Talk:Hollywood

Areas Included in Hollywood

Population, area size, population density, and other stats deffer greatly depending on which areas are included in Hollywood. Can someone find the official boundaries as described by the CA Assembly Bill 588, mentioned in the intro. --Jkfp2004 (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The City of Los Angeles does indeed determine the boundaries for its communities/neighborhoods/districts. This article (Hollywood) is mistaken when it states this is not typically done. Visit the City of Los Angeles' web site -Planning Department, General Plan Update - for boundary information. Ms. Planner (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I could gather at this link, the boundaries stated are just the boundaries used by the planning dept. for their general plan and don't necessarily represent the boundaries laid out by the state in AB588. Am I looking at this wrong, or were you looking at a different link? Thanks!--Jkfp2004 (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

AB 588 "Defines the community of Hollywood, for purposes of this bill, as the City of Los Angeles' Hollywood Community Plan Area established in 1974, and lists the area's 2000 United States Census tract numbers. Also defines the community of Hollywood by a lengthy geographical description based on freeways, roads, city boundaries, and the Los Angeles River."[1] It sounds complicated. Looking at the description in this version, it is complicated. But I can't find a map anywhere.   Will Beback  talk  07:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the help. As of now, I'm going to leave the population and area figures as they are, until I can get some better info that I can understand. Hopefully once the 2010 census is done, we'll get some concrete up to date info. If anyone wants to take the time and map the district block-by-block based on the descriptions feel free (and good luck!) --Jkfp2004 (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The bill includes the specific census tract numbers, so if you're interested in tallying up the figures it'd be quite easy and precise, except for one partial tract. [Here's an amended version, check to see if it matches the final bill: [2] Here are the tracts:

188200, 189100, 189200, 189300, 189400, 189500, 189600, 189701, 189702, 189800, 189901, 189902, 190100, 190200, 190301, 190400, 190510, 190520, 190700, 190800, 190901, 190902, 191000, 191110, 191120, 191201, 191203, 191204, 191300, 191410, 191420, 191500, 191610, 191620, 191710, 191720, 191810, 191820, 191900, 192000, 192610 (partial), 194100, 194200, 194300, 194400, 195200, 195300.

I'm not sure what the best thing would be to do with the partial tract. But maybe calling one of the city council offices would help? There must be a map buried somewhere on the city website. Or they may already have the information you're looking for. That was the purpose of the bill, anyway.   Will Beback  talk  07:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Districts vs. Neighborhoods

I have noticed that many articles describe neighborhoods in Los Angeles as districts. To my knowledge the City of Los Angeles refers to regions of the city as neighborhoods and does not mention the word "districts" in any description. For now, I'm going to change the intro and infobox to reflect this, based off the info from LAcity.org and the Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils. If anyone can show me something official that mentions districts (and which neighborhoods are districts, if any), feel free to change it back.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Angelino Heights, Los Angeles, California which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved all per request and moved Hollywood, Los Angeles, California to Hollywood. As pointed out below, Hollywood already redirects to this page and needs no further qualification. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hollywood, Los Angeles, California → Hollywood, Los Angeles — Per Talk:Los Angeles#Various move requests involving LA Neighborhoods, it was decided that the California should be dropped from LA Neighborhoods, because the title of the LA article is Los Angeles, there is no other Los Angeles with neighborhood articles, and just because it was shorter (WP:COMMONNAME). This is only about dropping the California. Don't turn it into dropping the Los Angeles as well!. Four other neighborhoods which had been accidentally left out of the discussion earlier are also included. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Echo Park, Los Angeles, California → Echo Park, Los Angeles
• Financial District, Los Angeles, California → Financial District, Los Angeles
• Greater Hollywood, Los Angeles, California → Greater Hollywood, Los Angeles

• For Hollywood, I suspect all qualifiers (both Los Angeles and California) could be dropped without issue. If a qualifier is deemed necessary for Hollywood, California not Los Angeles should be employed. For the others, I support without issue.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Why California and not Los Angeles? Hollywood is not a seperate city. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Common name. As I said before, I don't believe it requires one but when left with no option reliable sources seem to view it as the most preferable option (google book search; 12,100 hits for "Hollywood, Los Angeles" -wiki and 116,000 hits for "Hollywood, California" -wiki).--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Labattblueboy. Hollywood is world famous and clear primary usage; the title already redirects here anyway. Same for Greater Hollywood. No problem moving the other two. Station1 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree with "Hollywood" or with "Hollywood, California". The latter because it's not an independent city, and the former because this isn't necessarily the primary usage. When people write "Hollywood" they are frequently referring to the mainstream American film industry. I think it's best to keep that name a disambiguation page.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hollywood, is not a dab. page and, to my knowledge, has never been so. It was the article title until 2008, when the current title was adopted.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• PS: I agree with "Hollywood, Los Angeles" instead of the current name in order to bring it into conformity with the other neighborhood articles.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hollywood history

I am the grandson of HJ Whitley, the Father of Hollywood. I am 86 years old and I am going to try to correct the history of Hollywood section. Because of my age it may take awhile. I would appreciate that when I do post text with references that the old history which is incorrect is not just put back. I realize that a book published in 1936 or so had much incorrect information and is used as a source for future books that are now being published. The information I have came from my grandparents and sources that are reliable. I will reference them and hopefully this will solve the problem. If you have any questions feel free to address them in this section. I am not well versed in computers so I hope you will be patient with me. Thanks for helping me correct history. Whithj (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC) whithj

Thanks for participating. Your knowledge of the topic is appreciated. As you may appreciate, we can't rely on the personal knowledge of Wikipedia editors so a core policy states that all content must be verifiable from reliable, published sources. So long as you cite those sources other editors can follow you and clean up any formatting issues or other computer-type problems. This page has many watchers so you're not alone.   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Whitley Papers (1889-1946)

Are these papers published or in a public library? If they are privately held then they aren't verifiable and shouldn't be used as sources.

• "H. J. Whitley the Town Builder" Los Angeles Times (may 18, 1902).

There are many mentions of Whitley in the L.A. Times archive, but I can't find this article on that date. Is it correct?   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The papers are in the UCLA Library. The LA Times article is correct. Contact the LA Times archives.Whithj (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)whithj

What is the actual source? A letter, a diary, or? If it's not published, then even if it's in a library it probably doesn't qualify. If it's marginal then it'd be best to attribute. Something like, "According to Whitley's diary..."   Will Beback  talk  07:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The publications are in the Charles E. Young Research Library Department of Special Collections. They have been historically verified by the library staffWhithj (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)whithj.

Los Angeles Times Historical Archives (ProQuest) 2 Digitized reproduction of the Los Angeles Times from its beginnings. Currently contains 1881-1986. Searchable by (keywords, author's names, articles, dates, etc.) or browseable by full page or issue. Includes photos, graphics and advertisements. Found in the Los Angles Public Library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whithj (talk • contribs) 08:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The Whitley papers, if they haven't been published, are probably not reliable, verifiable sources. The Keith book was self-published, so it isn't usable either. Assuming that the Times articles can be verified, they should be fine but we should take self-serving assertions with a grain of salt. The best sources are academic books and articles, and we should try to use those where available.   Will Beback  talk  06:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please go to www.thefatherofhollywood.com. It has many of the L A Times Articles and will continue to have more each day. It is very time consuming to post all this so please be patient. The Keith book is no longer self-published. It has been picked up by Tate Publishing and will be released August 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whithj (talk • contribs) 06:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

When Tate [3]? publishes it then the situation changes. That hasn't happened yet. Let's avoid adding anything more from it until we know the status. As for the Whitley papers, unless they are also going to be published they aren't suitable sources.   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the book is published and copies are sold. The release date is August 2010 because it is waiting for the audio to be finished. The Whitley Papers are used as sources in the Owensmouth Baby by Catherine Mulholland done by the Santa Susana Press which is a University Press. Did you go and look at the Los Angeles Times References at http://www.thefatherofhollywood.com/media_Room.shtml as I asked. You will see that there are quite a few of them listed. Can you help link them. I am 86 and getting worn out trying to do this but I will not stop until it is done. It may just take me a while. I am sure that you and I have much in common - mainly our desire to make sure that history is told truthfully. Also I had asked if their was any area of concern? I have added some links by scanning a few pages of Catherine Mulhollands book. She is the daughter of William Mulholland. I am sure you have heard of him.Whithj (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding citations to the Whitley papers. And this "reference" doesn't appear sufficient either: First Hollywood movie filmed on Whitley Estate on October 26, 1911 The Keith book, if published by a known publisher is OK, but please don't over do it.   Will Beback  talk  07:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you realize, you sound like an effing idiot, Will Beback? If it were up to you, the Bible would never have been written, because it is based on oral tradition handed down for centuries with no "verifiable sources" before someone set pen to a papyrus scroll. I'd rather trust the word of a lucid old man than what I find on the pages of Time Magazine or the New York Times.—Quicksilver^{T @} 17:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sure Will Beback will offer his or her own response to the above, but I would offer two comments: (1) Ad hominem attacks are totally inappropriate here (or, really, anywhere); and (2)you really need to read WP:NOR. Wikipedia is a lot of things, but it is not the Bible, nor any other compendium of oral histories. One of Wikipedia's basic rules is that all content must be verifiable from reliable, published sources. DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doctor Joe. Perhaps you could help with the verification. There are many sources at www.TheFatherofHollywood.com but since I am 86 years old it is hard for me to seat at a computer to long. The Father of Hollywood by Galeyn Whitley Keith can be purchased at BarnesandNoble.com. The book by Katherine Mulholland can be bought on Amazon. She used the Whitley Papers in her book so they must have been verifiable. Many of the books are self published that are used as sources on the Hollywood site yet they have not been questioned. Why?Whithj (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think my comment above sounds cranky and irascible, DoctorJoeE, you're right. Read from the top, user Will Beback's handling of this matter comes across to me as pure snobbery, like stroking a cat against the grain. Maybe Will Beback will miss this opportunity, but someone who is seriously researching Hollywood history will stumble across this Talk Page and jump on it. Now, there are many Wikipedia articles that use "published" sources, but the "reliability" thereof is debatable, and no one seems to question it. It sounds to me that the material user Whithj is offering may meet or exceed the WP criteria for acceptability, except it's in printed form and someone would actually need to get a physical copy and read it. Evidently, certain Wikipedians couldn't be bothered, because it's not a few keystrokes and mouse clicks away on their computers.—Quicksilver^{T @} 22:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What it looks like to me is that a descendant of Whitley and single purpose editor is deleting sourced material and replacing it with less-reliable sources, including a book that he presumably wrote, which promote the role of Whitley in the history of Hollywood. Even if we walk/drive/fly to the UCLA library, personal papers are not a published source so they're unusable.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, chill, please, everybody. Indulge me for a nanosecond and look at the big picture: Our common goal here, presumably, is to create a reliable reference work AND convince the general public that it IS reliable. Whenever I tell anybody I'm involved with Wikipedia, 9 times out of 10 the response is, "Why are you wasting your time? Everybody knows it's full of bogus information!" That's the conventional wisdom -- and for a while, it was true. And while it's a lot less true now, the perception remains. A big reason for permitting only verifiable content is to dispel that perception. I agree we sometimes throw out the baby with the bathwater by refusing unpublished observations, but only by making everything verifiable will we ever end up with a true encyclopedia whose accuracy will not be questioned. Whithj, I will be happy to help to the extent that I can, and I'll give it a go as time permits, because I believe your intentions are honorable and unselfish. And I believe there can be a place in Wikipedia for unique information like yours, as long as we can find a way to meet the verifiability criteria. But let's all be civil about it, okay? Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The first version of The Father of Hollywood was published by BookSurge, a vanity press. The new edition is published by Tate Publishing & Enterprises, which is also considered a vanity press.[4] Per WP:SELFPUB, neither edition would qualify as a source for Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  03:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Tate Publishing is a Traditional Publisher. Traci Jones, Marketing Representative, Tate Publishing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.64.115 (talk • contribs)

I presume that this posting comes as a result of a request form an editor here. Tate may see itself as a traditional publisher, but that is not how others see it. The "Publisher Standards Board" calls it a "misleading book publishing" company, and a scam to be avoided.[5]   Will Beback  talk  22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually who is the "Publisher Standards Board" I tried all the links on their site and they go to no where. That said I wonder if you have even looked at the links I have tried to work on. You will see there are many. Why do you still question H J Whitley's role in Hollywood? Do you still question that he is the "Father of Hollywood'? What other information do you have that were historically printed before 1950? Thanks for letting me know where you are getting historically correct info so I can review it. Whithj (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

They call themselves "The Self Regulatory Trade Organization (SRTO) for the Book Publishing Industry". Elsewhere they say they are re-doing their website, which appears to have gone poorly.[6] The view of Tate is shared by others. The well-known blog, Writers Beware, includes Tate on their '"Two Thumbs Down" Publishers List'.[7] Note the comments from readers/authors. Here's a 49-page thread on Tate Publishing in the Absolute Write forum.[8]

I'm not questioning that Whitley had the nickname "Father of Hollywood". I'm questioning how much weight he deserves in this and other articles, and the use of sources that don't meet WP:V. An unpublished diary, for example. There are numerous books on the history of the Los Angeles area and Hollywood in particular:

• History of Hollywood, by Edwin O. Palmer 1937
• History of Hollywood by Patricia Adler 1968
• Hollywood, land and legend by Zelda Cini and Bob Crane, with Peter H. Brown. 1980
• Hollywood, the first hundred years by Bruce T. Torrence. 1982
• Early Hollywood Marc Wanamaker and Robert W. Nudelman. 2007

There is no lack of reliable sources available for this article.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the first book you listed as reliable is a book by Edwin O Palmer. It is a self-published book. It also had a very limited printing and would be almost impossible for most people to verify. I am posting a link to the Title page and also a comment made by the author. He states that many errors have been made in the book as much of the information is just his memory about what he heard from others. He was not at the events. [9]Additionally attached is a letter by H J Whitley. He had concerns about Palmer's book when he was alive and hoped that he could convince Palmer to correct his misinformation. [10]. I also contacted the publisher of "Early Hollywood" by Arcadia Publishing. I asked them to correct their mistakes but they said to contact the author as they did not monitor what was printed. They just published what the author wrote. I attempted to contact Robert Nudelman but he had passed away. My daughter talked to Bruce Torrence who told her his information had come from Palmer's book. That is why his information is also incorrect. I have not had time yet to contact the others but I am fairly confident that Palmer's book was their source of information regarding early Hollywood. Can you give me any reliable sources that comply to Wikipedia guidelines. I am going to repost the diary information you deleted as it is part of a published book and historical magazine published by the University of Pacific, The California Historian. Tate Publishing is a traditional publisher. Please do not use Google Blogs to give misinformation. The Publisher has stated this information on Wikipedia and you should have not deleted that information. Why are you so confrontational? What is your true agenda in this matter?Whithj (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We may not cite an unpublished diary, even if portions of it have been published. We may cite those published portions, referencing the book in which they were published. I will continue to remove any citations to the unpublished diary or the unpublished papers.

I have not deleted any postings from this page. The marketing director of Tate is welcome to give her view of that company, but it contradicts those of outsiders. We should probably refer this to the reliable sources noticeboard to get more community input.

The only agenda I have here is to enforce Wikipedia policies. I am not "Bruce", and I don't care whether it was Wilcox or Whitley who named Hollywood. On the other hand, I get the feeling that it matters a great deal to you. Agenda-driven editing on Wikipedia is a serious problem, and if you continue to use Wikipedia to promote your ancestor's achievements, beyond what can be supported by reliable sources, then that may require administrative action. Please be more cooperative.   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Tate Publishing: The Father of Hollywood.   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to not like self published books maybe you should delete Gregory Paul Williams book. It was self-published. It is in the biography section at the bottom of the page.Whithj (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. On closer inspection there was even a third self-published book there. Since the two bibliography sections seem to be a target for book spam, I've deleted them both.   Will Beback  talk  00:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not restore non-compliant sources. In addition to the previously discussed sources, this one is also inappropriate: Al Christie. The main reason is that is is mostly sourced to Wikipedia itself. One part, the part being used here apparently, is sourced to "hollywoodusa.co.uk". If we follow that link, we find the material there is sourced to Wikipedia as well.[11] In other words, it is a circular reference. WP:Circular.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Citations

All material in Wikipedia must be verifiable. We now have over a dozen citations that look like this: "Los Angeles Times (January 10, 1982)" Back in the 1980s, the heyday of the newspaper, it published hundreds of pages a day. Even in simpler times it was voluminous. To simply list the date of publication, without even the article title much less the page number or byline, makes it very difficult to verify the citations. If the idea is to improve the article then these cites fall far short of the ideal and are almost useless.   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

How many English people lived there?

Just wondering?109.154.25.148 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Motion Picture Industry

I have deleted the text regarding the D.W Griffith first movie in Hollywood using the Phillip French web site. This is not a valid source for any reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.170.184.252 (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The so-called "Phillip French web site" is The Guardian, a respected UK newspaper.[12] I've restored the material.   Will Beback  talk  05:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted this again because the entry, "Prolific director D. W. Griffith was the first one to make a motion picture in Hollywood. His 17-minute short film In Old California, which was released on 10 March 1910, was filmed entirely in the village of Hollywood.[24], is not in compliance with the Wikipedia guidelines regarding the us of references. This is a web site that has no credibility. Will Beback should not demand this site to be a referance. In past Will Beback has demanded that the use of an unreferenced website to be removed because of the Wikipedia policy. Does Will Beback have a double standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.170.184.252 (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which source you're talking about. the text you've repeatedly deleted is this:

• Prolific director D. W. Griffith was the first one to make a motion picture in Hollywood. His 17-minute short film In Old California, which was released on 10 March 1910, was filmed entirely in the village of Hollywood.
  • Philip French (28 February 2010). "How 100 years of Hollywood have charted the history of America". Guardian.co.uk. http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/feb/28/philip-french-best-hollywood-films. Retrieved 24 May 2010. 

Again, the source is The Guardian. What source do you think is being used?

Also, is this user:Whithj, the descendant of H.J. Whitley? If so then there's a COI because you seem to be trying to assert that your ancestor's home was the site of the actual first film. Could you please sign in when editing?   Will Beback  talk  08:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure who this person is but it is not my relative. As I am sure you know we had agreed to disagree. Perhaps it is a old time Hollywood resident. They would know that Griffith never said he was the first to film in Hollywood because he wasn't. He lived into the 1940 and I am sure he would have if he did. I think what has happened is he went outside of Los Angeles to film but not as far as Hollywood. But now almost 100 years later someone is trying to change history. I have no control over who is doing this but I am stilling watching to keep history correct. However I am still honoring our agreement. I am trying to sign my post but at 86 years old I must have made a mistake again. I clicked the wavy line below and my signature did not appear. so I will just try and put whithj. Whithj (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Whithj! So the anon isn't you? Sorry for the mistaken identity. Since you're here and haven't addressed it, let me ask you whether you think The Guardian is an unreliable source for this assertion. The anon seemed to think we were citing someone's personal website.   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to post earlier and it was lost. I hope it does not appear as a duplicate so here goes. I do not find "The Guardian" as a bad source however I do not feel they verify the historical information they post. I would be happier if you could find a book that was published between 1920-1950 that stated this information. I believe D W Griffith lived into the 1940's and he never stated he had filmed the first Hollywood movie. The Hollywood community which includes the "Hollywood Heritege Museum" does not support this finding. I think perhaps a movie was done on the outskirts of Los Angeles and now someone is trying to claim it is Hollywood. My great-grandmother wrote in her journal and personally told me that the first filming in Hollywood was done on October 26, 1911 by Al Christi and the Horseley Brothers. They went on to form Nestor Studios. Since I have not been able to find any historical source before 1950 that contradicts this I will stand firm that the first movie filmed in Hollywood was filmed on October 26,1911. However, since I agreed to disagree with you I will not change the listing even though I feel it is misleading. Whithj (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the claim that the Griffith movie was made outside of Hollywood? Are all sources since 1950 wrong? Where does the Hollywood Heritage Museum make a statement on this matter?   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This book from 1972 says it was filmed in Hollywood.[13] Is there any source that says it was filmed elsewhere?   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I want to emphasize that I am quite sure that your great-grandmother was giving what she believed was an accurate account. But it's very simple to see that she might not have been aware of the earlier movie. Perhaps she was elsewhere when it was filmed. Since there were no filming permits it's possible that no one in an official capacity made note of it. The area was pretty sparse back then, so it's possible that a film was shot without everyone knowing about it. (the craft trucks were smaller in those days). Griffith made movies in a variety of locations as he worked his way west. He might not have even heard of Hollywood until he got there and may have forgotten about it until he moved back there years later. One dusty village is much the same as another. If I were a director and took a film crew to a slightly remote location I might not know or care if I was the first one to film there so long as I got the shots I want. It's quite possible that the whole thing was discovered by historians looking through records decades later. But the claim, legitimate or not, is now widely accepted, and there were commemorations in 2010 to mark 100 years of filming in Hollywood.   Will Beback  talk  10:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Real Estate

how much does it cost to live there? not in the rich district, but for regular people--99.101.160.159 (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)