Talk:Paul Bern

Categories

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) Laura R I have added back the categories stating that Bern committed suicide because, despite various theories and speculation, that is the official ruling. I also provided three different sources that support the ruling. The case was reopened sometime in the 1960s but was closed and the verdict was not changed. I don't believe the categories should be removed unless the verdict is officially changed. I would add the "Cause of death disputed" category as I did before (because Bern's cause of death is obviously disputed), but since that category has been deleted the text regarding the speculation will have to suffice. I also rewrote and reorganized the article a bit because of lack of sources. There was some issues regarding POV content and content that was blatantly false (ie Ben Hecht's theory was, evidently, incorrectly presented). I think a lot of work still needs to be done as quite a bit of what is presented is still a bit tabloid-esque and unsourced. Pinkadelica^♣ 10:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The "official ruling" has been shown to be a fabrication. That's it. Kraxler (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Request for Comment

Subject's death was officially ruled a suicide. This point is supported by various sources which I added last night along with accompanying categories. Evidently User:Kraxler disagrees with this ruling because of various author's claims to the contrary and has removed the categories. While I agree that the ruling is questionable and there's probably more to the story that any of us will ever know, the fact of the matter remains that the subject's death is still officially ruled a suicide and was never overturned. In fact, the text in the article touches upon this and even states that the Los Angeles DA reopened the case at one point because of one's writer's theories on the death ruling but closed the case because there was no supporting evidence to overturn the ruling. I believe the categories are correct and should stay in spite of various people's conjecture per WP:TRUTH. Thoughts? Pinkadelica^♣ 04:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the official ruling was "Suicide". There is no doubt either that it was a fabrication. There is now consensus (see the sources) that Bern was murdered, even if the coroner does not deem it worthwhile to re-open the case after almost 80 years. If anybody disagrees, I'm ready to argue... Kraxler (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources aren't consensus. Further, there's only one source that supports one author's speculation about the cause and his theory was shot down by the DA - not the coroner. Someone's speculation doesn't trump the official ruling even if there is a source to support the person's assertion. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Could one or both of you supply the references that shows your side of the disagreement here? I want to make sure I look at the correct references that the two of you are looking at since I do not know this subject of this article. I would like to help if I can to give an opinion but I want to make sure I have the facts to work with. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Crohnie. Your help is greatly appreciated. The sources that I provided that support the claim that Bern's death was in fact ruled a suicide are provided below:

• From Irving Thalberg: Boy Wonder To Producer Prince page 213 - "The Coroner's inquest ruled Bern's death a suicide"
• Hollywood's Babylon Women page 69 "After this new inquisition, the Bern death was still officially a suicide. A suicide it has remained ever since. Today, the only people debating the verdict are journalist, such as Ben Hecht..."
• Paul Bern: The Life and Famous Death of the MGM Director and Husband of Harlow page 255 - "The nature of the injury and cause of death was "gun shot [sic] wound of head" and the death ruled a suicide."

As one of the sources states, the ruling is debated by various people but it has never been officially changed. At one point the investigation was briefly reopened by the Los Angeles DA because a writer, Ben Hecht, wrote an article in Playboy about it and stated the ruling was wrong and gave a theory about what he thought happened, but it was closed because of the DA stated that Hecht was "peddling a wild and unconfirmed rumor as fact" (this is stated and sourced in the article under "Speculation regarding Bern's death"). Because of supporting sources, I believe categories regarding the official cause of death are appropriate for this article. It seems nonsensical to me to state flat out in the article the official cause of death and then not categorize it as such. The fact that various journalists and authors don't agree with the ruling is neither here nor there. Whatever the truth of the matter, the official ruling is what it is. Pinkadelica^♣ 14:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think this you are looking for whether it was a suicide. Well he was officially called a suicide though some theorize though that an ex-lover who was found dead the next day had killed him. I say the official line of suicide is what we should also call it. HTH,--CrohnieGal^Talk 16:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is beside the point, Pinkadelica. As I said, there is absolutely no doubt that the official ruling was "Suicide". The consensus is now (you cite ancient sources, please note that time is moving on!) that the official ruling followed a fabrication by the MGM studio bosses. Samuel Marx was an eye-witness to these proceedings and published them. So we have here two conflicting statements as to what happened to Bern: the utterly absurd fabrication by Louis B. Mayer, and Marx's eye-witness account, apply Occam's razor to it if you like. We know now that Bern was murdered. I am quite aware that Wikipedia is not a compendium of truth, but a compendium of knowledge, so the question is always: What do we know? We know that the studio bosses did not want to lose their major box-office hit, we know that Bern bigamously married Jean Harlow, we know of the Hays Code, we have Marx's statement that MGM employees tampered with the evidence, we know that Mayer gave the official ruling "Suicide Because of Impotence!" before the coroner and the D.A. opened their investigation, we know that this ruling was absurd but satisfied officials who were investigated for corruption several times (see Buron Fitts), we know that in 1960 the studio bosses were still powerful enough to muffle any criticism, and we know that Marx did not publish his book to make the headlines, but rather to set something right that he knew to be wrong, amounting to something similar to a deathbed confession. There we are, the official ruling was "Suicide", but we know that it was wrong. Kraxler (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's no doubt that the official ruling is suicide (which you have admitted twice already), the categories fit. You're throwing in speculation and your own personal opinion as if it matters to the official ruling. It doesn't. Speculation is just that - speculation. Wikipedia is about verifiable facts, not truth, and articles here aren't where we right great wrongs. You've yet to provide any evidence that the categories don't belong aside from regurgitating speculation from various authors as if their opinions change verifiable fact. There's an entire section in the article devoted to the speculation surrounding the actual cause of death, so it's not like that point isn't touched upon so your points are moot. No one is debating there is speculation and no one is attempting to remove that from the article (despite the lack of sources supporting the majority of that content). As for "ancient sources", the book Paul Bern: The Life and Famous Death of the MGM Director and Husband of Harlow is from 2009 and the Irving Thalberg: Boy Wonder book is from 2010. Last time I looked it currently is 2010, so there's nothing ancient about either. The oldest source given is from 1994 which is hardly "ancient". It doesn't really matter if the sources are old anyhow, the official ruling has never changed (a point that is supported by another source) so no "updated" sources are needed. If you find the sources unsatisfactory or too old for your liking, I suggest you find some that are more to your liking. Considering the article didn't have one citation until last week and no one has even bothered adding any, I find your remark about "ancient" sources laughable. Pinkadelica^♣ 03:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You say "speculation", but Marx was an actual eye-witness. He did not speculate, but published his knowledge. There we are: Wikipedia is based on published sources. In the text of the article are all facts given: the official ruling and how it was brought about, and the disagreeing statements. I really don't know what you have to complain of. I suggest you read the comic strips in the newspapers, to keep on laughing, Pinkadelica. As for "ancient" sources, maybe one day you will perceive that most of these "very recent" biographers all copy from older books, and repeat without thinking any crap they saw somewhere. I'm a historian and I know how to read sources. Actually, you cite one of the very books you call speculative: Fleming's bio of Bern in which he copies Marx's conclusions. And also, yes, Wikipedia is exactly the place to right a wrong, if published sources support it, which they do in this case. Kraxler (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm done debating this with you because your argument has degraded into thinly veiled personal attacks and other ramblings that have no bearing on the issue at hand. If you want to nitpick sources and be condescending to others, have at it. I'm not going to put up with that kind of obnoxious behavior and I doubt anyone else with an iota of self respect will either, so good luck with that. This article needs to be brought up to acceptable standards and I don't see that happening in unless other editors who aren't personally invested in getting the the truth out there are involved in editing it. Pinkadelica^♣ 03:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but are you talking conspiracy theories Kraxler? That's what it sounds like in your paragraph above. You say "Wikipedia is exactly the place to right a wrong," which it never is. You say it was suicide but...and I don't understand the but part you are saying. You are the one debating this so let see which sources you are talking about. I'm going to see if I post more of this on my own talk page if some of my lurkers will come over to help with this discussion. Be well,--CrohnieGal^Talk 10:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

After reading the materials provided, there is indeed a mystery surrounding Bern's death. No One knows what evidence was destroyed and/or tampered with in the two hours before police were called. IMO< Bern had every reason to commit suicide. Whether he did or not is between him and his God if he had one. But the official coroner's report and death certificate state "suicide". Until official documents are changed, the official cause of death is "suicide". Having had personal experience with a coroner who changed facts, It may or may not be true. But it is "officially " a suicide. Anything else is still speculation.DocOfSoc (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those wierd situations where we have to make an editorial judgement on how to present the information. I think the best approach is to use the coroners verdict and treat the murder theory with correct due-ness in the article. This covers all bases. Incidentally WP:TRUTH is a useful essay here, the coroners verdict is a verified and reliable conclusion, speculation on other happenings is not precluded from being used, but has to be treated carefully. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting everyone. More eyes are definitely needed on this article. That said, the crux of this dispute is about the accompanying categories: Film directors who committed suicide, Producers who committed suicide, Suicides by firearm, and Suicides in California. I feel that since nearly everyone seemingly agrees that the verdict is suicide, these categories should be included. Kraxler, however, does not and has removed them on two separate occasions. I feel Kraxler's reasoning for the removals is flawed as the suicide ruling isn't a "theory" nor is it obsolete - the ruling is official and has never been changed. The only theories are what various authors have presented on what they think happened. The theories may well be true but this article isn't the place to change the ruling because others don't agree with it. As I initially stated, I would gladly add a Cause of death disputed category but it has been deleted. The text itself doesn't seem to be the issue here as no one has really bothered to source (until I added a few sources on October 15) it let alone change it. I have no problem with various theories being presented as Bern's official death ruling is/was controversial and has been debated by various authors and reporters, but we need to stick to facts when it comes to things such as categories which has been my point since the on-set of this. If possible, I'd like to know who disagrees with the addition of these categories to establish a clear consensus for adding them. Pinkadelica^♣ 04:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

As it seems everyone agrees that this is a suicide, ever Kraxler said it twice, I have returned the categories mentioned above. There is no dispute about this and this RFC has three outside opinions agreeing that it was a suicide by gun. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Response to request for comment. I realize that the official version of events has been widely disputed. In one book I read some years ago, it was claimed that Bern was killed by a gangster. I don't think that any such unofficial versions can be utilized to remove the "suicide" category or to have Wikipedia take a position that we finally have "solved" this ancient case. Figureofnine (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie requested that I take a look at this article. Everyone seems to agree that the official explanation for Bern's death is suicide, and that some sources disagree with this explanation. Category:Suicides by firearm states This category lists persons known or believed to have committed suicide using a firearm. This is in accord with my understanding of the category system: they are intended to aid readers in finding articles according to common interest, not to indicate the absolute truth of a matter. If the sources are sufficient, there would be nothing wrong with including him in the relevant suicide and murder categories both, so long as the text explains the matter in fuller detail. I make no comment at present whether our article should describe it as a conspiracy theory or merely an alternative explanation. It might also behoove some editors to read the policy on edit warring, particularly where it explains that persistently reverting in the face of consensus is covered regardless of intervening edits or days elapsed. An open RfC does not put the consensus-building process on hold. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree generally, except that I'd be wary about putting this in a murder category unless the category contained articles on conjecture concerning historical murders. Figureofnine (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Theory

To avoid scandal, the MGM management fabricated an explanation, and evidence for it, that Bern had shot himself in the head because he was impotent. A note was left near his body that raised more questions than it answered, stating that "last night was only a comedy." To the police and before a grand jury, Harlow stated only that she knew nothing. Harlow never publicly spoke on the matter and died in 1937.

The above is supported by Newton, Michael; French, John L. (2008). Celebrities and Crime. Infobase Publishing. p. 97. ISBN 0-791-09402-2., 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 [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)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 [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

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, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an election, it needs consensus. People have been sent to the electric chair on the word of a single witness. Why should I not believe Marx? I really can not say positively what happened to Bern, but the utter absurdness of the official finding together with the testimony of a reliable witness makes the whole thing controversial. Please do not push one point or the other. The general rule is to avoid controversial content. Everything that is written in the article is sourced, and worded accordingly. Let it stand as it is. And, by the way, you do not really believe that the L.A. D.A. or coroner will re-open the case just to avoid possible edit war on Wikipedia. We have to contend ourselves with the sources and common sense. Kraxler (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

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 [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

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, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

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. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Errant, if you find any WP:Reliable source that states "Conspiracy theory" (in these words) you can add it. But please pay attention to the wording. It is wrong to say "This is a conspiracy...", it would be correct to say "Author X says that this is a conspiracy..." and cite the source. The same way, in the article the eye-witness account by Marx is identified as such, he is a reliable source, having published his account. His conclusions (which may be erroneous) are identified as conclusions (arrived at by scrutinizing the known facts, but nevertheless the fruit of reasoning, not own knowledge). And, I would like some editors opine here who were not personally invited to take one side... Kraxler (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

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? --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Headers

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)

'Official cause of death'

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)

I agree. Pinkadelica^♣ 15:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Trims

I removed the "official cause of death section," trimmed back on the Marx section and removed the Fleming section. There is too much detail on Marx's theory, and Fleming is a non-notable author and his book is published by a small North Carolina publisher. He is dubious as a source under WP:V, and there is too much on the alternate theories alrady. I think we get it: there is doubt that Bern commited suicide, and there is a theory that his common law wife killed him. It's in the article now, still, and we don't have to go overboard about it. Figureofnine (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. TY very much Figureofnine! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Figureofnine, great trimming of the article. It looks so much better. Thank you. Sooner or later the article will need have more about his work added and more to his personal life I think but as it is right now is so much better. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comments. I almost forgot that some years ago I read a biography of Jean Harlow by Irving Shulman, which relied heavily on the account of Harlow's agent, Arthur Landau, who was then alive. He (Landau) also claims to have been at the house after the death of Bern, and that Harlow confided in him. The account that Landau gives substantiates the "suicide by impotence" official verdict. I don't think I have the book anymore but it might be on Google books. The book came out in the 1960s, after all the MGM people were dead and is very negative toward MGM, so I don't think there would have been any motive to "cover up" for MGM. Figureofnine (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I restored the rewrite after it got reverted back to the not-very-well-written prior version. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to amend my previous post, it seems that the Shulman-Landau book is hardly the gospel truth! See [1]. It may be dubious as a source, but I'm not convinced that the current sourcing of the article is much better. Figureofnine (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I reiterate that the eye-witness account by Marx (of what he saw and heard in 1932) is given as his statement, and his conclusions (of what he thought had happened to Bern) are given as exactly that: "conclusions". Please read the text. It would seem to me more helpful to add info and sources to how the coroner arrived at his ruling, rather than to delete parts of a rather short resume of a book of several hundred pages. Kraxler (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the problem; Marx is not authoritative enough to use as a conclusive form of anything. The most we can say is he wrote this book advancing a theory containing his account of what he saw. Any attempt to present this as fact is highly dubious! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to be 100% clear, stuff like this: At the time shortly after the creation of the Hays Code, a bigamously married actress would have disappeared from the screen at once. Harlow was MGM's top box-office hit, and MGM bosses were reluctant to let that happen is badly written, poorly presented and insignificant speculation that has no relevance to the biography :) It is an alternative motive presented in Marx's book, but here is dealt with as factual. And that is the problem; Marx is advancing a theory and, for better or worse, it is no more than that --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it is also absurd. The studio would have found ways of covering up a bigamous marriage other than murder. The Hays code governed on-screen not off-screen conduct. As for "eyewitness," Arthur Landau also claims to have been an eyewitness, and to have had lengthy conversations with Harlow substantiating the "impotence" theory. Another objection that I have to the other version is that it refers to the suicide note in the caption as an "alleged" suicide note. Figureofnine (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Now I see for the first time an argument, instead of invective. Thank you Errant. Your objection is well taken, I had this explanation added in parentheses, later with a footnote, and then somebody just deleted it. I rather have it added somehow, because the motive of the fabrication is an essential point to it. Besides, although Marx proposes a solution of the mystery which certainly must be called a theory (since nobody has gone to court with it), I would like to distinguish speculation and conspiracy theories from conclusions. Anybody can speculate, based on nothing; anybody could propose a conspiracy theory, introducing unverifiable and usually impossible elements; but few people take the time to dig into the sources and scrutinize evidence. Marx went to the D.A.'s office and read all the files on the case, he interviewed all people who were still alive and had some connection with the case, he knew both Thalberg and Bern in New York City and he knew about Dorothy Millette with whom Bern had lived for years at a hotel in NYC (far from impotent). I think that such an effort can be called "conclusion".

On the other side, somebody mentioned Landau as confidant of Harlow, but Harlow was not at home when Bern died, and she "knew nothing" (read the text of the article). So what could Landau know? Anything Landau said would be speculation, based on "nothing" (what Harlow could have told him) or hearsay around the studios. Kraxler (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Landau claims to be an eye-witness to what? That he went to the house, like half Hollywood, at some time during the day? Marx went there before the police were notified, and talked to Thalberg, his boss at the time, but with whom he had been sitting together in Carl Laemmle's office back in NYC. That is also the reason why Marx did not say anything in 1932, he always knew that Thalberg and MGM were covering up something, but remained loyal to the studio. What it was, he proposes to explain in his book.Kraxler (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In 1960, when the case was re-opened, the "suicide note" was declared not to be in Bern's handwriting by experts working for the D.A. office, it's in the files, and it was mentioned here before, until somebody deleted it too. So, the note it in fact controversial, may have been forged, or may have been just an apology, as Marx says. The note itself does not mention any suicide, and people have apologized without killing themselves, or is that absurd too? Kraxler (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Suicide note

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)

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 [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

I moved the note back to the text, and tried to be as neutral as possible. Figureofnine (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

That's ok with me. Kraxler (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion that the suicide note was examined by the DAs office and declared a fake dates back to 1934, when the issue came up during Grand Jury testimony in relation to the indictment of Buron Fitts for perjury. An expert testified that the note was a forgery, but the foreman of the Grand Jury declined to explore further as it was irrelevant to the case in question. This was reported in the press including The Mercury (Hobart, Tas.), Tuesday 13 November 1934. It should be noted also that during this Grand Jury investigation it was uncovered that several of the domestics employed in the Harlow household did not agree with the suicide verdict and believed that Bern had been murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.142.207 (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)