Talk:Harold Lloyd

Death
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)

HL’s Prosthetic hand wasn’t noticeable.
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)

Unsourced material
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)

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)

Restrictive covenant
That Beverly Hills had a restrictive covenant is confirmed by many sources, including the Beverly Hills Historical Society. At least three reliable sources for Lloyd's involvement in preserving the restrictions can be accessed online: Stephen Grant Meyer, As Long as They Don't Move Next Door, Rowman & Littlefield, 2001, p. 76; Amina Hassan, Loren Miller: Civil Rights Attorney and Journalist, University of Oklahoma Press, 2015, p. 132; and Nancie Clare, The Battle for Beverly Hills, St. Martin's Press, 2018, p. 195. An article titled "Harold Lloyd Heads Anti-Negro Drive" appeared on the front page of the Chicago Daily Defender on July 28, 1945; it reads: "The famous film comedian of the silver screen was reported as the prime instigator of the new Beverly Hills restrictive covenant drive. A recent letter, sent out over the name of the famous actor, called for a meeting of residents here to sign restrictive covenants. The letter, sent out through offices of the Chamber of Commerce, was disclaimed by company officials who admitted that Lloyd had been elected president recently." And there are other sources to confirm that Lloyd was a leader of the Beverly Hills C of C (e.g., Kevin Brownlow, The Parade's Gone By, p 472.

Since mid-August, I and others have been reverting the repeated removal of a paragraph in the article that deals with this. For me this is largely on procedural grounds: edit warring isn't the way to edit, and repeated invitations to discuss the matter on the talk page have been ignored. FWIW, I think the restrictive covenant drive deserves a mention in the article, but it looms rather large here and I'd favor some edits. The article shouldn't exaggerate Lloyd's role here; these covenants were unfortunately common throughout the US at the time, and Lloyd (as far as I can tell) was not one of the eight white Sugar Hill plaintiffs who sued to have their black neighbors evicted in the 1944 case that Judge Thurmond Clarke decided. Ewulp (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear Editors,


 * We represent Harold Lloyd Entertainment, Inc. (“HLE”). Among other things, HLE is the owner of the copyrights and all rights, title and interest in and to the movies of Harold Lloyd (including but not limited to The Freshman) and the publicity rights of Mr. Lloyd, one of the most famous and popular actors and comedians of the silent era. We apologize for contacting you out the blue, but we are reaching out to you at the recommendation of legal counsel at the Wikipedia Foundation, who has suggested that we inform relevant editors of the official Wikipedia entry for Harold Lloyd, found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lloyd, about the serious concerns that have arisen regarding the unfounded allegations of racism and support for racially restrictive covenants that have been leveled against Mr. Lloyd therein.


 * Specifically, we are deeply troubled by the last paragraph in the Harold Lloyd biography section entitled “Personal Life” and its assertion that “[I]n the early 1940s, Lloyd supported a neighborhood improvement association in Beverly Hills that attempted to enforce the all-white covenant [in place in Beverly Hills] in court after a number of black actors and business had begun buying properties in the area,” (the “Allegation”). As detailed below, this Allegation is wholly without any factual basis.  In the process, it not only unfairly besmirches the good name and reputation of an iconic Hollywood legend, but it is also has caused and continues to cause significant injury to HLE’s existing and prospective business relationships because of the very serious charges of racism that it raises—charges that are (rightfully) toxic in the public arena.


 * User Ewulp has raised similar concerns about the references to racially restrictive covenants and Mr. Lloyd’s alleged support therefor. As he wrote in the Talk Notes: “The article shouldn't exaggerate Lloyd's role here; these covenants were unfortunately common throughout the US at the time, and Lloyd (as far as we can tell) was not one of the eight white Sugar Hill plaintiffs who sued to have their black neighbors evicted in the 1944 [sic] case that Judge Thurmond Clarke decided.”  Indeed, there are no facts whatsoever establishing any link between Harold Lloyd and the Sugar Hills litigation or any of the plaintiffs therein and, as detailed below, any allegation of racism against Mr. Lloyd is wholly at odds with any facts we know about his life and how he lived it.  As such, we are writing to kindly request that you might consider, in the interest of accuracy and fairness, to correct the problematic portion regarding said Allegation and the surrounding discussion regarding racially restrictive covenants. Your consideration of this request is deeply appreciated.


 * Allow us first to begin by thanking you for the unparalleled public service that you, through Wikipedia, provide to the world. Wikipedia is an invaluable public resource that has democratized knowledge and leavened disparities in access to social, political, cultural and scientific information and its many volunteers, such as yourself, play a vital role in that. As such, Wikipedia has represented a transformative tool for education, transparency, and, above all, the truth in a time when so-called ‘Fake News’ dominates the Internet.


 * With Wikipedia’s dedication to accuracy, proper sourcing and careful research in mind, the detailed analysis below plainly demonstrates that the Allegation against Mr. Lloyd Harold is without substance or reliable support. And, unfortunately, the Allegation tarnishes the legacy of an American legend and causes direct economic harm to HLE and its intellectual property and contractual interests.  As you know, charges of racism and bigotry can impact the way in which a public figure is viewed and it can shatter careers and legacies (see, e.g., Paula Deen, PewDiePie, Kate Smith, John Wayne and Morrissey).  When these allegations are without basis, lives are fundamentally altered both unjustly and unfairly.  In this particular case, the Allegations have already threatened HLE and, among other things, interfered with its existing and prospective business relationships.  Specifically, HLE is under contract with certain companies for a forthcoming original, feature-length animated motion picture based on Harold Lloyd and his films.  This project is now in jeopardy as a direct result of the unfounded Allegations.  These companies have put HLE on direct notice that investor concerns regarding the Allegations are significantly curtailing the ability of the movie’s producers to raise the necessary funding for continuing support of the project.


 * In the Wikipedia entry for Harold Lloyd, the Allegation is footnoted with a single citation to a single source—a book by Stephen Grant Meyer. The Talk File for the “Restrictive Covenant” section of Harold Lloyd’s entry on Wikipedia, further expands on the purported support for the Allegation by referencing “at least three reliable sources for Lloyd’s involvement in presenting the restrictions.”  Yet these sources—books by Stephen Grant Meyer, Anima Hassan and Nancie Clare—do not provide any credible support for the proposition that Mr. Lloyd supported racially restrictive covenants and efforts to keep blacks and Jews out of Beverly Hills or his neighborhood.  Thus, the Allegations violate Wikipedia’s commitment to accuracy and verifiability.  Given the particularly incendiary nature of the claims—claims that easily fall under Wikipedia’s policy for “exceptional claims”—Wikipedia’s own burden of requiring multiple high-quality sources supporting the proposition is simply not met.


 * First of all, Nancie Clare’s book THE BATTLE FOR BEVERLY HILLS (St. Martin’s Press, 2018) states only that Lloyd “joined a neighborhood association whose goal was to enforce the city’s restrictive covenants that prohibited nonwhites, including Jews, from buying or renting property in the city,” id. at 195—an aspersion that could be cast upon millions of Americans at a time when both political major political parties—both Democrats and Republicans—supported such measures. More importantly, the book does not remotely suggest that Mr. Lloyd actually supported any efforts to enforce restrictive covenants (the proposition for which it is relied upon); rather, it simply claims that Mr. Lloyd was a mere member of a group that supported restrictive covenants.  Above all, it does not provide any citation to substantiate its accusations and it does not provide any details regarding the neighborhood association in question or its identity.


 * Meanwhile, both the Meyer and Hassan books only restate claims from a single, 70-word article that appeared in the Chicago (Daily) Defender on July 28, 1945 (the “Article”). Specifically, Stephen Grant Meyer’s book, AS LONG AS THEY DON’T MOVE NEXT DOOR (Rowman & Littlefield, 2001),  alleges that “one of the white home owners who led the challenge to black occupancy in Beverly Hills was also an actor: the silent-screen comedian, Harold Lloyd.”  Id. at 76.  Yet the only citation it makes that might support any such speculation is to the Chicago Defender Article.


 * Amina Hassan’s book, LOREN MILLER: CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY AND JOURNALIST (University of Oklahoma Press, 2015), fares no better. It claims that “In 1941, . . . Harold Lloyd, famous for hanging from the hands of a skyscraper clock tower in Safety Last! (1923), led the drive to keep blacks and Jews from moving into nearby Beverly Hills.  Id. at 132.  To support this proposition, Hassan’s book also cites only to the Chicago Defender Article.  And, to make matters worse and to cast the rigor of Hassan’s research into further doubt, she erroneously cites the Article to date the relevant events as taking place in 1941 when, in fact, the Chicago Defender has them taking place in 1945.


 * In effect, therefore, the Allegations against Mr. Lloyd solely emanate from the Article. All of the remaining sources that state the Allegation are simply mimicking the claim by citing back to the Article.  Thus, to assess the reliability and accuracy of the Allegation, it is necessary to examine the Article.  As even the most cursory review of the Article demonstrates, the Chicago Defender piece neither credibly asserts the Allegations against Mr. Lloyd nor does it have any support from other sources.


 * The Article, entitled “Harold Lloyd Heads Anti-Negro Drive,” appeared on the front page of the Chicago (Daily) Defender on July 28, 1945 and its total content of 70 words reads as follows: "The famous film comedian of the silver screen was reported as the prime instigator of the new Beverly Hills restrictive covenant drive. A recent letter, sent out over the name of the famous actor, called for a meeting of residents here to sign restrictive covenants. The letter, sent out through offices of the Chamber of Commerce, was disclaimed by company officials who admitted that Lloyd had been elected president recently."


 * While it is true that Mr. Lloyd, at one time, served as the head of Beverly Hill’s Chamber of Commerce, the remainder of the Article is filled with ambiguities, inaccuracies, unsupported speculation and sophistry:


 * 1) 	The Article engages in pure conjecture and succumbs to salacious innuendo in remarking, vaguely and in the passive voice, that Mr. Lloyd “was reported as the prime instigator of the new Beverly Hills restrictive covenant drive.” Notably, therefore, the Article fails to name any sources for its idle and unsupported tabloid gossip. For example:
 * 2) 	The Article refers to a purported letter that was sent out by the Chamber of Commerce which the Article ties to Harold Lloyd. But, notably, it does not say the letter was written or drafted by Harold Lloyd, or even approved by Harold Lloyd (it merely alleges that it was “sent out over the name” of Harold Lloyd).
 * 3) 	The Article fails to quote any actual contents of the purported letter. As such, its characterization of the letter and its contents are rightfully suspect and unsupported.
 * 4) 	The Article only states the letter “called for a meeting of residents . . . to sign restrictive covenants.” As such, the Article does not state, outright, that an actual position was taken in the letter (i.e., that restrictive covenants are good or bad) and, quite possibly, the letter, if it existed, may have only provided information that such a meeting was taking place.
 * 5) 	The Article is unclear as to when the letter was sent out (referring only to the vague characterization of “recently”), a particularly odd omission since official letter are always dated. As such, the Article’s leap in logic—that Harold Lloyd was recently made president of the Chamber of Commerce and that, therefore, the letter must be reflective of his point of view, is pure speculation. Indeed, the Article does not expressly spell out that the letter was written or sent out while Mr. Lloyd was, in fact, President.
 * 6) 	Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Article itself acknowledges that the purported letter’s authenticity and accuracy in reflecting the viewpoint of the Chamber of Commerce (and, by extension, Harold Lloyd, who is being tied to the views of the Chamber of Commerce by virtue of his presidency thereof for a period of time) was contemporaneously and directly disputed and called into question. As the Article admits, “The letter, sent out through offices of the Chamber of Commerce, was disclaimed by company officials.”  This sentence—the concluding one in the Article—renders the salacious, unsupported and speculative headline “Harold Lloyd Heads Anti-Negro Drive” wholly bunk and makes any misrepresentation of this Article as historical truth wholly inappropriate.


 * It's also worth noting that the statements surrounding the sentence containing the Allegation in Mr. Lloyd’s Wikipedia page are also demonstrably false or inaccurate. Specifically, Lloyd’s Wikipedia page states that “Greenacres [Mr. Lloyd’s home] was built in the 1920s in Beverly Hills, one of Los Angeles’ all-white planned communities. The area had restrictive covenants prohibiting non-whites and Jews from living there unless they were in the employment of a white resident (typically a domestic servant).  In the early 1940s, Lloyd supported a neighborhood improvement association in Beverly Hills that attempted to enforce the all-white covenant in court after a number of black actors and business had begun buying properties in the area.  The association lost its suit in a 1944 decision by Federal Judge Thurmond Clarke, and in 1948 the United States Supreme Court declared in Shelley v. Kraemer that all racially restrictive covenants in the United States were unenforceable.”  Yet these sentences, and their citing sources in the Wikipedia page, are riddled with errors.


 * Among other things, this section contains the following inaccuracies:


 * 1) 	The lawsuit to which the sentences refer challenged racially restrictive covenants in Sugar Hills, which is not in Beverly Hills, but in the West Adams area of Los Angeles. See Victory on Sugar Hill, TIME MAGAZINE (Dec. 17, 1945) (referring to Sugar Hills as being in the West Adams area of Los Angeles). As such, there was no direct link between the lawsuit and Greenacres (which was in Beverly Hills), Harold Lloyd, or any neighborhood improvement association in Beverly Hills;
 * 2) 	The “federal judge” handling the case was, at the time, only a state Superior Court judge for Los Angeles County (Judge Thurmond Clarke did not receive his commission as a federal judge until his appointment to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in the 1950’s). See Victory on Sugar Hill, TIME MAGAZINE (Dec. 17, 1945) (noting that Thurmond Clarke was a Superior Court judge, not federal judge);
 * 3) 	There was no West Adams Improvement Association or any other kind of homeowners association in the lawsuit;
 * 4) 	The eight plaintiffs in the lawsuit were merely local citizens not officially representing any community; and
 * 5) 	The decision was issued in 1945, not 1944). See Victory on Sugar Hill, TIME MAGAZINE (Dec. 17, 1945) (reporting that the decision occurred in late 1945, not 1944).


 * This lack of rigor and precision in the page authors’ investigations and research highlights the unreliable nature of the claims contained therein.


 * While both Los Angeles and the United States have provided unparalleled opportunities to individuals of all races, there is no doubt that the city and our country, as a whole, share a tragic history of bigotry and racism as well. The legacy of racially restrictive covenants continues to haunt us to this very day, as, among other things, it has directly contributed to the vast disparities of wealth that still exist between white and African-American families.  But there is no evidence that Harold Lloyd led efforts to prop up the use of racially restrictive covenants or even supported them at any time.


 * Indeed, everything the historical record contains about Harold Lloyd’s life otherwise suggests that such covenants would be contradictory to his personal values and the way he chose to live.  For example, as Wikipedia’s Harold Lloyd page acknowledges, Harold Lloyd was an active and honored Freemason and Shriner.  As a Freemason, he earned the Rank and Decoration of Knight Commander Court of Honor in 1955 and was coroneted an Inspector General Honorary, 33°.   As a Shriner, he was selected as the Imperial Potentate of the Shriner’s of North America in 1949-50.  Non-discrimination and color blindness are core, essential values of both the Freemason and Shriner organizations, and have been so, long before such causes were popular or even widely accepted.  As Harold Lloyd himself said in a 1949 radio interview regarding his involvement with the Shriner’s:


 * The Shriners have these marvelous hospitals, all over North America, that do nothing but cure little crippled children, and that's without regard to race, creed, or color. You can go into one of their hospital wards and see little colored children, little white children, all there just the same, there's no discriminating at all, and it's 100% charitable, and the Shrine does not seek aid outside.  It's all done by the Shrine and of course that's one of the things they look with great pride upon.  It's marvelous work..


 * Not only would support for racially restrictive covenants be inconsistent with Mr. Lloyd’s lifelong values, but it is also critical to note that there are no other sources that independently verify these incendiary Allegations against Mr. Lloyd. And, in fact, the individuals who know the most about Harold Lloyd’s personal history, life, values and belief strongly deny the Allegations’ veracity.  Specifically, declarations sworn under penalty of perjury from Suzanne Lloyd, Annette Lloyd (unrelated to Mr. Lloyd), and Richard Simonton explain their relationship with and to Mr. Lloyd, the basis of their expertise and personal knowledge about Mr. Lloyd and their unequivocal certainty that Mr. Lloyd was never supportive of restrictive covenants and, in fact, found them morally repugnant and inconsistent with his values.  Among other things:


 * 1) 	Suzanne Lloyd, Mr. Lloyd’s granddaughter, was actually raised by Mr. Lloyd and his wife and, as a result, lived with him for over twenty years and she notes that “she never once heard Harold make a single derogatory remark about anyone based on their race, creed, or religion and I never witnessed him, or had knowledge of him, ever exhibiting any prejudice on the basis of race, color, creed or religion,” and states that the allegations of racism are “utterly inconsistent everything I know about the man that raised me,” ;
 * 2) 	Annette Lloyd, a noted historian and expert on the silent-era and the life and work of Harold Lloyd, declares that, “In the 40-plus year that I have studied, the allegation of racism published in the Chicago Defender in July of 1945 is the only instance I have ever encountered in which HL was mentioned in this light or accused of any sort of intolerance or prejudice,” and that, in light of what she knows about him and his life, the allegations of racism in the Article “are wildly implausible and, also, wholly unsupported by, and inconsistent with, the historical record, Lloyd’s personal values, and the manner in which he conducted his life,” as evidenced by, among other things, his political and charitable affiliations, and his work, where he regularly hired African-Americans during an era otherwise characterized by segregation and bigotry ;
 * 3) 	Richard Simonton, one of the Mr. Lloyd’s last surviving friends, swears, under penalty of perjury, that through his many decades spent with Mr. Lloyd, he “can say with confidence and certainty that I never witnessed him indicate or express any kind of prejudice--never an unkind word about anyone,” and that, among other things, Mr. Lloyd’s extensive involvement with, and commitment to, the Shiners (and their core beliefs kindness, tolerance, and colorblindness) would make any support of racially restrictive covenants utterly inconsistent with his charitable work and the values he embraced through his life.
 * 1) 	Richard Simonton, one of the Mr. Lloyd’s last surviving friends, swears, under penalty of perjury, that through his many decades spent with Mr. Lloyd, he “can say with confidence and certainty that I never witnessed him indicate or express any kind of prejudice--never an unkind word about anyone,” and that, among other things, Mr. Lloyd’s extensive involvement with, and commitment to, the Shiners (and their core beliefs kindness, tolerance, and colorblindness) would make any support of racially restrictive covenants utterly inconsistent with his charitable work and the values he embraced through his life.


 * Finally, the Beverly Hills Historical Society recently unearthed archival video of Harold Lloyd joyously visiting a sick African-American child and embracing him and putting his iconic spectacles on him. The child’s face lights up and the warmth in this interaction is clear to any observer.  The video is utterly inconsistent with any view that Mr. Lloyd harbored any prejudice, let alone any virulent racist sentiments.  We encourage you to watch the video, which you can download.


 * All told, therefore, the allegations that tie Mr. Lloyd to support for restrictive covenants, which are published as fact on Wikipedia’s Harold Lloyd page, ultimately all derive from a single 70-word Article that repeated unsourced tabloid gossip without verification or quotation. The same Article acknowledged that the very position supposedly attributed to Mr. Lloyd through the Chamber of Commerce had been disputed contemporaneously by the Chamber of Commerce itself.


 * As such, we are kindly requesting your action to correct and remove the Allegations from Mr. Lloyd’s page once and for all in order to serve the interests of accuracy and reliability that Wikipedia has always sought to uphold and to mitigate the tremendous damages that are being done to Mr. Lloyd’s legacy.


 * We appreciate your consideration of our request, which we do not make lightly, and we look forward to hearing back from you shortly. We’re also happy to provide additional details and documents if that might be helpful.

HLE1893 (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles rely on published sources. Although the three books cited are published by respected publishing houses, all mention Lloyd only in passing, and two seem to be confused about the date of the incident. Clare cites no source for the allegation about Lloyd. Meyer and Hassan cite only the 1945 Chicago Defender article. I believe that you are correct that the Defender article is insubstantial as a foundation for the account presented in our article. Best practice may be to excise the whole paragraph unless stronger sources can be found. Per WP:CLOSE, let's give interested editors a week or so to join the discussion and see where the consensus is. Ewulp (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, rather than put up the URL for the article, which will change over time, it is far superior to use the Permanent link on the left of the page, then copy that URL. That way we will have a link to the version of the article with the issue. If the issue is alleviated in the future, the current link will make no sense. Peaceray (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Response to HLE1893
Your letter above dated March 9 is written on behalf of Harold Lloyd Entertainment, Inc. ("HLE"). It was then re-posted by you earlier today in its entirety on my talk page at User talk:Cbl62 as well as being re-posted last week at Talk:Harold Lloyd Estate. In your letter and re-postings thereof, HLE is demanding that Wikipedia remove content that is supported by no less than four reliable sources. This is an extraordinary request. Some might construe it as an attempt to whitewash an embarrassing episode from Mr. Lloyd's past and to use legal threats against a nonprofit educational institution and its editors in furtherance of that attempt.

In order to permit a more informed evaluation of your demands, please advise as to (i) whether any of the four reliable sources has retracted their statements, (ii) whether any retractions have been requested from these four reliable sources, and (iii) whether you will share your communications with these four reliable sources.

As I understand the matter, the four reliable sources are as follows:
 * The 1945 Chicago Defender article. In 1945, The Chicago Defender published an article, prominently featured on its front page, under the headline "Harold Lloyd Heads Anti-Negro Drive". The article reported that Lloyd "was the prime instigator of the new Beverly Hills restrictive covenant drive. A recent letter, sent out over the name of the famous actor, called for a meeting of residents here to sign restrictive covenants." Can you share a copy of the referenced letter sent out over the name of Mr. Lloyd? Do you deny that such a letter was sent out over Mr. Lloyd's name? Did Mr. Lloyd during his lifetime ever respond to the article in the Defender, deny the assertions contained therein, or request a retraction? It is my understanding that the Defender is a highly reputable media source, operating since 1905 -- indeed, it has been called the "most important" paper in the African-American press. That newspaper continues today serving the African-American community (see https://chicagodefender.com/). Have you requested a retraction from the Defender?  Has any retraction been made? Will you share your communications with the Defender?
 * The 2001 Rowman & Littlefield Book. In 2001, Rowman & Littlefield, a respected publishing house operating for more than 70 years, published a book titled "As Long As They Don't Move Next Door". That book asserts that "one of the white home owners who led the challenge to black occupancy in Beverly Hills was also an actor: the silent-screen comedian, Harold Lloyd." Has any retraction been requested or provided from that publisher or its author? Will you share your communications with same?
 * The 2015 University of Oklahoma Press Book. In 2015, the University of Oklahoma Press (a respected academic publisher) published a book titled "Loren Miller: Civil Rights Attorney and Journalist". The book asserted that Mr. Lloyd "led the drive to keep blacks and Jews from moving into nearby Beverly Hills." Has the publisher or author retracted these statements? Have you been in communication with the publisher or author? Will you share your communications with same?
 * The 2018 St. Martin's Press Book. In 2018, St. Martin's Press (one of the country's largest and most respected publishing houses) published a book entitled "The Battle for Beverly Hills". In that book, the author stated that Lloyd "joined a neighborhood association whose goal was to enforce the city’s restrictive covenants that prohibited nonwhites, including Jews, from buying or renting property in the city." Has any retraction been requested or provided from that publisher or author? Can you share your communications with same?

Further, you state above that the referenced declarations are available for review. Please provide prompt public online access so that these statements can be evaluated.

Also, I note that a purported Lloyd estate representative (having the user name "Chatterbox1880") made legal threats in or about August 2019, but refused to answer any questions. In particular, that account stated that the allegations of Mr. Lloyd's involvement in enforcing restrictive covenants "actually has been proven to be false. LEGAL ACTION FROM THE LLOYD FAMILY TO FOLLOW". The Chatterbox1880 postings can be viewed here and here. That account was indefinitely blocked in August 2019 for violating Wikipedia policy on legal threats. See User talk:Chatterbox1880. Are you the same person as the blocked user, Chatterbox1880? Can you provide any support for Chatterbox1880's contention that the allegations have "been proven false"? In what forum were the allegations tested or "proven false? Was that determination made by a judge, jury, or in some other manner?  Please clarify.

Please understand that you are making an extraordinary request that we omit material that is supported by four reliable sources. In order to evaluate your extraordinary request, we ask that you furnish the information you have offered to share as well as the information outlined above. Regards, Cbl62 (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If this appears in reputable sources, then that is what matters. Harold Lloyd Entertainment, Inc. has an obvious motive here.--Hippeus (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * By reputable you mean WP's term of art, reliable. But in judging reliability we do, when serious question arises, ask what the source's sources are, because the source's appropriate (or inappropriate) use of sources is part of evaluating its reliability. Without taking a position on the instant question, I will say that historic newspapers are not generally reliable sources for synthetic conclusions (though they certainly can be used to illustrate attitudes of the day and so on); instead, they need to be filtered through the lens of modern scholarship. The other three are prima facie reliable, but (again) we should probably take a look at their sources, especially if their treatment (i.e. the treatment by our three sources) of Lloyd is cursory.What we don't do is challenge other editors (whether they have an apparent COI or not) to do OR and send us the results. EEng 19:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that all four sources are highly reputable (the Defender has been called the "most important" paper in the historic African-American Press and the books are by highly reputable publishing houses known for rigorous fact-checking), Lloyd's alleged role in encouraging restrictive covenants (one of the most insidious, and successful, methods developed in 20th century America for the enforcement of racial segregation) appears to be legitimate encyclopedic content.
 * The point is not challenging anyone to do original research. To the contrary, the writer claims the sources published false accounts about Mr. Lloyd. If that were so, they would have almost certainly sought a retraction from the publishers. If they did not do so, this seriously undercuts the self-serving claim that the sources published false accounts.
 * Cbl62 (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My statement about period newspapers applies whether it's the Defender or the NYT. For straightforward reporting of facts that their reporters have immediate access to, they're usually reliable. But a synthetic evaluations like that Lloyd was the prime instigator -- that can only be evaluated with the passage of time, with all evidence in.
 * As for the other three, few if any sources are always reliable or never reliable -- context and sourcing matters. I happen to be one of the two foremost experts on a certain very narrow historical event which is often mentioned, in passing, in otherwise highly prestigious and reliable publications -- and they usually get some or all the details wrong. So I know of what I speak. So, again, I'd like to know the entirety of what the three sources say, and the sources they cite, so we can make an appropriate evaluation.
 * Requests for retraction, communications with publishers, declarations -- we wouldn't use any of those under any circumstances even if they were produced (with the single exception of an actual retraction by an author or publisher) so asking for them is pointless.
 * EEng 20:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The reportage of the letter being sent under Lloyd's name is "factual" rather than synthetic, and the source is reliable. I do agree that the phrasing used in the Harold Lloyd Estate had some potential inaccuracy, as raised in HLE's letter. Accordingly, I have edited the entry there to remove some of the alleged inaccuracies asserted by the heir(s). I have now reduced the discussion of Lloyd's role to the following factual (and balanced) sentence: "Though disputed by his heirs, several published accounts have described Lloyd as a leader in the drive to prevent African-Americans and others from residing in the area. " Deleting the matter in its entirety, given the reliability of the sources, would be inappropriate censorship on a matter of importance. Cbl62 (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As for the declarations, HLE stated that they were available for review, and I for one wish to take them up on this offer. Cbl62 (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I said I wasn't taking a position on the main question, because I want to know more about the sources. And I certainly am not advocating, or proposing we acquiesce to, deleting the matter in its entirety. But neither should we be saying that this or that is disputed by his heirs -- is that based on the posts here??? If so that's totally inappropriate.
 * Statements like was the prime instigator are absolutely synthetic on the Defender's part. It's almost never something that can be stated reliably at the time events are unfolding.
 * EEng 20:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * While unconventional, inclusion of "disputed by heirs" language is prudent and advisable in order to protect the Wikimedia Foundation from the threatened legal action. Cbl62 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely out of the question. If WMF Legal feels that's necessary they'll tell us. EEng 21:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Given prior explicit threat of litigation by Chatterbox and the current implied threat by HLE, my language was offered as a prudent application of WP:IAR. Having spent more than 25 years litigating for and against celebrities here in Southern California, I can attest that the cost of litigation can be enormous even when the claims are entirely baseless. Including language of the type I suggested was simply a further protective measure for the benefit of the Wikimedia Foundation -- something we should all consider. Cbl62 (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't try to make us think you're an attorney. We didn't just fall off the turnip truck. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If we feel the need to censor the article to meet threats coming from someone who claims to be acting for the heirs of the article subject, then this should be done only on the instructions of LEGAL as the result of an office action - in such a case the article should be completely blanked - we should not remove embarrassing facts reported in reliable sources just to allow someone to make money from a film.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take the sources at face value for now, since there's no reeal reason to do otherwise. I'm going to discount the claim that this content impacts production of a possible film about Lloyd, because, bluntly, that's not our problem to fix. I am going to ask  if (a) they are the same person that operated the previous  account and (b) they have reliable independent secondary sources presenting their side of the story. Remember that a book citing a newspaper story may also be based on in-person interviews or other sources, and merely cite the story as the definitive exemplar of a claim. Wikipedia doesn't second-guess sources, even for Harold Lloyd (some of us are big fans of his work). The most likely outcome here would be "sources claimed X, other sources examined it and found it only partly true", but that requires the other sources bit. Guy (help!) 10:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct that we don't second-guess sources as a rule, though in some cases (a birthdate that is plainly in the wrong century) we may. As described in this NYT article, "Publishers have long maintained that fact-checking every book would be prohibitively expensive, and that the responsibility falls on authors, who hold the copyrights." The discussion on this page raises some questions about the adequacy of our sources for an allegation of abhorrent behavior—passing mentions in two books, both citing an ambiguous article published in the Chicago Defender in 1945. One of the books gets the date of the event wrong, which does not inspire confidence there.


 * The Defender article itself is a very slight piece relegated to the lower left quadrant of a front page dominated by other stories; the banner headlines were "24 Killed in 92nd Explosion" and "Reds Give Jobs to Berlin Negroes". A search of the Defender archive shows no continuing coverage that mentions Harold Lloyd. A letter to the editor in the January 7, 1950, issue reads: "W.C. Fields’ Jim Crow will shows what white movie stars think of colored people. The comedian, Harold Lloyd, tried his best to keep colored people from moving into his all-white neighborhood, but in spite of him, the colored stars now have beautiful homes on each side of him and also across the street." But a letter to the editor is not a RS. All other mentions of Lloyd in Defender articles are neutral or positive—e.g., November 4, 1957: Lloyd and four others receive "Eastman House Awards for distinguished service to the art of motion pictures"; August 24, 1935: "The Milky Way, Harold Lloyd’s new film, is a tale of the prize ring. It was started last week at United Artists with plans on foot to use several colored fighters and ex-fighters among the whites. Of these, the well-known Johnny Conde has a good dialogue part. Included also are Soldier Jim Maples and Bull Anderson". The July 7, 1934, issue reports that Raymond Turner is "just completing a good part in Harold Lloyd’s 1934 picture". As far as the Defender is concerned, the allegation about Lloyd heading a restrictive covenant drive seemingly did not have legs. I'd prefer more robust sourcing for this if we're going to include it. There are several full-length biographies of Lloyd; do they not mention anything of the affair? Ewulp (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been delayed in following up but I chased down the sources the other day and I agree 100% with your analysis. I'll post what I've found in the next few days; I need some quiet time. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that the Chicago Defender reported factually on a letter sent over Lloyd's name calling for a meeting of residents to sign restrictive covenants, and we have no valid basis for rejecting this factual account. Further, the fact that the Defender did not publish further stories about Lloyd's support for restrictive covenants does not mean that they backed away from the story, and it is utter speculation to suggest that the absence of further negative stories casts doubt on the original factual account. Moreover, and as noted by Guy above, we have no way of confirming that the three book accounts are based solely on the Defender article. And, as also noted by Guy, it is not an appropriate role for us to second-guess or negate the four reliable sources consistently reporting on this -- particularly where there's not a single published source disputing it.  The specific factual inaccuracies presented by HLE have been corrected, and this was appropriate. However, the one sentence that remains (at Harold Lloyd Estate) dealing with Lloyd's connection to the covenants is sourced and uncontradicted by any other published source. Second-guessing and rejecting what the four reliable sources state, without even one contrary source, and based solely on our own opinion of the sources (or perhaps on a fondness for Lloyd or a desire to disbelieve that he would have engaged in these actions) would be impermissible WP:OR and an inappropriate use of personal opinion to eliminate sourced content on a point of public import. Cbl62 (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , agree 100%. Guy (help!) 09:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree 90%. The wording at Harold Lloyd Estate seems fine to me. I've just examined three of the biographies (Schickel, Dardis, and D'Agostino); unfortunately, nothing on the subject. Ewulp (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

So did Harold Lloyd ever disavow the letter sent by the chamber of commerce that he was president of? Could you please cite a source for this disavowal? 157.52.6.39 (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

One editor's "response to spurious legal threats made on this page"
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)
 * 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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I've headed it with your own description. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * The free legal advice, especially that based on blogs found on the internet, really needs to stop. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)

Dismissive tendentious comment

 * 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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Block and unblock

 * HLE1893 has been indef blocked for making legal threats. — Maile (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I'm not missing anything. We don't blindly use every source that hasn't been retracted. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * No one makes "adjudciations" or "final findings" of stuff like this. You're talking nonsense. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Oooh! Their proffer! Oh, Morticia, when you speak legalese it drives me wild! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * It is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine the validity of their representation – 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 rules – which 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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)

Do you seriously believe, on this record, that we should censor Wikipedia, striking the one sentence about what these sources have asserted – No one's suggesting censoring anything. I've already said that I'm not yet taking a position on the content question. Engaging meaningfully on that won't be possible until you've stopped fixating on who different editors are and stopped raising strawmen about absence of retractions, absence of challenges by Lloyd himself or his heirs or his estate or his fans or his grandchildren, and so on. Please show you're ready to focus on the sources themselves by not repeating these same irrelevant stuff yet once again, pausing now and then to cry "censorship!". <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I still want to see the declarations ... there was a "proffer" after all ;) Cbl62 (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * I have unblocked my block of the editor. Proceed as normal, whatever normal means at Wikipedia. — Maile  (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your willingness to reconsider does you credit. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Use of racial and other stereotypes in Lloyd's films
The HLE letter above presents Lloyd as a man without any racist inclinations whatsoever. It's not our function to judge the accuracy of this assertion. However, racial stereotypes were prevalent, widely held and accepted during the years when Lloyd was an active film-maker. Indeed, such stereotyping was a comic device used in a number of Lloyd's films. A quick google search turned up the following: Does the use of racial stereotypes in his films mean that Lloyd was a racist? I don't pretend to know the answer to that question. My point is this: Like racial stereotyping in films, restrictive covenants were widely popular in the first half of the 20th Century -- the latter having been viewed by many who likely did not consider themselves "racists" as a "legitimate" means of preserving property values and/or limiting racial integration. Wikipedia is not here to make judgments on a person's motives or morality. That is not Wikipedia's function. Wikipedia should, however, be free to report on the use of racial stereotypes as a comic device and on a historical person's reported involvement in promoting restrictive covenants. Cbl62 (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome Danger (Lloyd's first "talkie") contained racial stereotypes of Asians that were found so offensive that the Chinese government (pre-Communist) demanded a formal apology from Lloyd and banned the film. See here and here.
 * Even Lloyd's classic Safety Last! has been criticized for its use of "a number of ugly racial, ethnic, and sexual stereotypes, included for cheap laughs," making it "a superb example of both the artistic wealth and moral poverty of early cinema." See here. In one scene, a stereotypically Jewish pawnshop owner "literally wrings his hands in anticipation when Harold comes calling." See here.
 * Our own Wikipedia article on Lloyd's Feet First notes that the film "contains a classic example of Hollywood's use of an African American in a comic 'shiftless and slow' stereotyped role." In the film, Lloyd referred to the African-American character as "Charcoal". Lloyd was apparently conscious of the offensive nature of the name, as he overdubbed his own voice for a 1960s re-release to change the name of the character from "Charcoal" to "Charlie." Another author here critiques the film's portrayal of Charcoal in the "prototypical lazy/dumb black man stereotype" where the "character's intelligence is so dialed down that it’s still painful to watch."
 * Haunted Spooks has been called at least "mildly offensive" for its stereotypical depiction of African-American servants afraid of ghosts, and having those characters engage in "Negro-speak: 'An’ de whole graveyard turns upside-down! Gassly, spookey ghosts come heah to room dese roams.'" See here.
 * , culture of the time. But the covenants was different: it was reactionary, hense more notable. Guy (help!) 21:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the covenants issue is more notable, though "culture of the time" does not render the use of racial and anti-Semitic stereotype non-notable. Not all film-makers employed such devices, and the use of such stereotypes in early film has been the subject of considerable academic work. E.g., here. Cbl62 (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, notability is not the standard for article content. Second, yeah, most films of the period had such content, unless they had no nonwhite characters at all. Above you give a quote:
 * Safety Last! has been criticized for its use of "a number of ugly racial, ethnic, and sexual stereotypes, included for cheap laughs"
 * but the full quote is
 * Safety Last! is a near-perfect example of silent-era Hollywood Unfortunately, this means that, like other works from the period, the film also includes a number of ugly racial, ethnic, and sexual stereotypes, included for cheap laughs. As such, the film is a superb example of both the artistic wealth and moral poverty of early cinema.
 * You left out the part I bolded -- the part showing that this isn't, as you say, an instance of Safety Last in particular "being criticized" but rather is a flat statement that that's the way most films were. Then again, you quoted one review's mention of the stereotypically Jewish pawnshop owner; but here's the review's full text:
 * True to its era's reliance on ethnic stereotypes, the film must be forgiven a couple of minor characters, notably the easily panicked African-American store employee and a Jewish pawnshop owner who literally wrings his hands in anticipation when Harold comes calling.
 * Again, that bolded bit really matters. If a film or filmmaker of the period didn't rely on such stuff, THAT would be worth mentioning in the article.Let's see, what else... Ah yes. Your statement (relying on a blogpost) that Welcome Danger was so offensive that the Chinese government (pre-Communist) demanded a formal apology from Lloyd and banned the film omits the key feature of that incident, which the blogpost also omits but the source it cites (Silent Cinema and the Politics of Space, Bean ed., p192) makes clear:
 * Soon, a protest that had started as a local, intellectual-led event escalated into a concerted political campaign supported not only by social groups of different political persuasions, but also by the ruling Nationalist government ... The outcry against Welcome Danger provided an ideal opportunity for the government to strengthen its control (via film censorship, for instance) of China’s extraterrestrial regions, including Shanghai’s International Settlement and French Concession. To support the protest, the Nationalist government’s Film Censorship Committee in Shanghai ordered that newspapers stop carrying the two theaters’ advertisements [etc etc]
 * In other words, Lloyd being (temporarily) banned in China was a piece of political opportunism, not a reaction to an unusually offensive work.This talk page is beginning to take on a distinct WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS flavor. If you want to discuss content in Lloyd's films that most today would find troubling, then find a reliable, scholarly source talking about such material (and what it says about Lloyd, because this is an article about Lloyd); you can't just go looking for your own examples from blogs and cobble them together. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, you've missed the point of my post -- and pehraps I did not articulate it clearly. So let me try again. It's undoubtedly true that racial stereotyping was common in the 1920s America, and, indeed I opened my comment by noting exactly that. However, in support of its arguments above, HLE has advanced sweeping assertions that:
 * Lloyd was never heard to make a "single derogatory remark about anyone based on their race, creed, or religion",
 * There is no evidence of Lloyd ever "exhibiting any prejudice on the basis of race, color, creed or religion,"
 * They assert via declaration of Annette Lloyd that, except for the Defender article, and after reviewing the historical record, Lloyd was never "accused of any sort of intolerance or prejudice."
 * Accusations of racial intolerance or prejudice “are wildly implausible and, also, wholly unsupported by, and inconsistent with, the historical record, Lloyd’s personal values, and the manner in which he conducted his life."
 * In the context of the discussion commenced by HLE and their sweeping denials of any shred or inkling of racial intolerance or prejudice, it is entirely fair to point out that, in fact, Lloyd's films did include many offensive racial, ethnic and religious stereotypes. Let's abandon the notion, advanced by HLE, that Lloyd was some sort of saint. Like others of his generation, he was not immune from the mindset of his day. Cbl62 (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You started this thread by writing The HLE letter above presents Lloyd as a man without any racist inclinations whatsoever. It's not our function to judge the accuracy of this assertion – then you immediately went on to judge the accuracy of the assertion.
 * HLE's assertions about declarations and what relatives say has zero weight for the decision about article content – whether they're true or not – so it's a waste of time denying them or talking about the content of his films.
 * No one here has subscribed to the notion, advanced by HLE, that Lloyd was some sort of saint so, again, you're just wasting everyone's time with these thousands of words. Plus you misrepresent and misuse sources.
 * <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've said several times, I do not purport to judge whether Lloyd was a "racist". But HLE (and it was their tome that initiated the discussion) made several specific factual assertions about the historical record. Some of those specific assertions appear to be inaccurate. My post addressed those factual assertions. I am pleased that you were not taken in by HLE's declarations, but as part of the overall case presented by HLE, these sweeping assertions needed to be answered. Cbl62 (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No they don't. This page is for discussing what goes in the article, not discussing what kind of person Lloyd was.<b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We diagree, and that's fine. HLE began the discussion with its contentions as a rationale for explaining why the content should be deleted. BTW, not all of the silent film comedians engaged in this type of racial stereotyping. For example, Charlie Chaplin "derived no humor from mocking other races," famously saying of African-Americans: "They have suffered too much to be funny to me." See here. Cbl62 (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Chaplin is, in fact, who I had in mind when I said If a film or filmmaker of the period didn't rely on such stuff, THAT would be worth mentioning in the article. But then he slept with underage girls, so no one's perfect. As for the rest, I give up. It's hopeless. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

"Like others of his generation, he was not immune from the mindset of his day" - which is not a reason not to mention either the restrictive covenants lobbied for by the Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce while he was president or the stereotypical and/or derogatory portrayal of minorities in some of his films, no more than it's a reason not to mention in an articles on Thomas Jefferson or George Washington that they were slaveholders. We would not say such content should be removed because slaveholding was typical of the mindset of Jefferson's and Washington's times. And as has been mentioned, there are a number of filmmakers who did not engage in such practices, Chaplin has been mentioned and with the possible exception of Pardon Us which, though it has the questionable plotline of two donning blackface of a sort in order to hide during a prison manhunt, doesn't actually include derogatory depictions of Black people or have them imitate anti-Black stereotypes, Laurel & Hardy are another example. 157.52.6.39 (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Star locations on Hollywood Walk of Fame
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)

Mother?
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)