Talk:Black Dahlia

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Move question

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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>[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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

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.

                                 nicole shershen

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)[reply]

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. Josh K