Talk:Paul Bern

message: I would like to ask you to review the suggestion that Henrietta Levy committed suicide.  That was concocted to show that Paul might have been sad and not based in truth.  I am a direct relative of all of them and I have her death certificate and there is no suggestion of suicide.  I would also appreciate if you would add into the article what is now consider to be the most likely description of the events and that being he was murdered by Dorothy Milette and the cover up was done by the studio.  You can still have the nonsense about the suicide but looking back on the event allows us to see things more clearly 98.117.204.125 (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually no, that's not it. As I stated above, there are numerous sources that flat out state this ruling is official. You may not agree with that ruling but that's not the issue. Wikipedia reports on verifiable facts not truth. Unless you can provide reliable sources that clearly state the official death verdict was overturned, the categories are correct. Your edit summary here states just read the text please. Since I went through the article last night, added sources and even rewrote some content, I do believe it's safe to assume that I read the text and even comprehended it. Aside from the majority of the speculative text (which is what I assume you're referring to) being unsourced, it is conjecture from various authors - not an official ruling and not proof that anything was a fabrication. Pinkadelica♣ 03:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: The above is supported by Newton, Michael; French, John L. (2008). Celebrities and Crime. Infobase Publishing. p. 97. ., does anyone have access to the material to verify this text. The reason I ask is that it is an extremely strong factual statement and I suspect that the supporting material is not as strong or we are misstating a theory as fact. --Errant 11:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hollywood's Babylon Women" page 69-70 " says much the same thing as Newton. The link is above and loads slowly. DocOfSoc (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite mistaken to call Samuel Marx's account of what he witnessed "speculation" or "theory". You forget that a witness who testifies to what he saw can not be compared to an author who proposes a "conspiracy theory" and then tries to gather supportive evidence and, usually, to suppress contrary evidence. Marx witnessed MGM employees tampering with the evidence. Marx witnessed Louis B. Mayer pronouncing what the coroner's verdict will be before the inquest was held, the utterly absurd "Suicide Because of Impotence!" ruling which originated in the mind of a movie story writer. The text of the article adheres strictly to the rules of Wikipedia: It states the official ruling, and the disagreeing voices, which were published, citing the sources. The conclusion is up to the reader. And, yes, I still believe that Wikipedia, as an Encyclopedia, is the place to debunk official stories, if the sources say so. Certainly I would not dare to attempt to state the "truth" because I think so (that would be WP:OR), but I can't disregard the sources. I will delete these categories again. Categories are not at all important to the article, but in this case they are one point of view. On the other side, the "Murder victim" categories have been deleted several times, alleging that it was ruled officially a suicide, and thus might be considered also POV. Not to have any categories added is not such a catastrophe. Under the general Wikipedia rule of avoiding controversial content WP:NPOV, it must remain without the categories. Kraxler (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you don't make that decision by yourself about the categories.  The categories added are supported by the article and can be put into the article since now there are 4 editors to 1, you, who say the official death is suicide by gunshot.  Please stop removing these categories.  --CrohnieGalTalk 16:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First off. Whilst discussions are ongoing do not simply delete the material to your preference, you should work out consensus first. Secondly everything Marx says is speculation, no matter the truth of it the material cannot be verified by the usual process (in this case, a legal finding). Unfortunately I find none of the sources very convincing in presenting this as anything other than a conspiracy theory based on the testimony of a single person. Which makes it speculation and per our policy more than slightly dubious; we are basically regurgitating a theory that MGM covered up a murder. Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary sources, and we just do not have them. Categories are an important part of the article, Crohnie was bold putting them back, but it looks like the RFC will come down in favour of having them in. So lets see how that goes. --Errant 16:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Errant and what s/he says.  The alternate theories are in the article already.  The fact is more references are needed to get the full picture of what was said about this.  Then we can start looking to see if we have to trim back or remove things.  I have returned the categories back to the article because they are supported by the article.  Please do not remove them again since as has been said, it looks like all the editors minus one feel they belong.  Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Why should I not believe Marx?, you're missing the point. It is not about belief or not, it is about verifying information. So the death is verified as a suicide, but Marx has an eyewitness account and claims another theory. That is the extent of the situation. I'd point out that it is hard to make a claim about the article being well sourced when it was presented as fact that MGM ran a cover-up, I see you removed it, nice one. We still need to discuss the conspiracy theory aspect though (that appears to be sourced also), as an overview. e have to contend ourselves with the sources and common sense, no, just the sources :) --Errant 18:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Kraxler has again reverted the categories against the consensus shown above.  He is the only one against the categories being added a far as I know so this is bordering on tenacious editing.  You say Kraxler that Wikipedia is not election, I have no idea where that comes from but there is an RFC about the categories and me and two other came here as uninvolved editors to discuss the RFC.  In the RFC Pinkadelia, Errant, DocOfSoc and myself said the categories were supported by the article.  You are the only one to say it shouldn't be added.  I am about to take this up a level and get help from an administrator on your behavior here.  You are holding this article as hostage for editors to improve the article which is not good.  The article has references because Pinkadelia found some and added them to the article, at least that is my understanding.  Please self revert and put the categories back in the article.  I have to admit my patience with this is getting slim.  Kraxler isn't listening to anyone even though we keep telling him things, like the categories are being supported by the article and the conspiracy theories that he thinks should have more weight than the death certificate that say suicide.  I think enough is enough already.  I think that the conspiracy theories are a fringe view and that they should be looked at closely, referenced and then proper weight given to them.  Right now there is too much weight given to the alternate theories.   Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Thinking about what is going on with the article, I am done here.  There is an editor holding the article hostage as far as I am concerned and I'm not up to dealing with the tenacious editing going on.  Sorry, if you need me just ping me on my talk page.  Maybe I will be feeling better to return but right now I'm no so I can't stay. --CrohnieGalTalk 20:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, Crohnie. There's no rush here and I don't encourage anyone to stay in a hostile editing environment. Kraxler's attitude is that he/she is right and everyone else is wrong and has no idea what they're talking about. If you see the above section, you'll understand what I've been dealing with and why I opened the RfC. I presented several different sources to support the suicide ruling and Kraxler claimed the sources were "ancient". In addition, the sources were supposedly no good because they were copies from older books. I see the sources are still in the article and Kraxler hasn't bothered to find "fresh" sources so evidently they're good enough to source the article but not good enough to support the category. There's always going to be an excuse or illogical argument as to why the categories don't belong because Kraxler doesn't want them added. Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't run one person's opinion - the community has a say so on what articles should state and what is important enough to include in the article. I see no point in edit warring over this right now and no one else should take the bait either. I'll let the RfC run a full 30 days and see if additional editors are willing to comment or if the current consensus changes. If consensus stays the way it is now, the categories go in. If Kraxler still wants to edit war and POV push after that time, administrators can deal with that accordingly. Pinkadelica♣ 20:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Exactly who are you assuming bad faith with your comment above?  What I mean is you say that some editors were and I quote "And, I would like some editors opine here who were not personally invited to take one side...", who are talking about?  --CrohnieGalTalk 22:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the suicide categories should not be removed. 2/0's explanation above deals with the purpose of categories as a guide for readers and not as a verdict of history from the sages of Wikipedia. Figureofnine (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Only, in this case the categories would misguide the reader, that's the problem, Figureofnine. The absence of the tags guides the reader to make up his own mind. There were no tags for months or years, and Wikipedia was none the worse for it. Kraxler (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how you can say that. This article devotes its largest segment of space to a discussion of the circumstances surrounding his death, giving substantial space to discussion of alternate theories, including murder. If anything, it is overweighted in that direction. The categories merely state the official cause of death. Figureofnine (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Figureofnine.  I also think that the article needs to be gone through to weight the alternate theories of his death.  The alternate theories take up way too much undue weight.  The categories belong and should stay.  Please Kraxler allow other editors opinions and edits stay in the article since there is a consensus of editors who say that the categories should be in the article.  You also say that this article had no tags for months or years and that Wikipedia was none the worse for it, well it didn't have the article properly sourced either but that's because no one was interested in doing so.  Now there are editors interested in sourcing this article, editing this article and adding more to this article.  The article is better with more editors.  This article, if memory serves me right, has been here for over 5 years, it's way past time for the article to get proper attentions to it.  Please allow this to happen, help or get out of the way, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, well put. The duplicative, POV "official cause of death" section needs to be taken out, in addition to a general reweighting of the various conspiracy theories.  Reading this article, you'd think the most important thing he did in his life was to die! He was also a major producer and director. This is an encyclopedia, not Hollywood Babylon Online. Figureofnine (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory 

message: Readers make up their own minds, "tags" or not, it is not up to us to "guide" them. Headers clarify the facts, not theories or speculations that cannot be properly referenced.  Removing the headers is pushing your own [POV].  Wikipedia may have been " none the worse" ( how do you know?) but article is now clarified as to which is rumor and which is officially documented.  Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Headers

message: This section is totally POV, replicates what is previously in this article, and is not necessary. There is already too much on Bern possibly being slain. I think that this tips the scales. Figureofnine (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Pinkadelica♣ 15:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to say this but this whole article needs to be rewritten from the beginning.  The way it's written now doesn't follow the normal way of writing an article.  Anyone have the energy?  I don't right now but maybe in a few weeks I will.  I can help as back up though.  --CrohnieGalTalk 17:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the POV section, there seemed to be consensus about this. Since he was not credited for most of his work, to die was indeed his major achievement, finally making the headlines, and having that absolutely unique cause of death. Or anybody else is noted as having died by "suicide because of impotence"? Maybe a new category, if there are more such deaths? Feel free to rewrite, the article can only get better. Kraxler (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Official cause of death'

message: I believe the section regarding the suicide note should be restored to this version for the time being. The quotation marks around the word suicide looks amateurish and unencyclopedic. Doubt surrounding the note's authenticity should be explained by sourced text, not by quotation marks in a caption. If there's problem with the wording, the text can simply state that something to the effect of "a note that was found at the home was presented as Bern's suicide note. The note read....", followed by the block quote. Following text can explain that the note was supposedly found by Louis B. Mayer (or whomever) and may have been unrelated to the Bern's death. As for the claim that the note was proven to be a fake by handwriting experts, this source states that "whether the handwriting was ever checked by an expert was never discovered". However, another sources states that it was checked and proven to be authentic. Whatever the case, text should explain the doubt surrounding the note, not a vague caption. Pinkadelica♣ 15:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It breaks the usual caption guidelines, plus it seems pertinent information to put in the main text. Most importantly this is identified as the note presented as a suicide note and I feel it is NPOV/POINTY to call it a "suicide" note :) --Errant 16:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree on all points. I placed the text of the note in the article and it belongs there. I would remind User:Kraxler that it is important that he not edit war in contravention of consensus. Figureofnine (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I moved the note back to the text, and tried to be as neutral as possible. Figureofnine (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree with Errant on the NPOV/POINTY issue. I think the current wording is acceptable and that the caption is well written. Thank you, Figureofnine. :) Pinkadelica♣ 21:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide note