Talk:Hollywood Sign

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2014 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• HOLLYWOODLAND 1923.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic restriction in Hollywoodland

There have been a number of edits [1] to insert information about attempts to ethnically restrict residents in Hollywoodland. While the sign was originally erected to advertise a new real estate development, as one editor points out "no proper source and not really relevant to the sign [itself]". I found the sourcing weak, too, only given as "Finding Los Angeles, January 7, 2019". There's no indication of what that source is (op-ed? history book?), who wrote it, or who published it. The when is given as 2019, so there's no indication, when quotes are given in the source, as to who they're quoting, or from when; are these sentiments contemporary with the sign going up, or after the development was established? Not that it matters much, since the relation to the sign is tangential. There is no attempt to whitewash history here. Anybody with the mildest familiarity with U.S. history re race and ethnicity will have no doubt that attempts to restrict residency were quite possible, even probable. It's just that it's not particularly relevent to this article. My two cents. _signed, Willondon (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

What frustrates me is one, I find many articles on Wikipedia where the source is requested but not listed and yet you allowed the article to be posted anyway. Then you delete my addition, first because you say I need to site my source, and second, when I do, you delete it because it's "cpoyright infringement (which is why I cited the source to avoid that) and now your claim it's irrelevant. Irrelevant to whom exactly, the white majority who doesn't want to admit or accept that this country was founded on many racists tactics and practices? You think that information isn't relevant to the families that weren't allowed to live there and their descendants? The very ones who may have benefited from the passing down of ownership of said property? You think it isn't relevant to help people understand redlining and why our country is more segregated now than any other time in history except possibly after slavery ended? If I thought for one second that siting several different sources, which btw I did find, you'd find some other excuse to omit the information, I'd probably try again. Whatever, Wikipedia. Whatever. 2603:8001:213E:A57E:79A5:24A6:AB40:D59F (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, it's usually better to address edits, not editors; especially when Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, it wrankles when you say: "you allowed the article to be posted anyway", me? what article?; "you delete it because it's copyright infringement", I did not, somebody else did; "now your claim it's irrelevant", I did not, though I expressed support for that; "you think that it isn't relevant to help people understand", I think no such thing. Etc.

To the edits, now: One edit summary said "no proper source", and I agreed (above) with more explanation on why, which reasons you have not addressed. Whoever identified the copyright infringement apparantly determined that it was largely a verbatim copy of another publisher's work. The fundamental objection to the information itself is probably that it is irrelevant to the article. Don't conflate relevance to society, U.S. history, contemporary victims of racism, etc. with relevance to the topic of the article. I need to go to work now, but that relevance can be debated. _signed, Willondon (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the HISTORY of the sign. Within that history is this information and to leave it out is to leave out an important part of its history. But that history isn't important to you so therefore its irrelevant. right? Ok, so where is the article on Wiki that discusses the racist history behind the sign thereby making it relevant? I suppose if I were to look up a Wiki article regarding Central Park, I won't find any references to the fact that that area was once a black neighborhood whose residents were forced out to make Central Park 'cuz that information isn't relevant to. the history right? 2603:8001:213E:A57E:79A5:24A6:AB40:D59F (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Please don't tell me what history is important to me, and what isn't. You have no idea who I am. _signed, Willondon (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the sign, not the neighborhood or the housing development that established it. Perhaps you're looking for Hollywood, Los Angeles. MrOllie (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Let's deal with the edits. Again, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and to view Wikipedia as a monolithic entity, with evil intent no less, is a misunderstanding which leads to certain frustration. Especially presuming of individual editors' attitudes and intentions which they do not hold.

Is this edit relevant to the article on French Cuisine? Definitely not. Is it relevant to an article on the history of disenfranchisement of minorities in the U.S. and the impairment of accumulation of wealth through generations? Definitely. Is it relevant to social progress and reconciliation efforts? Yes; but those things are not Wikipedia articles. Is it relevant to this article? That's what we can discuss here.

A variety of editors has challenged the edit on a variety of grounds. No matter what the merits, copyright infringement is a deal breaker, because it exposes Wikipedia to legal liability. Any edit will have to be the original phrasing of an editor here. And by policy, edits need sourced. My challenge above asked about the source. Again, what is the source, an op-ed? a history book? Who wrote it? Who published it? You haven't addressed those questions.

And is it relevant to the topic here, i.e. the sign? Again, among concerns I expressed re the source were that it was published in 2019, and that it seemed to quote unknown people from an unknown time (which I would bet is what led to identification of it as a copy of someone else's work). The world is not arrayed against you. OK, I shouldn't assume, I can only speak from my own understanding of Wikipedia. Discussion on edits to Wikipedia articles is welcomed. Is this information relevant to this article? _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hollywood sign

Please put lights on it ❤️ 47.155.1.79 (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Boa noite

valdimiro da chelton samito 197.218.72.164 (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Danny Finegood HOLLYWeeD sign

It was Danny Finegood who changed the sign in 1976. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-jan-27-me-finegood27-story.html 71.63.175.25 (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. The name "Phil Wiseman" was added by an IP with no other edits in this change a few months ago. I have corrected it. CodeTalker (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

That's appreciated. Vandalism has a way of slipping through the cracks. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

"H***** S***" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect H***** S*** has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 19 § H***** S*** until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

"H**** S***" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect H**** S*** has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 19 § H**** S*** until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

"H*** S***" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect H*** S*** has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 19 § H*** S*** until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)