Talk:Robert Harron

Unsourced materials in death section

I removed this info:

• While still conscious but gravely ill, his boyhood priest, Father McQuird, had to ask him, "Bobby, tell Father McQuird, did you..." "Stop right there, Father." Robert said. "I wouldn't even think of it."
• The medical certificate and autopsy was located by Joseph P. Fanning, who was the organizer and lecturer for the homage for Robert Harron at the MOMA 1993, commemoration of his birth centennial. Fanning believes the documents indicate a suicide.

I found no books, articles, or other publications that mention this information. Jokestress (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm going to regret this but I removed the content concerning the allegations of suicide from the article. I also removed the Accidental deaths category because there's no source for that ruling either. I searched Google Archives and only found articles that said "it was said the shooting was accidental". That's not an official ruling by any means. I'll look for more sources soon but for now, I think it best we just leave all talk of suicide and stuff out until solid sources can be found. One of the subject's (supposed) relatives has edited the article in the past couple of months which to me means we need to be aware that people who may know the truth probably won't appreciate amateur sleuths on Wikipedia theorizing about the nature of their relative's death. Pinkadelica^♣ 04:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

50.187.162.68 (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)The reason why no prior details on the actual suicide is that DW Griffith, via his personal guilt over the issue (he was the substitute father) as he, Griffith, passed over Harron as the starring male role in "Way Down East" for Richard Barthelmess. Thus, Griffith's deep guilt over the incident, and being then the 'biggest' personality in movies, all was able to be kept quiet for numerous reasons. One, to keep the Harron family from being shamed. Secondly, to allow a Catholic burial to be given for Richard. Third, to help keep scandal from being spread towards the film industry overall, the 'accident' had to be firmly stated. Lastly, as indicated above, DW was so shamed that Harron had killed himself, he wanted to be sure as much feeling of guilt had to be covered over and augmented. Thus, the official 'cause' was 'suicide' as Griffith made sure it would be so. Eventually, as a guilty result, he hired the Harron siblings to work with him and gave Mrs. Harron, the mother, a monthly check. Last of all, Griffith even placed Mrs. Harron in his will; so that she would continue getting money until her word death happened. As a result, no books and other things were deeply written on the issue as all was kept as quiet as possible by those in control. During personal discussions held with both Lillian Gish and Blanche Sweet on the matter, both kept to 'the script.' However, Blanche did imply 'it was a family matter' and not something she could speak with to an outsider. Yes, the mere fact of that attitude implies a secret being kept. In terms of the actual documents. They are pubic records that can be gathered. Furthermore, as per the Harron Birth Centennial Celebration at MoMa in 1993, I, Joseph P. Fanning donated copies of the documentation as well as the notes/essay for further research. As a professional librarian, and longtime film history person, he would not be making comments without proper documentation. Hence, keeping this matter 'blocked' from the article only serves to keep it 'under the dark' and not keeping the actual original focus of Wikipedia to be recognized - Making people think, learn, and discuss. Once again, the information gathered via documentation needs to be placed within the article as otherwise, Robert Harron's death is kept merely in the quiet with no real light shed upon the cause since the day it actually happened.50.187.162.68 (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Significance

@ExRat: What is the evidence you believe exists that cause of death is significant to notability in this case? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The circumstances and manner of his death and the debate about whether it was an accident or suicide was widely reported on at the time and is still widely debated, as can be seen in the references and the constant back and forth of different editors in the edit summary. His death (and manner of death) has almost overshadowed his career. ExRat (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Citation for the claim "has almost overshadowed his career"? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't aware that my personal assessment on an article's talk page and not claimed in the body of the article required a citation. The circumstance of his death seems to be written about disproportionately to his career. Whether his death by suicide or accident "overshadowed his career" is arguable, I suppose. That isn't what is being discussed. Harron's death is significant to notability because it is both still debated as to whether he committed suicide or it was an accidental death, and that the circumstances surrounding his death (whether it was self-inflicted or not) was widely reported on and written about (Film Study Vol 2: An Analytical Bibliography by Frank Manchel, Golden Images: 41 Essays on Silent Film Stars by Eve Golden, Hollywood Babylon by Kenneth Anger, etc.) ExRat (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

That isn't what's being discussed. The fact that it was reported means that we can report it; it doesn't mean it is significant to the notability of the subject of this article, which is the person rather than the death. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The circumstance of his death seems to be written about disproportionately to his career. Even the article is mostly made up of his death, rather than his career. I even listed several books that discuss his death much more so than his career. Per Template:Infobox: "Cause of death. Should be clearly defined and sourced, and should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability." I feel as though it has been written about extensively enough that it should be mentioned in the infobox. However, you apparently don't. This is quickly becoming WP:Tendentious editing. So, feel free to revert it. Frankly, I'm finding interactions with you extraordinarily unpleasant. Thankfully, Wikipedia is a very large place. EDIT. I reverted it for you. ExRat (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)