Talk:Audrey Hepburn/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Notes"

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)

See "What to do when a reference link 'goes dead.'" The correct procedure was followed. -Shannernanner 16:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The sentences: "Some believe Bogart and Hepburn did not get along, but this is untrue. Bogart got along better with Hepburn than anyone else on set. Hepburn later said, "Sometimes it's the so-called 'tough guys' that are the most tender hearted, as Bogey was with me."[20] and attributed to Note 20 seem to be about Katherine Hepburn, not Audrey Hepburn. ---- 6 October 2006.

Archiving

I'm a little puzzled by the archiving of material that's new and includes unanswered questions. -- Hoary 00:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

There seems to be a lot of biased non factual information here...it's more like reading a story than reading an entry in an encyclopedia.

Time to create a Name controversy section?

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)

Biography Infobox

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Count" Andrea Dotti

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)

GAP ads

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

A New Kind of Love

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)

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)

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)

Filmography box

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)

Notable roles

A recent anonymous editor again added Sabrina to the list of notable roles in the infobox without the requested discussion, so I thought I would bring it up. I pared down the long list of notable roles originally there, using the text of the article as a guide; Roman Holiday is stated as her "breakthrough film," and she was also awarded an Academy Award for her performance; Breakfast at Tiffany's is stated to be "one of the most iconic characters in 20th Century American cinema," and she was nominated for an Academy Award; Charade is stated as being a "critically acclaimed hit," for which she was nominated for a Golden Globe and won a BAFTA Award; and My Fair Lady is stated to have been "the most anticipated movie since Gone with the Wind," and speaks of the controversy of her being nominated for, but not receiving, the Academy Award. The editor who added Sabrina stated their reasoning as "Nominated for an Oscar for Sabrina + it's one of her most famous roles." She was nominated for Oscars, and other awards, for many roles, and I do not think they all should be added; however, if it is indeed verifiably "one of her most famous roles" I don't, personally, have a problem with it being there. I just don't want the infobox to include a reiteration of the filmography--I think the "Notable roles" section should be thought of primarily as a reference tool. Anyone else have any thoughts? -Shannernanner 07:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sabrina is considered one of her iconic roles. It's the film in which she was first associated with Givenchy, plus as noted she was nominated for her second consecutive Oscar. I support it being listed as one of her notable roles. 23skidoo 12:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I also think Sabrina is one of her most important roles. More important than Charade and less important than the others mentioned, in my opinion. I'm concerned that any selection of "notable roles" comes largely down to POV, the very thing we should be strenuously avoiding. We don't have a definitive set of criteria and a case could probably be made for others of her films too. Plus the infobox is too big. But yes, Sabrina is a notable role. Rossrs 13:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the "notable role" category shouldn't be included in the infobox, for the reasons indicated above. It opens things up to a lot of POV. For example it could just as easily be argued that her roles in Nun's Story, Two for the Road, Wait Until Dark and Charade are as notable as Roman Holiday, Sabrina and Tiffany's. Once all these are listed you're pretty well parroting about a third of her total film output. 23skidoo 19:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have had this discussion before re: other articles, and my opinion remains that the section has value as a reference tool if used properly. Yes, many roles can and could be considered "notable," but I think the section is for one's "most notable" roles--in general, the ones they could be recognized for, by someone not necessarily familiar with the particular actor. -Shannernanner 20:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

An objection was made at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jake Gyllenhaal - "The information box currently has POV. It's not up to us to decide which of Gyllenhaal's roles were "notable". " I think that comment is absolutely correct. I understand that the infobox is a snapshot to provide quick, relevant details, and in theory having some notable roles seems like a good thing, but in practice we're interpreting information rather than performing the encyclopedic task of merely presenting the information. Also, the infobox for Hepburn is ugly, IMO. It's too big, and while we're on the subject of infoboxes - I can't imagine that anyone just wanting to skim Hepburn's article without reading it, needs to know how tall she was or who her husbands were. This is pointless trivia. How does everyone feel about the height and the husbands? Rossrs 20:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take off height, since she's not an athlete and doesn't need a stat box, and husbands, since there is an entire section on that. As for Sabrina, any Audrey Hepburn fan will tell you that her most famous roles are in Roman Holiday, Sabrina, Tiffany's, and My Fair Lady. Charade may be critically acclaimed and in the imdb top 250, but Audrey Hepburn will always be known more for Sabrina than for Charade. Trust me, if you're picking 4, that's the 4 you want. I'll take off Charade. We already have a filmography. 70.132.1.97 01:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We're not "picking 4;" neither is this a unilateral decision. No, the "Notable roles" field is not another filmography, as I myself already pointed out, but consensus should be reached. If you want to remove her height or spouses per notability, take it up on the template page. As for this page, I think they're both notable as they're both verifiable and mentioned elsewhere on the page in context of the article. -Shannernanner 07:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your decision to restore this information. It has to be discussed more and it's being discussed at Template talk:Infobox actor, which is where we should be talking, so that all articles can be assessed uniformly. But a couple of questions first : Do you think there should be any limit to the size of the box as a whole? (aside from discussing what should and shouldn't be in the box) I can't see the whole box - is it just me? I have to scroll down to get to the bottom of it and I think it makes the page look unbalanced. I can kind of see the reasoning in including a number of the fields - I'd be happier to see them gone but I can see both viewpoints. I don't understand the significance of height though. Why is Audrey Hepburn's height notable? She wasn't particularly tall or particularly short. And just because it's verifiable - there's a whole lot of stuff about her that's verifiable but that in itself doesn't justify its inclusion. (this is stuff to argue on the template page, I know, but I am just wondering). I can see no relevance for height, but if height is relevant, how about weight? Hepburn was a notable thin person, her weight is more notable than her height. I really don't get it, I'm afraid. Rossrs 07:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read parts of the discussion there. I do think it needs to be worked on, particularly (in my opinion) the parameters/phrasing of the "Notable roles" section. As to your questions, no, I can't see the whole box without scrolling, but the monitor I'm currently using is not very large, and I have to scroll to see the whole Wikipedia logo (okay, so that's a slight exaggeration ;-) ). Anyway, it doesn't bother me. I don't think one's height necessarily has to be unusual to be notable; her height is specifically referenced within the body of the article, not as a footnote as in some articles, but in context of her ballet career. (Whether or not it should be in the infobox otherwise in other articles, I'll not take up here.) Weight is a different story, as one's adult height is generally constant and therefore potentially verifiable, whereas weight can fluctuate even day to day. -Shannernanner 08:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

ok, fair enough. I still don't believe it should be in the infobox but at least I can understand what you're saying. I hope I didn't give the impression that I wanted her weight to be included - I think for an infobox it's equally irrelevant, which is what I was trying to say. I guess we'll have to see how this all pans out with further discussion. I think I'd be more able to accept the notable roles field if the parameters/phrasing, as you say, was more clearly defined. At the moment it's all too fluid. Rossrs 13:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I understood you. :-) Yes, it definitely deserves further discussion, I quite agree. -Shannernanner 08:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We could limit her notable roles to Princess Anne, Holly Golightly and Eliza Doolittle. I don't think we would find much disagreement that these are the "most notable" of her notable roles. --Sp3lly 12:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as husbands being in the box, my first thought was why not include "significant other" Rob Wollers, who was probably more a husband to her than either Ferrer or Dotti. I'm not saying include him in the box (he is in the article), it is just that if we mention husbands, then it leaves the impression that they were somehow more significant than Rob--which is up to debate. --Sp3lly 12:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If those three are acceptable to everyone else, they're fine with me.

If you don't want to include him in the infobox (which I don't think we should either, just because the field specifically says "spouses"), why exactly are you bringing it up? Not trying to be rude, I'm just not sure I understand your point. :-) -Shannernanner 13:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think those 3 are the most notable and I think limiting the list to 3 is a good idea. Roman Holiday is mentioned twice in the infobox and the repetition is not exactly desirable. I also think the Academy Award field is inherently POV - why not Emmy, BAFTA, Golden Globe, Grammy and Tony Awards? She won those also. That's a discussion for Template talk:Infobox actor, which I'll be sure to start :-) If the Academy Award must be included, could it perhaps be put in brackets after Roman Holiday so that the film title is not repeated?

As for Robert Wolders, I think this demonstrates the irrelevance that the "spouses" field has for some biographies. We're recording the names of two men who had failed relationships with Hepburn, and ignoring the one who had a successful relationship that ended only with Hepburn's death. Because Hepburn was old and wise enough and had learnt from experience that a marriage document did not make a marriage, the person that she spent her life with is overlooked. I don't think Wolders should be added to the infobox, but it reinforces to me, how unnecessary the references to Dotti and Ferrer actually are. Rossrs 14:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay; does anyone else have input about the notable roles? I understand your point about the Academy Award, and I agree, it's another thing to bring up on the template talk page. :-) I'm rather ambivalent towards leaving it in the current field or appending it to the notable roles section, personally; the Academy Awards field should probably be changed to "Awards won" (for actors with too many, it could simply guide one to the "Awards" section), in which case the Roman Holiday win would be repeated anyway. I agree with you about the spouses for the most part, but that goes to POV. It's an infobox, not a "down with marriage" box. :-) -Shannernanner 15:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If only she'd married Wolders! It would have made this much easier! What was she thinking?  :-) Rossrs 15:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Really! So inconvenient. ;-) -Shannernanner 15:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Robert Wolders deserves to be up there. Maybe list him as Significant Other. He sort of gets short-changed in this article which isn't really fair since he was a lot better to Hepburn than Ferrer and Dotti. 67.161.26.190 05:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sam Levenson quote

Why include a Sam Levenson quote in the section of Audrey's quotes? This only perpetuates the misunderstanding that Audrey was the source for the words. Especially as currently written, it is even amibiguous to the casual reader what is attributed to Sam Levenson. I would say either take the quote out, or make it much more obvious that Sam Levenson is the source of the quote. It doesn't make sense in an Audrey quote section, frankly. If we just delete it, then we aren't perpetuating the misconception that she originated the words. --Sp3lly 18:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to make mention of the poem in prose as being often attributed to her, though actually written by Sam Levinson, so as to help dispel the rumour. -Shannernanner 08:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah I agree with that. --Sp3lly 11:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's valid as an "Audrey quote" if it's associated with her, despite the fact that they were written by someone else. How many politicians write the quotes they become famous for? But yes, make it clearer that Levenson is the source. Can the quotes be worked into the text so as to give them context? If not, they could (and probably should) be moved to Wikiquote. Rossrs 09:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

How it is valid as an Audrey quote when she never wrote it is beyond me. She may have referred to it a lot, even quoted it--but do we really know how often or even when? I agree that the quote might stay on this page simply to disabuse people of the notion that she originated the words, as long as it is made clear that she did not! --Sp3lly 11:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I did say "if it's associated with her". I don't know how strongly associated it is - I'd never heard it before. The way it's currently framed is an improvement, though why we need a quotes section, when we have "Wikiquotes" is beyond me.

The difference (to me) between a politician's quote and "her" poem is that politicians don't normally specify they didn't write their speeches, etc., and they aren't usually published prior to their giving them. With the entire poem quoted, and only the footnote regarding the original author, it doesn't seem to make the matter very clear to the casual reader. I'd prefer a sentence simply saying it was a poem she enjoyed, and often quoted. -Shannernanner 13:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikiquote:
"Occasionally, the poem 'Time Tested Beauty Tips' by Sam Levenson is wrongly attributed to Audrey Hepburn. Properly read, it should be 'By Sam Levenson Edited by Audrey Hepburn, because the original format of the poem was as a letter to his granddaughter in case he was gone before she grew up. Audrey found the letter and edited lines of it into a poem."
I cannot find a verifiable source for this, however, though many sites have copied it from each other. -Shannernanner 15:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and format it as suggested, since no one can find a verifiable source for this. -Shannernanner 11:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It could very well be her most famous quote, and it's not really hers. I felt it deserved at least a mention, though. Mostly to give Sammy Levenson his credit. 70.231.232.91 09:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is or was?

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)

Intro

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)

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)

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)

Hmmm. Opinions on this change? -Shannernanner 08:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

I agree that it's a bit choppy, but I do think it's an improvement. Shannernanner 09:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"Her dearest movie"

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)

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)

Timeline

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)

Image Limits

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think eventually that will happen. Rossrs 22:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

re: did not read the entire article but have to concur with the initial statement. there is inadequate visuals to complement the articles in wikipedia. also, a lot of the pictures aren't exactly the best in terms of being representative of that person nor the most update. im a newbie contributor by the way haha don't know much but have only been doing many grammatical corrections only to realise i used wikipedia as a resource so much i should just make an account. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony4moroney (talk • contribs) 11:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

UNICEF in her early life

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)

Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency. Shannernanner 06:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That is true ; but she got much needed food and drink from UNRRA, another UN agency. Audreyfan Audreyfan

Charade image

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)

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)

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)

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

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).

Filmography

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)

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)

The IMDb is certainly incorrect as regards the order of the films and it is internally self-contradictory. Filmographies should be based on research not merely on the adaptation of somebody else's list. Audreyfan

I've done some amendments, but I don't know how to change "One wild Oat" to 1950. Audreyfan

Quotes section

Is this a necessary section? Isn't that what Wikiquote is for? 67.161.26.190 01:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Just a query

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)

New infobox image

I have no objection to the new image, however it should be noted that discussion at Wikipedia:Fair Use has established that Wikipedia has basically prohibited the use of publicity shots of this type, since they are still copyright (at least in the US). It's a sore spot with me as I feel such images are necessary and justified, but just fair warning that the copyvio police might take this one away. 23skidoo 04:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a picture like this is completely necessary. And I've noticed that in the Vivien Leigh (featured) article, there is a publicity still used. The rationale is:

"No free or public domain images have been located for this film, and the only free use image that has been located for Vivien Leigh depicts her much later in life. Image is a promotional photograph, intended for wide distribution as publicity for the film. As the role of Scarlett O'Hara is arguably one of the most significant film roles in history, and certainly the most widely seen and noteworthy role in the career of the actress, Vivien Leigh, it is appropriate that it be illustrated in a comprehensive article about the actress. The image reflects the way she is most remembered, and in addition to providing an illustration for the discussion of the role, it also accurately depicts her appearance at the time, which links to the various references throughout the article to her beauty. Image is of considerably lower resolution than the original, and is used for informational purposes only. Its use does not detract from either the original photograph, or from the film itself."

I think we can make similar arguments in this case. 70.132.28.57 07:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, but unfortunately I've run into this problem before. The problem is - and yes, it sounds nutty - is that under the fair use rules, such images cannot be used "to simply illustrate what a person looks like". The fact the publicity shot at Vivien Leigh is still there probably just means they (the copyvio cops) haven't gotten to it yet. We ran into this problem at Glenn Ford and Kate Winslet and a publicity photo at Don Freed (an article about a singer) is going to be removed soon, too. I believe the Milla Jovovich article has also had this trouble. The fair use rules have in my opinion gotten so far out of hand that last week I actually quit Wikipedia in disgust for a couple of days over this very issue until I was talked back into the fold by a fellow editor. The specific rule I'm citing is at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples (see No. 8). That said -- the rule specifically states that it applies to living persons, so it's possible that's a loophole for keeping the Audrey and Vivien Leigh images, since neither actress is still with us; but that doesn't explain why we ran into Fair Use problems with publicity images for the now-deceased Glenn Ford. 23skidoo 13:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I won't tell if you don't. :) Worst case is we'll just say "oops" and put the Charade screenshot back up. Whoops, never mind. It's already gone. Looks like there is a real tussle going on in the editing page. I agree with Irpen. If we can't use a publicity picture, is there some reason why we can't use a screenshot from an earlier movie? Hepburn's public image will always be the one from the 50's, when she had the short hair and the thicker eyebrows. 70.231.251.129 14:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can find another public domain image which you feel better illustrates the article, it is fine to use it in the infobox. The only problem is that you cannot replace a free use image with a fair use one. Shannernanner 14:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It was asked that I discuss the new image on the talk page, though I believe I have specifically stated why replacing it with a fair use image is not supported by policy; it is on the Wikipedia:Fair use page. It is especially emphasized throughout Wikipedia that a public domain image be used in the infobox if at all possible, and if one is found, not be replaced with a fair use image. If you feel the publicity shot is necessary to illustrate the article, please insert the proper fair use rationale and put it elsewhere on the page. Shannernanner 14:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so you're saying the publicity pic is okay for the article, but just not on the infobox? I'll put it up then. 70.231.243.225 08:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

So what's wrong with this article?

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)

The name game

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)

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)

Hi, I'm new and haven't made an account yet. I'm a longtime fan of Audrey Hepburn and have read all of her biographies. I can't remember exactly which biography it was, but according to one biography she was actually named "Andrey" at birth. There was so much confusion with people thinking she was named "Audrey" that she eventually just changed it to "Audrey" officially.

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

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

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).

What evidence is there that she had a grandmother called Kathleen Hepburn. According to Alexander Walker's biography the only Hepburn in the family history was one Isabella Hepburn (who claimed to be a descendant of the Earl of Bothwell, Mary Stuart's second husband and a Hepburn) who married her great-grandfather, but with whom he had no children.

• • • 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)

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)

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)

Influence

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)

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)

Enduring Popularity: little black dress from Breakfast at Tiffany's

I like the paragragh very much. But in the sense of absolute clarity and accuracy, I wouldnt mind changing two things

1. making it clear that the dress auctioned by Christie's was NOT the dress worn by Audrey in the movie. This is clear from both photos of the dress [1] and also by the description of the dress in the official Christie's auction catalog. [2]

2. I think the current reference (The Independent) given in this section should be changed, because it erroneously reports that the dress sold at the auction was the one worn by Audrey in the film Breakfast at Tiffany's. Although this is a common mistake (both AP and Reuters are also stating this), the BBC article correctly states that this is not the case. [3] --Sp3lly 17:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate whoever implemented the above suggestions. However, there is a further clarification that needs to be made. We really do not know where the dress that Audrey actually wore in the movie is. The version that was auctioned off is clearly not it - as plainly stated in the Christie's Catalog. However, the version of the dress in Madrid is also not it, because that dress also has a slit up the left side of the dress (this is also stated in the Christie's Catalog). This would seem to indicate that the dress held by the Givenchy Archive is "the" dress worn by Audrey in the movie. This could be the case, but we cannot automatically assume it is. First, it would definitely have to have no slit up the left side. Second, thanks to some brilliant thinking by a friend, if the one in the Givenchy Archive is the proto-type for the two others (both of which have slits) then the one in the Givenchy Archive would also have a slit-meaning none of these three dresses were worn by Audrey in the movie.

Instead, it could be that Audrey wore a version of the dress made by Edith Head. Indeed, the previous item in the Christie's catalog shows a sketch of the little black dress and the white sash; the dress has no slit and has a more square neckline, exactly like the one in the movie. The sketch is signed by Edith Head. (The photo of the sketch is not available on line, but it is posted on the audrey1.com forum - where this topic has been discussed at great length and detail.) We do not know for sure where the dress is that Audrey actually wore: it could be the one in the Givenchy Archive - but only if that one does not have a slit. It could be one made (altered) by Edith Head (assuming she did indeed make the dress as it appears in her sketch, which again is indistinguishable from the one Audrey actually wore.) In fact there were probably two or three of these "no-slit" versions made, since a couple of doubles would have been necessary while filming.

Which is just to say that I am going to tweak the relevant section in the article. --Sp3lly 21:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Catalog makes it clear that the dress sold was never worn by Hepburn, the dress in Madrid was worn by her in publicity shots, and the one in the Givenchy archive without the slit is the one that she wore in the film. 70.231.234.224 01:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement regarding this is incorrect. The catalog states that the dress in Madrid has a slit just like the one sold at auction on December 5th 2006. It does NOT say it was used in the movie. There are no known publicity shots showing Audrey wearing a dress with the slit visible. The version of the dress won in the movie differs from the dress sold at auction and the dress in Madrid because it does not have a slit, period. It is not public knowledge whether the dress in the Givenchy archive has a slit. There seems to be a few incorrect assumptions here - Beaker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.0.230.234 (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Nice page

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)missy 1234

Although the level of detail about her cancer treatment is beyond bizarre. BennyFromCrossroads 15:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The cancer bit was summarized from Sean Ferrer's autobiography. I guess not everyone is as science inclined, but I find it all fascinating. 67.161.26.190 09:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Czech? French?

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)

Got this so called quote off of “http://www.filmsbot.com/actor/a/audrey_hepburn/”. Any truth to this? "My mother is Dutch, my father is Irish and I was born in Belgium, if I was a dog I'd be in a right mess." JOHN_RICHARD_LEONARD

UNICEF quotes

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)

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)

Awkward "Dutch-British Actress" intro

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)

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)

Use of "Findagrave" site on many celebrity pages

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)

External links don't fall under WP:RS. They fall under WP:EL. --PhantomS 06:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

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)

Why yes, it certainly can be. faithless (^speak) 19:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Succession Boxes

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)

Important link

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)

A Descendant?

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)

And none of the references really proves it, one says it's impossible to verify. Shouldn't this bit be removed? --86.169.211.29 (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Stamps

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)

Biographies

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)

Smoking

Shouldn't her death section mention the fact that Audrey usually smoked 40-60 cigarettes a day? I mean, it's pretty important considering it caused her cancer. (92.12.51.5 (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC))

Who says it caused her cancer? Rossrs (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Every biography I have read, plus it is well known that smoking as heavily as Hepburn did causes abdominal cancer. (92.12.51.5 (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC))

Unless you're a doctor and you've treated cancer patients, including Audrey Hepburn, nobody cares what you think causes abdominal cancer, so stop placing the information in the article to suggest it caused her death. Here's a link from an interview with her son, Sean Ferrer, the author of Audrey Hepburn: An Elegant Spirit.

He says "Hers wasn't smoking-related. She had a primary in her appendix. Hers was unusual." Just to restate the main point "Hers wasn't smoking-related" - said Sean Ferrer. It seems odd that while promoting the book he would baldly contradict such an important point. Just in case anyone is swayed by your assertions. Rossrs (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

He's lying. She got cancer because she sucked her way through too many cigarettes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.222.107 (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And the only reason he's denying it there is because he is a heavy smoker himself and he is going to die of cancer just like his mother did. That article is worthless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.222.107 (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd. The source you're citing refutes your assertion. Please stop. faithless (^speak) 19:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You call Sean Ferrer a liar, and cite his book? Rossrs (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

TO ALL: This is the banned sock-puppet HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) using IP range 92.x.x.x flipping his usual shit. He says things, with no truth to them, just see people's reactions. He is not worth the time of day. IGNORE, DELETE/REVERT, an move on. - 4.240.165.56 (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ballet lessons

I just finished watching an interview with Hepburn during her Roman Holiday screen test - where she describes her ballet lessons in Arnhem as being before 1944. Could someone consider updating this article to read "during" rather than "after" the war in relation to those lessons? Thanks. --Mantality (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

REFERENCES:

1:"The Nazis seized the family estate and all goods by 1942. Audrey's escape was through her discipline and passion for ballet. Audrey studied at the Arnhem Conservatory of Music and Dance during the war and later in England at the famed Notting Hill Gate School user Marie Rambert's direction."

2:"She carried messages for the Resistance, danced at ballet recitals to raise money for the underground and emerged from the war anemic and malnourished.

3:"She was born Audrey Hepburn-Ruston on May 4, 1929, near Brussels, Belgium, and was the daughter of an English banker and a Dutch baroness. After her parents divorced, she attended a girls' school in London. On vacation with her mother in Arnhem, Holland, when World War II began, she spent the war years in the Nazi-occupied town and received training in ballet at the Arnhem Conservatory.

In an interview in 1953 with The Associated Press, she said: "After living the long months and years under the Germans, you dreamed what would happen if you ever got out. You swore you would never complain about anything again".

Ms. Hepburn went to London on a ballet scholarship after the war. With a tall, slim figure and her large eyes, she was a natural as a fashion model. Acting classes and bit parts in British movies followed. A meeting with Colette, the French novelist, led to Ms. Hepburn's starring role in the Broadway adaptation of Colette's Gigi. Her ascent to acting success had begun."

4:"Hepburn, born Edda Hepburn von Heemstra in Brussels, Belgium, on May 4, 1929, was taken to Holland from England in 1939 by her mother when her parents divorced. The Nazis invaded. A brother was sent to a Nazi camp. Other relatives were executed. Hepburn studied ballet in Arnhem, participated in clandestine amateur shows to raise money for the Underground. She and her mother ate tulip bulbs to stay alive. In 1948, they returned to England, where she studied ballet with Marie Rambert."

5:"She was the daughter of landed royalty. Mother was Dutch Baroness Ella van Heemstra. Father was Anglo-Irish banker John Hepburn-Ruston, who left when Audrey was 6. The baroness took Audrey and her half-brothers (by Ella`s previous marriage) to her ancestral estate in Arnhem, the Netherlands, in 1939. Audrey, in thrall to dancer Margot Fonteyn, studied ballet. The war years exacted several pounds of flesh from the baroness and her children. After one son was sent to a German concentration camp, the baroness and Audrey continued to deliver messages for the Dutch Resistance in food-deprived Arnhem. They survived by nibbling endive and munching tulip bulbs. Though some accuse her of making anorexia glamorous, wartime malnutrition is the reason for Audrey Hepburn's underweight. Three years after peace was declared, the baroness and Audrey went to England, where the younger woman had received a scholarship to study with ballet genius Marie Rambert. The future actress left Arnhem as Edda van Heemstra and arrived in London as Audrey Hepburn, anglicizing her first name and taking her father's surname. The aspiring ballerina was embarrassed by her height (5 feet, 7 inches) and feet (size 10). Yet when scouts came to Madame Rambert's in 1948 looking for chorus girls, Audrey was promptly selected for the stage musical High Button Shoes. In the chorus with her was another future star, Kay Kendall, who would later observe, "Audrey wasn't an outstanding dancer, but she had something".

OK, it's says in the article that she studied ballet in Arnhem but I incorrectly worded it in the lead section. It was an honest mistake, and you could have just changed it. Rossrs (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

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)

Enduring popularity?

Hello

I've read the part "Enduring Popularity" in this article. I found that the world"Enduring", as used in the title, a little bit inappropriate.

By the word "endure", according to the Wiktionary, it could mean:

1. to continue despite obstacles 2. to tolerate something

I'm pretty sure that by the word "enduring" here, it means her popularity has lasted for a long time, even after her death. But the first two paragraph of that part states that Audrey was not enjoying her fame, which certainly contains the second meaning of the word "endure".

Maybe my English is not very good, but I have some problem reading the title. Thank you for your attention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenchan0104 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Howdy! Your dictionary should also have this for:

• "enduring" adjective: "lasting, durable <an enduring truth>"
• "endure" intransitive verb: "to continue in the same state : last <the style endured for centuries>"

So, that will work.

"Endearing" will also work:

• "endearing intransitive verb: "to cause to become beloved or admired <her generosity has endeared her to the public>"

Try using www.m-w.com instead. Wiktionary is incomplete, try not to use it as gospel.

- 4.240.165.163 (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hepburn is endearing. Her popularity is enduring (but not endearing). Clarityfiend (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Grandchildren?

Does Audrey Hepburn have any grandchildren? They aren't mentioned on the page. Excuseme99 (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

The children's fund

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)

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)

Filmography

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)

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)

The heading in the filmography is not "Year of release" but "year". As it is currently compiled it gives a misleadingly erroneous order of the films as Audrey made them. If you read the text "early career" the first paragraph says that she moved to London in 1948. In the middle of the second paragraph after that, after saying that her mother was making money doing menial jobs in London, it says that she made her first film "Dutch in seven lessons" without mentioning the Dutch title thus implying that it was an English film, made in the UK. The first paragraph also implies that she studied acting with Felix Aylmer in 1948 in Amsterdam which is arrrant nonsense. She took elocution lessons with Aylmer in London in 1950. She never studied acting. The whole article is not well written and replete with errors of this kind. 87.114.154.81 (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Audreyfan

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)

IMDB states that "Nous irons a Monte Carlo" was released in France on November 22nd 1951. I would like to see your valid source for the statement that Audrey studied acting with Felix Aylmer in Amsterdam in 1948! There is an internal contradiction is saying that her first acting role was in an educational film "Dutch in seven lessons" and then saying a few lines later that her first film role was in a British film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.144.41 (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

I didn't think outsiders were allowed to change entries anymore; in any case the "person in charge" usually changes them all back. I've mislaid my copy of Alexander Walker but Barry Paris (p.48) seems to imply that Audrey took her lessons with Aylmer either between "Sauce Tartare" and "Sauce Piquante" or after "Piquante" ended, which would both be 1950, but certainly not in Amsterdam in 1948. Her first British role was the cigarette girl in "Laughter in Paradise" followed rapidly by the miniscule part in "One wild oat". 87.113.144.41 (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Audreyfan

The opening paragraph

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) Audreyfan The opening paragraph in fact totally ignores Audrey's 18 months of work in the London musical theatre as a chorus-girl and minor performer which are crucial to the development of her film career, as many film directors and producers attended the performances . The photographic work is trivial by comparison. The earliest extant document linking Audrey to London in 1948 is a letter from a counsellor at the British Embassy in The Hague dated 10th April 1948 certifying Audrey's British nationality and saying that she is proceeding to the UK to study at the Rambert School of Ballet Dancing [reproduced in "The Audrey Hepburn Treasures" by Erwin and Diamond, Simon & Schuster 2006 ISBN : 0-7432-8622-7]. The same book contains a reproduction of her contract dated 19th November 1948 with the Jack Hylton organisation for her appearance in High Button Shoes, so her ballet training with Rambert lasted for only six months or less. The musical theatre experience, which lasted until the summer of 1950, was vital to her career but is not mentioned.

The lead section of articles are only for summary of the rest of the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes but they should be accurate and not over-emphasise trivial details at the expense of more relevant material. In this case a crucial part of Hepburn's career is totally ignored. 87.114.31.100 (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC) audreyfan

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)

Splitting off filmography

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)

It should have been discussed first, I'd say... Yworo (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Unsubstantiated Rumor of Affair

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)

Please see: WP:PROVEIT MisterJayEm (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

Editors, FWIW, here is a possible GENERAL resource, straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOxoW9iHQYk 24.95.90.102 (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

On her nationality

It seems strange to leave out any statement regarding her nationality. Her mother was Dutch, her father most likely Irish or Anglo-Irish. At any rate, he was a subject of the British Empire, as was Audrey. I think this nationality should be indicated somewhere in the article.

I think the best adjective is British, since that was her nationality, and she traveled with British passports. Dutch-British is awkward (although she was half-Dutch by "blood"); American is an adjective used, but this is best reserved for her Hollywood career, which is the bulk of her career as an actress. Thus the phrase American film star (or even American actress) are technically correct, but apt to mislead. I think some mention of her nationality as British should be made. --Sp3lly (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Her nationality is open to interpretation. If you go back a way you'll see that her nationality was described in a very complicated and confusing sentence - ("Audrey Hepburn was a Belgian-born, Dutch-raised British actress of British and Dutch ancestry") - that appeared to have been designed by a committee aiming to please everyone. I feel that to leave the nationality out altogether is far more appropriate, and if nationality is more a question of passport than lifestyle, I think the fact that she carried a British passport is even less relevant. If we say only British, someone will come along and say no, she was Dutch-British, then someone else will say no, she was Belgian born, someone else will feel it important that she was Dutch-raised .... etc and it will eventually evolve back into that long sentence.

I appreciate the detail that you've added into the lead, but I truly believe that the lead was better before, in its relative brevity. The details and the accuracy - which I support 100% by the way - would sit better in the article itself in the section about her early days and background. The lead really should be a potted history, that tells the entire story from start to finish, but in a very brief manner. I think there is now too much emphasis on her origins in the lead. Again, excellent material for the article, but I don't think it's quite right by WP:LEAD. Rossrs (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the issue of nationality has been discussed before and the older discussion in in the archive. I'm going to remove the British nationality sentence on that basis. The other comments I made, are not such an important point, so I'll leave them, waiting for your comment. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Do I know you from elsewhere on the internet? --Sp3lly (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the case, the main objections I had to the lead were

(a) vagueness - which is rarely a sign of good writing - e.g., "the next several years" and "a few films" (although I agree my "In 1951-1952 she played mostly bit roles in a half dozen European films" a bit lengthy. Contrarywise, my "Audrey became" is more concise than the vague, nebulous "Over the next several years, she was"). So I would argue for something between brevity and precision.

ESPECIALLY (b) the mention of Marni Nixon as dubbing her singing voice in MFL. I don't see where this fact needs to be stated in the lead.

(c) The lead did NOT go past 1967 for her career, which seems weird if one is to call it "the entire story from start to finish, but in a very brief manner." Therefore I believe my paragraph beginning with MFL carries the summary of her film career to brief conclusion. (We could leave out the $1,000,000 but, but that seems as salient a fact as the awards that she won, in my opinion.)

(d) Is misleading (I think) to say she lived in Arnhem in her childhood. Yes, perhaps I have included to much detail (i.e., I agree Kent, England sticks out) - so I would agree to revert back to the prior version.

(e) Leading actors - yes I more than doubled the number. But is it really important (in the lead) that she danced with Astaire in FF? I could see limiting the number to five or six; say: Peck (whose absense here was most lamentable), Bogart, Grant, Holden, O'Toole, Astaire. (I realize Fonda gets upstaged.) My inclusion of O'Toole, Peppard and Finney was both a nod toward "later" fims, as well as including more non-American-born actors, as is my mention of Connery in next paragraph. --Sp3lly (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I don't think we've met before.... maybe, but I don't think so. Thank you for clarifying these points. I do apologize. I did not intend my comments to come across as critical of your efforts, as for the most part I think you improved it. I was really only commenting on the bits that I disagree with and that's unfair because I neglected to mention that I agree with most of what you did. You're right in saying that the story (at least career wise) stopped at 1967 and I support your decision to include the later works. That was an improvement. To comment on your points - (a) Vagueness, agree it's an issue. I think in the lead it's less important, but the way you've edited it, looks good to me. (b)The Marni Nixon bit - I also agree that it's unnecessary. To be honest, I didn't notice when it got added, and I think it must have been fairly recently, but that's something for the article body. (c) True, the lead didn't go past 1967, and I think you've fixed that well. The $1,000,000 figure is not absolutely essential, and yet it is notable and important, and it belongs there, in my opinion. So yes, my "entire story from start to finish" comment was 'weird'. I was mainly commenting about the excessive detail in her origins/upbringing section, which brings me to (d) Funny that you mention the Kent, England bit, because that's what drew my attention to that section. I think it does stick out. It's accurate but it's a detail that isn't essential. Whether it's removed or not, I don't feel strongly about, but my choice would be to abbreviate that sentence by removing it. (e) Leading actors.... once is enough for William Holden. I mean he was great, but he wasn't that great. :-) I don't have a problem with the list of names, although I think George Peppard is very much the odd one out there, especially when he's included among "some of film's most notable leading men". Maybe it could be reworded to remove the word "notable". Perhaps "appeared opposite such leading men as ...." would sufficiently neutralise it. My only serious concern is about the nationality, simply because it's a hornet's nest that's been stirred up before. The Kent, England reference seems a bit superfluous, but it's not major, and George Peppard. Everything else is right on the money. Rossrs (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Peppard was at least at one time considered notable and was the leading man for what was perhaps Audrey's most iconic role. I would rather leave 'most notable' in and remove Peppard. The Kent mention is awkward and and I will remove it.

On her nationality: again. I can see that because it is a complicated issue that it need not be in the lead (strange as that may be on the surface). But that (to me) it should be in the article somewhere: even if one mentions the complicated aspect of it. I haven't read the entire article, so I am not sure if it is at all mentioned. To me, it should be, in what purports to be a biographical piece. --Sp3lly (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Peppard wasn't in the film because he was notable, he was notable because he was in the film, which is what makes him different. What you've suggested about Peppard and the Kent mention, sounds reasonable. In the first section of the article, dealing with Hepburn's geneology it gives details about her living in Kent. It's fairly good in giving some reasons for the moves etc. Maybe this is where the nationality could be mentioned. What do you think? I agree it should be mentioned in the article and because it's not exactly straight forward it could be explained a bit better there. I can't find any mention of it in the article, and you're right, it's important enough to merit inclusion. Rossrs (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to the subject of nationality, I found the relevant style guide, here. It is quite specific in saying that citizenship is the defining factor. Unless we have evidence of dual citizenship, the opening paragraph should say "English" and nothing else about the matter. The details belong in the "Early life" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yworo (talk • contribs) Except that there is no separate "English" nationality/passport and Audrey's father was not born in the British Isles but in the Czech part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and had British citizenship by ancestry. He certainly wasn't an "English banker", more of an insurance salesman/hustler in Brussels, later agent for the Nazis in London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.129.71 (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC) In fact, it's very odd that the "Early Life" section describes Joseph Ruston as "an English banker" and cites Donald Spoto's book "Enchantment" in support, when the sentence in question in that book reads as follows: "Later identified by Hepburn biographers as an Anglo-Irish banker, he was neither Irish nor a banker". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.57.107 (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Bullying on Audrey Hepburn page

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)

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)

Thanks, I will do that. In terms of relevance I would think that anything about Audrey Hepburn's background is of interest and relevance especially when it comes to her cultural heritage. I do think that saying to someone that their comment is 'nonsense' as did one of the guardians of the page is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.113.128 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Is it common practice on wikipedia to have a discussion before a page is updated and in the end if there's a disagreement who gets to say what's right? In this case Audrey Hepburn's Jewish heritage is disputed, some biographers agree and some disagree. Who then decides what to put on Wikipedia? My understanding about wikipedia was that nobody owns the website but many of the hard core users act like it belongs to them. I find this really interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.113.128 (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Nationality again

She was Dutch, certainly NOT British. (92.11.37.82 (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Good plan. Rklawton (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be much better, since she certainly wasn't British at all. (92.13.104.26 (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC))

Protected

Since the above editor insists on asserting that Hepburn was Dutch, rather than citing sources or waiting for consensus to change, I've protected the page for a week to allow ample time for discussion. The usual avenues of dispute resolution remain open if there is no agreement. Rodhullandemu 18:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hepburn was a Dutch Jew, she was NOT British in any way at all. It's also strange to describe her as an "humanatrian" since she was only involved with UNICEF in her last few years. You could describe any celebrity who has donated money to charity as an "humanitarian". (92.13.104.26 (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC))

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)

• I'm now satisfied that this is the banned User:HarveyCarter and have blocked the IP for a week. Any editors coming from this range, or others known to be used by HC and making similar edits will be assumed to be evading this block. Rodhullandemu 20:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Awards

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)

Audrey Hepburn's Parents

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)

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)

Cause of death

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))

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)

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)

Fine, but doesn't the death section still say that it started in the abdomen? After all, the COD is named after the place where the cancer began. (92.11.96.163 (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

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)

Should we mention taht it was caused by her heavy cigarette smoking? (92.11.96.163 (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

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)

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)

Ah. This explains much. - Nunh-huh 03:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors, FWIW, here is a possible resource, straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOxoW9iHQYk 24.95.90.102 (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any question now that Audrey Hepburn suffered and died from appendix cancer, which is classified under the heading of a rare group of cancers known as pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) - and it is correct to refer to it as a type of abdominal cancer. The account of her dying days by her son, Sean Ferrer, to which there is a link via the PMP Awareness website, verifies that this was the cause of her death. Sean Ferrer does not use the term pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) - relatively little was known about it at the time of Audrey Hepburn's death - but the description of her treatment is in line with the treatment that a PMP patient would have received at that time. PMP is often mistaken for colon cancer or other more common forms of cancers, even by experienced surgeons. I know a lot about this as I am a PMP patient myself and have written my own survivor's story. I have an even rarer sub-variety of PMP, namely urachal cancer, which has also been referred to as a type of abdominal cancer. I have undergone major surgery and I am continuing to receive treatment at a specialist PMP hospital in the UK. Audrey Hepburn is an icon for us PMP patients. GroovyGuzi (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I have never smoked. Appendix cancer and other varieties of PMP hit people completely at random, it seems. There is no known cause. GroovyGuzi (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

An extract from The Fairest of All by Jocelyn Selim backs up what I have said above. Audrey Hepburn was diagnosed with a mucinous adenocarcinoma, the same type of tumour that was removed from my abdomen in 2006. In her case it emanated from the appendix. In my case it emanated from the urachus. Wherever it starts it spreads a jelly-like mucus throughout the abdominal cavity, eventually strangling the bowels if left untreated. Jocelyn Selim's extract includes statements by prominent US doctors who specialise in treating PMP. It also includes a reference to Carolyn Langlie-Lesnik, a nurse who started an advocacy group and website for appendix cancer at http://www.appendix-cancer.com. I have been in touch personally with Carolyn Langlie-Lesnik, who gave me excellent advice on PMP shortly after I underwent surgery. Back in 1993 the so-called Sugarbaker procedure, which is used nowadays to treat appendix cancer and other types of PMP cancers, was not in widespread use. The hospital that I now attend, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital in the UK, only set up its PMP unit in 2000. If Audrey Hepburn had been born 20 years later her chances of survival would have been much better. GroovyGuzi (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent revamp

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)

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)

It wasn't the fact about the Oscar that concerned me, it was the wording. After the snub Hepburn made sure he got screen credit to ensure that never happened again, which attests to her character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcatch23 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

redundant words in intro

"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)

Early career section

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) This section still implies that she made a film for KLM before moving to London and then made "Dutch in seven lessons" whilst in London but they are one and the same film, "Nederlands in seven lessen" made by Linden and Josephson in the Netherlands in 1947 as a travel documentary for the Rank Organisation. (See Jerry Vermilye : The complete films of Audrey Hepburn, Citadel Press, 1995, pp.67-8). The section also implies that "The secret people" was made after Audrey appeared in "Gigi" but in fact it was made before "Gigi" and also before "Monte Carlo Baby/Nous irons a Monte Carlo" (see Vermilye pp.77-82). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.190.14 (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Early life

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)

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)

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)

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)

Joseph Ruston cannot have been a director of a branch of the Bank of England in Brussels. The Bank of England is the central bank of the UK, much like the Federal Reserve in the USA. It does not now and never has had any branches anywhere. In fact there is no evidence that Joseph Ruston was ever a bnnker. 91.125.190.14 (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Barretter

File:Audrey Hepburn Commutative Stamp 2003.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Audrey Hepburn Commutative Stamp 2003.jpg, 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)

Image

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)

Didn't Audrey go to Marie Lambert's Ballet School? I dont think it says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michifoo07 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean the Ballet Rambert. Rodhullandemu 01:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Does the caption "Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961), wearing the iconic little black dress by Givenchy" make sense, given that the image doesn't actually show the dress? 208.54.36.159 (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Dress from Breakfast at Tiffanys Sale No Longer Record

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)

Fixed. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD (What is his problem???)

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)

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 [4] 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)

artillery bombardment of Arnhem

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)

Agreed, you are correct during the actual battle for the bridge, but if you have a look at the Battle of Arnhem page of Operation Market Garden you will read "The buildings of Arnhem were heavily shelled by the Allies over the next few months ...". MaltaGC —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn was BRITISH SUBJECT so metric system is in place

based on her origin. metric system. 50.9.109.170 (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging at the talk page, but that is not a license to repeat your favored edit. Instead, please wait and see if any consensus develops. It is best to explain the situation when posting on a talk page, and the above is not clear as to what is wanted or why. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The reference provided for that sentence is from a US magazine article article and {although the print is as tiny as it gets) gives the height in feet and inches. So it is proper to use that first in the sentence. then Wikipedia's Template:Convert, which is developed by consensus, converts to meters. Thus, until either of those are changed, the current version of the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines. MarnetteD | Talk 13:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that, at the time period that the specific section and sentence are referring to, the UK did not use the metric system. As stated here Metrication in the United Kingdom it has not fully converted to it even today. I have to say that there is also some merit to McGeddon's edit summary here [5]. MarnetteD | Talk 14:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

none of that really maters. your argument is mood. There are only three countries using imperial system : USA, Burma, Katar. So its simple: metric system prevails.

Pretty lame for american to force use of his obsolete system in world wide wikipedia

I wish this argument was "mood" Every time some British "celebrity" on Top Gear gives they're weight in "stone" I want shooted my tv Elvis style. Cause were in 'merica and we don't truck with metrisized units like "stone" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.170.233 (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

50.9.109.170 (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please put a comment on a single physical line, including signature (no linebreaks).

No one is forcing anything, apart from some repeated attempts to change the widely used Wikipedia convention of how heights are expressed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, America does not use the imperial system. It uses its own system which shares many similarities with the imperial system. Second, as stated above, the UK has certainly not wholeheartedly embraced or adopted the metric system and many (probably a majority of) British people still prefer to use the imperial system. Thirdly, Wikipedia uses all three systems interchangeably and does not impose a single system. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Does she also already get US and Swiss citizenship?

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)

File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg to appear as POTD

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)

Picture of the day

Audrey Hepburn (1929–1993), in a promotional still for Love in the Afternoon (1957). Hepburn made her Hollywood debut with Roman Holiday in 1953, after shooting several films in Britain. She is one of only eleven people to win an Academy, Emmy, Grammy, and Tony Award.Photo: Allied Artists

Audrey or Edda

Currently we've written that "Edda van Heemstra" was a pseudonym, which seems a bit strange way of putting it. It would be nice to see a baptismal record: many, and in those days I think most Dutch people have a nickname (used in daily life) that is an informal variant of their baptismal name and several sources say that she was baptized with the name Edda (e.g. Walker, who seems to have dug a bit deeper than most, and the article at the usually very solid historici.nl site (though there seem to be some odd errors there about her youth, if Walker and others are to be believed)). Perhaps what the above editor saw on the 30th anniversary DVD was her baptismal record or her Belgian birth record (I would imagine there is one). It would not be strange that her English nickname was used on the British consulate birth certificate, which contains that odd and perhaps intentional error of her father's citizenship by birth location. And "Van Heemstra" is just her mother's maiden name. Calling yourself by your baptismal or native birth name and your divorced mother's maiden name hardly qualifies as using a pseudonym. Afasmit (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This raises an interesting question. You have done some good work on the research front. First the OP of the thread above was stating that her birth name was Hepburn-Rushton and I was responding to that. I am not sure what 30th anniversary DVD they were referring to but it must be a specific film as I can't find one that is a bio of her. Now to your post - you are referring to that statement in the "Childhood and adolescence during World War II" section where it says "Hepburn adopted the pseudonym Edda van Heemstra, because an "English sounding" name was considered dangerous during the German occupation" We need to separate out a couple items.

1. I think that the main question that you are raising is was her first name Audrey or Edda at birth (and please forgive me if I have that wrong) and I agree that the baptismal record would help in determining this.
2. As to the actual sentence it is referring to her using Edda as her first name during the Germans occupation of The Netherlands. Now if her birth name was Edda than she wouldn't have been using a "pseudonym" rather she would have been reverting using her birth name. It would be easy to remove that word from the sentence.
3. I think there is one more change that is needed. It looks as though it was her mother that said that Audrey should use Edda instead rather than Audrey reverting to the name on her own.

As I say this raises some interesting points. Let us see if any other editors who have this page on their watchlist can add some input and then we can proceed from there. We might also ask the Biography and Film Wikiprojects to come here if we don't get any responses in the next day or so. MarnetteD | Talk 00:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

About Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2014

delivered a eulogy

should it not be? > delivered an eulogy

93.208.132.182 (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The use of "a" or "an" depends on the pronunciation, not the spelling. Some people think it is just vowels v consonants, but we say an hour, although it does not begin with a vowel. Eulogy starts with a long ‘u’ (j in the phonetic alphabet) - like University - we do not say "an university", so we do not say "an eulogy". - Arjayay (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

"Pets" and "Miscellaneous" sections

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)

Pets

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)

Miscellaneous

One year after Marilyn Monroe sang "Happy Birthday, Mr. President" to President John F. Kennedy, Hepburn, the President's favourite actress, sang "Happy Birthday, Dear Jack" to him, on what turned out to be his final birthday (29 May 1963). Hepburn is associated with the poem "Time-Tested Beauty Tips" (although the author is humourist Sam Levenson), which she used to recite to her sons. The poem includes verses such as, "For beautiful hair, let a child run his fingers through it once a day," and, "For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry."

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2014

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)

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)

Hepburn's 16th Birthday

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)

Agreed!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Nationalism

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)

Non-encyclopedic fluff

"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)

Agree. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

'British actress'

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)

Audrey's father's occupation

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 ([6]), "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)

• And now I find that there is reason to doubt it. Barry Paris's Audrey Hepburn agrees that Joseph Ruston worked in the tin trade for Maclaine Watson and Company in Batavia (Jakarta), then went to their London office, but states that it was an (unidentified) Anglo-French credit society which made him a VP and deputy administrator and assigned him to open the branch office in Belgium. [7] I had been wondering why Audrey's family lived in Belgium when her father was British and her mother was Dutch, and apparently it was because her father's job had led them to Brussels, but which company it was that he worked for remains in doubt. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

I took the liberty of combining Cyberbot's archive notices. The originals can be found here, here, here, and here.

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

N Stale: Link has since been removed. Rebbing 03:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110528125413/http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/06/holly-golightly-is-a-call-girl-and-other-revelations-about-breakfast-at-tiffanys.html to http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/06/holly-golightly-is-a-call-girl-and-other-revelations-about-breakfast-at-tiffanys.html

N Stale: Link has since been removed. Rebbing 03:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130512110238/http://www.vanityfair.com/video/2011/08/the-best-dressed-women-of-all-time--audrey-hepburn_1123802726001 to http://www.vanityfair.com/video/2011/08/the-best-dressed-women-of-all-time--audrey-hepburn_1123802726001#/page=1&plid=2099545408001

N Stale: Link has since been removed. Rebbing 03:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/timesonline-uk/obituary.aspx?pid=143195604

 Done, thanks. You're so clever, II. Rebbing 03:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)