Talk:Paul Bern/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

People keep on changing the facts and deleting many facts.

Why I made my changes

• It has been Wiki policy for some time to NOT put places of birth and death in the lead paragraph. They go in the text of the article.
• "Nude" is not the usual way of referring to dead bodies, "naked" is. "Nude" is for live people.
• Ben Hecht needs to be wikified
• the fact that Dorothy Millette committed suicide the next day or any other day is irrelevant to Bern's death
• even if it were relevant, what is the purpose of saying she "actually" committed suicide?
• the fact that Eddie Mannix was a suspect in Dorothy Millette's death is irrelevant to Bern's death. Where is the connection between Eddie Mannix and Paul Bern?
• what have Dorothy Millette's shoes got to do with Bern's death?
• even if they were relevant, the section "giving rise to speculation that if a somebody wants to kill him/herself, [???] will not leave her/his shoes on board before jumping to his/her death" is extremely poor English.
• "In 1960 case was reopened" is missing a "the".

I'm making these changes again. Please don't revert without taking these into account, and please provide some explanation (at the very least least an edit summary) if you do revert. JackofOz 03:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop chaning

the fact that her shoes were left onboard, feel free to change composition or spelling, ok, and dont ask me where to proove it, since imdb is also run by volunteers who dont know crap!

This illiterate absurdity must stop

• I have now restored the wiki links that someone took out for no good reason
• The last half-dozen versions have said that Dorothy Millette's "should" were found on the boat. This should have said "shoes".
• It is still not clear to me why we need to go into the details of the investigation about the the cause of death of Dorothy Millette. So Eddie Mannix was suspected of murdering her - so what? What does that have to do with the cause of death of Paul Bern? Was Eddie Mannix suspected of murdering Paul Bern? If so, we should say that, unambiguously. Otherwise, remove this entirely.
• In any case, I do not think we should be reporting on suspicions that have not been backed up by any evidence. We say that "doubts persist". Doubts in whose mind? Where is the documentary evidence for these "doubts"? If the LA DA have doubts, why have they not reopened the case? This is an encyclopedia based on published material, not some teenage gossip magazine. JackofOz 22:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Doubts persist, do know nobody was charged and Eddie was never charges since he controled the LA police and he was friends with all the cops and district attorneys... There is no absurdity here at all, you do not know how terrible the law was... No control

But this is all about the investigation into Dorothy Millette's death. It seems to have NOTHING to do with Paul Bern. Please explain the connection. JackofOz 21:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the presence or absence of Dorothy Millette's shoes is useless trivia, but her disappearance and death is extremely important in understanding Bern's own death. Millette lived in New York until she began reading about the engagement and subsequent marriage of Bern and Harlow. She moved to San Francisco and set up lodging at a hotel paid for by Bern. She moved out of the hotel shortly after Bern's marriage to Harlow. It was verified that she was a passenger on a riverboat right after Bern's death, and likely that she jumped overboard. Underlying all this is that Bern supported her for years because she was crazy. All this points to, but does not prove, that Millette killed Bern. Add to this the fact that Bern's suicide note was addressed to "Dearest Dear," which Bern's colleagues said was how he addressed all women, and even more telling, the last words of his "suicide note" read as follows: 'only a comedy -- with one open quotation mark, and no close quote, leading some to believe that the page was torn out of a diary or other ledger, and not a suicide note at all.

Great. I think we should put some of this material in the article to make it more meaningful and to answer questions that readers will obviously otherwise ask. JackofOz 00:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Oscar presented to Thalberg, not Bern... Bern produced Grand Hotel, not Thalberg, who had his hand into every aspect of MGM's "class" pictures, and supervised the producers, who, until recently had been called "supervisors." He did personally produce some of his wife's films, but it would be accurate to say that Thalberg's position at MGM was so exalted and all-encompassing that he was beyond being called a producer. In fact, after his death, he was replaced by several of Louis B. Mayer's top echelon to make the decisions Thalberg used to make alone; the group was called Mayer's "College of Cardinals." User:Professor Von Pie

Thanks. IMDB says that both Thalberg and Bern were "producers", although both were uncredited. Your story sounds closer to the truth, though, I must say. In any case, the previous version we had saying that Bern "won an Oscar" for Grand Hotel is just not true. As far as the Academy was concerned only Thalberg was the producer, and Bern was not presented with the Oscar, end of story. JackofOz 00:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I shouldn't have phrased it "Bern won an Oscar." But I'll put it this way-- if every Best Picture Oscar that MGM won until 1936 production ended went to the person who put on their finishing touches and made the final decisions on them, then Thalberg would have every single trophy. To give just one example: Thalberg kept reviewing "Min and Bill" and decided one scene would be better if Wallace Beery entered a silent crowd scene making a creaking noise on the wooden floor and attracting attention. The film had shut down production. Well, the cast was re-assembled and the set rebuilt, and Beery entered and made the creaking noise. But to Bern-- he did AS MUCH as any producer could under Thalberg, and, in the case of Grand Hotel, even lobbied to have Edmund Goulding direct it, although Mayer and Thalberg thought Goulding was washed up, and it turned out to be an excellent choice. So I guess I meant Bern "should have won" the Oscar, which I know is too opinionated. User:Professor Von Pie

I understand. Pity Wikipedia can't record what we all think should have happened about all sorts of things. That's history for you. JackofOz 20:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Constante edit war/request for protection

If the anonymous user/users that keep adding the same information over and over again are unwilling to discuss their changes in a civilized manner, I feel protection from Wikipedia:Protection policy is in order. -Drdisque 21:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I would support that. It's getting very tiresome. JackofOz 21:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Protection for what, for reason explaining why she never wanted tl to talk about a case WHICH IS NOT POV, BUT A FACT WHICH ALL THE BIOGRAPHERS COULD TELL YOU AND I HAVE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES WITH HER INTERVIEW!Grow up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.3.126 (talk • contribs)

Please cite those articles then. -Drdisque 04:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Were discussing the sentence "She just wanted to move on with her life" ("she" being Jean Harlow). This is an article about Paul Bern. It is not an article about other people and what they did with their lives after Bern died. As I said in my summary, nobody is disputing the factuality of the statement per se; but it's not encyclopedic, and even if it were, it's not relevant to this article. JackofOz 05:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Final reply, again, you are showing your ignorance, you allowed a sentence which questions why she never testified, I simply said why based on my pdf archive newspaper files and I have no intentions sending you because of the way you act towards me and think... I POSTED THIS BIO IN THE FIRST PLACE IN DECEMBER!

That doesn't matter that you originally wrote it. You do not own the article. However, you do need to cite your sources. You don't necessarily have to provide others here with the PDF, but you could at least cite the newspaper, title of the story, the date, and the page, so that someone could theoretically find it. howcheng {chat} 23:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to a reply

It is unfortunate how you people do not understand that if she wanted to move on, she wanted to move on, cite what, heck it was done, you erased the link, reverted for vandalism, so it will not be cited again, once when this site reopens, THE SIMPLE, VERY SIMPLE SENTENCE THAT SHE WANTED TO MOVE ON WITH HER LIFE, WILL BE PLACED AGAIN, IF THAT IS VANDALISM, IT PURELY, PURELY SHOWS THE TOP IGNORANCE OF YOU PEOPLE, SO CALLED ADMINISTRATORS... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.220.152 (talk • contribs)

Attacking wikipedia and its administrators and refusing to recognize consensus will get you nowhere -Drdisque 23:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Listen, let's try to resolve this dispute here. Is this one sentence "She just wanted to move on with her life" so important that its omission would be that bad? If so, could you please cite your source here? I understand you've probably added it once before but because I'm new to this discussion, to save time and effort could you please cite it again here so that I don't need to comb through the edit history to try and find it? Alternatively, you could just provide the URL to the diff (click the "last" link next to the edit where you entered the source). Thanks for your help. howcheng {chat} 22:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Not really, I am here to stay and this page will be blocked and that is victory to me, since nobody can edit it out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.219.161 (talk • contribs)

There is no page on wikipedia that nobody can edit. Perhaps you have the wrong view on wikipedia if you think it is about "winning". -Drdisque 01:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus minus one

Given that this seems to be a "consensus minus one" situation, and the "one" clearly has no intent of abiding by any of our rules or process, I am quite willing to return the article to its consensus (minus one) state if "the wrong version" was protected. Let me know if this is, in any respect, the case. - Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong

The site was started by us and if we say she wanted to move with her life, that is the fact, i have historical pdf files, but wasting time on wikipedia will not do me any good, but that word must remain there!

Last time I checked, you didn't start wikipedia, thank you for leaving wikipedia. -Drdisque 19:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

There has been no edits or discussion here for weeks. Unless someone violently disagrees, I am going to request unprotection. Vandal users can be dealt with using the IP block process. Calwatch 09:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Might be a worthwhile experiment, but I don't doubt the person would come back. -Drdisque 17:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it to semi-protected. Rich Farmbrough 15:16 7 March 2006 (UTC).

It's been long enough to try full unprotection. I'm doing that but I or someone else can restore semi if there is actual vandalism. --Tony Sidaway 02:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Link

To deadly illusion bad

Doubts

Doubts are of importance, since the word lingersing means long time, Berns died many decades ago, what does that mean... it lingers in time, note, I used to put things like Harlow wanted to move on with her life, I am not posting that am I, since that was a little bit not proper, but not wrong either, and deadly illusions, this vandal Drsdque, he has too many in his head when he keeps on returning the dead link. {{Subst:unsigned|—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.220.153 (talk • contribs)

Of course, what else can we expect from folks like him?

Of course vandals like Makemi and Drsdque did not start this article, but everything I contributed could be prooved, look at the link, talks about suicide pact. Suicide pact could be found in any biography on paul.

Comparing Other Versions

The July 1st version, wrong: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Paul_Bern&diff=61649936&oldid=61580479

Before I changed the dead link the above version belonged to Makemi and Drdsque, but they failed to admit to their mistakes... The best version should be... http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Paul_Bern&diff=62469137&oldid=62461395

Deadly Illusions

I strongly recommend to read the book, to understand what really happened in 1932. You have been swallowing MGM's fabrications for too long now, I suppose. Anyway, to let her shoes on the boat is a clear sign for suicide, not murder. Murdered people go overboard as they are, with shoes and jackets, or even overcoats. Suicides leave behind restricting things like high-heeled shoes and jackets, they want to be free! If you can't figure it out for yourselves, just look it up or ask somebody. Kraxler 01:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The following paragraph moved from article page to talk page by me, Kraxler 18:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC). I think it really doesn't fit at the place where it was.

There were some who pointed out that the note wasn't even addressed to Harlow, but to "Dearest Dear," which friends and associates of Bern knew was his manner of writing to all women. Examination of the note also shows that the last thing written, which approached the end of the paper, was ['only a comedy] with an open quote, but without a close quote. This led some to speculate that another page, now missing, would logically follow.

Anybody able to find an image of the suicide note? We 'had one on Wikisource, but it got deleted and I can't find another copy. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 14:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an image of it in the book, I wonder if there is a copyright on it. If not, I can scan it and add it to the article, but I think the previous one was deleted because of a possible copyright infringement. Kraxler 22:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's there, but I don't know for how long. If it gets deleted look for it in the German wikipedia, there it is in the public domain, the author being dead for more than 70 years. Kraxler 20:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Article needs attention

Among other things, it now contains an uncited claim of bribery of a public official. - Jmabel | Talk 23:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's in the book by Samuel Marx, as it is mentioned among his conclusions, beside being an eye-witness to some of the proceedings by the studio-bosses. So we have a dead man libelling another dead man, whom will you sue now? Besides, claims of bribery have been made at the time, by many people, Fitts was investigated for it, and was shot at... Kraxler (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)