Talk:Arthur Morgan

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Roger Clark

• ... that Rockstar Games felt that the narrative structure of a Western necessitated a single perspective in Red Dead Redemption 2, as opposed to the three protagonists of Grand Theft Auto V? Source: THR
  • ALT1:... that, while portraying Arthur Morgan in Red Dead Redemption 2, Roger Clark (pictured) regularly listened to Don Edwards's version of "Coyotes" during production? Source: SacAnime
  • ALT2:... that writer Dan Houser avoided meeting Roger Clark (pictured), who portrayed Arthur Morgan, during production of Red Dead Redemption 2 to avoid hearing his real voice? Source: GQ
  • ALT3:... that Roger Clark (pictured) did not derive much from Clint Eastwood's character in the Dollars Trilogy because he felt that Red Dead Redemption 2's Arthur Morgan was more talkative? Source: THR

• Reviewed: Robert De Niro filmography

Improved to Good Article status by Rhain (talk). Self-nominated at 00:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC).

• Substantial article, meeting of GA criteria implicates DYK pass. QPQ has been completed. These hooks seem to be written from a primarily in-universe perspective, or at least that of someone familiar with Rockstar/RDR, and I question how interesting they'd be to a lay audience. Maybe a hook about how the character's influences (Toshiro Mifune, The Proposition, etc) would be better received? Morgan695 (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Morgan695: How about one of these?

ALT4: ... that, when researching for the role of Arthur Morgan for Red Dead Redemption 2, actor Roger Clark (pictured) was inspired by the stoic but humorous demeanor of Toshiro Mifune's characters? Source: VG247

ALT5: ... that actor Roger Clark (pictured) felt that the 2005 film The Proposition had a similar character arc as that of Arthur Morgan in Red Dead Redemption 2? Twinfinite

– Rhain ☔ 01:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Approved for ALT4 and 5. Morgan695 (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2024

fix Grammar and cite sources Fondhorse (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Arthur Morgan is Welsh.

My friend who loves RDR2 said Arthur is Welsh while we was discussing characters home countries, Arthur is not American, just living there. 2A02:C7C:BC71:2D00:8996:59E0:D2E4:AB5F (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I hardly think we can cite your friend as a reliable source. IceWelder [✉] 09:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

How is tuberculosis being lethal trivial?

@Rhain: can you explain how tuberculosis in the 19th century being lethal is trivial? It doesn't seem obvious unless you are a doctor. Possibly even if you are a doctor, because although doctors might know that untreated tuberculosis is lethal, they aren't expected to know how tuberculosis was treated in the past and/or how effective those treatments are. In fact, looking for it now, it's still unclear to me if tuberculosis actually is lethal in the 19th century, e.g. I skimmed this and it doesn't say that the sanitoriums are ineffective; it even alludes to "curable tuberculosis". Banedon (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate the message. In the context of this article, how or when tuberculosis became treatable seems irrelevant; all that matters to the story is that Arthur knows he is dying. The historical context, while interesting, seems trivial here. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

If tuberculosis could be treated/cured, how would Arthur know he's dying? Banedon (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Presumably, because he was neither treated nor cured. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but if he could have been, then he need not be dying. If he could have been cured, then his actions after the diagnosis take on a different interpretation. Banedon (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Potentially, but our interpretations sounds like a conversation for a different venue. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The text right now says "Shocked by the grim reality of his imminent death ...". Are you calling this OR? Because it asserts that Arthur knows he's dying imminently, and as demonstrated above, that is not obvious, making "grim reality of his imminent death" our interpretation. Banedon (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

No, it is neither an interpretation nor OR; it is an explicit part of the game (though I've rephrased a little). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Is it? Link me an explicit video if possible, because from what I saw, when diagnosed, Arthur did not say anything to the tune of "I'm dead"; he further explicitly chose not to follow the doctor's advice, effectively choosing death over breaking with Dutch. To get the interpretation that's currently in the article, one needs to know that it is common knowledge in 1899 USA that tuberculosis is lethal (which FWIW is not something I am certain about). That makes the edit I made not trivial. Banedon (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Some quotes:

"I think I'm dying." — Arthur, "Archeology for Beginners"
"I'm dying." — Arthur, "The Fine Art of Conversation"
"I'll be dead soon." — Arthur, "Red Dead Redemption"

The sentence in the article does not require any knowledge besides what it says: that Arthur knows he is dying. The state of tuberculosis treatment in 1899 does not change that. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

All those missions happen well after the diagnosis, however (and after Arthur had chosen to reject his doctor's advice). By that point, the interpretation I described above meshes into the one that's currently in the article. Banedon (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Nothing about the sentence implies that his internal reflection comes immediately after his diagnosis (though, personally, I think it's pretty obvious that it does). It's a long game, so the section condenses a lot. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

In the last edit summary you wrote "the important part is that [...] he is dying". Agree. But being diagnosed with tuberculosis != dying, so we should still have a sentence that says under Arthur's circumstances, tuberculosis is lethal. Banedon (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion, I've rephrased to clarify that his impending death is from the disease. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I feel like all these changes you're making are cosmetic, without actually addressing the issue. We might need a third opinion here, because I don't see how this is resolving otherwise. Banedon (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how any issue actually remains—that Arthur is dying from tuberculosis seems even clearer now than it did before—but I'm always happy to hear additional input from others. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the article should make explicit that Arthur knew his days were numbered as soon as he was diagnosed, and/or that he rejects the doctor's advice (essentially this). I am not sure why you are opposed to including this. I've put in a 3O request, see what others think. Banedon (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I assumed your arguments above implied that you disagreed with the as soon as he was diagnosed part, since that's how it was originally phrased; I've reordered and rephrased again to clarify the chronology. I think I've explained my opposition clearly. Discussing the historical context of tuberculosis treatment in 1899 (as in here) feels like original research; it is making a point that the game itself does not make, and it does not add any information that is necessary in the understanding of the topic. I look forward to hearing others' thoughts. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

3O Response: There are a few different diffs to go through, but I think this version reads the best among those discussed. I'm not seeing any policy issues, this seems more like a matter of preference. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and input! (And to Banedon for requesting it.) I have policy concerns about other diffs, but that one just comes down to undue weight for me—the doctor telling Arthur to rest is an unimportant part of the story overall, barely worth mentioning in my opinion. However, it's a fairly minor change, so I've rephrased to match it. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

As worded right now, we kind of take it for given that the reader knows being diagnosed with tuberculosis = impending death. Maybe add some text to say that Arthur knows his disease is lethal, hence he is "aware of his impending death" (although as far as I can tell, that is not given in the scene). Banedon (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Your rephrasing looks good—simple but effective. I've reordered again, as I think Arthur's moral reflection flows better with his friendship with Rains Fall, but the content remains the same. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 20:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)