Talk:Harold Lloyd

message: Infobox and Death section do not agree on the age of death. Any info on which is correct?--Sgv 6618 (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: In the preamble, the section, “the injury was disguised on film with the use of a special prosthetic glove, though the glove often did not go by unnoticed.” is surely pure POV? Noticed by whom, exactly?
The prosthetic glove designed for and worn by Harold Lloyd was virtually indistinguishable from a real hand, and his injury was a well kept secret for much of his acting career as a result.
What may be confusing the issue is that he often wore regular gloves on screen, on both hands - sometimes with dark stitching on the seams across the backs of the hand - as well as bandages around his forearms: in doing so he sought to confuse, as it were, those viewers who did know he had a disability, as this disguised both his hands, given he was almost as capable with the damaged hand as with his good one. But the regular gloves should not be confused with the prosthetic.
As something of a talisman and hommage to Lloyd , Michael Crawford took to wearing gloves while performing many of his slap-stick high-risk stunts on Some Mothers Do ’Ave ’Em. Jock123 (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  HL’s Prosthetic hand wasn’t noticeable. 

message: Article has been tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert the below material with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harold Lloyd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122123330/http://haroldlloyd.com/news/bio.asp to http://haroldlloyd.com/news/bio.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harold Lloyd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060506211514/http://silentgents.com/PLloyd.html to http://silentgents.com/PLloyd.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I would appreciate it if someone could please cite a US legal case in which anyone was successful in suing for defamation on behalf of an individual who has been dead for almost 50 years. Quite simply, with very narrow exceptions (such as a suit started before the plaintiff's death and continued by their estate, or in some cases over an obituary published within 6 months of someone's death), there are no examples. In American law, as a general rule, the dead cannot be libelled so any attempt to bully editors on legal grounds is specious and any lawyer making such threats is acting unethically and risks being reported to his or her state's bar association. 157.52.6.39 (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need to do your own legal research, and if you wish to make such a report please do so on your own time. It's not our concern. EEng 04:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not put headings on other people's comments. My comment is in response to the spurious legal threats made on this page. 157.52.6.39 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've headed it with your own description. EEng 19:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

text:   You are correct in that the law of California (the state of incorporation for Harold Lloyd Enterrises, Inc.) does not recognize a cause of action for defamation of the dead. See here. HLE, with its recitations about putting a purported film deal in jeopardy, is attempting to constuct a novel path around that bar by alluding to a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic relations (IIPER). FWIW, the elements of IIPER are found here. Given that the IIPER tort requires objectively wrongful conduct, the law's bar on a claim for defamation of the dead likely remains signficant. All of that said, we at Wikipedia endeavor to report accurate information, regardless of whether the person is living or dead. Under our Wikipedia standards, what is really at issue here is whether the remaining, neutrally-phrased sentence at Harold Lloyd Estate is supported by reliable sources. I submit that it is. Cbl62 (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The free legal advice, especially that based on blogs found on the internet, really needs to stop. EEng 19:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The referenced item is from the law firm of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp -- one of the country's most respected entertainment/intellectual property law firms. But, as usual, you've missed the point of my post: Regardless of whether a falsehood is actionable, and regardless of whether it concerns a person who is living or dead, we endeavor to report accurate information.  I hope you agree. Cbl62 (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of your posts is easily missed because they're buried among irrelevant rambling. If your point was what you just said it was, you should have just said that and skipped the amateur lawyering. EEng 21:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have refrained from over-personalizing the discussion. Yet, you continue to use such tactics, referring to contrary views as "irrelevant rambling", "talking nonsense", "amateur", and "ridiculous". I will remain focused on the substance. Cbl62 (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't want your rambling labeled rambling, don't ramble. If you were focused on substance you would have ignored the IP's irrelevant rhetoric. EEng 23:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: One editor's "response to spurious legal threats made on this page"

message: ::::::::If you don't want your rambling labeled rambling, don't ramble. If you were focused on substance you would have ignored the IP's irrelevant rhetoric. EEng 23:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Dismissive tendentious comment

message: *HLE1893 has been indef blocked for making legal threats. — Maile  (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Would you being willing to restore the user's talk page access? I would very much like to hear their response to the information requests listed above.  In particular, if they have persuaded any or all of the four reliable sources to retract, we should be open to receiving that information. Cbl62 (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is, I repeat, getting completely out of control. (a) There's no legal threat here. (b) We should not be making this ridiculous invitation for an editor to share these imagined retractions. He didn't say he had any retractions, and you've created a strawman by demanding them. You say you've "spent more than 25 years litigating for and against celebrities" but somehow think the Chicago Defender is going to consider retracting a story from 1945? Get real. (c) Discussion should proceed here, as normal. EEng 03:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   You are missing the point.  If the four reliable sources, including three major publishing houses that published the books at issue here between 2001 and 2018, had published statements that were baseless and economically injurious (as HLE contends), then the natural process would be for the aggrieved party to demand a retraction from the publishers -- all of whom continue to operate and have processes in place to investigate and respond to requests for retraction. See, e.g., Wileys' process for same here. If no retractions were requested or given, then it undermines HLE's contention that the Wikimedia Foundation is in some manner culpable for republishing or citing the referenced sources. On the other hand, if a retraction was issued, we should not be republishing or relying on the source.  As for the block, I stated from the outset at ANI that "I am not suggesting or requesting a block of HLE1893 as I would like to give them an opportunity to respond." Cbl62 (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not missing anything. We don't blindly use every source that hasn't been retracted. EEng 14:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nor do we censor Wikipedia because someone's grandchildren find an aspect of their grandfather's background to be embarrassing. Especially not when the matter is of public interest and supported by the leading newspaper in the African-American press AND  three books published by well-respected publishing houses known for their fact checking (i.e., Rowman & Littlefield, University of Oklahoma Press, and St. Martin's Press).  Cbl62 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

text:  Bear in mind also that Chatterbox (HLE's earlier incarnation) asserted in August 2019 that that the claim with respect to Lloyd's involvement in advocating for restrictive covenants "actually has been proven false". See edit summaries here and here. I posed questions above to HLE as to the basis for this statement.  Again, and while unlikely, if there has been some adjudication or formal finding that the allegations are false (as asserted or at least implied by Chatterbox's comment), we should know that and remove the content.  On the other hand, if there has been no such adjudication or finding, it further undermines the credibility of Chatterbox/HLE in seeking to pressure us to removed this sourced content. Cbl62 (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No one makes "adjudciations" or "final findings" of stuff like this. You're talking nonsense. EEng 14:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, EEng.  I'm frankly surprised at your approach here. It was Chatterbox who took the position that the allegation against Lloyd "actually has been proven false" and that "LEGAL ACTION FROM THE LLOYD FAMILY TO FOLLOW". See edit summaries here and here. This was an explicit or implicit assertion that there had been some sort of legal process finding that the allegation had been discredited, i.e., "proven false."  I suspect that Chatterbox's assertion was mere bluster, but it is quite appropriate to ask HLE (as Chatterbox's successor) if there is any support for that bluster. Nothing nonsensical about asking them to back up their bluster. Cbl62 (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

text:  Further, HLE cites declarations from three witnesses to support its position.  HLE offered to make the declarations available, and it is prudent for us to take them up on this proffer. In sum, I believe that my queries to HLE are prudent and that we should afford HLE the opportunity to respond. Cbl62 (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooh! Their proffer! Oh, Morticia, when you speak legalese it drives me wild!  EEng 14:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

text: They have presented themselves as official representatives of the estate, with no proof of who they say they are. They now have the opportunity to provide that proof through the Unblock Ticket Request System. If they are who they say are, the unblocking, and any concerns they have about the estate and Wikipedia,  can be handled there. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine the validity of their representation. — Maile  (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed yes, because it's irrelevant. They can claim to be whoever they want to claim to, and we ignore it (except possibly we encourage them to follow COI ruleswhich is a detriment to them, not an advantage). All we should be doing is evaluating the reliability of the sources, taking everyone's ideas into account, and that includes HLE's, no matter who he/she claims to be. EEng 14:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re "evaluating the reliability of the sources" -- we have the most respected newspaper in the historically African-American press reporting factually on a letter sent over Lloyd's name advocating restrictive covenants. We further have three well-respected publishing houses known for their fact checking (i.e., Rowman & Littlefield, University of Oklahoma Press, and St. Martin's Press) all reporting on Lloyd's involvement in (and in two of the three books being a leader in) the drive to promote restrictive covenants. These reports are made over a period of 73 years from 1945 to 2018. We have no indication that Lloyd himself have ever disputed the Chicago Defender story.  We have no indication that, prior to Chatterbox's appearance on the scene in August 2019, anyone from the Lloyd Estate ever disputed the accounts in any of the books -- though I have posed that question to them and would very much like to hear their response. Again, I am at a loss to understand your approach.  Do you seriously believe, on this record, that we should censor Wikipedia, striking the one sentence about what these sources have asserted?  Cbl62 (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

text: I am engaging meaningfully. The fact that there are four reliable sources published over a course of 75 years supporting Lloyd's involvement is not a strawman or irrelevant.  Nor is the absence of any retractions a strawman or irrelevant. As part of my meaningful engagement, I actually reviewed HLE's submission and made some substantive changes to Harold Lloyd Estate taking into account some valid points made by HLE. Having reviewed the record as it stands, I believe that there is no basis to censor the remaining content -- at least, not unless there has been a retraction (which I believe is a valid query on the present record). I welcome your focused and meaningful engagement as well.  If you end up concluding, after such engagement, that the remaining one-sentence description of Lloyd's reported advocacy of restrictive covenants should be removed, let's discuss further. Cbl62 (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I do see you've stopped talking about these declarations, so we're getting closer, but you still need to stop accusing your fellow editors of trying to "censor" something. EEng 19:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still want to see the declarations ... there was a "proffer" after all ;) Cbl62 (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No kidding, you need to drop that. By continuing to talk about them you give HLE the idea that somehow they'll play a role in the decision on what the article should say, which they won't. I gather by your ;) that maybe you understand that so please, let's hear no more about them, OK? EEng 20:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  While we may disagree on some points, I am glad you agree that HLE should not be the arbiter of our content. And, yes, my comment and ";)" were intended as a play on your earlier reaction to the word "proffer".  While I have confidence in my analysis, I concede that my sense of humor is not as finely honed as yours. ... "Cara mia!" Cbl62 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you've misunderstood me. When I said (indirectly) that "they" would not be playing a role in deciding article content, by "they" I meant these vaunted declarations. HLE certainly can play a role in the decision on article content, in that they're welcome to contribute their points and ideas to discussions just like anyone else, COI or not.But I'm glad we're all keeping our sense of humor about us. EEng 21:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I completely agree that HLE can and should contribute to the discussion. That's been the point of my opposing their being blocked, making several changes to the content based on their input, and inviting their further input.  My statement immediately above was simply to reiterate that they should not be the arbiter of our content -- a point on which I suspect we all agree. Cbl62 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block and unblock 

message: I'd like to make note that Harold has two stars on the Walk of Fame. One is mentioned in the article as being on Vine Street, but he has another star in front of the Hollywood Masonic Temple (address: 6840 Hollywood Blvd) which I was able to spot back in February. I did look around at the temple's page; it does say there was a 1969 ceremony for that star, but is there any way someone can mention the location of that one? The only real reference I saw is from the LA Times. Unless there's another linkable source floating around there somewhere... Mandoli (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star locations on Hollywood Walk of Fame 

message: The article mentions "His mother, Gladys Lloyd Cassell (wife of Edward G. Robinson)....", but she (Gladys Lloyd Cassell Robinson) was born in 1895 (to Harold Lloyd's 1893). Definitely not Harold's mother, and I think they may not be related at all. 
Here is her NYT obit: https://www.nytimes.com/1971/06/09/archives/gladys-l-robinson-actors-ex-wife-75.html 2603:7080:B400:2894:606A:64F8:84BE:D7E5 (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Harold Lloyd's mother is identified in the article as Sarah Elisabeth Fraser. Funds for the Beverly Hills Little Theatre for Professionals were raised by Lloyd's mother, by Sam Hardy, and by Gladys Lloyd Cassell (Mrs Edward G. Robinson). I've rewritten that sentence for clarity. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Now I understand the original sentence, but the new one is so much clearer. 2603:7080:B400:2894:1C7F:AC08:A82A:A7E4 (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother?