Talk:Black Dahlia

Template:Maintained

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)

Vandalism, Wildhartlivie? Perhaps it was the original killer, still reeling with his guilt free crime, posting a subtle yet unrepentant criticism of the woman (who he believes was a disgusting individual, a slut, a "bitch", who deserved her fate). Knowing it would be removed and those who take this case seriously none the wiser. Perhaps he enjoyed this shouting in the public eyes, as it was true freedom. Freedom to display his illegal behavior and receive in return complete silence. Knowing that he was truly more powerful than those who wished to incarcerate him. 203.171.196.179 (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC) H

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)

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)