![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)