Talk:Black Dahlia/Archive 1

Vandalism to This Page

March 21, 2007 - I'm not sure where to report this, but I suspect someone has tampered with this article. "Beth left almost immediately after arriving due to an argument with her anus." Can someone with more knowledge of Black Dahlia fix this?

Because this entry suffers repeated vandalism, I'm going to keep track of the offenders.

Dec. 26, 2006 67.81.175.163 (optonline.net of Newark, N.J.) vandalizes page, reverted by CambridgeBayWeather. 68.164.63.15 18:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC) twikipedia

Dec. 25, 2006 69.218.213.81 ppp-69-218-213-81.dsl.wotnoh.ameritech.net of Columbus, Ohio, vandalizes page, then reverts. 68.164.63.15 18:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC) twikipedia

Dec. 17, 2006 138.236.245.38 at Gustavus Adolphus College deletes major portions of article. Reverted by DDima. Signed, Twikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by

68.164.63.15 (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Dec. 9, 2006 138.236.245.38 at Gustavus Adolphus College again deletes entry on Woody Guthrie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.164.54.99 (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Nov. 27, 2006 68.234.184.255, an Adelphia subscriber in Santa Monica, adds spam links to "Black Dahlia Avenger" and "Exquisite Corpse" that are immediately deleted by a spambot.

Nov. 21, 2006. 138.236.245.38 ( molson6-1.wireless.gac.edu.), a user at Gustavus Adolphus College, deleted the Woody Guthrie entry without explanation. Update: Gustavus Adolphus College user (molson6-1.wireless.gac.edu.) continues to delete Woody Guthrie entry.

Nov. 15, 2006. 68.234.184.255 (68-234-184-255.vnnyca.adelphia.net.), an Adelphia subscriber in Santa Monica, Calif.) deleted two essential paragraphs on Elizabeth Short's movements after World War II.

Nov. 15, 2006. 58.107.201.9, Optus Internet user in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, adds random vandalism.

Images

I added a picture of her grave (it is just around the corner from me), but this page badly needs more images, both of Short while she was still alive, and of the condition of her body (yes it might be graphic, but it is - tragically enough - a major part of the reason she is notable). Does anyone know the state of copyright on images of her? Or where to obtain ones that Wikipedia can use? DarkCryst 06:38, 23 September 2006.

---

Yes, I think this page needs an image of Elizabeth in life.... but a photo of her dead body is not only graphic or tragic, is pure bad taste and it would be only cruel to her. Elizabeth Short isn't only "The Black Dahlia", she was a woman, a human being.... and she doesn't deserve to be killed an infinite number of times, on serious or less so web sites.... More, "Wikipedia" is a "general" Encyclopedia, not a Forensic Sciences Encyclopedia and a there could be sensitive users, not so accustomed to morgue images.

Actually I disagree about that. There is nothing wrong with featuring images of her death - as long as they are not the main image. An Encyclopedia shouldn't care about offending people - it should just report the facts. Some (limited) images about her death would be very to the point - as that is why she is known. Specifically the famous shot of her body at the scene would probably be the best one. You are right in that there is no reason for this article to have every autopsy photo. But I think there should at least be one photo related to her gruesome death DarkCryst 07:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

While it's always chilling to see images of a mutilated corpse, I'm inclined to agree with DarkCryst here. I mean, if you look up the pages for the five famous victims in the Jack the Ripper article, each of their pages feature an image or two of their dead bodies. The reason people read this article is to learn about Elizabeth Short's death. That's the reason she's famous. If it weren't for that, her name would have been lost in the passage of time. --Ange Noir 06:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The name of the page

This page was moved to Elizabeth Short, but I moved it back to The Black Dahlia.

Wikipedia's naming conventions require articles to be named after the most common name used, rather than the most correct (by whatever criterion). So even though Short's name is really "Elizabeth Short", that doesn't matter if she's better known as "The Black Dahlia". (See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) for more information.)

The article says "better known as The Black Dahlia", and that claim is the basis for my decision to move the page to that title. For all I know, Short is actually better known as "Elizabeth Short"; if this is true, then by all means move the page back there! But please fix the article content as well (perhaps to "also known as" rather than "better known as"). ^_^

-- Toby Bartels 06:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Someone did a bad edit to change the entry about the Los Angeles County Grand Jury report. I have a copy of the report. It says she wasn't a prostitute. This should not be changed to say that she was.

Moving back to Black Dahlia

Someone up and moved the original article without discussion, claiming that because a new movie was coming out with the same name (based upon the same incident) that the main article name should be a disambiguation page. This makes no sense. Making a movie about Christopher Columbus does not mean forcing a move of that page to Christopher Columbus (person) with a disambig page at the original name to the new movie and the person. The main page should be about the actual event. Same goes with the other entries of this nature, it should be no different here. DreamGuy 23:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Discussion

Support the moe. DreamGuy 23:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Support, seems sensible and per conventions. And leave the current The Black Dahlia as a dab page. –Hajor 19:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Suppotr —Michael Z. 2005-10-17 17:47 Z

Support for reasons above. -- Kjkolb 04:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Discision

Due to the confusion that resulted from the above, I have made a new RM request. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The Black Dahlia move

Hello...

It was not my intention to do anything wrong but thanks for letting me know. I still have much to learn :) The reason I did it was not only because of the movie The Black Dahlia but also because of James Ellroy's book The Black Dahlia. I believe no more that The Black Dahlia aka. Elizabeth Short is unambiguous. The movie especially seems to be the center of increasing attention. However, I will not move another page without discussion. Mafics 14:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Move question

Is the move request to "The Black Dahlia" or "Black Dahlia"? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 12:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I meant it to be the original article The Black Dahlia, with Black Dahlia redirecting to that and the mentions of the film and book incorporated into the main article so no disambiguation page is needed. I'm a little unsure on how standard the The is though... DreamGuy 23:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, this whole thing was confusing, so instead of having it hang around forever while I decide what to do, I'm going to do a proper RM request here.

Requested move to The Black Dahlia

There was a requested move earlier move here, but it was confusing to say the least. Anyway, I'm redoing the request. The request is as follows:

The Black Dahlia - the page and its history will be deleted

The Black Dahlia (person) - will be moved to The Black Dahlia

Previous comments may not be taken into account. Note that by this is just administration so I have no comment one way or the other, and will most likely be performing the move, if there is consensus. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support, a link to the other pages or to a disambiguation page on the person's article would be more appropriate. -- Kjkolb 04:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

I personally think it's ridiculous to toss out old votes just because the subheading had slightly different name than the Move Request... the intent was clear -- to take the stupid (person) thing off the title. Everyone agreed. We have consenus. Just move it back already. DreamGuy 07:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Summary of the Crime

I think there should be a section here to describe it. I was looking for a little more detail, maybe the cause of death, but not anything too gruesome. Good kitty 19:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC) i saw the autopsy photos on the sundance channel last month it was awful i cried. <lenatee>

The reason why "The murder was solved..." paragraph was added

While I did not add that paragraph, I believe it came because of an explanation of the crime on TLC's 99 Most Bizarre Crimes. The show ended by saying that Hodel was the murderer, but was never arrested due to having information on some dirty cops. This information came from his son, who found that he had an old picture of Short, and saw that his father's handwriting matched that of the killer's.

There was more information than just the picture and the handwriting. Hodel's son wrote a couple of books on the subject and gave more information why he felt his father was the real killer and not just a theory.12.124.255.10 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Myths and misconceptions

An anon added the following paragraph:

Another widely circulated myth holds that Short was unable to have sexual intercourse because of some genetic defect that left her with "infantile genitalia." Los Angeles County district attorney's files states the investigator had questioned three men with whom Short had sexual intercourse. The autopsy describes her reproductive organs as anatomically normal. The autopsy also states that Short was not and had never been pregnant, contrary to what is sometimes claimed.

Lovely. Not only are there no sources to prove that there is such a myth, there is no source to dispute it. I'll leave this here for a while, but without sources, I'll be deleting it. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

00:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)00:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)~~ Source of the myth is probably LA reporter Will Fowler, who later admitted he made it up. It figures prominently in John Gilmore's book "Severed", which many still regard as the definitive source on the case.

On the WE television network, there is a show entitled "Case Reopened: The Black Dhalia." In this television show, they do state that Elizabeth Short had infantile genitalia. It was stated this was a closely guarded fact kept between the killer and the police to help identify the true murderer. I hope a script is available so that this can be referenced. Kate St. John 21:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism?/copyright infringment?

Correct me if I am wrong, because I am new here, but isn't one of the main rules not to copy word for word from another source? Because this entire article is practically a word for word copy of this article: http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movieDetail.cfm/i/01ED1D24-0F60-9C6A-DD5FC65B34000D92 and possibly several others. I can't tell which one came first, though. Mapetite526 20:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to sign)

• It is entirely possible that that page is a copy of this one, that happens pretty regularly. DarkCryst 20:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hermaphrodite

I heard that she was born with smaller boy parts in addition to her girl parts, true, not true? anyone else heard this?

this is addressed under "myths and misconceptions" as untrue. Mapetite526 19:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Teeth

is it true her teeth was so rotten and she was so poor she filled her teeth with wax? I don't get it, she was very plain and everyday looking. -Willmcw

Does that sound realistic to you? Disinclination 04:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

---

It doesn't sound much realistic, but, according to some sources (FBI papers, available after FOIA), she had "bad teeth", even if, in many of her photographs in life, her teeth appear pretty normal. In a maybe excessively graphic close up of the corpse, which can be easily found on the Web, her teeth seem to be broken, but it could be a result of the senseless torture she suffered.

I've read in several sources that she had straightened her teeth with bits of wood, and that her teeth were generally in terrible shape. 207.215.78.126 22:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Juvenile Genitalia?

I added the info about the bartholin gland, which has also been referred to as "unspecified female trouble", together with the relevant attribution. This is a fairly common problem, far more plausible than some rare genetic defect related to "juvenile genitalia", if indeed such a conditon even exists. Duncan Cumming

Move Suspects to separate article?

This section is very long, and could be longer, I was considering moving it to a separate article and making the section on this page a summary with a main article link. Thoughts?

• If no-one has any objections to this then I will tidy up and move that content to a separate article DarkCryst 06:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think it should be left as it is rather than become another target for twikipedians.

• Jack the Ripper suspects has it's own suspects article, and there are plenty other suspects not mentioned in this article which could be added.--andrewI20^Talk 06:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Family

There should be more info about her family. The article is mostly about the crime, which is probably what most people reading the article are interested in, but all the same, why not talk about her mother- which has not a single mention. Or name her sisters. The mention her father Cleo a couple times, but and a slight references to "her four sisters". What are their names? How old are they? etc. Why not mention the fact that she usually went by Bette instead of Elizabeth? --andrewI20^Talk 06:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Her father vanished...and then she moved in with him? Intriguing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.152.84 (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Aspiring Actress?

I have removed the factoid that Short was an "aspiring actress" because AFAIK this is unsubstantiated in that she had no dramatic training, wasn't auditioning or listed by any talent agency. Maikel 13:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Black Dahlia

Is it fair to state that Short became known as the Black Dahlia when this name was freely invented after her death? Isn't this rather the name that her murder became associated with? Maikel 17:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Underage drinking arrest?

If born in 1924 she was over 18 in 1943. Was the drinking age already higher than 18 in CA in 1943? Wikiak 09:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

When I lived in California (up until 1980), the legal drinking age was 21. I presume it was thus in 1943.--jeanne (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Myths and misconceptions - all from one place?

It looks like most of the information in this section is all referenced to one website, which is run by the author one of the many books about Elizabeth Short. A lot of the information here seems to conflict with other published information, so it probably should be researched more / expanded / cleaned up. Ravenstar (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Her Occupation is Listed as "Bitch"

Her occupation is listed as "bitch." What gives?Youdontsmellbad (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a product of vandalism and has already been reverted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Black Dahlia in Hollywood

The Black Dahlia in Hollywood site was removed from the external links. It contains no advertising, no bias and a plethora of information. Is it possible to have it reinstated on the external link section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.25.135 (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

As was noted on Talk:Georgette Bauerdorf, it was removed because it appears to be an outside link that violates WP:EL. As pretty and informative as it might be, it seems to be published through wordpress, which would qualify it as a self-published blog sort of site, which are forbidden as outside links. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Change of name within article

I've been bold and made the following edit - Elizabeth Ann Short -> Elizabeth Short per this note at the bottom of the article - "Note that the FBI file incorrectly lists her as Elizabeth Ann Short. In reality, she had no middle name." Colonel Tom 01:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Image Mislabeled

Photo taken for Short's civilian ID at Camp Cooke. - well, why would there be an ID-tag with the caption Santa Barbara Police?

This image is a mug shot from her arrest for underage drinking on September 23, 1943. If it wasn't cropped at the bottom, you could see that date on the tag as well. I corrected the caption accordingly. Textor (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Black Dahlia Murder Band

2Wildhartlivie. This is a musical interest, isn't it? It's a band with a name that's inspired by the case. How is this not appropriate for the Music subsection? The other band that was noted in the comment obviously has little or no ties to this case. However here is a musical interest with a name directly tied to the case. Sorry, Wildhartlivie, but I don't understand why we can't give it a home in the music section.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  04:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The more pertinent question is how is anything about this band besides the use of the name for sensationalistic purposes related to this murder or Elizabeth Short? As painful as it was, I went through song lyrics by the band and at no time did I find anything related to this case besides the use of the name. The overwhelming effort on this and other crime related articles has been to attempt to control the insertion of otherwise unrelated trivia and I'm at a loss as to how this band does not fall under that definition. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty then. I have to say it, though... your going thru the lyrics like that smaks of "above and beyond the call of duty"! <g>  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  07:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. It wasn't something I did the first time I saw the name of the band, but when we took up the question of what is or what is not relevant to a given article, it seemed reasonable to look a little bit beyond the surface, especially when it wasn't clear. I must admit, however, that I felt as if I needed a Prozac after I read the lyrics... :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong here, actually. TBDM did take inspiration from the murder case in it's lyrics. For example, in the song "Closed Casket Requiem", there is a line going "and in my dreams I cut your mouth from ear to ear". Which is a reference to the way Elisabeth got murdered. 81.70.231.97 (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A passing reference in a song that can best be described as "taking inspiration from the murder case" is so ambiguous still doesn't meet the criteria of definition that's been set for including something in this section, any more than naming a song after something that doesn't further depict it in any way meets it. For example, there are a lot of songs that use the names Bonnie & Clyde, or Jesse James or Billy the Kid, but aren't in any other way about them, nor depict them in any real historical context. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of songs that may have a phrase in a lyric that is drawn from some real life event, but it doesn't make it meet the definition of inclusion that requires it be a direct depiction of the case or person in question in a filmed or other cultural medium that has historical context. In a hundred years, all of this might take on an entirely different perspective, but at the moment, they are just passing references or used in a sensationalistic manner. Consensus for the entire crime project is that this sort of mention shouldn't be included in such sections. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

? From what your saying there is a conflict on the Wikipedia I quote from The Black Dahlia Murder page 'Their band name is derived from the unsolved murder of Elizabeth Short, often referred to as Black Dahlia.' now that is on the very seconded line of TBDM's page is it not worth mentioning once in a section of references which is in fact trivial in itself? (86.29.18.153 (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

I think that if Bob Belden can be mentioned, the the band can be as well. Thedarxide (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm missing how there is a conflict. The band name is notable relative to the band, but it doesn't make it relative to the actual person/murder. I'd be perfectly happy omitting the Bob Belden reference, but it does refer to a notable work based on the subject of the article in a way that is much more than a passing reference. At present, the criteria for inclusion on this, and all other crime articles, is that it has to be something that surpasses a passing mention. The band doesn't solely concentrate on songs/albums about Elizabeth Short, anymore than a line in a song stuck in that says "Elizabeth Short" or "Black Dahlia". It's a project-wide decision regarding unnecessarily trivializing the actual event beyond a given limit while retaining meaningful mentions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are there no post mortem or crime scene photos on the page?

I came here looking for the photo that shows her body and damage inflicted upon her. Why is that picture not here, or any of the crime scene pictures?

86.132.217.203 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Geez, gruesome enough? They are not free-use images. Try rotten.com. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Iam sure the pics would be fair use, if not copright expired. They are 62 years old. 86.132.217.203 (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should read copyright law. As for fair-use, there would need to be a rationale that supported how they added anything to the article to enhance the understanding of the subject. Not seeing that happening. Again, try rotten.com. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

How could showing what was done to her not add something to the article? Are you sure you are not just engaging in censorship? 86.132.217.203 (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hard to believe you would personally attack another editor for engaging in censorship when you have been pointed (two times, I believe) to an external website where graphic images probably exist. Where's the beef?

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  16:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for you I have spent the last half hour reading about US copyright law.

Please allow me to familiarise yourself with section 107

One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as

Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

        1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
        2. The nature of the copyrighted work
        3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
        4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

I will draw your attention to this part-

'criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.'

So can you be be bothered to pop the pics on the page or shall I?

Oh also how come her '43 mugshot is alright with you, but the other pictures aren't?

86.132.217.203 (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

86, I see that you have gone to no small amount of effort to better understand the Fair Use part of copyright law. And I cannot help but wonder why you would think that an encyclopedia is an appropriate place for exhibiting such graphic images as you seem to suggest the article needs? I would have to strongly disagree with you on this issue. However, perhaps a middle ground might be found? An external link to a rotten.com-like website perhaps? (with a cautionary note accompanying it so readers can decide before they click on the link whether or not it's appropriate for, say, their child to surf to)

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  16:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• PS. For some reason our conversation made me think of the Pornography article and the images there. Oh! how disappointing that venture was, too! I guess encyclopedias really are drab, staid references suitable even for kids and the parents/grandparents of same. <g>

Actually, rotten.com is on the blacklist and it would be removed by automatic bot, if it were possible to even save the page with a full url to the site. The '43 shot is used to give visual identification to the person who is the subject of the article. There is nothing valid that can be added in the way of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research" from crime scene photos that is not already clearly covered in the article - "severely mutilated, cut in two, and drained of blood. Her face was slashed from the corners of her mouth toward her ears, and she was posed with her hands over her head and her elbows bent at right angles." I'm wondering how that cannot be visualized solely from the description. It would only serve as sensationalism. I won't be "bothered to pop the pics on the page", do the research necessary to write rationale sufficient enough to possibly try and support the use of the images or to attribute the correct copyright owners with the proper licensing tags. There are no crime scene victim photographs of any kind on Wikipedia to my knowledge and just because the woman died 66 years ago does not lessen our burden of treating a victim with a modicum of dignity in death. It's sensationalism. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Am I being a bit of a prude to express that even such graphic text ought to be preceded by a warning to parents? Hah! Maybe Wikipedia should consider using article ratings similar to those used for films? (oops, just bit my tongue –  <g>)

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  18:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ehhh, I don't know. I'm not sure that would work. The maturity rating might not be a bad idea, though, but I'm not certain how that would happen. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikieds already get enough "censorship" cries, as shown in this section. Such ratings would inevitably lead to the entire pedia getting frequently accused. In the face of such ill grace, I hope it ne'er shall take place!

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  19:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No doubt. It's unnerving to be accused of censorship when there are valid rationales for why something isn't in an article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

For many years, nearly since the inception of Wikipedia, I have been an IP wikignome. And all that time I was happily unaware of all the many policies and guidelines I've been cramming on since I finally got an ID last March. IP's are especially to be tolerated when they make such mistakes, for even I often wondered about the appearance of censorship and other "niceties" of encyclopedia editing. It's clearer to me now, but my own IP experience is always at work when I converse with IPs, well, almost always. I do forget sometimes and am too hard on IPs myself. The outgoing ones will set me straight, though, and I once again remember my IP days. Anyway, best of everything to ya, Wild one!

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  20:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry wildheatlivie, I didn't mean to sound as though Iam trying to upset you!

I just think that those pics are an important element of the whole 'black dahlia' subject.

As you said, wikipedia isn't supposed to be child friendly, or censored.

But as the article is your 'baby' I would ultimately defer to you, whatever you decide is best. Thanks for you discourse!

But please bear in mind that I think the pictures would add a great deal to the article. And although the idea of a seperate link is somewhat comendable, I cannot think of reason why the pictures shouldn't be on the main article.

As I already said wikipedia isn't for children, and even if it was black and white pictures, I think, lack the ability to cause the visceral sense of horror and disgust that colour pics can.

But as I said, Iam happy to discuss the issue with, but I leave it in your hands mate.

86.132.217.203 (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh another thing Iam sorry for being an IP account. I had a wikipedia account for many years but I fell foul of a mod some time ago (I engaged in a 'goodwins law' attack. Oddly enough because of an argument about censorship)

So although Im happy nowdays to use wikipedia and correct the most glaring grammar and spelling errors I encounter I have no desire to register a new account.

Once again thanks for taking the time to 'talk' to me.

toodle-oo

doktor doris 86.132.217.203 (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh another thing wildheartlive, as you seem to be knowledgable about 'BD', what do you think is the rose tattoo truth?

I have read that she had one which was excised and inserted into her vagina, and another book which averred it was rectally inserted but the the DA files state: “There are no cigarette burns and no tattoos on the body.”

Do they mean there are no tattoos now (because it has been sliced off and vaginally/rectally inserted), or there has never been a tattoo?

cheers mate

86.132.217.203 (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

From everything I've read, the source of the rose tattoo story was from Will Fowler, a reporter from the Herald-Express who was on the crime scene. He reported several things he couldn't have determined from being at the crime scene, including the rose tattoo. I don't think there was one. The coroner's report didn't include that, and I think, however bizarre it would be to sensationalize the murder anymore than reality would lend it, it was sensationistic tabloid journalism. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks wild. It is great to get your opinion on the tattoo. Cheers mate.

As I said earlier I didn't meant to cause an argument about the pics. And whatever stance you take I support it.

Bye mate 86.132.217.203 (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Mug shot as the lead image?

Ridiculous. First, she's not notable as a criminal. There's no reason to give the impression she is. Second, her arrest consumes a single sentence of her biography and isn't even significant enough to land a spot in the lead. There is no justifiable reason not to use a derivative. Lara 03:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested Move

This requested move is involving this article, so it is only fair that I notify watchers of this article as well. You can voice your opinion on Talk:The Black Dahlia Murder TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Lynda LaPlante novel and ITV program based on Lynda LaPLante novel

If there's a standard within Wikipedia that states only historical representations can be mentioned in related media sections, it's news to me. Perhaps citing the reference that proves this justification for revert, "a television production about a copycat of this murder is not specifically about Black Dahlia nor is it historically specific to short or this crime" is in order...? Further, the Lynda LaPlante novel that the ITV program was based on is in the section above (See "Literature") - if it is allowed, why isn't the TV program based on the novel allowed? I have reverted this back to include the TV program until some concrete evidence (as I requested above) is provided. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Mostly, the article is clearly marked with ""Selected" is meant to prevent an exhaustive listing of mention in popular culture. Please do not continue adding to this section unless the reference is major. Don't add without proper citation. Thank you." as it was marked when this blurb, unreferenced, was added. The production isn't notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. This is fairly standard for all WP:CRIME bios. Listed on the main page for the project is an "On-going task" list which reads "Actively remove tangential "mentions" of article subjects from articles. The only valid mentions that might remain are specific and historically accurate depictions of subjects in film, music, etc." It's a rationale you, yourself, have followed, when you made these reverts: [1] [2] [3] [4], giving the rationales of "please stop adding this - its inclusion is just plain ridiculous", "rvt non-important television ref to LB", "The Simpsons? Are you serious??? Reverted" and "rvt for obvious reasons". Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's important to be sure to stay on topic here (and not get into anything other than the revert we are discussing). If the ITV program is to be removed for the reason you stated (that it's not historical, etc.), then it seems that the book the same ITV program was based on should be removed as well. But...then you run into the problem that practically the entire list of literature in this article are non-historic - should they be removed also? If any list needs to be pared down, it's literature list, not the television list (which only has three items listed in it including the ITV program). And, of course, in the film and televison list all of the items are not historical, but fictional portrayals of the actual case, so the explanation that the program shouldn't be there is based on it not being historical really isn't consistent with what's already there. Which, in reality, means that my reverts of the inclusion of the Simpson's episode should not have been reverted for that reason, either - but that's another article. I don't think that there's really a good reason for not keeping the other editor's inclusion of the ITV episode - especially since it is based on a book which has already been listed for a while now in the literature section. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't ask for precedents and when your own actions on another article for essentially the same reason are noted, tell me to stay on topic. Those reverts are as validly based on the project goals as the one I made here. A non-notable television production based on a fictional novel about a copycat murder is part and parcel of the rationale behind the WP:CRIME to-do list. It is in no way about the Black Dahlia murder. But if you insist on pruning the lists, so be it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this discussion when I added the Lynda La Plante novel and series to the article, and was very surprised to see it reverted. She has been all over the TV talk shows talking about the original Black Dahlia case, giving it a profile it would not otherwise have. I'm not convinced at all by the arguments for exclusion. Peteinterpol (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

But her book and the program are not about Elizabeth Short or the Black Dahlia case, as I understand it. It is about a fictional copycat killer. That doesn't make it about the Short murder. The film The Black Dahlia brought this case back into the limelight and gave it a profile it would not otherwise have had. I find that argument unconvincing and it still doesn't make it about the Short murder. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The heading is "Selected references in other media". It does not say "Adaptations"; that is covered by the earlier section, on which I would agree with you. But this is different. The first episode of the La Plante series constantly made "reference" to facts from the original case, to the extent that it almost seemed intrusive and contrived. It does belong in this section. Peteinterpol (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. I have been long concerned about the level of control that is exerted over this article. As an IP poster wrote above "as the article is your 'baby'"... 92.28.168.25 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? Your IP has never edited this article. Because members of WP:CRIME sit on inclusions of The Simpsons and South Park or non-notable bands who lift the name of the article for a band name? That, and the inclusion of a television special or novel which does not warrant a Wikipedia article and is about a copycat murder? See the guidelines on the WP:CRIME main page which specifically excludes such content. This would be much better content for an actual article about the book, not in this article, from which, by project guidelines, excludes it. La Plante's own article doesn't even address this production. And for the record, you are misquoting the comment by the IP. The discussion was about including photographs of Short's body as found or photographs included on rotten.com. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I still believe it belongs, but...would like to see another editor take charge of contesting its removal. Maybe someone would be willing to consider is taking this concern to the Content Noticeboard...? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The editors at WP:CNB would take into consideration the WP:CRIME mandate and the fact that this is a fictionalized copycat murder story that hasn't an article for the production or a mention in the author's article. The removal is supported on those terms. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well...when, and if, anyone takes the issue there, we'll see what happens then. Nothing's a given in Wikipedia - especially when it comes to other editors expressing their thoughts on an issue or situation. It's certainly worth a try for anyone who wants to take the issue up at Content Noticeboard and no one should ever be discouraged against asking others for their opinion and/or advice on matters like this one. -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Who's discouraging anyone from asking? What's the issue with my citing the precedent, noting that the production doesn't warrant its own article or mention in the author's article and describing the content of the addition, which is not about Short, but a fictional copycat? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, there! I would err on the side of caution, and not include the item, as all other items here refer specifically to the Short case. If we allowed references of purely fictional works based on the case into an article otherwise devoid of them, we risk opening the door to an insidious "Trivia" section; very hard to stop once it's started, and a beast with many names. I'm not sure I even like the "Hunter" reference, especially the way it's written. That's just me, though... Doc9871 (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

PS - Right after I posted this, someone tried to add a death metal band who named themselves after the murder to this page. Now do we all see what I mean? If that band has its own page, link the murder there; do not add it to some list on the article's page! Insidious... Doc9871 (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You're talking trivia, however, the section in question is "Selected references in other media" - IOW, you're comparing apples and oranges. The LaPLante novel and the ITV program based on the LaPlante novel both fit what the category is listing and was created for. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes... except the novel and the program do not directly deal with the Short case (which is what this page concerns) any more than the death metal band does; all other references here do. Both other cases are based on the Short murder, and someone reading about the actual murder case doesn't need to know about bands and books named decades after the murder that were "inspired" by it. Trust me, I think the entire "Selected references in other media" section is something I am not entirely thrilled about to begin with, as it can easily lead to a list of uncited "facts" unrelated to the actual case at hand... Doc9871 (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Have you read anything on either the novel or movie (or both)? The plot is that the murders the story centers around are compared to the Black Dahlia case and are then given the moniker, "The Red Dahlia Murders". This is not a passing reference in the story, but the entire investigation revolves around the possiblity that there is a connection between the murders in Great Britain and the LA murder 50 years prior. The Black Dahlia is believed to be the foundation for the murders, in fact. As far as you being "thrilled" or not with the selected references section (and it is not my intent to sound harsh here, just inject some reality) - aside from giving your opinion, it really doesn't matter what you think personally about the section. No one owns or controls articles or categories of articles in Wikipedia as it is meant to be a community project. And the community part of the project works only when the community is allowed to work on it and come to an agreement on it together. Personal feelings are to be put aside for the greater good of the encyclopedia. Apparently, at one time, the community putting this article together agreed that the "Selected references" section was a good idea and could add to the article. I agree that it does. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. Whether or not the plot of the fictional novel directly deals with the murder case is not what's being contested here. Whether the inclusion of this reference would further the understanding of a reader interested in the Short case is what's at issue. It doesn't seem to, at all, and it doesn't logically fit with any of the other references. I won't take the bait and begin a sour rapport here, as many have. I'm here to improve WP - not to "own or control" articles. You want a mess on this page like, for instance, the "References in popular culture" section of the R.E.M. song It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)? Good luck when a nightmare like that begins, which is what allowing this sort of "reference" encourages... Doc9871 (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No. The inclusion of the book and movie are there because they fall into the category of "selected references", not because they are references to the case specifically and completely. As for whether or not these two references further the understanding of the reader about the Black Dahlia case - that's a non-starter because, (a) that's not what the section is about, and (b) if the reader wants more than what's in the article already they can go to the "Further reading" section. What's more, You keep talking about "trivia" and "references in popular culture", but neither of those sections exist in this article (nor is anyone suggesting they should) so that argument is just a non-sequitur that doesn't even need to be brought into this discussion. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And... we're done! No two editors are going to always agree, and so we must simply "agree to disagree" on this point. It's not good policy to make comments on another editor's perceived reasons for contributing, you should know. Seek appropriate action by putting it to a vote... Doc9871 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not the intent of such a section to add mentions of Elizabeth Short or the Black Dahlia in other media at the discretion of the person who adds it. The intent is to include mentions of the actual case in television or literature. Please don't interpret such a section's intent in other ways. The title of the section can always be changed. The bottom line is that this is a fictional story about a copycat killer that is not about Elizabeth Short. That is all that is necessary for interpretation. You'll find many sorts of titles for these sections, but the basic thing is that when we start bringing in tangential mentions, we are skirting the category of trivia. What if The Simpsons had an episode based on Short? Would that make it includable? Nope. And especially not when the article about the series doesn't bother to mention it, as La Plante's actual article does not. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The book and movie are not "tangental mentions" - that's most certainly oversimplifying. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The book and movie are about a fictional copycat killer. They are not about the Short murder. How hard is that to understand? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"The plot is that the murders the story centers around are compared to the Black Dahlia case and are then given the moniker, "The Red Dahlia Murders"". Not tangental at all... Doc9871 (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Not tangental at all. Whilst the plot does not center around the Short murder, the Short murder is proximally peripheral and necessary to the plot. It's really no different than the Ellroy book and movie "The Black Dahlia" - while Ellroy uses the Dahlia murder as a springboard to his story, the story has little to do with the actual and historical facts about the case. If we are to believe what you are saying here about why the LaPlante book and movie should not be included, then the Ellroy book and movie shouldn't be included. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Now, entries such as this one are exactly how you should respond during disagreements, rather than focusing on the editors. Excellent response - now you've got wheels turning :> Doc9871 (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

After further review, I think you are absolutely correct in your last statement, SRQueen, in that either the Ellroy book (and movie based on it) goes if LaPlante can't stay, or, they (Ellroy and LaPlante) both stay for the same reason. The rules make no distinction otherwise... Doc9871 (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Except the Ellroy book was written based on the murder of Elizabeth Short and Ellroy's research into it and conjecture regarding it, Elizabeth Short was a character in the book and film and the La Plante book was not. This is a chicken pecking distinction. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And the LaPlante book was written based on the premise that the murders they are investigating are based on the Short murder. Neither are true, historical representations of the Short murder - both only refer to it. There's no difference. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the LaPlante book, but unless the subject is as peripheral as something like an inspiration in the film Copycat (film), again, I agree with SRQ (?) concerning the equal validity of Ellroy and LaPlante. I still want to hear why we shouldn't have the death metal band back here, though. Anyone? Doc9871 (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The La Plante book is about a copycat murder. There is a huge difference between a book and film about Elizabeth Short's murder that includes her as a character and a copycat murder that does not. It's not that hard to understand the difference if one doesn't decide to take the opposition to my comments. The Ellroy book and film finds a conclusion and identity to the murderer. It's about Elizabeth Short, for heaven's sake. It uses the facts of the Black Dahlia case and what was done to Elizabeth Short's body as a premise. A book about her murder is not the same as a book about someone committing copycat murders in the present. What does a death metal band's name have to do with anything about Elizabeth Short besides using the name to gain notoriety and an audience? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW - I like to play the devil's advocate sometimes. Nothing has yet steered me away from my very first assessment, as documented, which was to exclude the source. I just love stirring the pot to see what comes up, as sometimes great things do... Doc9871 (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying you like to be dishonest in your words and intent sometimes (because that's what *I* see you saying above)? -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Now, now. I was really referring to the last comment I made about the death metal band, and Livie's reaction to it (seeming to think I was serious). I said before that I'm not going to take the bait and comment on editing styles (and, sure, I have with other editors in the past; but it's something that WP frowns upon, and I need to not let myself do it). So, happy editing :> Doc9871 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay - thanks for clearing that up. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I can see because of the vagueness of my "devil's advocate" comment what you might have construed; and believe me, I would never pretend to agree or disagree with an editor for any sort of ulterior motive. I call's 'em likes I see's 'em, and sometimes my opinion can change quickly. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Doc and Wildhartlivie have made good counter arguments as to why this should not be added. (Doc's prior to playing "Devil's advocate I mean.) Once the door is opened for things that don't have to do with this article is started all sorts of other things seem to find there way. The cleanup going on at Charles Manson is an example of lots of extras being added to an article that never should have been added. I think it would be ok if there is a movie about the real case like the Elroy book and film since it's based on the events of this article. That should be added because it's about Elizabeth Short. The facts are presented because of this murder so of course it should be included, the reader maybe interested in seeing it so it's a piece that would be of interest. A fictional showing that is just a copycat but without the direct storyline, well is not. We need to keep the article about the Black Dahlia and any fiction needs to based on it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Chronie, but what you wrote seems to just be biased opinion that further shows you know nothing about about the LaPLante novel and subsequent movie based on the novel. It also shows you know nothing about the backstory of Ellroy's book "The Black Dahlia". The book was good (I couldn't put it down when I first read it 8 years ago), bit it was fiction that used the Black Dahlia murder as a springboard for the storyline (which was almost completely bathed in fiction). The film based on the Ellroy book was even worse - other than a few tidbits here and there about her father and how Short was discovered and the condition of the body, there's little in the film that can be considered "historical" (which was one of the original reasons behind removing the ITV program - it wasn't "historical"). The LaPlante novel and program isn't much different from the type of novel and movie "The Black Dahlia" is. They're both in the genre of "historical fiction" (but heavy on the fiction). If the Ellroy book and film based on the book are to be included in these lists, then the LaPlante novel should be included in the two lists. unsigned comment by User:SkagitRiverQueen

I wanted to slip this in so it is directed at the right place. I may not be the quickest here nor the most focus but I would appreciate it if you would stop talking to me like I'm an idiot or something. Please talk about my comments and why you disagree, not about some kind of bias or other nonsense. I've been real patient with this but it is time for it to stop please. You do not know me. So please stop. Also, I am polite enough to take the time to make sure I spell your name correctly, please be kind enough to do the same for me. All of a sudden you can't seem to spell Crohnie, thank you. By the way I stand by my comments above SkagitRiverQueen and apparently others here agree, thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You may or may not be the quickest here - frankly, that doesn't matter to me one iota. What does matter to me, however, is that you are accusing me of "talking to [you] like [you are] an idiot. That didn't happen. What *did* happen is that I noticed you really didn't know anything about what you were trying to discuss in regard to the subject at hand, rather, you chose to defend a friend (at least that's the way it appeared to me). Oh, and sorry about spelling your name wrong - I made an honest mistake. If I had known that making an honest mistake would spin you up so much, I wouldn't have tried to be socially polite and appropriate in using your name to address you at all. Now, back to Wikipedia matters: there may be other editors here who agree that the LaPlante book and program shouldn't be included here, but not everyone feels that way. That's why going for a consensus is a good thing (rather than just backing down to what other, strong personalities decide the way things should be). Which reminds me...canvassing for biased opinion is really frowned upon according to Wikipedia standards (just in case anyone forgot or didn't realize). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that attacking the reasoning she uses for her opinion is ill-advised. So is your personal opinion of the quality of a film. You keep repeating the same sentence, which has not convinced anyone here. If you can't see the difference between fictional work based on the crime and using Short herself as a central character in the film itself and one that uses the ploy in a modern based fictional copycat murder, that's unfortunated. There have been multiple editors posted here against your contentions. Why keep beating a dead horse? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this dispute is about whether or not to mention a fictional book and/or miniseries that is about a killer who emulates The Black Dahlia's murder, correct? Pinkadelica^♣ 21:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, and the book, The Red Dahlia, from which the miniseries was taken, which is about a copycat murderer in modern day. The other side contends that if the Red Dahlia content is removed, then the book by James Ellroy and the subsequent film called The Black Dahlia, which is about the death of Elizabeth Short and has her as a central character, should be removed too. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for clarification. If the book (and subsequent miniseries) is about a copycat killer and not about the actual case, I don't think they should be mentioned in this context (and certainly not twice). It's related but only marginally as are names of bands, songs, etc. When it comes to pop culture references, there really does need to be some sort of cut off line or we end up with long lists because nearly everyone believes that their example is awesome because they like the band, book, episode, whatever. If the information is really that important, I suggest someone create an article (provided it meets notability qualifications) on the book or miniseries as neither appear to have an entry here at the moment. The connection to the case can be mentioned there. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that what Livie wrote wasn't clarification, it was a biased synopsis. I suggest you look into the book and program yourself to better understand - without someone else's interpretation influencing you - what they are about. And, for the record, both the Ellroy book and film may be called "The Black Dahlia", but in neither is Elizabeth Short (the real Elizabeth Short) the central character. Bleichert and Blanchard are the main characters along with Madeleine Linscott and Kay Lake. Even the Wikipedia articles on both the book and the film state as much. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No one needs you to characterize anything here. Please stop talking down to people and trying to hold their hands to lead them to your preferred conclusion. And as I have asked you before, please use my full username, don't shorten it or call me by other names, just as you so clearly state on your userpage about calling you "Skag". No one who has posted here is incapable of reading the arguments and conclude that what I stated, Red Dahlia is about a modern-day copycat killer, and The Black Dahlia is about the death of Elizabeth Short, is the fundamental discussion. I said she was a central character, she is the film's namesake, I didn't say she was the central character. Please stop treating others like little children. To summarize the opinions - Keep Black Dahlia, delete Red Dahlia, 4; Keep or delete both - 1. Please have the good grace and maturity to accept that the tide is against your argument and stop belaboring this discussion. Or do we need to ask an adminstrator to come in and conclude the overriding opinions? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"No one needs you to characterize anything here" You can't possibly know what everyone reading this discussion thinks, nor are you the spokesperson for this talk page. "Please stop talking down to people and trying to hold their hands to lead them to your preferred conclusion" I'm doing neither. "And as I have asked you before, please use my full username" I don't recall you ever asking me this. If you did, I missed it. " Red Dahlia is about a modern-day copycat killer, and The Black Dahlia is about the death of Elizabeth Short" The Black Dahlia is not about the death of Elizabeth Short, it's a fictional story about the lives of four fictional people involved in the fictional investigation and fictional death of the real-life Elizabeth Short. "I said she was a central character, she is the film's namesake, I didn't say she was the central character." She's not a central character at all. If anything involving Elizabeth Short in the Ellroy novel and movie is central at all, it's her moniker. "Please stop treating others like little children" I'm not doing that at all. "Please have the good grace and maturity to accept that the tide is against your argument" Since when does three against and three for equate the "tide" being "against" anything? "stop belaboring this discussion" I'm not "belaboring" anything. A discussion is a discussion. It's over when it's over. With an even vote, apparently it isn't over yet. " Or do we need to ask an adminstrator to come in and conclude the overriding opinions?" Why would you opt to do that rather than trying to work together with eveyone here (including those who don't necessarily see things they way you think things should be)? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you learned to count, but in this discussion, you are the only one holding out against the opinions expressed by Doc9871, myself, Crohnie and Pinkadelica. An administrator's necessity is increasingly apparent since you are the only editor who is holding out and belaboring the discussion. Go look back amidst the various crap you've filed against me where I asked you to use my full username and referenced your insistence on your userpage that people stop calling you "Skag". Do not call me "Wild" or "livie", call me "Wildhartlivie". That's very clear and I insist upon it as do you regarding Skag. I happen to have read the various comments posted here and the ones I've received via email and the comments expressed by Crohnie and Pinkadelica and Doc9871 about not needing your explanations and Crohnie's direct comments to stop talking to her like she's an idiot or something. It's odd how you keep deprecating the subject matter of the Ellroy work to delete the mention of ELIZABETH SHORT, whose death is the basis of the film. You simply will not dissuade people from thinking that work isn't appropriate here. They've seen the film, they've read the book. As I stated, people don't need to be preached at to arrive at an opinion here. They've expressed them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I asked for a clarification regarding the dispute, not what the book or miniseries was about. I'm quite capable making up my own mind regarding the inclusion or exclusion of material, but thanks for assuming that I need someone to sum it up so I can. The good faith displayed is overwhelming, it really is. If you want to argue about the inclusion of other material, you're really preaching to the choir because if I had my druthers, ALL the useless "In popular culture" or whatever fancy name one can think up for those sections would be completely removed from any and all articles. Pinkadelica^♣ 22:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

HUZZAH!!! Doc9871 (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree that trivia sections and "in popular culture" sections don't really have a place in Wikipedia. The fact is, however, that those sections do exist in the encyclopedia, and plenty of other people believe they do belong. But that's not the issue - the issue is whether or not the LaPLante book and program should be listed. More than one person here believes it does, others do not. <shrug> -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not mislead the readers here. Everyone besides you who commented here supports not listing the La Plante work and you are the sole holdout, who is extending this discussion beyond its natural life by continuing to post your comments. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No one's trying to mislead anyone (at least I know I'm not). And your statement above is patently untrue. The original person who voiced their objection likely still objects. Doc has stated that he/she is not so sure (and from what I saw, is kinda leaning my direction - unless I misread what he/she wrote and/or he/she has changed his/her mind. I still believe that the book and program should stay - but if they don't, then the Ellroy book and movie should go as well for the very same reasons that the LaPlante book and program are going. The two are no different - neither are about the historical Black Dahlia (which was your original argument, if you recall) and neither have Elizabeth Short as the central character. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah well, we can debate the inclusion of those particular sections at another date. My point was that your claim that the other book isn't really related to the case and should be removed as well doesn't really matter to me as it's a weak WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS kind of argument and IMO, it should all be deleted. These sections are almost always more trouble than they're worth because anyone who adds anything to it is convinced that what they've added is uber important and like, totally worthy of inclusion because they know about it. Anyone who attempts to maintain some semblance of order or (God forbid) tries to have some guidelines for inclusion for these dumb sections just get ripped to pieces and gets accused of ownership. Case in point, all this drama over a book and miniseries that no one thought notable enough to create an article on. I suggested someone create the article and mention the case in those articles, but I suppose that is quite a boring suggestion. Pinkadelica^♣ 00:35, 8 January 2010

(UTC)

<sigh> What I'm saying is that if the Ellroy book stays, then the LaPlante book stays. If the Ellroy movie stays, then the LaPlante program stays. If one goes, they should both go, etc. And since you keep bringing it up (even though it's not the focus of this discussion), it matters not to me if the section stays or goes. If I had my druthers, I would like to see those types of sections deleted from biographical articles as well. And maybe that *is* the solution here so that there is no more conflict over the inclusion or exclusion of of these works. Anybody else? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

SRQ, I (& it is "he" :>) agreed that you had a valid point (and moreover, a very lucid and reasonable argument that was totally free of editor comment, sticking only to the facts) concerning the validity of certain fictional references (Ellroy vs LaPlante). However, it does seem after further debate that the Ellroy case is justifiable (at least among the consensus here) and the LaPlante case is not. My own reasoning (I can't speak for other editors) is my revulsion for trivia lists and their potential creation, and hence the possibility for things like the Copycat (film) winding up on Ted Bundy's or Ed Gein's page because a fictional character in a film committed crimes inspired by him. These are simply examples, not meant to represent the larger picture, and are indicative only of my personal opinion. Were this put to a vote (and it hasn't been) I would have to vote to exclude the LaPlante reference as WP:TRIVIA... Doc9871 (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't on the table, but cutting such sections out completely is a futile effort which is constantly being ignored. That is precisely why WP:CRIME developed the guidelines for inclusion. And that is completely why the La Plante work was removed. It isn't plausible to remove all the "pop culture" sections, but it can be controlled by excluding content that simply uses the name for promotional purposes. While an actual vote hasn't been taken here, the opinions expressed most certainly do lean toward exclusion of the La Plante work. All the discussion doesn't omit that fact. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec...again!) What's the <sigh> thing about? Is that suppose to be a sign of exasperation because the rest of us just aren't smart enough to get it? I made several point that haven't been addressed and I've yet to <sigh>. Ah well...I guess I'm more patience than I thought. Fancy that. To be frank (and to repeat myself for the umpteenth time), I don't care if all the content is removed. Obviously others do and if you guys want to put it to some kind of !vote because one reference isn't included, have at it. I'm not interested in that kind of nonsense as there's always something else to work on here on the 'pedia. Had you caught me about three or four months into my editing career, I might very well have jumped on board that sinking ship, but now? Nope. Far too many people will come out o' the woodworks to argue that all sections of that nature have merit, blah, blah, blah. I say take your lumps and find another article to work on. There's lots of disputes I've lost, it happens. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The <sigh> "thing" is about me excercising my right to express myself. As far as jumping on a proverbial "sinking ship" - it takes character to stay on a sinking ship when you know it's the right thing to do. Jumping on one when you already know it's sinking is stupid unless you believe jumping on the sinking ship would be of help to those still clinging to the sinking ship. Jumping off one just to look good is cowardice. Now that we have all that straightened out...

So what if people come out of the Wikipedia woodwork to vote one way or another? Wikipedia is a community effort - and everyone who edits anywhere in Wikipedia has a say. As far as "taking [my] lumps" - there are no "lumps" to take. Finding "another article to work on" - sorry, but this article is on my watchlist and I will continue to watch it and edit it no matter how this turns out. As far as "losing" - I don't edit in Wikipedia to win *or* to lose. I'm here because I care about the project. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for clearing my throat on that. For someone who has the article on a watchlist, why did you not make any edits prior to this discussion topic? Only the captain is expected to stay on a sinking ship, there's nothing character-revealing about that. This discussion is just about finished. No one commenting here is jumping on the ship with you and actually clearly have said they disagree. It's time to close this discussion as non-productive. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, I tend to agree with SkagitRiverQueen's basic argument that the Lynda La Plante connection be included. (And for the record, I counted 3 for, 3 against, in the above discussion - its irrelevant that some editors haven't bothered to stick around further; they did make their equally valid opinions). La Plante is not a minor hack, but a major crime writer in the UK, with many of her works, including this one, being turned into major TV series. To ignore the connection is pedanticism. Wikipedia is here to educate people, and one way is by internally wikilinking between related articles. Many's the time I've read something, and followed links many pages away, just because of this aspect of Wikipedia.

Having said that, I've been long enough a Wiki editor to realise when a page has 'guardians', to maintain its 'purity' (and skim mighty close to WP:OWNERSHIP), and as such know its just not worth bothering (& I won't beyond this post) in trying to edit, improve, or argue against such 'guardians' wishes. I don't have the time or inclination, having a real life to exist in as well. Have fun. The Yeti (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, and your statement about following links and learning more on WP is cool, and I've found the very same true for me. But I must remind you that WP:OWNERSHIP is an accusation "thrown around" and "hinted to" a lot on WP, but seldom very actually leveled and/or prosecuted - because it's so easy to prove! We ALL know that WP is a community effort, and that no editor (or group of editors) "own" an article. Accusations of WP:OWNERSHIP here, and in general, are specious, indeed. G'day! Doc9871 (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant to note that The Yeti's edit to add this mention to the article is what led to this discussion. There is no way to internally wikilink to articles about this book or television program because there are no articles about it. That is one of the major arguments here, that it doesn't even merit a mention in La Plante's article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So, it would seem, that the discussion here is *not* so clear-cut, and we are pretty much even on those who are for and those who are against. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk)

YAAAARRRGGHHHH!!! NOOOOOOO!!!!! "You cannot be serious!!!" Please, for the love of all things holy, let it go. Please, please just let it go - or put it to a vote! Now! Someone? Put it to a vote? Pretty please? I.. I just can't... Doc9871 (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I vote to omit the La Plante reference and keep the Ellroy/The Black Dahlia content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. Let's finish this with a friendly consensus vote, please... Doc9871 (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I also vote to eliminate the reference to the La Plante content and keep The Black Dahlia/Ellroy content. What is this? A congressional filibuster? Keep talking until the resistance is worn down? Such stuff and nonsense! That would tip the balance the other way, even by Skag's count, wouldn't it? LaVidaLoca (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I vote to keep the LaPlante references (both book and program) *if* the Ellroy references stay - otherwise, get rid of both. I also suggest that this vote be allowed to stay open at least through the weekend. It's obvious that some editors have been canvassed specifically to sway the vote (and am I making an accusation here? yes, indeed, I am). This vote - like any in Wikipedia - should be done fairly. After all, what is the hurry to push this through? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. Thedarxide (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

For your edification, Skag, my vote was not canvassed, nor have I canvassed votes. Basically, prove it. I've been dealing with your fiasco all along, and I have not contacted a single editor to request they vote in favor of my opinion. Please withdraw your bad faith accusation or it will be taken to administration. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said I thought your vote was canvassed. And, frankly, regardless of whether or not I can prove it, I don't believe that you *haven't* canvassed for input here.

Now...please stop calling me "Skag". You stated earlier today that you have read my User Page know that I don't like being called that. It is stated clearly on my User Page *why* I don't like being called that - yet, you continue to do so (after having stopped doing so). If you don't cease calling me that immediately, I will have no choice but to report your refusal to administration. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have received no requests to vote a certain way nor inapproprate canvassing and I completely object to the accusation. People can read this mess for themselves and decide what they think. Please revisit WP:AGF, read it, learn it, live it and try to put it into practice for a change. There is so much tenditiousness in your posts, SkagitRiverQueen, that it can be cut with a butter knife. Stop with the unfounded accusations. LaVidaLoca (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen, unless you can provide diffs that show there has been canvassing going on, you need to strike out that accusations. I was going to comment earlier that it appears this is a personal matter and after that remark, it's quite clear it is. In fact, this entire "debate" has been nothing but bad faith accusations and it's tiresome. Start providing some diffs or get to strikin' Pinkadelica^♣ 04:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have filed a complaint at WP:WQA about these accusations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I vote to keep the Ellroy's 'The Black Dahlia' content. The other book and movie, no. I will not comment on the attacks as they are a repeat attempt of bad faith.--CrohnieGal^Talk 10:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The information has been returned, I reverted and asked to see the talk page. I was reverted by SkagitRiverQueen telling me in the edit summary that it can stay until this is decided. Usually things get added after a decision is made not during esp. when it looks like the editors here are against the addition. This has gotten totally frustrating already to me. Good luck to all, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted one more time to remove the info about LaPlante. My read on whether editors here regarding it seems to be no so I removed it. If others here think I am in error don't hesitate. I don't do more than 2 reverts. I'm sorry this had to be like this. It really ashame that something so simple got blown up like this. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think it is as simple as that. Two more Wikipedia editors who have not been part of this discussion have attempted to add the LaPlante material today and been reverted. Whatever the narrow group of users on this talk page thinks, there is obviously a significant part of the wider Wikipedia community that intuitively feels the material belongs here.

I find the comments about popular culture on this page snobbish. The whole point about Wikipedia is that it is user-driven, it is not some dusty encyclopedia that sits on a shelf unread. And part of the reason for its success is that it reflects popular culture.

The editors on this page are in danger of becoming a narrow, self-centred clique who are snobbish about the reaL world. Wikipedia will die if it doesn't reflect popular culture.

Therefore I vote to keep the LaPlante material and the Elroy material. Peteinterpol (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the two anonymous IPs whose sole reason for existence was attempting to revert the contested references? Are these the "editors", not part of the discussion, you are referring to? I'm confused...

As far as a the "narrow, self-centred clique who are snobbish about the real world." Bravo! Busted! I guess I should distance myself from this group... Doc9871 (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Or you could view those anonymous IPs as people who've seen the TV program, were intrigued enough about the Black Dahlia to come here, saw no reference to the book/TV series, and were motivated enough to bother to edit a page for the first time.

Basically in fact exactly what Wikipedia was set up to do and allow. Also in fact Wikipedia specifically states that people's edits or views should not be discounted just because they are new. So who's being elistist ? The Yeti (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick correction to the statement above that "The [Red Dahlia TV] production isn't notable enough for an article on Wikipedia" and other similar comments claiming that the series is not notable enough for Wikipedia, let alone for inclusion on this page. This is not correct: the page exists at Above Suspicion (TV drama) and has done so since 2008. The Red Dahlia mini-series is part of a longer-term, clearly notable series, and its relationshop to the Black Dahlia murder is covered there. Peteinterpol (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's there and you know that because you just made the edit to connect the two. That comment hasn't been in the article since 2008 like you say, please disclose these things up front rather than letting editors think it is true. It doesn't matter to me that strongly either way but I do like disclosures of this sort, thank you. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. A user with the IP address 86.149.22.43 added the Red Dahlia series to this page on 6 January at 19.22 pm. I corrected the tense they had used then slightly expanded the entry. As stated earlier, any history on Wikipedia can be checked. Peteinterpol (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The link to Above Suspicion (TV drama) series is what started all this. The sequel TV series, broadcast only 5 days ago, is clearly notable, and why numerous editors have been trying to add the link to the Above Suspicion (TV drama) page all along. The original (unconnected to Black Dahlia) TV series, Above Suspicion, was broadcast in 2008, and that Wiki entry has existed since then. Until the 2010 sequel series was broadcast (or otherwise noticed by anyone), there was no reason for a link between these two pages. The novel may not have a page, but you can't mention the TV series without the novel its based on (that's plain illogical), and Lynda La Plante and her works are clearly notable in themselves. The Yeti (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Lynda La Plante's Prime Suspect tv series may be the best precedent for the way the Red Dahlia mini-series will be treated on Wikipedia. A total of seven mini-series were made under the Prime Suspect badge. But all are covered in one page on Wikipedia, not seven. There have been two Above Suspicion mini-series so far (including the Red Dahlia), with recurring characters, cast and settings. There may or may not be more. So to use the fact that there is no separate Red Dahlia mini-series page as an argument against its notability may be as irrelevant as saying there is no Prime Suspect 4 page. Peteinterpol (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's be perfectly blunt here, as long as false assumptions are being bandied about. This did not warrant a mention in that article until The Yeti added it on January 4, well after it was mentioned here it had not warranted inclusion [5] and Peteinterpol expanded it today [6]. That does not detract from the clearly stated fact that the miniseries is not about Elizabeth Short per se, or her murder. It "was based on a copycat murderer re-enacting the Black Dahlia murder" (as the article page states). As of this moment, it still does not warrant a mention in the Lynda La Plante article nor does the book have its own page for reference. As for notion that IP editors come here to find the mention, prove it. There is nothing to support that they didn't come here to find the actual miniseries or book and wandered over here when their curiosity wasn't satisfied due to the absence of information about it. That does not support that a fictional mention of a copycat murder is about this person or her death. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The entry for the novel by La Plante was on this page before I got here. I just added the mention of the TV series based on it - you can't really have one without the other. As the TV series was not broadcast until the 4th, it was hardly likely to ever been added before this broadcast. Chickens and eggs. As for whether it merits a mention, in your opinion it doesn't. In others it does. Your opinion does not overrule anybody elses, whether you have a long term interest in this page or not. This is why the debate is going on. As for other IPs, it has already been stated that other IPs have tried to add the information for the novel/TV series, only to have it deleted again - five different people at least. Proof enough methinks.

Let us also review the other entries under 'other media':

• The novel True Confessions uses the murder as a starting point, but is entirely fictional from that point on
• Ellroy's novel uses the murder a plot point, but is entirely fictional from that point on
• The novel Angel in Black uses the murder as a plot point, but is entirely fictional from that point on
• The Blue Gardenia film was 'inspired' by the murder, but is entirely fictional otherwise
• The TV series Hunter uses the murder a plot point, but is entirely fictional otherwise

Do I see a pattern ? I also suggest reading WP:IPC, particularly "Properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias, are verifiable, and contain facts of genuine interest to the reader that wouldn't otherwise be covered." The Yeti (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You didn't bother to look at what the links went to. That commentary is about the addition of The Red Dahlia content to Above Suspicion. Since the book was so widely praised, and the production didn't occur in a vaccuum, in most cases here, articles are created for productions long before they are shown. Please familiarize yourself with what is being said before responding to it. And for the record, the word I used was not in fact, "merit", meaning "To earn; deserve", the word I used was "warrant", meaning "authorization or to make important". By the way, speaking of whether it is notable or not is not a comment on whether the book and program pass notability requirements, it means that editors have not bothered to add it. My comment was saying that no one has bothered to create an article about the book or put a mention in La Plante's article. Please do not misquote me. No, not proof enough. Lots of pages have people putting content in articles just after watching a television show. Since there is no page for The Red Dahlia, people may be led here, but it does not make it appropriate content. As for your list, Elizabeth Short was not a character in The Red Dahlia. She was in the other mentions you bring up, or her death was. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of Maintained template on this page

I would like to invite contributions from editors of this page about the following notice that appears at the head of this page:

{{Maintained}}

I have checked the Wikipedia guidance for use of such a notice at Template talk:Maintained. This states:

"Do not place this template on controversial articles that are easily subject to POV wars."

Given the current nature of the debate here, I do not think it is appropriate for this notice to be on this page, and it should therefore be removed. Any views?

Peteinterpol (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this forward, Pete - I never noticed the contents of the template until now. I'm inclined to agree with you. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto Thedarxide (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to change things. Wildhartlivie will be here soon I'm sure. S/he can speak about this themselves. There's definitely no reason to add the ownership stuff to the template. All that does is bait for a negative response. There's no reason for that. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because there is a current disagreement here does not mean the article has not been maintained for years by someone or that it is typically an article that is subject to POV wars. This commentary is a bad faith attempt to remove the template because those of you who say it is an issue happen to disagree with me about something, especially someone who is "inclined to agree" about it who has been recently taken to WP:WQA by me and has been guilty of violating WP:3RR. Anyone can be a permanent maintainer of an article who has worked diligently on an article. Give it a rest. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? This page is subject to POV wars because from the looks of it, the disagreement about the mention of a book and miniseries seems to be the first real dispute over this article. I don't see a problem with the template as it clearly states that its presense does not imply ownership. In fact, I find it a bit ironic that it's deemed problematic yet the users agreeing that it should be removed didn't even notice it. Pinkadelica^♣ 20:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlive, I am slightly surprised at being accused of "bad faith". Apart from an early intervention after I was surprised to see my good-faith edit reverted, I haven't participated in the Lynda La Plante debate.

In the current section I very carefully quoted the Wikipedia Maintained-page guidance and sought the views of other editors.

Since first visiting this page I was surprised to see the maintained-page notice and checked the guidance to see if it was appropriate. There is no harm in a discussion to see what others think.

Best wishes, Peteinterpol (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, Peteinterpol. My bad faith comment was not directed at you, but at the person who has been the instigator of the elaborate and somewhat spiteful discussion and various noticeboard postings. There is certainly bad faith in any stance taken against me from that quarter and that can be supported. As I said, until a newcomer to page took exception to a reversion on grounds that has been supported by myriad editors, including adminstrators, there has been no controversy at this article, at least until SkagitRiverQueen raised some. I am the top editor according to edits to this page and that seems to indicate I've done the most work here, more than 4x as the second ranking editor, thus the template. That editors who disagreed with something done here seem to support it does not mean it should be removed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand that this page has only recently become controversial. But it has therefore recently become no longer appropriate for maintained status. And given the current edit war, the notice only inflames the situation.

No disrespect to Wildhartlivie, who I am sure is knowledgeable about the subject matter, but so are others. I would thereofore suggest we remove the notice for the moment and then consider its return if and when this page settles down to some sort of 'normality'. Peteinterpol (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

LoL. So a page that suddenly has a large difference of opinion suddenly sprouts a template that states its being looked after by one specific editor. One of the same editors that keeps reverting any changes others add in this debate. And these two things aren't connected ? ROTFL. Seriously just because a template states 'no ownership', and the editor states 'ownership is thrown around but hard to prove', doesn't mean others can't smell the roses nonetheless. The Yeti (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Yeti, I'd like to remind you that the history of this talk page is easily viewed by anyone so claiming that the template has suddenly "sprouted up" is disingenuous at best. The template has been here since July 2009, long before this debate about the mention of a book and miniseries was brought up. NOTHING on Wikipedia is hidden so proving a fallacy is quite easy. Unless you actual evidence that there are some ownership issues here or on the thousands of other pages sporting this very same template, keep your ROTFLs and LOLs to yourself. Pinkadelica^♣ 17:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for accuracy it's been here since June 21, 2009 & June 30, 2009 respectively. Though that's not important because you meaning stays the same. The template has been here for quite some time and didn't magically appear. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. My error. I assumed it meant on the main page itself, which wasn't there when I first visited, then someone else had mentioned on it existing, and it had gone again. I assumed the template was created when this Red Dahlia discussion started. But instead it meant on the talk page, which I did not notice, and have less qualms about. But I'll also Lol as much as I like thank you.The Yeti (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So instead of checking about what you're remarking and LOL'ing about, you just jump right in and start admonishing people for owning articles? Sounds like a great way to assume good faith there. I suppose I'd be ROTFL and LOL'ing if I just made up events as well. Pinkadelica^♣ 20:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether you've struck through the false assumption that the template was just added, which was done in fact on June 30, 2009 [7], an apology is in order for making such an allegation and yes, bad faith, accusation that it was just added. I do not appreciate your laughing at it and me and the template in such a way. Man up, here, and clearly state you are wrong. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I admitted my mistake, and why I made it (the use of 'on this page' was ambiguous). I retracted my comments by striking through them, as they were now redundant. I can't delete them - that's frowned on by Wiki guidlelines. That's it. Sorry. The Yeti (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

However, apologizing for laughing at the template, me and the intent of your derisive comments is not against Wiki guidelines. Too bad such are not forthcoming, that says a lot. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: The Red Dahlia

There a difference of opinion on the Black Dahlia page as to whether a some information should be added to the Selected References in Popular Media section concerning the recent novel The Red Dahlia by Lynda La Plante, and the subsequent ITV TV series Above Suspicion based on it. The novel heavily features the case of the Black Dahlia. Some editors believe the information should therefore be included, others think the link to The Black Dahlia not strong enough for inclusion. Comments please. The Yeti (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think an RFC is a good idea but would mind clarifying the question in a more unbias way? The way it reads only takes one side of the debate, not a neutral one which is why the RFC was started. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how is my statement biased? Seriously. I have stated what the debate is, and the two pov. Nothing more. If you think that's biased, even this RfC is going to go nowhere. The Yeti (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering your false statement above, I think it's quite obvious you have a POV and which way it slants. No matter though - I think the entire section should be removed. No pop culture references should be included in an encyclopedia - ever. As this debate has proven, there is absolutely no way to maintain guidelines for inclusion for these silly sections. Get rid of the lot of it and be done. Pinkadelica^♣ 17:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Prove my bias in the RfC paragraph above. But elsewhere in the discussions on this page I am entitled to state whatever pov I want, even it you don't agree with it. If you don't like the paragraph add your own beneath mine. The Yeti (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I say your RfC comment was biased? Nope. I said you have an apparent POV which is evident in your incorrect assumption above this section. You can say whatever you want - just make sure it's based in reality and not on your assumptions. Pinkadelica^♣ 20:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

May I remind you, The Yeti, that there is a vote on the table regarding the inclusion of this reference, which renders a RfC moot. There is no need for it when it is currently subject to a vote. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You may remind all you like, but I have asked for independant editors to comment, as is my right. Don't like that ? Tough. The Yeti (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Then let me clearly remind you about maintaining civility and drop the antagonistic tone. Your antagonistic "Don't like that? Tough." has no place here or anywhere on Wikipedia. There is a valid vote on the table, there is no reason for calling in the troops. Anyone is welcome to register a vote and I would suggest that a vote count at this point would be the valid factor. Not what some in-passing editor may say. I see no consensus to call for a WP:RfC on this discussion, much less the suggestion for one, although I am seeing the rising need for a request for comments on user behavior taking shape here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And for the record, I too object to the biased wording and failure to present the points of the discussion in your request. Please reword it to reflect clearly the sides of the discussion and the reasons given for that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I again state that your opinion is not the only one that counts. If I call a RfC, I'm allowed to, even if you do not 'see a consensus' for one. And I will not re-write the RfC paragraph until someone proves bias. The Yeti (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Refusing to rewrite the request to include valid points raised on both sides is evidence itself of bias. You fail to mention that Elizabeth Short is not a character in the novel or program or that the actual plot is about a modern day copycat killer. You also misrepresent the opinions expressed. Talk about spoon feeding your opinion to those that might comment. Say specific things and relate the outcome you want... Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, you said there is a "vote" going on? Where is that, and why? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Question - I'm a newcomer to this dispute. Can someone who opposes inclusion of this particular reference tell me, briefly, why? Thank you in advance. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)By the way, if there's bias in the presentation of the RfC, it's not the end of the world. I, for one, am able to look right past bias. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC but don't know how :)) Wildhartlivie usually comes on a bit. If you read this long, messy thread I think you will see where everyone stands on this issue. The voting got smashed into this thread too. I think by the time the iVoting started everyone was quite frustrated. Hope this helps, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that vote. Thank you, Crohnie. That's not a vote, but it is a long read. I'm gonna make some popcorn and peruse it, then perhaps I can make an informed comment here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Have a couple hands of popcorn for me. I can't eat it, but would love to sometimes! :) Your Welcome,--CrohnieGal^Talk 19:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

An editor called for a vote and that is proceeding above in the main dispute section. Basically, there are three POVs here. One is that Elizabeth Short is not a character in the novel or program or that the actual plot is about a modern day copycat killer and therefore this does not warrant mention here. One is that all "pop culture" sections be removed. The other is that since the plot is derived from the Short murder, it should be included (with a side contention that if the La Plante content is removed, therefore, so should the James Ellroy mention for the book and film The Black Dahlia. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that summary, Wildhartlivie; that's helpful. I was typing a longish comment when you posted that, and hit an edit conflict. Here's what I had written:

A couple of preliminary remarks: I'm against deciding anything by voting. I can see the "vote" (or "!vote") was set up in frustration that the consensus-building discussion was getting nowhere. That frustration is understandable and valid. However, I think a vote is a bad idea in this case.

I'm interested in the guidelines from WP:CRIME that Wildhartlivie cites. Therefore, I've posted a note to the talk page of that project, asking if anyone not already involved in this discussion might weigh in at this RfC, or on this page in general. More opinions in the mix are unlikely to make things worse, and we might see some kind of consensus emerge.

Regarding the actual issue in this RfC, I'm not decided yet. I think it's clear that the La Plante book and the series based on it are not about the Black Dahlia murder. It's also clear that there's more than a tangential mention of it; it seems to be a significant plot element, without which the book would be considerably different (and certainly have a different title). Therefore, I see this as being a case in the grey area, where intelligent editors may reasonably differ. (I have some sympathy for the position that all "pop culture references" sections should get slash-and-burn treatment, but I don't see that as really tenable in today's Wikipedia.)

Ultimately, we can do whatever we want with the "Selected references" section, and neither decision will cripple anyone, or make the sea level rise faster, or anything like that. Ideally, we can make our decision in a way that takes our readers' interest into account, and that is going to be stable and acceptable to editors who come this way later. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read The Red Dahlia or seen the series, so I did a Google search and found the book description on the Simon & Schuster UK website, which describes the plot as "an eerie mirror image of the famous LA murder case of Elizabeth Short in the 1940s known as the Black Dahlia". There seems to be enough of a non-trivial connection to warrant a mention in this article. momoricks 01:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Due to consensus (I counted four for and three against keeping the novel in the list - if I'm wrong, please let me know), I replaced Peteinterpol's text (with a minor edit) regarding the LaPLante novel in the adaptations list. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please add the dif in you would that User:Momoricks shows for the section you added. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're asking me to add a the reference that Momoricks talked about above...is that right? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen, I would appreciate it if you can list the !votes because my count seems to be different from yours. Either way, I was under the impression that an RfC was done to reach a consensus. Consensus shouldn't be based on !votes which would make that tally moot anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see anyone calling for a straw poll in this RfC. If I'm missing that, please let me know. Why bother opening an RfC if this were just a basic straw poll and rationales are discounted? In the future, don't waste other people's time with such formalities and just do whatever you want to begin with. Pinkadelica^♣ 10:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to be reading further up the page - "Please, please just let it go - or put it to a vote!", on the 8th January. Thedarxide (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I need lots of things in life but someone telling me what I need to do isn't one of 'em. To clarify, I asked why this RfC (which was opened on January 9 by someone who did not say, "vote please!") was being treated as a straw poll. The RfC doesn't say "votes please", it says "comments please". How's that for reading? Pinkadelica^♣ 02:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I called the "vote", but it was in no way official or meant to initiate a proper vote (and obviously only out of frustration, which doesn't count). I feel it would be improper to issue any sort or well-drafted vote until WHL returns from her block. There's no rush here, and I don't think proper consensus has been reached here either way (delete or keep). A proper vote has not been yet sought here, and needs to wait until all original parties involved are available to comment/vote... Doc9871 (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You made some noise about a vote and then it actually started with WHL. I count three against including the book - you (Doc), WHL, and Crohnie. LVL no longer counts because LVL was a sock. Those voting for keeping the book reference include Yeti, Drxide, Peteinterpol, Momoricks, and me. That's 3:5 with the "keep" vote being the five. This has been going on for 10 days. It's time for it to be done. In deference to the vote, the book stays. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Whether calling for a vote was serious or note, members voted. Given that there were several calls to end it after a few days, I think 10 days is long enough. The banned blocked user has already had opportunity to comment and vote. Thedarxide (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, not banned. This page isn't a huge deal for me, but just get used to having the death metal band (see page's very recent history) and all kinds of other stuff here. It's a slippery slope once things like this get in. Oh, well! Cheers Doc9871 (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to find an external link for the addition but can't seem to find one that isn't so spammy looking. The one User:Momoricks has looked like spam to me so I went to look for one that isn't trying to sell anything and I came up empty. All the hits I got about the book and the movie were selling them and a lot of others. I still don't think it belongs after reading more than one sites reviewing the book and/or the movie. Not all of the reviews lead back to the Black Dahlia. Does anyone else have better results, please? I think we should do a renewed poll on this except maybe we can do it without all the noise that went on in the last attempt. Thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see why we should do a "renewed poll" - the vote was taken whether or not to remove or keep the LaPlante novel reference and there were more votes for keeping the novel in than votes to take it out. As I said above, if my count is wrong, then someone needs to tell me. And, as far as the "noise" goes, I'm not even going to comment. 'Nuf said 'bout that. As far as the reference, I'll do what I can today to place something suitable. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be easier to see who wants what. With all the noise in the thread it's hard to see who wants it and who doesn't. You didn't count User:Wildhartlivie who is only blocked for a week not banned, so she counts too. I just think everything is just to noisy. I can't tell who does and doesn't want it. After my looking into things, I still don't think it belongs. I also think you are counting those who have driven by and put it into the article without taking the time to stop by the talk page to discuss it. To me those don't count. It should be the editors who are actively discussing the matter. Thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure but do we actually count votes the normal way like so many supports/opposes or is it done like iVotes? I thought it was like the iVotes actually but now I'm not sure. Anyone care to clarify how polls are done? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly did count WHL's vote - but now that it has been revealed that WHL and LaVida were one in the same, LaVida's vote no longer counts. But even *with* LVL's vote, the results were to keep the LaPlante novel. And yes, I did count those who voted but haven't been back because they still voted. Regardless of whether or not you personally think it belongs (and you did vote to not include it), the vote is that it belongs. I'm sorry you don't like the results of the vote, but it is what it is. IMO, you are taking this way too seriously. Will the world stop spinning if the book is included? Think about it. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And IMO, you're playing games. An RfC is not a !vote and there's nothing at the beginning of this RfC that says it was going to be treated as such. In other words, the counting of anything shouldn't even be coming into play. Let's just be real here, you are fast tracking this because you think you have free reign now because your supposed nemesis is blocked. Your agenda would probably be less apparent had you not gotten a few of us involved in a WQA over this crap. The fact that you're actually attempting to check Crohnie (who has been incredibly nice to you thus far) about taking such an idiotic manner too seriously is, at best, laughable. You've taken this matter seriously AND personally. If you're going to make up rules and do whatever the hell you want, be real about it. Don't attempt to cloak it in policy or act like you care about what the rest of us think because it is clear you don't. Pinkadelica^♣ 02:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There wouldn't be half as much "noise" on this page if people kept to discussing the content rather than attempting to undermine peoples motives. Thedarxide (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your attempts at being rude are boring. If you don't like the "noise", go to another room. As for your motive remark, interesting choice of words. Not surprising. Interesting. Pinkadelica^♣ 09:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Today's edits

Did a massive clean-up of the article and added a number of cite needed tags. Really need some references here - too many uncited statements for my comfort on a article like this (especially when there is so much reference material on the subject available). Comments on the edits? Please bring them here. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Source Removal and Insertion Of "Fansites" As Sources

SRQ, I would like to know why you removed an official, reliable source and replaced it with two unreliable sources? Doc9871 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I already explained it to you on your talk page. I'm not going to go into it again here. And...correction: Pacios wrote a book about Short, her website isn't a "fan site". --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to prove a reliable source right or wrong; just provide it to the reader. To back up "Elizabeth Ann Short" with the FBI file as a reference is all that's needed. Any evidence against this (like statements from the mother from a reliable source) need to be mentioned and cited in the article... Doc9871 (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your argument is ridiculous. You've found one website that says she had a middle name, yet there are plenty of other references available that state the opposite *and* that state Short's own mother even testified in court that her daughter had no middle name. Are you saying that because it's the FBI their claim her middle name was "Ann" is right and every other reliable source is wrong? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The website links to all the files the FBI had on her (and you've also removed that from the article). The FBI doesn't "claim" her middle name was Ann - that's how they have her on file. Where are these other references? Where is the mother's court testimony? The FBI file is there for all to see, yet there is nothing to back up her "no middle name" claim... Doc9871 (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed no such thing. All of those links are in the external links portion of the article. You claim the FBI file is correct. Numerous sources debunk what the FBI has on file - including an LA Times reporter and Dahlia expert (whom you chastised earlier today in a snarky edit summary). Could you please explain to me why you continue to maintain the FBI is right and every other source is wrong? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw the external links thing after the fact - sorry for accusing you of removing the files. Now, again, we don't have to maintain that the FBI is right. It's a reliable source that shows her having the middle name of "Ann". It is already on the page, and someone linking to the first file is going to see "Elizabeth Ann Short" on the cover sheet. There is proof that a reliable source gives her the middle name of Ann, and there are no sources cited debunking the fact she had a middle name (at least according to the US government)... Doc9871 (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a reliable source that is wrong, ergo, in this case it's unreliable. Seems like a no-brainer to me. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's wrong that the FBI referred to her as Elizabeth Ann Short? Doc9871 (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: the only thing with the semblance of "official" about it stating Short had a middle name is the FBI website and post FOIA documentation on her. Nothing from the 1947 file on her says "Elizabeth Ann Short".. Does that provide you with a clue? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So... they arbitrarily made up a middle name for her. Why? Doc9871 (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And how is the average reader not going to be confused after seeing a middle name in the FBI files and not one in the article? It isn't explained in the article why there is this discrepancy... Doc9871 (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Snarky"? The "professional author" was shouting, and provided no reference to back up his claim... Doc9871 (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "snarky". Harnisch is a staff writer at the LA Times. He's a known Dahlia expert (even the author of "The Black Dahlia", James Ellroy, has said so). His contributions to the Times are often about LA history. Shouting or not, he was right and you aren't/weren't. Sorry. Need I say more? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a cited explanation of why the FBI created a middle name for her in their files might be helpful to readers... Doc9871 (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would further think that a professional author would cite his work, as well. You're positive this is the same person? And the "Coroner's Inquest Transcript, January 22, 1947.". Could you provide a link to this information to the reader? Where did you find it?; I'd like to see it... Doc9871 (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You are not obligated to respond, but I plan to delete your most recently added "source" per WP:REDFLAG. If you have the only copy, it's not verifiable... Doc9871 (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to also delete it for where it is a ref elsewhere in the article, too? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything else referencing "Coroner's Inquest Transcript, January 22, 1947."... Doc9871 (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Then...look closer. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm also going to remove the further references to this per FANSITE #11... Doc9871 (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh...I already did...? At least an hour ago...? (and it's not a fansite - it's an author's website) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There are still three more citations to this "source" in the article, and it fails WP:RS easily per the policy. Per the policy point #11, "This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies." Any professional author would avoid WP:REDFLAG by providing citation, especially when claiming that a biographical subject had no middle name whatsoever, when a reliable source shows that they did... Doc9871 (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"The Black Dahlia murder is surrounded by rumor and innuendo, How can a person discern myth from reality, fact from fiction?" First sentence of the page. This is the work of a "professional"? Needs a proofreader... Doc9871 (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You're really starting to go off topic and on tangents, here. Your opinion of who is a "professional" and who isn't matters not one iota. Let's stick to facts, shall we?

Once again (and this is the last time I have to say it - I hope), there are more sources available that state Short had no middle name than your one FBI website (and a contemporary source, I might add - if you look closely at them, nothing in the original FBI documents says "Elizabeth ANN Short" - nothing!) which has been proven to be wrong. Heck, even the Black Dahlia WP article itself states that she had no middle name. I just don't get why you are continuing to flagellate this expired equine? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you contending that the cover sheet of Elizabeth Ann Short's FBI file does not include a middle name? Will any editor address this in the article body? Why did the FBI fabricate a middle name for her? What was the purpose? I'd like to know... Doc9871 (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As I already pointed out numerous posts ago, the cover sheet is contemporary - post FOIA - not from 1947. Why they did it, I have no clue. Ask *them*. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WP doesn't have to "ask them", and they are a reliable source. Are you contending that FBI.gov is not a reliable source according to WP:RS? Doc9871 (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• You* asked the question (*you* aren't "Wikipedia"), and I doubt anyone here has the answer. If you want the answer to why the FBI put it there, ask the FBI. Exactly how many times do you want me to answer the same question in how many different ways? The FBI is wrong on the website. The original documents from Hoover and the other agents who filed the reports should prove that. There are more sources that testify to the fact that she had no middle name than the one FBI source. Like I said before, it's a no-brainer. The no-middle-name sources win. But, allow me to put the ball back in your court: are you saying that Short's mother was lying during the coroner's inquest? And if so...why would she lie about her daughter not having a middle name (of all things she *could* have lied about)? I mean, really...if anyone knows their child was given a middle name, it would be the mother, wouldn't it? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no "cite web" reference to the coroner's inquest. Do you have a copy? Why can't WP see it? Where did you find it? If it's in a printed book, where is the ISBN? Where's the reference for, "Note that the FBI file incorrectly lists her as Elizabeth Ann Short. In reality, she had no middle name."? Doc9871 (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Doc here. The reference added to the "Coroner's Inquest Transcript, January 22, 1947" has been challenged as to verifiability. Where would one find that transcript that is being added here. Is there a copy online? Is there a copy contained within a book? How would one go about verifying this since it isn't at all clear where the transcript comes from or even how one would go about finding it. No location included, no details to check. This citation fails WP:V. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources are cited all the time in WP without them being available for viewing on the web. Availability on the internet isn't the variable here. The FBI website infor has been shown to be wrong by more than one source - one of them being a Dahlia/LA history expert and staff writer for the LA Times. Short's mother testified in court that her daughter had no middle name. Elizabeth Short had no middle name. The FBI website is wrong. It's simple. Don't include a middle name in this article which never existed. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No evidence supporting your claims to the verifiability of the document. No ISBN, no website; just "assured research". The middle name exists according to a reliable source, quite unlike the source you submitted initially... Doc9871 (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Pfffft...!!! Too funny...the source to the birth certificate that I initially supplied as a reference that was deleted and started this whole brouhaha has now been added back as a reference. I don't know if I should laugh or laugh louder. (oh...and be sure to remove the second use of the same reference that was just removed and wasn't placed there by me...okay? ;-) LOL --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The site almost certainly fails WP:RS. I haven't acted on it, but we are all being watched by admins (I'm sure ;>), and I'm not going to delete anything out of time... Doc9871 (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) In fact, the source you added to the inquest cannot be verified with the information you give in the citation. No information on where this originated, no locale, no case number, no filing numbers, totally insufficient information to direct the reader on where to find this information. This has nothing to do with "availability on the internet", this has to do with supplying sufficient information in the citation to allow for verification, and there, your source fails. If you aren't holding a copy in your hand, that qualifies as convoluted manufacturing of the source. Not the first time this has happened. Don't be facetious or contentious. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not being either. Did you remove the other reference to the coroner's inquest transcript? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What reference? Where is it? I removed nothing; but what reference? I've seen no evidence... Doc9871 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I should further point out that simply because an author wrote a book on a subject does not automatically make that author's web page the "official website", and therefore acceptable according to #11... Doc9871 (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not the point. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to go "mono-syllablic " here. Reliable sources are what they are; I didn't make the rules up... Doc9871 (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that's what I'm talking about. A valid reference! Something to go on! Hallelujah!!! Doc9871 (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mmm-hmm. And some day - when you're in a good mood and feeling particularily benevolent - you can thank me for getting in touch with Mr. Harnisch and asking him if he had a copy of the transcript around that could be brought here (as well as any information on how the myth of a middle name for Elizabeth Short started). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehee! You haven't thanked me for any favors I've done for you. The article's still a "C" class of "high" importance, with terribly inadequate citations. I'm glad we've got a "pro" on board, though. Congratulations :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Severed vs. cut in two

Editor Mynameismikeminer made the change from "severed" to "cut in two". "Cut in two" is actually more accurate, and his explanation was also right: "severed" *isn't* quite correct. I realize that there was a book on Short published under the title, "Severed" (it's in my library, in fact). But, if you look closely at the definition of "sever", Short's body wasn't really severed (cut in pieces), it was cut in two. Definition of "sever" from Webster's: to put or keep apart : divide; especially : to remove (as a part) by or as if by cutting. To put or keep apart is accurate when referring to people who have severed relationships. Divide; especially : to remove (as a part)... doesn't fit what happened to Short's body, because her body wasn't divided into parts but actually bisected. With all of this in mind, I think that if "severed" is insisted on and kept, the words, "in two pieces" need to be added. I will be making that addition after I am finished with this talk page entry. More discussion here would be a good thing. Thanks. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm running out of time but severed means cut in two, the descriptor isn't needed and isn't grammically correct either. Look at the hidden comments when you open to edit, it's says it right there. Thanks, more if needed when I have time, got to go, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dictionaries vary in wording, but he definition you quote is not incompatible with "divide in two". Here's the wording from Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, deluxe second edition: "1. to part or divide in two, especially by violence; to separate, as by cutting or rending; as, he severed the cable at a single stroke." Ewulp (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that she was "severed at the waist" written for the description of this murder (I'll look for sources). She was "cut in half" or "severed" that way, not split down the middle laterally... Doc9871 (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the phrase "severed at the waist" is absolutely perfect. It is used by the Los Angeles Times [8] [9], the Spartanburg Herald-Journal [10], the St. Petersburg Times [11], The Sunday Times [12], The Independent [13], and appears in some 65,800 articles [14], and various books [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. I find it hard to believe that this many publishers, copy editors, and general reviewers could all misuse the word "severed", it evokes a particular visual image and this supports the phrase Doc suggests. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent research, WHL! And thank you, SRQ, for making the change! That was a very good example of harmonious editing, I must say; there's hope for us all working together yet! Very seriously - that worked out amazingly well :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

File:1947 0122 inquest page1.jpg

I have restored the file, which was deleted. I have tagged it {{PD-CAGov}}. Rich Farmbrough, 06:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC).

One important detail that I am curious about

I understand that this case is tragically low on details, thanks to how the case was handled by the media, but I am curious about one thing that I didn't see mentioned in the article: Is there any indication as to whether or not she was alive or dead at the time of her mutilation? Obviously she would have been dead or close to dead at the point that her torso was severed, but to put it basically, was she tortured to death, or was she killed and then mutilated? It might not seem like a big difference, but in my opinion, it's something of a big deal.204.119.140.66 (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

From the article: The cause of death was blood loss from the lacerations to the face combined with shock due to a concussion of the brain, ie: tortured to death. Wayne (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus seems to have been reached. Lara 22:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

---

This RFC is about the lead image. The original is of a mug shot taken when she was arrested for underage drinking. It's used because it is a public domain image and currently all that is available for our use. There are currently two variations. One is cropped to remove the bit that indicates it is a mug shot. The other is a tighter crop to hide her disheveled hair. The goal of this RFC is to determine which is the more appropriate image to use, as there has been on-going disagreement that would benefit from greater discussion from several members of the community. Regards, Lara 19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Change: We have the mugshot in the article so dont need two the same. The tight cropped image would be closer to her normal everyday look. An added "bonus" would be that the image wouldn't add to the misconceptions regarding her character. Wayne (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• When I reverted it last time, the mug shot wasn't in the article. If the mugshot stays in, I don't have a problem with the crop.—Chowbok ☠ 00:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why not keep both? I specified the caption and underage drinking doesn't disparage her character. The profile aspect of the dual shot has value.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think keeping the mugshot in the article and using the tighter crop for the lead would be ideal. Lara 18:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Change to tighter crop. Per above comments the mugshot is already included. The tighter crop would be more representative of her overall image. --Tbennert (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Rename Article

"The Black Dahlia" was merely a common nickname given to a murder victim. It is very disrespectful. The article should be renamed "Elizabeth Short" then a sentence can come after saying, more commonly known as the Black Dahlia.67.184.99.68 (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy for naming articles reads: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." (See WP:COMMONNAME.) "Elizabeth Short" yields 284,000 results. "The Black Dahlia" yield just under 5.5 million. Remove the "The" and you get over 8.6 million. She's simply better known by the nickname. Lara 17:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that naming the article "Black Dahlia" instead of Elizabeth Short is disrespectful. Doesn't respect come into question?- DR.X — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.140.52 (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No.—Chowbok ☠ 08:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The question of "respect" has come up in other articles and been rejected. It comes under the "no censcorship" guidelines. This article explains the name and comments on her good character so a reader should understand the reference. Wayne (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)