Talk:Audrey Hepburn/Archive 2

message: Um, I'm sorry, but why is there a section that has nothing but a dead link? I deleted it and it came back, so...is there a purpose to it? 70.132.14.86 04:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See "What to do when a reference link 'goes dead.'"  The correct procedure was followed. -Shannernanner 16:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Notes"

message: I'm a little puzzled by the archiving of material that's new and includes unanswered questions. -- Hoary 00:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you can bring back un-answered material, or just continue it here. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 01:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: Despite the presence of a link to Audrey's birth certificate which confirms her birth name, we're still seeing people putting in the other names associated with her. I suggest one way to handle this is to create a "Name controversy" section where all different variations can be aired out. Otherwise, the name on the birth certificate (which I believe is also supported by not only Sean Ferrer but also Audrey Hepburn herself) should be considered gospel on this matter. 23skidoo 17:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to create a Name controversy section?

message: I removed the "colon cancer" from the Biography Infobox.  The cause of death is already discussed in detail within the article.  Also, the infobox is like a headstone.  Would anyone like their headstone to say "died from colon cancer" on it? Alan Smithee 19:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd better check to make sure that the Biography WikiProject doesn't require this information in the infobox, however... 23skidoo 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did check the Biography WikiProject guidelines and templates and couldn't anything stating that the cause of death should be mentioned in the infobox.  However, if someone can point me to the section where it is, I'll stand corrected.  Thanks, Alan Smithee 20:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they don't require it, I'm fine with that, although I know other biographical references that do list cause of death such as the IMDb. 23skidoo 21:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography Infobox

message: Re: the "Count" being repeatedly appended to his name, I believe I found the source of the confusion:  according to the "Catholic Encyclopedia", Andrea Dotti was also a 13th-14th century Catholic saint, and the brother of Count Dotto Dotti.  Dr. Andrea Dotti, the former husband of Audrey Hepburn, was not a count. -Shannernanner 22:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Count" Andrea Dotti

message: I have removed the following sections from the article:
"Hepburn's popularity endures to this day. She is currently featured in a GAP commercial that uses clips of her dancing from Funny Face with the tagline "It's Back -- The Skinny Black Pant." The commercial is part of the "Keep It Simple" Campaign and will air on all major networks from September 7 to October 5."
"The new Gap Ads for the Skinny Black Pant feature footage from "Funny Face" as Audrey Hepburn dances to "Back in Black" by ACDC."
This information does not belong in a "biography" about Audrey Hepburn's life.  If someone wants to create an article discussing television commercials which use CGI/special EFX to edit film images of deceased actors/actresses into selling products for them, it could go there. 71.113.37.152 04:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, no need for the sarcasm. I put it in the trivia section, mainly to say that Hepburn is one of the more popular classic movie stars today. And GAP made a donation to the Audrey Hepburn Children's Fund so I'm cool with them. 67.161.26.190 09:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sarcasm wasn't intentional.  I haven't seen the GAP ads.  It's just most commercials using special EFX to make dead actors such as James Cagney pitch for Coca Cola or Fred Astaire dance with Dirt Devil vacuum cleaners were little more than crass commercialism to make money rather than a tribute to the individual.  If the consensus is to keep the GAP info, that's fine with me.  The AHCF donation is an interesting point that you might want to add to the trivia. 71.121.134.108 16:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also find distasteful and unappealing TV ads that appear to resurrect the dead and put them in scenes they were never in, in their movies.  Such Audrey ads include one or two for a company in Japan that advertises tea. However, the GAP ads (which you can see on youtube) do not attempt to resurrect Audrey: rather they just use her dance moves straight from Funny Face.  There is no implication in the commercial that she is being resurrected: rather it is the scene in FF that is being "resurrected".  Given that, the use of AC/DC's "Back in Black" is a major turn off to a lot of people, including a lot of Audrey fans.  We should also remember that the TV commercials are only part of the GAP campaign (variously called "Keep it simple" or "Hello Audrey") which also features large "cut out" posters of Audrey in GAP stores across the USA and Canada (literally from Toronto to Vancouver). Even though GAP apparently made a "generous" contribution to the AHCF, some have pointed out the possible hypocrisy of supporting a store that allegedly produces its products in third world sweat shops, although I think that goes far beyond the scope of mentioning the GAP ads. --Sp3lly 11:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree about the ad. My family saw it and there was quite a bit of discussion as to whether it was her image from an old film, and if so which one. Having a mention of it in the article would have been helpful and would improve the article. It might lead someone to make the effort to rent the film. Somenone's distaste is just that: his personal taste, so there's no disputing that he finds it distasteful, but he is not the  Official Wiki Arbiter of Taste. Is it distasteful to quote the words of a dead writer or poet, or to play the music of a dead composer or musician in an ad? Their heirs sometimes get very welcome revenue if it is not in public domain.Edison 06:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAP ads 

message: As the editor who originally put this item into the article, I feel it's important to note this erroneous piece of information because, while it did originate with the IMDb it has since been listed as fact by numerous Audrey fan websites. 23skidoo 13:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems important to me as well, but it would probably be good to cite at least one [reliable] source, if possible. -Shannernanner 00:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true. If anyone can add a source, that would be great. At the same time the IMDb is still worth noting because the vast majority of people don't know (or care) about the fact that its reputation isn't the best. 23skidoo 12:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A New Kind of Love

message: The filmography box is great, but the list needs to be reversed. Too many Wikipedia articles borrow the IMDb's format of listing most recent film's first. The list should start with the 1948 film and move down. I'll change it myself when I have time but I'll give first dibs to the editor who revised the box. I noticed some wikilinks were messed up by having the films in the wrong order so I went ahead and reversed the list. 23skidoo 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Filmography box

message: She "was" an iconic... or "is" an iconic... ? I'm referring to the first paragraph of the article. Even though she's passed away, it doesn't mean she isn't still an icon, and all that other good stuff.
:It is a matter of the use of a "past tense" that still has present meaning. The word could easily be striken, since the very next paragraph demonstrates her enduring popularity. --Sp3lly 12:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is or was? 

message: The introduction currently states, "She has often been called one of the most beautiful women of all time, most recently in a 2006 poll for New Woman magazine."  I'm not sure this is the most relevant sentence to put there; it gives the impression that her beauty is what is important about her above anything else.  Kinda like putting in Albert Einstein's intro "And he sure had weird hair." :-)  I think it should be moved, perhaps to the popularity section.  Also perhaps the other sentence re: the AFI should be moved there.  Opinions? -Shannernanner 12:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Her beauty might not be the most important thing to say about her, and as it currently reads it puts too much emphasis on it and makes the lead section somewhat shallow, but it's worth mentioning in its proper context. (A New Woman poll is a very wrong context IMO)   As the lead should be a summary I would suggest the first sentence identify her (as it does), then a paragraph about her career.  Then a paragraph about what she achieved/how she is perceived.  I think the 3 things notable about her would be the regard in which she is held as an actress (awards could be briefly mentioned), her style/beauty/fashion status (however you want to put it) and her reputation as a humanitarian.  That should summarise the main points in the article. Rossrs 13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it. I agree that the beauty thing goes without saying, and who honestly cares about New Woman Magazine? I just tucked it into the popularity section.70.231.232.91 08:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  Opinions on this change? -Shannernanner 08:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a great improvement, and perhaps over time it will be fleshed out a little further without straying off the point. It's good.  I removed the word "iconic".  I agree that Hepburn was iconic but (each in her own way), so was the other Hepburn, Monroe, Dietrich, Garbo, Crawford, Lombard, Harlow, Loy, Bergman, Stanwyck, Garland, Grable, Bardot, Bette Davis, Elizabeth Taylor, .... etc.  It's either a long or a short list depending on your POV and the description applied to Hepburn isn't attributed to anyone.  I also added the date for the AFI ranking.  I think it's good to show that it's relatively recent, and certainly demonstrates that her appeal has not diminished since her death, probably the opposite in fact. Rossrs 08:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's a bit choppy, but I do think it's an improvement. Shannernanner 09:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: A statement like that needs to be sourced if it's going to be kept in the article. Different sources also cite Tiffany's, The Nun's Story and My Fair Lady as her favorite films, so we need a source to confirm that she did in fact name Roman Holiday her "dearest" film. 23skidoo 13:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do know that Sean Ferrer once wrote that she liked Funny Face and Nun's Story the best and there is a link to that article somewhere. I'm pretty sure Roman Holiday was the dearest to her, but I don't know of any source. Apparently she said it in a Barbara Walters interview, which I haven't seen and can't find a full transcript of. 70.231.252.53 05:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Her dearest movie"

message: In the Personal Life section there are timelines that don't seem to meet:
Regarding her relationship with Wolders: "In 1989, after nine years with him, she called them the happiest years of her life." but she is supposed to have divorced Dotti in 1982 making it 7 years? Plus I am confused by the fact that she divorced Ferrer in Dec '68 and was married again in Jan '58, however I will accept that she met Dotti during her separation, it does not read clearly enough and I am confused enough to not try and edit it myself. Bob H  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.223.85 (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: What a bunch of bullshit. There are all of these limits on fair use, so if you're trying to find pictures of a movie star, you are pretty much limited to screenshots. But only 1 is allowed. So instead you get nothing more than a page of text that no one will read. I for one think it's a lot more fun to read an article with visuals. Do you really think it would hurt anyone to use more than one screenshot? Would that be offensive? Would it disrupt the delicate balance of this fine website? 70.132.31.235 05:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear you, but unfortunately Wikipedia has really been cracking down on images. Even promotional shots are not necessarily allowed, and magazine images were declared taboo a few months back. This is the first I'd heard of the screenshot limits and I'd like the editor who removed the images to please provide a citation for this rule. Unfortunately when you have Jimbo Wales (owner of Wikipedia) making statements that he'd rather see an article with no images than run the risk of violating a copyright, there's not much you can do. 23skidoo 05:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You can use more than one screenshot, as long as you make and upload it yourself.  It's only the fair use screenshots that can only be used once per page.  If you go to the image upload page, click on "Licensing," and scroll down to "fair use," it says "Screenshots (one per article)."  Sorry, I know it sucks. -Shannernanner 06:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "one per article" restriction appears to conflict with the current {Film-screenshot} fair use tag which states:  "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the film.....on the English-language Wikipedia,.....qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law."  I also noted that many of the Featured articles on films and TV shows have multiple fair use screenshots in them. Alan Smithee 09:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that too, I don't know the answer.  The upload page seems fairly unambiguous about it, but you may want to ask someone to clarify. -Shannernanner 09:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the reasons why using images has become so frustrating on Wikipedia -- Wikipedia itself can't even make up its mind. And some of its wording is open to wide interpretation. For example technically speaking a film screenshot is only to be used "to illustrate a film and its contents". In my opinion, "contents" includes the people who appear on screen. 23skidoo 12:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's frustrating.  In my opinion too, "contents" includes the people on screen and judging by the number of editors who add screenshots to articles about people, a good number obviously interpret it that way too.  The message on the upload page clearly says one per page, and yet Wikipedia:Fair use policy says, "Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately".  I think that sentence suggests that if one will NOT serve the purpose adequately, multiple images are ok.  Asking someone to clarify is a great idea, but who exactly would we ask?  There are a number of people working hard to rid Wikipedia of potential copyright violations, and there are vast differences in what each of them will allow or not allow.    As far as I can see, in the policy page I've linked to, and in the discussion pages for the various fair use templates, fair use and copyright pages, there seems to be no agreement that images should be limited to one.  Many editors, including some very experienced ones, talk about a small number (but still more than one) of images as ok.  The only place I can see where it straight out says one only, is on the upload page.  I wonder if this is the anomaly then?  Maybe it's a carry over from a previous policy, or perhaps was part of an intended policy that was never made official.   I don't know, but I'd love a nice, clear policy to follow so that it's not left up to the individual interpretations of any number of editors.Rossrs 13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A dispute has erupted between me and another editor at Kate Winslet over this very issue. He says actors aren't contents so he removed the article's only image, which happened to be a screenshot. According to the Oxford dictionary, a content is "what is contained in something". That in my opinion includes actors. Sometimes I think a lot of bad feelings would be saved if Wikipedia simply decided to give in to Copyright Paranoia and ban images altogether. Probably save a lot of bandwidth in the process. 23skidoo 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think eventually that will happen. Rossrs 22:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I took this discussion over to Wikipedia:Fair_use and asked for clarification of "one per article" vs. "limited number" regarding screenshots. I couldn't get anyone to defend "one per article" as the official absolute limit in Wikipedia (see Article limits for screenshot images).  There is also an earlier discussion about screenshots (see Too many images in an article.)  For now the official policy is Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy criteria #3 The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.  So it seems that mutiple screenshots can be used in an article, but each image meet all the criteria especially #8:  The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. Alan Smithee 19:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's just a mistake not to have more than one image. Most people skimming through wikipedia and going to a page on Audrey Hepburn aren't really interested in every detail of her life, they just want the general summary and mostly they want to see what she looked like. I like reading articles that have visuals for each section that in effect summarize what the section is about. In this case, pictures of Hepburn in iconic movie scenes and at different stages of her life. This article should be an exception because it is about one of those most photographed people in history. 70.231.227.12 23:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it should not be "an exception".  The rules should allow for more images to be used if the subject of the article warrants it, and Hepburn is one of many that warrants it.  This is the shaky ground part of the discussion - everyone has their own favourite who they believe to warrant special consideration.  Not that I disagree with you, but making exceptions on the basis of POV is dangerous. Better to have a uniform policy.   Rossrs 00:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Just because there is no official limit doesn't mean editors can add as many images as they want here or elsewhere.  For example, adding a screenshot from every film that Audrey Hepburn was in would clearly be over the line of acceptable fair use.  Exactly where the line should be drawn is the subject of intense debate all over Wikipedia right now.  Anyone adding a fair use screenshot or other image needs to clearly state the reasons the image should be in the article (Fair Use Policy pt. #8) and had better be prepared to provide a solid and convincing defense if challenged.  If people can't excercise restraint in the use of fair use images, then it will eventually come down to a limit of one fair use image per article or no images at all. Alan Smithee 00:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the place up a bit, and I'll continue to do so until it is a featured article. Still need to source everything. I prefer actually doing things instead of debating about doing things. 67.161.26.190 11:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Limits

message: I'm new at this and apologize if I violate any protocol.  I merely wanted to point out the last line under the "Early Life" section appears to state that Ms. Hepburn's life was saved by UNICEF immediately after the end of the Second World War.  This would have been impossible given that UNICEF didn't come into existence until 1946.  --Uciwikipediaguy 01:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency. Shannernanner 06:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNICEF in her early life 

message: The Charade image used in the infobox is terrific, but unfortunately I fear someone might try to remove it citing the arguments (I'll call them arguments) ongoing regarding fair use images at Kate Winslet and other articles. Apparently one "interpretation" of Wikipedia's fair use image rules is that screenshots showing actors are not acceptable in biographical articles. I disagree 100% so as such I have no intention of touching the Charade image (or any other screenshots that may be used in this article) ... but I'm just giving a friendly heads up that if the Fair Use copyright police happen to swing by, the image might suddenly disappear. 23skidoo 20:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This one should be fine. Charade is in the public domain and as such screenshots from it are also in the public domain. Rossrs 01:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some problem since the picture comes from the audrey1.com website...which is foolish since the other 2 Charade pictures also came from that website...but I have sent an e-mail to the admin of audrey1.com asking for permission. I think it'll be fine. I think it's a great image for the article. And I've ordered a Hepburn bio and plan on properly referencing everything, so hopefully pretty soon this article will get cleaned up and will remain static.67.161.26.190 06:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I completely forgot about the fact Charade is public domain. I stand corrected. 23skidoo 01:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, the admin email account for Audrey1 gets inundated with spam and I must have missed the request to use the Charade image - Beaker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.0.230.234 (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Charade image

message: The filmography is wrong. "Monte Carlo Baby" and "Nous irons a Monte Carlo" were made at the same time, with slightly different casts, after "The secret people". I have a copy of "One wild oat" and it has a copyright date of 1950, which means it was her first English speaking role (for all of 30 sceonds) to appear ; whether it was made before "Laughter in Paradise" I do not know. Audreyfan Audreyfan
:The filmography follows the imdb.com filmography. But imdb might be wrong, who knows. 67.161.26.190 01:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Audreyfan, and in fact if you check the wikilinks you'll see both titles are linked to the same article. It is possible that the two films, while made at the same time (as noted in the article on the film which I created a couple of weeks ago) might have been released at different times. In terms of the IMDb filmography, it shouldn't be considered the epitome -- filmographies should also be compiled from biographies and other sources. For example, the IMDb for about 2 years had Audrey listed as appearing in "A New Kind of Love" which she is not. We also have to be careful not to copy the IMDb style otherwise that's a copyvio; that's why I reversed the order of the filmography awhile back. Only the IMDb lists start with the most recent. 23skidoo 01:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography 

message: Is this a necessary section? Isn't that what Wikiquote is for? 67.161.26.190 01:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check other biographical articles. They appear elsewhere. Not everyone uses Wikiquote. I removed the bullets because that made things extremely awkward; I'm not too fond of the existing indents either. 23skidoo 01:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I guess the bullets were a dumb idea, now that I think about it. I just don't like those indents. How about eliminating them altogether? 70.231.232.226 10:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes section 

message: The main pic from Charade. Was it ever there in the movie. I saw the movie yesterday and nowhere did I find this pose. I wonder if it is really a screengrab
: Please sign your comments. It's from the closing scene in the theatre when Reggie is looking up from the conductor's box. Presumably it's a screengrab from the DVD. I remember the scene. 23skidoo 18:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a query

message: What would keep this from being a Good Article? Not enough references? References not referenced properly (no author, title, year, etc)? Sloppy writing? Seems pretty good to me, although some additions could be made, and I should do that when I have the time. According to WikiCharts, this article gets 2,519 ± 28% views/day. Let's get our acts together! 70.231.243.225 08:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So what's wrong with this article?

message: Perhaps the best way to avoid the continuous yo-yo-ing regarding the birth name is to add a section specificially discussing the fact that different sources give different birth names. The birth certificate linked -- which shows Audrey Kathleen Hepburn as her birth name and Edda Van Heemstra as her mother's name -- should be treated as definitive, but it is probably worth acknowledging that there is some confusion. (Just as you still come across sources that refer to Audrey as being a close relative to Katherine Hepburn (as opposed to being a 10th cousin four times-carry-the-two removed. ;-) ). Thoughts? 23skidoo 16:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the birth certificate shows that she was named 'Audrey Kathleen Ruston.' The Hepburn was added later by her parents. But yes, I agree that an acknowledgement of the confusion arising over her name because of inaccurate accounts that are constantly being repeated would be useful. --Sp3lly 16:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't start that up again. Her birth certificate says Audrey. 70.132.22.226 00:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: it is clear from her birth certificate that she was named Audrey Kathleen Ruston. --Sp3lly 16:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you had read ALL her biographies it would be clear that Charles Highams biography is incorrect as you would have seen the birth certificate in Sean Ferrers book - Beaker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.0.230.234 (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: ***Text deleted by 23skidoo on the grounds of WP:BLP.***
A paragraph that was located above contained an unsourced and potentially libellous accusation regarding a living person (specifically the author Donald Spoto). Although it is generally bad form to remove other people's comments from talk pages, under the policy of WP:BLP, we are allowed to remove potentially libellous, unsourced comments from articles and talk pages at any time. 23skidoo 22:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The removal is completely ridiculous. Editors are entitled to express their opinion of how well or how poorly Donald Spoto's biographies are sourced, and how closely they seem to hew to reality. Discussing the reliability of sources is entirely necessary for the development of an encyclopedia. The removed material was entirely appropriate. - Nunh-huh 22:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Is she really just a very distant relative of Katherine Hepburn. I came here looking to see how they were related (just assuming they must be). Any relation or the fact that they are only very distant relatives should be on this page. I'm sure I'm not the only one who just assumed they were closely related. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The name game

message: Audrey Hepburn and her lines in various movies are referenced frequently in a 2006 anime called REC I'm not sure if it should be mentioned on her page. Please execuse me if I violated anything, first post ever on wiki. --88.159.68.205 12:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it might be appropriate in a short paragraph that lists many modern films that reference Audrey Hepburn and her films; for instance I've heard that in one scene in Pretty Woman, one of Audrey's movies is showing in the background, and there are maybe five other examples of this I have heard of. --Sp3lly 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence 

message: Very informational, somebody really made it very descriptive, much better and longer than the last time i saw it 75.52.173.64 23:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the level of detail about her cancer treatment is beyond bizarre. BennyFromCrossroads 15:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice page

message: Any citation for Joseph Ruston being half-Czech? I read the excerpt from Spoto's biography, and it just says that he was an Englishman. As far as I can tell, her mother was full Dutch and her father was English with some deep Scottish roots, so where did the French come from? 67.161.26.190 04:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Czech? French?

message: There seem to be a lot of them. It's a bit repetitive after the first one or two and doesn't really add anything. Anybody agree to getting rid of most of them? Clarityfiend 05:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I like that whole section. UNICEF was a huge part of her life and it's interesting to see the progression of her descriptions. By the time she gets to Somalia, she realizes how awful the situation is, and from then on it consumed her. 67.161.26.190 09:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UNICEF quotes

message: re:Audrey Hepburn (May 4, 1929 – January 20, 1993) was an Academy Award-winning Dutch-British actress of film
----This is a bit awkward for the leading sentence, how about just actress, and leave the Dutch-British part for later in his bio to describe her origins. Dutch-British? There's got to be a better way to summarize Audrey's notability in the first sentence. AnyonePiperdown 02:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that we need to summarize a person's nationality in the first sentence is silly, but lots of people seem to like it. In this case, there's no way to say she was British, Belgian-born, of Dutch and British ancestry, and became famous acting in American movies without emphasizing nationality to a ridiculous degree, and it's al information already contained in the article. No need for a hyphenated summary in the first sentence. - Nunh-huh 02:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward "Dutch-British Actress" intro 

message: Does this site meet WP:RS guidelines? I wouldn't think so. Anyone can help with this matter?Piperdown 02:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: External links don't fall under WP:RS. They fall under WP:EL. --PhantomS 06:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "Findagrave" site on many celebrity pages 

message: In reading this article, the language doesn't feel very objective.  Many statements are weasel-like ("many people consider her to be...") followed with compliments.  Could these be rewritten to read more like an encyclopedia? Yavoh 17:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why yes, it certainly can be. faithless (speak) 19:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Is there a way to make the succession boxes at the bottom of the page collapsible so they don't take up so much room?  I would, but I don't know how.  Thanks! — Yavoh 14:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession Boxes 

message: Would you mind adding the following external link to the article, please: 
* Interview with Sean Hepburn Ferrer  This interview with the oldest son of Audrey Hepburn deals with some aspects of her biography, of her charakter and her "Selbstverständnis", influence and receptions of her activities, her engagement for children in the poorest states of the world concerning her activity as goodwill ambassador to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) as well as with The Audrey Hepburn Children's Fund which is a result of her efforts. 
Thanks so far, --  H.Albatros (German Wikipedia) 20:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important link 

message: How she could be a descendant of James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell? Lord Bothwell had stillborn twins- http://www.thepeerage.com/p10190.htm#i101892 Kowalmistrz (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Descendant? 

message: User:Mcatch23 has continued to reenter info about AH's Canadian stamp without providing a source. The editor has also opened a thread about this here Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Audrey_Hepburn where an uninvolved editor gave several suggestions about what to do. This editor has followed none of these. Although Mcatch23 is well beyond the 3rr rule I propose giving him/her one more day to provide a source and to move the item to the section where the US stamp (which does have a source) is mentioned. If this does not happen we will probably have to report them and see what happens. Any other editors thoughts are welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 00:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stamps 

message: It seems that not only are the biographies much longer than any other section in the article. They're also poorly organized. I don't know enough about Audrey to organize and rewrite it. I also think that each section should be shortened or a couple of them should be combined. So if anyone could do that, it would be great.
Sylfi (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographies 

message: Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers]] priority assessment

message: Does Audrey Hepburn have any grandchildren? They aren't mentioned on the page. Excuseme99 (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: She had at least a granddaughter before she died, and at least two grandsons after she died. - Nunh-huh 23:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grandchildren? 

message: I didn't read too much about the Audrey Hepburn Children's Fund that was started in 1994 in New York. It's a non-profit and deserves a little more mention than just a sentence at the end of the UNICEF paragraph. I believe her oldest son still oversees that even to this day.-audreyfan86  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audreyfan86 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the beauty of Wikipedia: if you see something that should be done, you're encouraged to do it! If you think something more should be added, then by all means add it. faithless (speak) 02:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The children's fund 

message: The filmography is still wrong in dating "One Wild Oat" as 1951. The film itself, which is now available on a DVD. has a copyright date of 1950.
It is also still wrong in separating "Monte Carlo Baby" from "Nous irons a Monte Carlo" by a year. They were both made at the same time, one in English and the other in French with somewhat different casts. The filming took place after "The Secret People" and was Audrey's last film before "Roman Holiday".
The biographical text seems to imply that Audrey made "Nederlands in seven lessen" while she was in London, but she was filmed in Amsterdam before she moved to London.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.29.92 (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The copyright date and the date of release can, and often are, two different things. One Wild Oat was released on May 16, 1951, thus the year given. Nous irons à Monte Carlo had a Paris premiere on January 25, 1952. That would, in fact, be 25 days into the next year. As for the filming of Nederlands in 7 lessen, I do not see where you say the text implies she was in London. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The year is for when a film is released, not the date that the film was made. The year of release is standard formatting and is in no way misleading. Some films sit in the can for years before release, but they are considered as a film for the year of release. For the rest of your comments, please provide a valid source. You do not have to start a new heading each time you post a response to the same topic of posts before it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why you don't simply change the things that are wrong, and add a valid source to support the changes.  I found a source to confirm that what you are saying about Hepburn taking elocution lessons from Felix Aylmer in London, rather than studying drama, is true.  But it says she took these lessons before she started in Sauce Tartare in 1949.   Not 1950.   It can be changed.  Easy.  If you can provide valid sources for the information you dispute, surely that would be more beneficial than challenging other editors.  The simplest approach would be to fix it yourself.   Rossrs (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: It's important to note that the article is classed as "B class" which means that it has a basic structure, and some useful information adequately sourced.   The classification confirms that by community standards the article has a long way to go.  I've reworded part of the section regarding Felix Aylmer, although looking at just that short passage, it's plain to see that the article needs more than the minor attention I've given it with that one edit. Rossrs (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography 

message: Audrey spent the first five years of her childhood in Belgium ; for much of the next five years she was at a boarding school in Kent. It wasn't until 1939 when her mother moved her to Arnhem (under the delusion that it would be safer than the UK) that she spent a prolonged period of time in the Netherlands. She moved to London in 1948 to study ballet, not drama, at the Marie Rambert school in Kensington to which she had gained a scholarship. To say that she worked as a photographic model is misleading : she did pose for some advertising photos to make some pennies while studying, but it was hardly a full-time job. In any case by December 1948 she was working as a chorus-girl in the British production of High Button Shoes. That was her first real job. I'm not at all sure what is meant by European movies. Apart from Nederlands In Seven Lessen, all her early films were made under contract to the Associated British Picture Corporation and were made in the UK, apart from Monte Carlo Baby/Nous irons a Monte Carlo. Well that's the first tranche of mistakes. I'll come back to this. 87.113.151.153 (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead section of articles are only for summary of the rest of the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

text: What I don't understand is why you do not register an account, assemble reliable sources, and work on the article, adding sources for your changes, instead of just posting multiple complaints on this page. You can find instructions for what sources are considered reliable at WP:RS and instructions for how to cite at WP:CITE and WP:REFB. Do you really think that other people are going to try and assemble the sources and rewrite the article based on your talk page posts? This is an open project where anyone who has the requisite sources can edit articles, add the sources, and improve the article. What you're doing here is just grousing about the article excessively. I'd suggest that the edits you have made that were reverted were done so because they don't have proper sources and are done by an anonymous editor. You can make an impact by working on the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The opening paragraph 

message: What's the problem? It's common to split off the filmography in long actor articles per WP:Splitting. See John Wayne or Humphrey Bogart for example. This article is 70K, which falls into the "Probably should be divided" category. I see nothing wrong with what was done, except the television appearances should have gone as well, and the external links shouldn't be duplicated in the other article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It should have been discussed first, I'd say... Yworo (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly, the problem was that it was done without benefit of prior discussion nor consensus. It's not a good practice to come to an article one has never edited and spin off things without discussion. It was also just flatly split off with no content added until someone else came along and moved some of it from this article. If the article is too large at over 60K, it was still too large with this removed at almost 67K, so it isn't the problem. But mostly, it was arbitrarily done and with no attempt at consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't care strongly either way, but in my experience this is usually only done when necessitated by a lengthy filmography/article. Neither this article nor Hepburn's filmography are particularly long, so I don't think it's necessary to split it. And, as Wildhartlivie says, 1.) large-scale changes need to be discussed first, and 2.) the new article needs to be more than just a filmography table cut-and-paste job. The first point can be forgiven due the the editor's inexperience, but the second can't be overlooked. faithless (speak) 04:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting off filmography 

message: I should think that a rumor of an affair would require more substantiation than this quote from director Stanley Donen:  "with Albert Finney, she was like a new woman. She and Albie have a wonderful thing together; they are like a couple of kids. When Mel wasn't on set, they sparkled. When Mel was there, it was funny. Audrey and Albie would go rather formal and a little awkward."  Heavens, if discomfort around one's spouse at the workplace is the new standard for rumor-mongering posts on Wikipedia, we must prepare for an onslaught of new salacious edits!  MisterJayEm (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see: WP:PROVEIT MisterJayEm (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The content regarding a relationship with Finney is cited in two different places. It's been proven. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsubstantiated Rumor of Affair 

message: Hi, I haven't edited Wikipedia before and wanted to update the Audrey Hepburn page to reflect the fact that on her mother's side
she had Dutch Jewish heritage. This is an obscure fact but there are numerous biographies and websites which indicate it.
Rather than having any sense of discussion about this topic I was threatened and bullied by two users to delete my comments. I thought that Wikipedia is meant to reflect a sense of freedom of information, sharing and discussion. One user called the entry "nonsense". Perhaps he or she needs to say that to the publishers of biographies which state this fact. I'm disappointed that 
Wikipedia is controlled by bullying users.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.113.128 (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to cite this using reliable sources, and establish its relevance. I'm sorry you feel bullied, but in biographies, citations are important, and "what you know" aren't. That is the basis of us writing an encyclopedia here. If you think her Jewish heritage is important, please cite those sources. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 01:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I've notified the user in question here.  – Tommy [message] 01:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Show use these sources of the biographers that agree and disagree, then we can discuss adding it to the article. Discussing controversial changes is usually wise but it is usually okay to add uncontroversial sourced information to an article. In this case, the information was both controversial and unsourced so... BTW, I don't think anyone here is acting like they own the encylopaedia, but we do expect people to obey a set of simple policies. One of them is to provide sources for info particular for controversial or disputed claims. If these are not provided then whether the person is new or 'hard core' the info will usually be reverted and even a new user is entilted to do that. In fact a 'hard core' user who adds unsourced controversial info will usually find themselves in far bigger trouble then a new user. Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bullying on Audrey Hepburn page 

message: She was Dutch, certainly NOT British. (92.11.37.82 (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the original, complex list of national relationships (see top of Talk).  Yes, it's unusually complex for a led, but then, Hepburn was a complex person. Rklawton (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry I can't remember what the more complex opening looked like. It may be the way to go to avoid constant changing, if it is sourced properly. Could you provide a link to that version Rk and thanks ahead of time for taking the time to do this if you can. One of the earlier discussions did mention this which is why (as I remember it) why we settled on British since that was her nationality when she became notable. thanks again for your input. MarnetteD | Talk 15:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries.  Like I said, she was complex, and a simple "she was British" doesn't really tell the whole story.  Here's the way it used to read "Audrey Hepburn was a Belgian-born, Dutch-raised British actress of British and Dutch ancestry".  Yeah, it's a mouthful, but it's also very clear.  The way I look at it, if someone was born in Russia, raised in Germany, and happened to hold an American passport, I'd be happy to call them an "American citizen", but I'd be hard pressed to call them "American" without further explanation.  Rklawton (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have this problem with Bruce Willis; I've never seen an attempt to describe him as German, despite being born there to a German mother. Bizarre. Rodhullandemu 15:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again for the info Rk. It certainly is a mouthful but I would not be adverse to putting it back in to slow down the ever changing edits to the opening. Lets see what other editors think. MarnetteD | Talk 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good plan.  Rklawton (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

text: She had British citizenship and that is backed up by several sources. She also meets the definition of humanitarian. You have presented no evidence to back up affairs, Jewishness or any of the other assertions that you are currently making and this is troublesome. Please be aware that talk pages are not to be used as a forum. It is to be used to discuss how to improve the article. MarnetteD | Talk 19:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hepburn's father was English and that automatically made her a British subject despite her being born abroad.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.92.255 (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationality again

message: Having just read the article, I find that the many mentions of her awards are redundant.  I think it is only necessary to mention each award one time in an appropriate section. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: Ok.. soo isnt audrey's mothers name Ella Van Heemstra?!? BEcuase, it keeps saying Edda; umm.. nope i dnt think soo, am a TRUE Fan of audrey and i know all the facts soo wwhoever made this im verry sooryy,, with all do respect but her mother's name is Ella (ELLA)...in bold words-->ELLA  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michifoo07 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some confusion here, and I've spent far too much time sorting out what is reliably sourced. Her mother's first name was Ella, her own first name was Edda. Now, if anuyne has reliable sources that say otherwise, please cite them. Me, I'm just too bored to continue repeating the same old toss, when the overwhelming balance of sourcing is as the article is now. I don't know where people get this crap, but they do need to accept it is as it is reliably sourced. Rodhullandemu 01:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audrey Hepburn's Parents 

message: Hepburn died of abdominal cancer because it started in her abdomen. It was not colon cancer, although it has often wrongly been referred to as such. (92.11.96.163 (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're wrong; in any case, you need to find a reliable source to cite if you want to change that information. - Nunh-huh 12:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

text: The actual form of cancer was appendiceal cancer; I've added it, along with three reliable sources. - Nunh-huh 12:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

text: The appendix is located in the abdomen.  Calling appendiceal cancer "abdominal cancer" is like calling lung cancer "chest cancer".  - Nunh-huh 12:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

text: No, that's an opinion; we could quote someone who had that opinion if you find an appropriate citation, though we don't generally list all risk factors, as these articles are biographies, not medical reports. I think the most you'll find is someone saying "her heavy smoking may have contributed to the development of her cancer" or somesuch.  The fact that smoking is a risk factor for appendiceal cancer belongs in the article appendiceal cancer. - Nunh-huh 13:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Before starting this over again, check out the "Smoking" thread above. Best just to ignore this guy. faithless (speak) 19:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. This explains much. - Nunh-huh 03:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of death 

message: If I recall from before, there were several interesting pieces of information on legacy that have been removed.  As well, the current writing style has many problems.  For example, in the section about Givenchy not being given the Oscar for "Sabrina," the next line says "initially disappointed" and then talks about Katharine Hepburn.  Was he disappointed about the Oscar or the meeting?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcatch23 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be heavily my responsibility. I've changed and removed reference of the loss of Oscar on Givenchy's part as it bears no significance to Audrey's career. It reads more clearly now.. I hope? Thanks for some feedback! I haven't received any aside this...!! :'( Stephenjamesx (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revamp 

message: "and a gamine waif-like figure"
gamine and waif are redundant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.236.158 (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  redundant words in intro 

message: In the first paragraph is the statement : "Hepburn trusted Rambert's assessment and decided to pursue acting acting, a career in which she at least had a chance to excel.[16]." The footnote is a reference to Sean Ferrer's interview with Larry King, but all he says is that her career "defaulted to acting" which is hardly the same as actively deciding to pursue a career.  In the next paragraph is the statement: "Since she trained to be a performer all her life [presumably this should read 'since she had trained...'] acting seemed a sensible career. She said "I needed the money ; it paid £3 more than ballet jobs." [18] but the full quotation from footnote 18 reads: "In London afterwards she resumed ballet training but went to work as a chorus girl "because I needed the money ; it paid £3 more than ballet jobs".  The work of a chorus girl involves dancing and singing but not serious acting. She auditioned for High Button Shoes because she wanted to carry on being a dancer not to become a dramatic actor. She followed it with two more musical theatre jobs in Sauce Tartare and Sauce Piquante. The "default" into acting came a little later.  The next sentence says; "Her acting career began with the educational film Dutch in Seven Lessons (1948)" but she made that film while she was still in  Amsterdam before going to the Rambert school, before Rambert's advice was given, so it cannot have been part of any career move.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.151.153 (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early career section 

message: I'm thinking this section is a wee bit too long now.  And the paragraph about her drawings (with references) is gone now, too.  Though that may have been too trivial to begin with.  Rklawton (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on your question RK I took it back to a clean version. It looks like a new editor made multiple edits that removed headers, referenced materials and other things. There were too many edits (all lacking a summary) to figure out what was going on. I hope that this is just a new editor learning there way. In case that it is not we may want to keep going back to the last clean copy until they explain their edits here on the talk page. I welcome anyone else who wants to wade through the edits to see if any of them improved the article. MarnetteD | Talk 02:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I checked out each edit individually.  My summary above covered about all that the edits entailed.  The paragraph splitting/merging made it look like more work was done than really was.  Rklawton (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the time to do that RK. I guess I should have said that there were too many edits "for me" to check. Your diligence in taking care of this page is always appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 11:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Early life

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Audrey Hepburn Commutative Stamp 2003.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Why was the old image changed to the current image? The older is of so much better quality and depicts a fuller face of Audrey! Yes, the new one is from one of her perhaps most established and most famous film, yet it's of such bad quality - and so small! Someone tell me why it was changed... I'd love to have it changed back!
:Stephenjamesx (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean the Ballet Rambert. Rodhullandemu 01:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

text: The first film photo does (though not well), so I've moved the text there. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I noticed the article states the dress from the film sold for "a record price" which has now been surpassed by the price for Marilyn Monroes "Seven Year Itch" white dress - see article link- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/8585284/Marilyn-Monroes-Seven-Year-Itch-dress-sells-for-4.6-million.html While I prefer Ms Hepburn as an actress, facts are facts. How to re-word this section? Thanks Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dress from Breakfast at Tiffanys Sale No Longer Record

message: I used a perfectly legitimate citation that shows the late Audrey Hepburn's full birth name (also shown on 30th anniversary DVD in the 'Special Features' section). I don't know why this individual reverted the edit- and inserted a sarcastic remark in his edit note.
Hmmm... I really am not all that bothered but this shows one the drawbacks of the open nature of wikipedia- vandalism. / -: Oh well, whatever...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.171.231.213 (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the entire article. Her father was not born Hepburn-Ruston. He added the Hepburn later in life even though no connection with that ancestry can be found. Also if you had read the article before editing you would have seen that we have a pic of her birth certificate  as a reference and the "Hepburn" is not on it. Wikipedia can't be held responsible for the fact that there are sources out there that have incorrect info on them but when other sources show them to be in error we don't use them in the article. FYI using the term vandalism when none has occurred is not a good idea. MarnetteD | Talk 00:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:MarnetteD (What is his problem???) 

message: Hi there
I would like to point out that the artillery bombardment that almost completely destroyed Arnhem was not an Allied bombardment, but, rather, a German offensive to dislodge the airborne division after their refusal to surrender. Fierce fighting in the streets of Arnhem ensued which the Germans, having artillery at their disposal, and with Teutonic thoroughness, won. The allied forces, and, in particular, the British airborne troops had little more than their rifles and sidearms, with an occasional PIAT thrown in for anti tank defense, and very little ammunition. Certainly no artillery.
A visit to the airborne division museum 'Hartenstein', in Oosterbeek, Netherlands, will certainly verify this information.
hderycke  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hderycke (talk • contribs) 00:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  artillery bombardment of Arnhem 

message: I thought she has lived and work in USA spend her half life and  settle down in Tolochenaz Switzerland for her later half life so maybe she also have USA and Swiss citizenship? 60.250.158.7 (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Does she also already get US and Swiss citizenship?

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 4, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-05-04. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg]] to appear as POTD 

message: Dear Friends, did you know about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg?
:File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg ( enwiki FP ) has been listed at Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. Thanks. --Degueulasse (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  About [[:Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg|Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg]] 

message: delivered a eulogy
should it not be? > delivered an eulogy
93.208.132.182 (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2014 

message: I'm going to move these sections here. The way they are on the article currently seems very trivial. Her pets don't seem at all notable enough to be included on an encyclopedic page, and the section is completely unsourced anyway, while a "Miscellaneous" section always looks very unprofessional and makes is too easy for editors to add any old random facts about the subject. I'm personally not sure any of the stuff here needs to be in the article, but if anything it should be reintegrated into the biography narrative. --Lobo512 (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pets" and "Miscellaneous" sections 

message: While resting at home from her first miscarriage, Mel Ferrer brought her the fawn from the movie Green Mansions to keep as a pet. They called him Ip (short for Pippin). Hepburn had several pets, including a Yorkshire Terrier named Mr. Famous, who was hit by a car and killed. To cheer her up, Mel Ferrer got her another Yorkshire named Assam of Assam. She also kept Ip; they made a bed for him out of a bathtub. Her son Sean also had a Cocker Spaniel named Cokey. When Hepburn was older, she had two Jack Russell Terriers.
dfsgsese gdsz vv hcv bdfc ddfbc dfb f rd dftrey rheyregz eteytry rhgdrt bcfhyr5h fgnfrtuy hdfhr nhxcfgw QEDT7M GRNMT SGTY RTDRYT7IXDV DRGRDGJFT GRD RTHCFBXD XCVXCGBBFJVG FHCGRDRDH  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.252.108.214 (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pets 

message: I suggest that the paragraph under 'childhood' be revised to read as follows:
Hepburn's parents were members of the British Union of Fascists in the mid-1930s,[21] with her father becoming a true Nazi sympathiser.[22] The marriage began to fail from 1935. After her mother discovered him in bed with the nanny of her children,[23] Hepburn's father left the family abruptly and settled in London following the divorce.[10]. In the 1960s, Hepburn would finally locate him again in Dublin through the Red Cross. Although he remained emotionally detached, his daughter remained in contact and supported him financially until his death.[24]
ServelanBlake (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: It looks like you want to repeat information in the first paragraph that is already stated in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Do you think you could explain why you want to make this change? Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2014 

message: The mention of the coincidence that her 16th is the same day as the liberation of the Netherlands is WP:SYNTH. IMO it has no place in an encyclopedic article. It could go in a blog or a Facebook page though. MarnetteD|Talk 17:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Hepburn's 16th Birthday

message: Is it really too difficult to just say "Dutch-British", as is common in all other articles of dual nationality? (e.g. Elon Musk) She had a Dutch mother, a practically nationalized Dutch father (Germanic guy who spent his time in the Dutch East Indies), spent a large part of her childhood in the Netherlands, moved there when she was 10 and survived the war and Hunger Winter there, helped the resistance and was there when it was liberated, and spoke the language perfectly. The Flemish part of Belgium is Dutch too, so I don't see why there's even a discussion. 77.165.250.227 (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationalism

message: "She is also regarded by some to be the most naturally beautiful woman of all time." Sure she was beautiful, but this is a ridiculous statement referenced to celebrity fluff in newspapers and magazines, and is basically Hollywood hype. Even if fashion experts consider her to be the most beautiful Hollywood actress, it is ridiculous to say she is more beautiful than all of the several billion women who have ever lived. Wikipedia is getting so low-quality that it isn't worth getting into an editing war by deleting it myself, but anyone who cares should delete that stupid sentence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.124.193 (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-encyclopedic fluff 

message: In view of her mother's Dutch nationality and her command of the Dutch/Flemish language, wouldn't it be more accurate to describe Hepburn as a British-Dutch or British-Flemish actress? Sca (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: 'British actress'

message: The article seems to be in doubt as to what Audrey Hepburn's father's occupation was and what kind of company he worked for (see note b). According to Martin Gitlin's Audrey Hepburn: A Biography (), "Joseph Hepburn-Ruston ... had joined the diplomatic service after World War I and was placed in the Dutch East Indies before leaving that post to work for Maclaine Watson and Company, which dealt in the East Indian tin trade. ... Joseph finagled a transfer to London, but he had always been rather restless. A year later, Maclaine Watson and Company fit him with the title of vice president and deputy administrator and instructed him to open a branch office in Belgium." Is there any reason to doubt this biography? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audrey's father's occupation 

message: From cyberbot II:
* Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110910003224/http://www.vanityfair.com:80/culture/bestdressed/bestdressed_women?currentPage=3 to http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/bestdressed/bestdressed_women?currentPage=3
: : Link has since been removed. Rebbing 03:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Link has since been removed. Rebbing 03:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Link has since been removed. Rebbing 03:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

text: , thanks. You're so clever, II. Rebbing 03:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified