Talk:Black Dahlia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(bg color= "blue"){WikiProjectBannerShell|1=

}}

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 ~~~~

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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>

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] who killed Elizabeth short?

who ever killed elizabeth short put her there for a reason...if not then he would have put her near a river or something like that he must have put her there so that thepolice and repotrers and everyone would find her. the 2 suspects george hodel and walter bayley were both surgons and both smart. george hodel was said to be smarter then einstein and he excelled in surgery....i dont know really anything about walter bayley but those are the 2 suspects that stand out in my head.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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.--andrewI20Talk 06:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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? --andrewI20Talk 06:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)