Talk:H. J. Whitley

Old comment

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)

What grid map are you referring to?` Most people falsely believe that an advertisement publish after Harvey Wilsox's death was the one he recorded in 1887 at the Los Angeles Recorder Office. It is not. The Hollywood Hotel was not built until 1902 and Wilcox died in 1891. In 1891 Hollywood was farm land. Mr. Wilcox did not built any building in Hollywood while he was alive. If you look closely at the map I believe you are referencing to you will see that street names are incorrect and the location of the hotel was not on Wilcox land. The Hollywood Hotel was built on the corner of Prospect Boulevard (currently Hollywood Blvd) and Highland. It was part of the 500 acres that H J Whitley owned. It is sad that an advertisement with incorrect information is considered a legal recorded document when it is not. I hope you will look at the map again and see that what I state is true. It is sad that people are now altering history rather than researching to learn the truth. Then others use their misinformation as a reference and perpetuate the lie. If you go to the Los Angeles Library you can obtain the entire archives of the Los Angels Times. There are numerous articles dating back to the early 1900's. There were also articles in the American historical society book, Hollywood Daily Citizen, and Examiner. William Mulholland's daughter wrote two historical books published by University Press that pertain to HJ Whitley's life and his title as "Father of Hollywood."http://www.thefatherofhollywood.com/media_Room.shtml Hope this information is helpful to you.Whithj (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)whithj

The map that almost everyone references way not made in 1887. It was part of an advertising booklet that was distributed by Mrs. Wilcox second husband Mr. Beveridge. I have been to the Los Angeles County Recorders office and view the documents. In fact on my site I have a copy of the deed I purchased many years ago from that Office. I wanted the original information not a self published document. Once again why are you doing this? What is your interest? I have orginal documents about the naming of Hollywood. They are over 100 years old. They are accurate. It is now interesting that you are attacking the Los Angeles Times. I thought they are a source that can be used? 73.151.205.135 (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)whitleyhollywood

Sources

It appears that the main source for this article is The father of Hollywood : the true story by Gaelyn Whitley Keith, BookSurge, 2006.[1] 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)

It is interesting that you question my sources yet I do not see you question anyone else. There are no references provided by anyone else. HJ Whitley is mentioned in many publication during his life time example: Los Angeles from the mountains to the sea: with selected biography ..., Volume 3 By John Steven McGroarty 1921. What references are you using for your information on Hollywood?Whithj (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)whithj

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)

I am not having trouble finding good sources. I am old and slow but I know the history of Hollywood. Many of the books today reference a self-published book by a Dr. Palmer. He did not write the book until 1936 and he self-published it. I own a copy of the book. In the front of the book he states that he might have some history wrong and he does. Just because a book is published it does not mean that the publisher has verified the truth in the book. What parts about the history of HJ Whitley are you questioning. Perhaps I can give you sources that will help if I know what you are questioning. Please look at http://www.thefatherofhollywood.com/media_Room.shtml and see the sources. There will be more added as time permits. The book is no longer self-published. It is being picked up by a publisher to be released August 2010. whithj —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whithj (talk • contribs) 06:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

My daughter was nice enough to take a trip to the Los Angeles Library to get some articles from the Los Angeles Times Archives. I think there are at least 30 so far on http://www.thefatherofhollywood.com/media_Room.shtml. I believe you asked if I needed help. Maybe you could add links to the articles on her website that reference the articles. That would be really helpful to me. All this computer programing is hard at 86. Then people could review the articles to see the history of Hollywood. whithj —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whithj (talk • contribs) 07:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of quote from footnote

A cite now reads:

• "Death Calls H.J. Whitley. Real Estate Man Known as "Father of Hollywood". Pioneer in Many Southland Developments". Los Angeles Times. June 4, 1931. Retrieved 2008-07-17. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

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)

UCLA Archives

The consensus in this RfC is summarized by Wugapodes' comment:

The problem it seems to me is not whether these manuscripts are published (they indisputably are), but whether the citation is to the published version or the personal holdings of an editor. If the personal holdings of an editor, that's obviously unacceptable. And even a citation to the holdings in general is not enough. The citation must be to the exact object being cited, and so must include the identification number issued to each item by the library (this is, in fact, the collection's recommended way of citing the material). So in theory, I support the use of the UCLA archive because it meets all of our sourcing policies. However I don't support citing personal collections (not published) or citing the archives when it was a personal collection that was consulted (that's misrepresnting sources).

The information can be restored if Wugapodes' advice about a full citation can be and is followed.

Cunard (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Whitleyfamily has been adding information from Special Collections at the UCLA Library to many San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles pages citing what I consider to be WP:Original research inasmuch as it does not include a title or other information that can enable a WP reader to look up the info to see if it is really germane to the article. All of them, I think, refer to H.J. Whitley, sometimes known as the "Father of Hollywood." The user has been informed about this on his or her talk page, and now I am asking the opinion of other editors as to the legitimacy of this source. This WP:Talk page seems to be as good a place as any to discuss the matter. I will post this page as a place for discussion at a WP:Request for comment. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the citation to the Special Collections at the UCLA Library as noted in the paragraph above be accepted as a WP: Reliable source or is it WP:Original research? Or something else entirely? Please leave your opinion as to how this matter should be handled. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The document in question is original paperwork of H J Whitley donated to UCLA Special Collection. I am his great-granddaughter. The reason I am editing is some of the information that others have posted are incorrect information from people who wrote books with bogus information. The purpose of the special collection was to preserve the true history of H J Whitley. I was the person who started the H J Whitley page. I have copies of all the original documents I reference. Whitleyfamily (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Unacceptable. WP:SOURCE: "Unpublished materials are not considered reliable". I'm not a WP:RS expert however. I do applaud user:BeenAroundAWhile's sensitivity in handling this matter. User:Whitleyfamily appears to be motivated honestly by trying to correct (what they perceive as) biased or incorrect information, but undeniably has a WP:Conflict of interest. I can't remember why I first came to this page or others related to it—it's not my usual area of activity—but I applied a COI template on 13 Sep 17 at User talk:Whitleyfamily to encourage the user to read WP:COI (actually there was rather a template blizzard that day), but User:Whitleyfamily continues to ignore "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually the information is in a published book as well but I thought the original source would actually be the most accurate. I was wondering if you knew if published pamphlets are ok to use as well. I will change the source to a book since it seems you all like that best. I will try to do it this weekend. As you stated I guess I need to learn how to use a template but I am retired and not from the computer age. I will do my best. Really have no idea what a template is. Would actual contracts help solve this issue. I have signed originals of the sale of the Suburban Home Company. I am not sure why this is considered a conflict of interest. I thought the purpose of these pages was to record the truth. Whitleyfamily (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to record the truth, but only what WP:Reliable sources say is the truth.(Like the "published pamphlet" you mentioned). As I told you at User_talk:Whitleyfamily#September_2017, the place for you to take your new information is to a reliable source or website where somebody else can vouch for it and post it or publish it. At that point, WP could use it in an article. Also, if you find bad info in WP, you can simply delete the info and explain why in the Edit summary, but be prepared to have to defend your deletion on a Talk page if anybody objects. Here's a link to find out about WP:Templates. As for age, well, I am 86 years old, so it is never too late to learn. And, frankly, Wikipedia needs some mature people who have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• SNOW oppose the use of unpublished primary materials (said to be) in the possession of an editor, for the obvious WP:RS reasons. I take it from the forgoing discussion that this matter is going to be resolved amiably and non-disruptively now that the article's author is beginning to understand the nature of the objections--and props to everyone here for resolving the matter in such a fashion--but I figured I'd record my perspective all the same, just in case a formal consensus ends up being required for any reason. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support use in theory, neutral in execution (summoned by bot). Firstly I don't have particularly extensive knowledge of the editing pattern discussed, but taking their word at face value, if these are manuscripts that exist in UCLA's special collections then they are not unpublished. Per WP:PUBLISH, "For Wikipedia's purposes, published means any source that was 'made available to the public in some form'". UCLA's holdings of H.J. Whitley's papers are available to the public (in person, by request) and thus fulfill the definition of published and accessible. The problem it seems to me is not whether these manuscripts are published (they indisputably are), but whether the citation is to the published version or the personal holdings of an editor. If the personal holdings of an editor, that's obviously unacceptable. And even a citation to the holdings in general is not enough. The citation must be to the exact object being cited, and so must include the identification number issued to each item by the library (this is, in fact, the collection's recommended way of citing the material). So in theory, I support the use of the UCLA archive because it meets all of our sourcing policies. However I don't support citing personal collections (not published) or citing the archives when it was a personal collection that was consulted (that's misrepresnting sources). Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 19:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Based upon the response of User:Wugapodes, how do people feel about restoring the info that was taken out in this edit? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, if User:Whitleyfamily can provide a full citation per user:Wugapodes sound advice. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request edit on 7 February 2021

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

References

I am unclear why my post keep being deleted. The individual that does this is threatening and switches information with references that do not work. People do not want to join memberships and pay to get free information. I actually came back to wiki after being gone for a bit. I thought back many years ago that it was decided to leave the site alone. Why is this person suddenly trying to delete history? The sources I link to are creditable. If they only deleted one here or there maybe. But come on is the UCLA Special Collections, City of Corcoran bad references. Can you help resolve this/ Why is MrOllie dooing this? 73.151.205.135 (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)whitleyhollywood

Hobart Johnstone Whitley (October 7, 1847 – June 3, 1931) was a Canadian-American real estate developer best known for helping create the Hollywood subdivision in Los Angeles. On October 26, 1911 H. J. Whitley convinced the first movie studio to settle in Hollywood earning him the title "Father of Hollywood". Can you explain what would be wrong with posting this? 73.151.205.135 (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)whitleyhollywood

References

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)

Are these good source? If not, why? http://allanellenberger.com/tag/h-j-whitley/ https://archive.org/details/losangelesfrommo03mcgr/page/816/mode/2up https://www.thefatherofhollywood.com/images/pdf/ManySalesByOneFirmLATimes1-10-1909.pdf https://www.thefatherofhollywood.com/images/TheFatherofHollywoodDiesHollywoodDailyCitizen2_copy.jpg https://www.thefatherofhollywood.com/images/TheFatherofHollywoodDiesHollywoodDailyCitizen2_copy.jpg https://www.thefatherofhollywood.com/images/mournFatherofHollywood.JPG 73.151.205.135 (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)whitleyhollywood

Can anyone please tell me what information is in this book and why it is a good source? https://www.worldcat.org/title/stars-of-hollywood-forever/oclc/53027487&referer=brief_results Because of my interest in Hollywood I would like to know what the book says. 73.151.205.135 (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)whitleyhollywood

Is this a good reference? It is from the gravesite and reported by a source for many graves. Actually show the marker on his grave in the Hollywood Forever Cemetery. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/8612627/hobart-johnstone-whitley 73.151.205.135 (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)whitleyhollywood

Once again you are wrong MrOllie. I did not write the article for the California Historian. I was contacted by the Historical Society because of Covid they were highlighting towns. They ask to use my information. I gave them permission. I would not have placed the Hollywoodland sign in the article. The first electric lit sign was Whitley Heights which I would have placed in the article if I had written it. I did not write the Cinematreasures either. I meet the author at a Hollywood Chamber function and give him permission to use the information. I did not pay him and he did not pay me. It was just done to promote the Hollywood Chamber and business in Hollywood and the movie industry of which I was not a part of. Also why would anyone want to come to Wiki and not find the information they are wanting. I have been looking at pages on Wiki. They do not have the majority of the references a place where you have to sign up for membership and pay. Are you employed by the newspaper?73.151.205.135 (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)whitleyhollywood

Why was this link deleted and the one that replaces it does not work. MrOllie are you trying to destroy this webpage? https://www.cityofcorcoran.com/residents/about_the_city.php This is a reliable source it is the City of Corcoran.73.151.205.135 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)whitleyhollywood

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)

MrOllie were you the one that posted Tony Luke Scott, The Stars of Hollywood Forever, T. Scott Publications, 2001 as a source? Can you tell me what the article said? As I said I did not write the article for them. If they choose to copy it I have no control. I did not email them an article or have any input to what they decide to publish besides allowing use of pictures that I own the copywrite for. I understand that the blog might be an issue, but not sure why. How are they different from a news or magazine article? But really an Historical Institution should not be blacklisted. Really?73.151.205.135 (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)whitleyhollywood73.151.205.135 (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/losangelesfrommo03mcgr/page/816/mode/2up Los Angeles from the mountains to the sea : with selected biography of actors and witnesses to the period of growth and achievement by McGroarty, John Steven, 1862-

Publication date 1921 Topics Los Angeles, Los Angeles -- Biography, genealogy Publisher Chicago : American Historical Society Collection allen_county; americana Digitizing sponsor MSN Contributor Allen County Public Library Genealogy Center Language English Is there any problem with this as a reference?Aaaaaaatruth (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Aaaaaaatruth

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.

Naming Policy shortcut WP:POVNAMING See also: Wikipedia:Article titles § Neutrality in article titles In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgment. The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is the main topic being discussed. Whitleyhollywood (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I have had no response to if these are allowable sources. If I do not hear from anyone I will assume they are fine and post. After I post them please do not remove them. Editing something to make it more neutral is fine but it must remain truthful. http://allanellenberger.com/tag/h-j-whitley/ https://archive.org/details/losangelesfrommo03mcgr/page/816/mode/2up https://www.thefatherofhollywood.com/images/pdf/ManySalesByOneFirmLATimes1-10-1909.pdf https://www.thefatherofhollywood.com/images/TheFatherofHollywoodDiesHollywoodDailyCitizen2_copy.jpg https://www.thefatherofhollywood.com/images/TheFatherofHollywoodDiesHollywoodDailyCitizen2_copy.jpg https://www.thefatherofhollywood.com/images/mournFatherofHollywood.JPG https://archive.org/details/losangelesfrommo03mcgr/page/816/mode/2upAaaaaaatruth (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)aaaaaaatruth

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

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)

So you are saying Chicago : American Historical Society is not a reliable publisher. Neither are the Los Angeles Times, Hollywood Citizen, Los Herald and New York Times. https://archive.org/details/losangelesfrommo03mcgr/page/816/mode/2up Di you actually look at this source?. Its not my family writing this. I changed my name on Wiki because it was a Wiki suggestion. Still want to know if you posted Tony Luke Scott, The Stars of Hollywood Forever and is it a reliable source? What does the book say? Are the sources that are currently on the H J Whitley Wiki page all reliable? 2/10/2021?Aaaaaaatruth (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Aaaaaaatruth'

Is this a reliable source? https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt658018n4/ Aaaaaaatruth (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Aaaaaaatruth

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)

If you are asking if HJ Whitley grandaughter was on Wiki. she was not. Awhile back one grandson was on Wiki but he passed away in 2013. The other grandson was never on Wiki to my knowledge. The question is not who is posting but is the information from a reliable source. If it is why aren't you posting it or anyone else for that matter? Can you give me the exact reference that says relatives are not allowed to post? Plus did you look at the Chicago: American Historical Society Link. Why is it not a reliable source.

One of HJ Whitley's grandsons did input things on Wiki but he passed away in 2013. To my knowledge his granddaughter never posted or did his other grandson. They all passed away before 2013. I think you are focusing on the wrong issue. Is this a reliable source https://archive.org/details/losangelesfrommo03mcgr/page/816/mode/2up ? If not why? It was published in 1921. If it is a good source could you please post it as a reference? Also can you give me the verbiage of why a relative can not post? I would like it from Wiki? Thanks for your help.73.151.205.135 (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)AaaaaaaTruth

No big surprise: AaaaaaaTruth and Whitleyhollywood are confirmed as Sockpuppets. Possibly (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"Father of Hollywood"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@BeenAroundAWhile: 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 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. Possibly (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

I just added an early citation to this fellow as "the founder of Hollywood," from 1912. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

And even earlier, 1905. 07:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)