Talk:Gloria Morgan Vanderbilt

Place of death

Removed Newport as place of death because I found some genealogy site that said L.A., and even gave the hospital, I figure that's reasonable doubt? Everyking 07:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clean up

I did major cleaning up on this article. See the version of the article before I cleaned up here and the version of the article after I cleaned up here. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 01:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Move to new name per historical accuracy

Gloria Laura Mercedes Morgan-Vanderbilt → Gloria Morgan Vanderbilt — Her name was not Gloria Laura Mercedes Morgan-Vanderbilt. It was Gloria Morgan Vanderbilt; her birth name was Mercedes and the name Gloria she adopted as a teenager, per her memoirs, relevant pages of which, plus quotations from her, are cited in the footnotes of the article. She did not and never did use a hyphenated surname. Also she used the name Gloria Morgan Vanderbilt in published articles, books, and legal papers. Therefore I request that the new article be titled GLORIA MORGAN VANDERBILT.Kitchawan (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Makes sense. The sources on I can find for the current name are all Wikipedia-related. Jafeluv (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Article content is confusing

I assume that not every reader is an expert on this person...I certainly am not. Unfortunately, this article does little to help, since the reader must wade through lots of bits and side lines while trying to grasp this person's story. To make the article useful to a wider audience, I would scratch it and start again. Begin by simply listing the reasons this person deserves a Wiki article at all. Of what importance is her life, did she bring about change, good or bad? On what is her "fame" based? Is she only about the people she knew, married, gave birth to? In a nutshell, the article needs to be pared down to the basics five W's (who, what, where, when, why) of THIS person.

I get the feeling that the article's editors know what makes this person Wiki-worthy, but they forgot to tell the rest of us. Again, I'm not an expert on this subject, but I am more than happy to give input while the article gets revamped. Thank you. Tell someone (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because you do not grasp the historical value of this article does not mean this article has no historical value. While I agree the article could be better written, the necessity of such an article is not really up for debate. She was incredibly famous during her lifetime. While she achieved nothing per se of note she was none the less very famous and that is all that is necessary to be historically significant. As to how she got to be famous, she was a prominent member of one of the most famous and wealthiest American families. She is the sister of someone who had an affair with the heir to the throne of the U.K. She was the mother of the founder of a fashion house and the grandmother of one of the principle CNN anchorpersons. She was the center of a huge scandal in New York society in the middle 20th century and yes that should be touched upon in the article but is not. Her status was similar to that of Paris Hilton today. Paris has not really achieved anything but she is incredibly famous. The purpose of a Wikipedia biography article isn't to list the lifetime achievements only of people who have achieved great things. The purpose is to introduce the public to people of note and fame and explain what they are famous for and tell a little about various aspects of their lives. I didn't have any idea who the Kardasians were until I found their Wikipedia article. They seem to be famous for being famous. But I wouldn't have known that had I not read their articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.190.53.6 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)