# Talk:The Beverly Hills Hotel

The image Image:Hotelcalifornia.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The recent move here from just "Beverly Hills Hotel" is correct. The Hotel has always been very particular about the fact that it's name begins with "The". Aside from status in the local community, this is because it was originally called The Hotel at Beverly Hills, your stopping point between Los Angeles and the sea according to ads it placed in 1915, when it was surrounded by bean fields. EmilEikS (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The new move today is incorrect and controversial, as having disregarded this section on the talk page. Please reverse it, and request and discuss here before moving, or we'll be moving this article back and forth every other month forever. Let's get consensus on this! SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: the 11 (!) cite tags recently added to (and as I see it grossly littering) this relatively small article, I have written to the editor who added them. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue has been seriously clouded now by new vague text making it impossible for most readers to understand why LGBT advocates and some celebrities have protested at all. The pros and cons (for Beverly Hills) of Sharia Law are not common knowledge. This needs to be made clearer again. If nobody else fixes that, I will be taking a rather severe ax to the section so that it at least makes sense. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I see room rates have been added now, but with no source. How are we going to keep that accurate as rates go up every year? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Beverly Hills Hotel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll finish this tomorrow JAGUAR  19:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


### Initial comments
"The Beverly Hills Hotel was established in May 1912, before there was even a city called Beverly Hills" - I'd rephrase the last part to something like The Beverly Hills Hotel was established in May 1912, before the establishment of Beverley Hills or before the construction of Beverley Hills? Or either something similar, or feel free to ignore
Seems to have been altered.♦ Dr. Blofeld
"In 1941, Hernando Courtright, the vice president of the Bank of America, purchased the hotel with friends including Irene Dunne, Loretta Young and Harry Warner" - did his friends also purchase/own stakes themselves?
 DoneThey made investments and together with Courtright, were the hotel's owners at the time.  Clarified the text and added ref about it. We hope (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks JAGUAR  13:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
"had bought up land in the foothills of the Santa Monica Mountains" - purchased?
 Done — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
"Burton Green, an oil tycoon and real estate developer, President of the Rodeo Land and Water Company" - should President be capitalised here? I see uses of "vice president" that isn't capitalised
"billing it as "“halfway between the Los Angeles and the sea"" - doubles quotes here
 Done — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
"a dinner invitation from "Pickfair".[10]Gloria Swanson" - space after citation - that is just too minor, I've done it myself!
"In 1942, Howard Hughes bought up half a dozen of the bungalows" - again, "purchased" would sound more formal here
 Done — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
"Owner Ben Silberstein’s died in 1979" - no need for apostrophe?
 Done — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
"The extensive gardens of the grounds, covering 12 acres" - convert to hectares too
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


#### References
No dead links, and all appear reliable
The list of references should be converted to two columns as the list seems far too long  Done We hope (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


### On hold
Another well written and well researched article. Those were all of the prose issues I could find, but otherwise this is looking great.  JAGUAR  20:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Jaguar: I believe the good Ssven2 has addressed the points. Thanks for the review!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for addressing those issues. This article was in great shape as it was, but since they're all clarified, this is good to go now.  JAGUAR  13:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

In a lead sentence about the hotel being "closely associated with Hollywood film stars, rock stars and celebrities", an editor has linked the word "Hollywood" to the article Cinema of the United States.  First, the article "Cinema of the United States" isn't about Hollywood.  Also, rock stars aren't associated with American cinema.  As well, it's ambiguous whether this article is referring to film stars living in Hollywood (which is close to where this hotel is located), or is referring to film stars who made it big in "Hollywood".  The editor left an edit summary stating that "Hollywood is a metronym for American cinema. the location Hollywood is not particularly of note to this sentence."  I think this editor meant to use the word "metonym", and I would strongly suspect that metonyms are words to watch.  I would suggest instead the sentence be changed to "The Beverly Hills Hotel was frequented by celebrities and notable actors associated with the movie industry located in nearby Hollywood."  Magnolia677 (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I bascially agree. And since "rock stars" usually were on the Hotel's Do Not Take List, it has never been known to host them. Producers, directors and other movie people as well as TV people should however be included. My suggestion would be "The Beverly Hills Hotel is known for having been frequented by notable people in movies and television, especially those associated with the industry synonymous with nearby Hollywood." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please reinstate this valuable gallery image which was removed for no apparent reason. It is my objective opinion that rare historical staff photos indeed are relevant to articles about famous hotels, no matter what the names are of individuals in them. As free images, these are few and far between. This one was specifically OK'd here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed it among other other photas in other articles added by a person (SW writing above) with coi to the photo and a person in it. I can not see the importance of this photo here. It is a small part of the Staff. Nice private photo but not encyclopedic. I let to others to look and hope sw will do so too. Adville (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The image had little relevance, per MOS:IMAGES. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 Not done I agree with Magnolia677 - the image doesn't add anything encyclopedic to the article.  DrStrauss talk 08:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I rolled back 2 edits that added room rates, advertisement in my book. Was I right to do so? Do we allow room rates in hotel articles? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The lead's "the hotel has 210 guest rooms and suites and 23 bungalows" is misleading. The bungalows can be rented whole or room by room, ergo there are hotel rooms separately available there too. We should have a total amount of units item. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)