Talk:Stan Laurel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name?

There's disagreement in the article between the text and the bio box - Arthur Stanley vs Stanley Arthur.

Google prefers the 1st. Which is it? Jbsegal (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

First cooperation

The article says the first cooperation of Laurel and Hardy was Duck Soup, but imdb ([1]) says their first performances were in Forty-five Minutes from Hollywood (1926), Sugar Daddies (1927) and From Soup to Nuts (1928). DirkvdM 08:22, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Didn't he live with his parents as a baby?

The article says "In his early years, he spent much time living with his grandmother Sarah Metcalfe." Does this explain why he is not living with his parents on the 1891 census, when he was only a year old? Laurel's parents, then 28 and 30, were living at Sarah Barker's lodging house at 15 High Tenter Street, Bishop Auckland. Laurel was born the previous year, but neither he nor his older brother Gordon are listed as living with their parents at this time: were they with his grandmother? Anyone found her on the 1891 census? Sarah Barker was my great great grandmother. She died in 1896, by which time the Jeffersons had moved to their own house, but I am intrigued to know whether Laurel himself ever lodged with my ancestor. Sah10406 (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Clean up

Why is the clean up tag on this article? Can it be removed?Robdurbar 19:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• I assume it has to do with all the marriages? The article isn't really clear about them.--Maarten1963 02:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• The article seems not to adhere that well to the stated headings, with a good bit of jumping around chronologically.

Righto, I think I've sorted the chronology and heading problems out now, so I have removed the cleanup tag. Bob talk 12:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote about his own funeral

Didn't he state 'If someone at my funeral doesn't laugh, I will never speak to them again'?

Fair use rationale for Image:Laurelandhardychumpatoxford.jpg

Image:Laurelandhardychumpatoxford.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Laurelandhardychumpatoxford.jpg

Image:Laurelandhardychumpatoxford.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

American status

Someone had amended the page to state that Stan Laurel was an English-born, American actor. This statement is NOT true. While it is true that Laurel found his fame in the USA, at no time did Stan Laurel become an American Citizen or renounce his British citizenship. Like Sir Charles Chaplin he remained a British Citizen until his death. I feel it OK to label entries for people like Cary Grant as British-born American, as they did change their actual citizenship. However, in the case of Stan Laurel, I feel it a misleading untruth. I have amended the page to show his true origin and country.

Clint Eastwood

Its a popular myth that Stan Laurel was Clint Eastwood's father. He was not. Just in case anyone wondered why this wasn't mentioned on the article.--EchetusXe (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

References

This article has three reference sections, one would be enough. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ten films over five months?

According to the article: "In 1939, Laurel and Hardy signed a contract at 20th Century Fox to make one motion picture and nine more over the following five months."

This seems to mean "ten films over five months". If that is what it means, why not just say that? If that is not what it means, what does it mean please? Wanderer57 (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Mud and Sand

I watched the brief Mud and Sand clip included in this article. It seems odd that Stan Laurel does not appear in it. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

First World War?

Was Laurel ever attacked for not signing up to fight for the British during the conflict? He was only 24 at the start in 1914. Moreover as he was not an American citizen what immigration status did he have during the conflict to avoid the draft? 86.182.42.36 (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC) He moved to America well before the war started and long before conscription (the draft) was introduced in March 1916. He claimed immunity when the draft was introduced in America in May 1917 because he was slightly deaf. He was still recorded as an alien (foreign citizen) at that time. Unlike Chaplin, I don't think he was yet famous enough in the UK when the war was on to have drawn any direct criticism in the press for not enlisting. Be interesting to know any other information though. Mighty Antar (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

At the time British performers in foreign countries were felt to be contributing more to the British war effort by continuing their acting or entertaining professions in their current country, and therefore doing what they (presumably) did best, rather than returning home and enlisting in the services. It was for this reason that actors such as David Niven, etc., were never called back to their respective service, or called up while abroad, and he and several other actors had to return to the UK of their own volition in order to return to, or be considered for, the UK forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.248 (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

An interesting theory. Is there any reliable evidence to support this view? Niven is of course, irrelevant, as he was 8 years old when the war ended.Nickm57 (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Visit to England

There's a clip of him visiting England in 1932, and chatting to his father and (I think) stepmother. Any details about this trip, and the death/divorce of his mother. and who the stepmother was? Valetude (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A Clown's Prayer

I changed the source. The previous source made no mention of the Eulogy either in text or the audio interview. The new source is from Van Dyke's own book. I also removed the article link for the prayer since it's not the same one. Rklawton (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead

I have tweaked the poorly worded lede which stand that Laurel "rose to fame in the U.S. as part of the comedy duo Laurel and Hardy". This focus on one country only, when L&H became genuinely international stars seems inappropriate and utterly misleading. – SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Date for Main (1st) Photo on Article page

Hello All,

The caption for the 1st photo of Stan on the article is labelled "Laurel circa 1930"; however the photo came from Wikimedia Commons, which notes the date as "circa 1920". IMO Stan looks older in the pic than he did in the early 20s, even mid-20s, so the circa 1930 estimate may be correct, so I am not going to change the date based on the Wiki Commons note. If anyone can obtain an independent date for that photo, please do so, note the reference, & edit accordingly. Thanks. SaturnCat (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Significance of novel

The significance of the novel, sourced mention of which has now been deleted from the article, is that it has a fictionalized version of Stan Laurel as protagonist that it deals with for several hundred pages, not only referencing a lot of his slapstick numbers from their films, but with the book also being a large debate between him and Thomas Aquinas on the nature and function of laughter and humor from the POV of each, based upon their respective IRL lifes and works, both in film, writing, and correspondence outside the novel. --2003:DA:CF04:EB00:F981:4CF3:1421:E75A (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP, there are quite a few fictionalized versions of Laurel out there; what makes this one significant enough to warrant inclusion in this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

According to the official WP guidelines, a book is notable enough to warrant even its own article if it's been published (not self-published) with an ISBN and has been subject to at least two reviews by reliable sources (there's maybe up to a three-digit amount of German reviews out there, and I'm certain I can come up with one or two more in English). I may be a bit lazy as to write an own English-language article for the book, but the notability threshold to become notable for mention in a single sentence as an honoring of Laurel & Hardy's lasting legacy is even lower.

Furthermore, more than half of the cultural depictions (13 out of 21) listed in that category date from when they were still active. Even the second-newest entry in that category is a bit over two decades old already, and out of the 8 entries dating from after Laurel's death, 6 are around 30 to over 50 years old. Finally, in most of them Laurel & Hardy only figure as a throwaway side gag or side characters drawn out for one or two minutes at best, or a tiny photo in the background, with only 4 that I can see where that's not the case, whereas the book has Laurel as the main character opposite Thomas Aquinas for several hundred pages, intensively dealing with his life, career/his fictional screen persona, and his thoughts on humor both as a comedy actor and writer. --2003:DA:CF04:EB00:F981:4CF3:1421:E75A (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Whether the book warrants its own article is a separate question, on which I have no particular opinion. It is not correct to say that every book on this subject that has its own article must be mentioned here. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has claimed that "every book on this subject [...] must be mentioned here". It has been explained why this one book on merits of its own special qualities not only meets the notability threshold for this article, but the even higher notability threshold for an own article (notability for an own article automatically establishes notability for articles the subject of which it pivotally relates to, as the threshold to an own article is higher), as well as why it is of much higher notability to the article subject's legacy than many, if not most of those that you have compared it to, many of which are included in the related article Laurel and Hardy. --2003:DA:CF0C:4E00:B9C9:F8B5:9AB4:558C (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Your argument above was "the notability threshold to become notable for mention in a single sentence as an honoring of Laurel & Hardy's lasting legacy is even lower [than for creating a standalone article]", which suggests that any book meeting the standalone-article threshold would automatically merit inclusion here. My point is that those are separate issues; my objection to including the book here is not that it is not notable, but that it is not significant to readers of this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)