it should be included before adding it. Pinkadelica (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have concerns about this edit, since User:Weareallone seems to have had a personal axe to grind with this person. He provided you with information here and then said he had "forwarded the article to some in my opinion precise and neutral editors", but they didn't have time to work on it. That seems a little like meatpuppetry, doesn't it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tagged this section long before Weareallalone contacted me because it had grown out of control. If you had looked further in my archives, you would have seen that I consulted another editor about the problem before Weareallalone contacted me too. I actually have no problem with that information being in the article but I have a problem with the way it is presented. As stated above, the section was repetitive and seemed to go overboard to prove a point. Being Monroe's friend did not make Carmen notable and I don't see why there needs to be an entire section devoted to trying to prove or disprove that. As far as the meatpuppetry accusation, I can't and won't answer for someone else. You two seem to be embroiled in a battle of your very own and I have no desire to be a part of that. If you think you can go back and muddle through what I removed and present it in a better manner than it was previously presented, have at it. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly any suggestion of meatpuppetry is unfounded, and I apologise for insinuating that User:Weareallone was looking for someone to proxy-edit for him. I had no knowledge of Mark Bellinghaus until his name was added to an article on my watchlist a couple of days ago. Since then, I've become all too familiar with his friends and enemies, and, as you say, seem to be involved in "a battle", which was never my intention and is certainly not something I wish to continue . I would restore some of the material you removed, but I fear it would only prolong this situation. Again, my apologies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Response to User:Delicious carbuncle: I would suggest that you go back and clarify your "meatpuppet" comments that were addressed to Pinkadelica. If you are implying that this user is acting as a meatpuppet for another editor, you are making a direct, serious personal attack against another editor who was clearly involved in working on this article before any issues that you and User:Weareallone have were carried onto this page. I would suggest the two of you work out your differences between yourselves and not involve otherwise uninvolved editors in your dispute. If you did not mean this as an accusation against Pinkadelica, then kindly reword your comments. Perhaps it is time to open requests for comment on user behavior for both involved parties? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done so, above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the apology, Delicious carbuncle. Everyone is allowed to consult a third party when making edits (in fact, I am a volunteer for third party opinions regarding disputes, etc) and I felt that was what Weareallalone was doing. We're also allowed to ask other editors to weigh in on disagreements to help build a consensus. I personally don't care about Jeanne Carmen's friendships or her personal life. My interest is and always will be in presenting information that belongs in an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or trashy book. Again, if you feel some of what I removed is viable, feel free to talk about here and then we can talk about re-adding it. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, I have no particular interest in Jeanne Carmen (or anything Marilyn Monroe-related), but in this case, I think your edit makes it appear as if her claims are only supported by a E! True Hollywood Story segment. What you excised was well and widely sourced. But I will let someone else make the case for adding any of it back. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it wasn't well sourced. Well sourced content can have a POV slant and be repetitive. The fact remains that most of it went above and beyond to prove that Carmen was Monroe's friend. That point doesn't need to be repeated in the article. The size of Frank Sinatra's penis and the fact that some actor saved Sinatra from drowning or that X amount of people backed up Carmen's claims of a friendship with Monroe (all things that were in the content I removed) are not needed in the context of an encyclopedia. I left the content about the E! THS in because it basically summed up what that other content droned on about. Content doesn't need 18 different sources and 80 different examples to prove its point. It's either true or it's not. All this bickering over a woman who may or may not have been Monroe's friend is pointless and I suspect this battle has more to do with other issues than this article's content. What's even more perplexing is that no one else worked on this article regularly but me and maybe two other people. All of the sudden people are coming out of the woodworks to protest the inclusion or exclusion of content that has been tagged for weeks and that no one gave a damn about before. At this point, I couldn't care less who steps in or re-adds anything. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't actually disagree with you, I was just expressing a point. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: And Wildhartlivie, perhaps your suggestion of WP:RFCC is a good one. I'm open to it.  Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Marilyn Monroe and the Kennedys

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jeanne Carmen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060507091807/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2005/4/2005_4_58.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2005/4/2005_4_58.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706104536/http://sxnews.gaynewsnetwork.com.au/feature/she-dreams-of-jeanne-001979.html to http://sxnews.gaynewsnetwork.com.au/feature/she-dreams-of-jeanne-001979.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywood.com/news/B_Movie_Icon_Carmen_Dead_at_77/5026873
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified