Talk:H. J. Whitley

message: This article is filled with dubious information, misinformation, and what could only be calles special pleading. Hollywood was not named by Whitley. It was named by HH and Daeida Wilcox. The title 'father of Hollywood' does not appear in the Los Angeles Times until Whitley's death except in advertisements for his own company. Since his partners were H.G.Otis and Harry Chandler, the owner and editor of the Times, his self-promotion also seems to have had journalistic supporters. The big problem is the erasure of the Wilcoxes from Hollywood history. Wilcox's 1887 grid map is clearly called Hollywood. Whitley certainly had a role in Hollywood's early history, but not what this article claims. Instead of an area with just farms and gardens, for example, the Hollywood of the Wilcoxes had mansions and other tourist sites.Some of these comments also apply to the Hollywood article, where Whitley's role a la this article is repeated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxfan (talk • contribs) 23:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Old comment

message: It appears that the main source for this article is The father of Hollywood : the true story by Gaelyn Whitley Keith, BookSurge, 2006. BookSurge is what used to be called a "vanity press". Unfortunately, such publications do not meet Wikipedia's standards for references. See WP:SPS. It's OK to leave the book as a "further reading" item, but we should not cite it or depend on it for any material. If the author of the book, apparently related to the subject, gives a worthwhile opinion of the subject then we could use the book as the source for that view. Something like "According to Keith, his grandfather was the most ..." Otherwise it looks like this article will probably have to depend on L.A. Times articles. Those aren't ideal either, since its publisher was another real estate developer and known for mixing his business interests in with the editing of the paper. We should use contemporary L.A. Times sources with a little caution.    Will Beback  talk   02:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're having trouble finding good sources then we limit what we say rather than lowering the standards.   Will Beback  talk   06:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: A cite now reads:
*
The quote originally included in the footnote is arguably short enough to satisfy fair use provisions. However, given the existence of a notice, "Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission." which immediately follows the entire text which was reproduced in the quote, plus noting that the claim the footnote supports, does not appears to be an opinion needing an exact quote for contest, or ambiguity of fact, for which an exact quote may provide necessary explanatory power, I have chosen to remove the quote from the footnote.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of quote from footnote 

message: * What I think should be changed: 
* Why it should be changed: 
* References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): 
I am trying to add links to news paper articles from 1931 but I am not allowed to.  It is on my website and has been on Wiki for years.  I have had problems before with editors that were resolved.  Why does this continue.  H. J Whitley was given the title "Father of Hollywood".  I have been on international television, written a book on the subject and have original documents from this event.  I thought the purpose of Wiki was to tell the truth.  I have received no monetary gain from this.  I do not hire employees to post for me.  Why are new arrival editors doing this?
https://www.thefatherofhollywood.com/images/mournFatherofHollywood.JPG
https://www.thefatherofhollywood.com/images/TheFatherofHollywoodDiesHollywoodDailyCitizen2_copy.jpg
Both newspapers are no longer in existence but this does not mean the information is inaccurate.   If you have another way for me to show this let me know.  I do not feel the last edits were necessary as the information is historical.  Don't know  MrOllie Credentials but I don't feel he is an expert.  It appears to me that he may have personal reasons for the attack.  Whitleyhollywood
73.151.205.135 (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, and thank you for letting us see the images. Are these images posted anywhere on line? Can you put them into Wikipedia as WP:Files? I think they are OK but am not sure. See Wikipedia:Image_use_policy. Everybody here is trying to help improve the article and to get the facts correct. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the above user who is attempting to post under the monicker "Whitleyhollywood" should see the messages on his or her Talk page at User_talk:73.151.205.135. It would be best if this user signed up as a contributor with a Wikipedia name; just make sure it is neutral and does not contain the word "Whitley" or "Hollywood." BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

text: The issue isn't links to these images, it is the rather relentless promotional editing by a person with a conflict of interest. This article was a mess, full of poorly sourced trivia, duplicated information, and you are now substituting good sources for inferior ones and edit warring about the use of the word 'title'. Please stop and build a consensus on the talk page, which is required on Wikipedia, especially for persons with a COI. - MrOllie (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, and thank you for your comment. I have found some good sources, which used the phrase which I use in the lead. I'll be adding more later, I hope. In the meantime, I am marking the article as "In Use," so kindly don't edit until I am finished, which will be pretty soon.BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

text: The californiahistorian.com page was written by a relative (you, I believe!). You should not be adding that. Cinematreasures is a blog, and so not a good source per WP:RS. It also appears to have been written by you(again!) and contains a exhortation to visit your website. The newspaper citations that you keep removing for the same information, by contrast, are considered reliable on Wikipedia. You should not remove citations just because you have to pay to access the content, see WP:PAYWALL for details. - MrOllie (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter who is hosting it, if you wrote it, or if they copied it from you, don't cite it. Don't use blogs as sources (not anyone's blog). Don't use sites that are full of user generated content, such as find a grave (listed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources as 'generally unreliable'). If you have questions about the sourcing policy, you can ask at WP:RSN. Don't make personal attacks (WP:NPA) such as accusing other editors of destroying articles. This article has flown under the radar for a while because no one has been paying attention, but it needed to be brought in line with Wikipedia's sourcing policies, and now it needs to be kept that way. I understand that you feel attached to the subject and you may be upset by the recent changes, that is why we have conflict of interest guidelines. Please don't take this personally, it is just about keeping this article consistent with the sourcing policies used across the Wikipedia project. - MrOllie (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

text: I replied above. They are not fine, and you should not continue to edit this article. - MrOllie (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

text: These (fatherofhollywood.com etc)  are clearly self-published sources. PerWP:RS they aren't acceptable.We are also not here to write memorial pages for family members.  Possibly (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bit of an interesting campaign that you are on, Aaaaaaatruth. Are you related to Whitley, like the other accounts? I ask because in the past ten years no less than two grandsons and one granddaughter of Whitley have been involved with his page.Possibly (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request edit on 7 February 2021 

message: After a recent spate of edits, it seems that Whitley's reputation as the "Father of Hollywood" has been sliced to the barest minimum in this article, mentioned but not explained very much at all. I suggest restoring the monicker to a more prominent role inasmuch as it appears to have been widely used during his lifetime and then in his obituaries.  What do others think? Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you saw the recent SPI, but more or less all of the editors pushing the whole father of Hollywood thing were one or two people from his family (using multiple accounts). I don't think it really matters if it's more prominent or not. What is in the article is supported by sources. It might be WP:UNDUE to push the phrase as a moniker (it already appears neutrally three times in the article).  But, above all, a huge amount of time (over almost ten years) has been wasted discussing this phrase already. So I would say: meh. Who cares. Possibly (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh heh. People who live in or study the history of Hollywood, Los Angeles, might care. It's always nice to try to preserve history rather than ignore it. As for WP:UNDUE, it was a pretty big part of his identity, according to the WP:SOURCES. Well, I'll give it a whirl, a little bit at a time, when I feel like it. Also, there is more to say about his development of the western part of the San Fernando Valley, too. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it could be added to the lede. But it's a moniker, and not the totality of his identity. There are lots of other sections that could be expanded and properly sourced. I added at least a dozen sources, and many more could be added. The almost decade-long COI campaign of the family to promote him here under the FOH phrase did not help.  Possibly (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a strange situation, because Charles E. Toberman is referred to in the same way, by the same newspapers (his article also references the LA Times). Perhaps this article should say something like 'Whitley, along with Charles E. Toberman has been called the Father of Hollywood', and a parallel statement added to the Toberman article? - MrOllie (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe so. There is one reference to Toberman as, hmm, "FOH." One. There are multiple refs to Whitley as the same. Many. And if you look at his actual record, what he built, and where, the refs seem well-founded, although it is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide. We go only by the sources, which are many. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that we go by what the sources say. We're not here to crown the FOH. Currently we have a disambig page for father of Hollywood, which seems correct. The LA Times said "In the 1920s, developer Charles Toberman, often called “The Father of Hollywood,” almost single-handedly transformed the area into a colorful theater district."  Then LA Mag calls Toberman the FOH. The city of Los Angeles says "After Otis's death, portions of the land were purchased and redeveloped by Charles E. Toberman, widely known as the father of Hollywood for his role in developing many of the area's subdivisions and iconic commercial structures." The Los Angeles Conservancy says "The El Capitan Theatre and Office Building is the third of four major theatres constructed by prominent real estate developer C. E. Toberman, known as the “Father of Hollywood.”" Curbed calls a house he built a "1930s Spanish Built by "Father of Hollywood" in Outpost Estates". Here is an older source calling Toberman the FOH, published by the Hollywood Bowl. It's also possible to find many sources saying either Charlie Chaplin, D.W Griffiths or Cecile B. DeMille are the Father of Hollywood. So, FOH is disputed, according to the sources. I agree with Mr Ollie that . Possibly (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

text: P.S.: I am not very familiar with DAB pages and the like, but there is more than enough material around to create an article about all the people who have been called the "father of Hollywood". Whitley, Toberman, DeMille, Griffiths, Chaplin, David Niven...  Possibly (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

text: And even earlier, 1905. 07:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Father of Hollywood"