Talk:The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article The Texas Chain Saw Massacre has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for The Texas Chain Saw Massacre:
  • Copyedit - Copyedit complete
  • Nominate for FA

Intro expansion[edit]

I like the look of the into, but feel that the paragraphs could be expanded a bit. If anybody can help out, I'd really appreciate it.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 20:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Good luck, guys[edit]

switching to lurk mode

I know y'all have been through the wringer on this article with all the FACs. I hope you get it over the hump to feel the satisfaction. You have a "killer" (pun intended) daily hit count. You are working on something people read...that matters.

TCO (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you meant this one instead lol. Honestly, if this year isn't the year for this article, I might leave the project. I don't want to, but I think three years for a single article is enough. --TÆRkast (Communicate) 17:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Chain Saw vs Chainsaw[edit]

I'm wondering why the title of this article uses Chain Saw (two words) instead of Chainsaw (one word). Even the movie poster shown has it as one word, and in the article itself, it is used as one word far more than two words. If this was just to differentiate between the 1974 film and the 2003 remake, you could've just had "1974 Film" in parentheses. Confused. :-? BucsWeb (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you see the note in the lead next to the name? That's where it is explained.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Correct, the official name of the film is the compound Chain Saw, but many references are made to it with the one word variation. There has also been previous discussion about this in the archives. --Tærkast (Communicate) 17:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 16:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Future FAC and issues[edit]

Alright, so I'm thinking of giving the article another go at FAC soon. And some of the FACs seem to be highlighting a few problems.

  • Prose (Requesting GoCE assistance now)
  • Reference vetting

The last one for me, I cannot do too well, and also, because I don't think it's that much of an issue, I believe most of the sources cite what they're claiming to cite. If anybody else wants to highlight any issues feel free.--Tærkast (Discuss) 11:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem going through sources, but I don't have access to any of the non-website sources. I think that over time a lot of the information has been subtle tweaked by IPs to a point that it wasn't clear that it was vandalism, or just inaccurate so it was never corrected.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything major with the sources. Some of these problems may have been oversights on the part of me actually, but I don't think IPs have had much if anything to do with it, this article doesn't really get that much edits outside of an FAC.--Tærkast (Discuss) 14:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed the discussion of the last FAC process. DCGeist opposed because he was concerned that information in the article did not match the citations. Was there a review of the citations? I'm curious how many of the print sources were retrieved and vetted. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
There was probably minimal review at best. What would be the best course of action to take now? For the prose I've scheduled a GoCE request, for the refs, somebody better than me will need to take a look.--Tærkast (Discuss) 19:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you have access to the offline information?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I might if I go to my central library. Apart from that no, I gathered all of them using Google Scholar and Google Book searches.--Tærkast (Discuss) 11:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
So the information was pulled from the preview options in Google Books? I'll check what I can through Google Scholar, but if you got it from Google Scholar you can still provide an external link to the application that holds the PDF.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Alright. Will see what I can do, although I think I might've only used Scholar for one of the Robin Wood sources.--Tærkast (Discuss) 14:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

What this article needs now is a complete and independent source review. Any ideas how we'd be able to get this? --Tærkast (Discuss) 14:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, we can do all external sources ourselves. Books need to be done by the people that used them, and all scholarly reports can be done by people that have access to a university online library.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


Narrated by John Larroquette
can someone please include that?..the page is semi-protected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranoid Android1208 (talkcontribs) 22:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Taerkast/Bignole, here's one decent cite I quickly found:,2331/DCGeist (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Since he narrated only the introduction, should he be included in the infobox, or in the prose? --Tærkast (Discuss) 22:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I would say prose. I think "narrated by" indicates that you're generally doing it throughout the film, whereas he was merely reading a written message at the start of the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. It'll be added sometime. I don't have time to do it now.--Tærkast (Discuss) 23:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Not sure where exactly to put it, probably in the casting section? --Tærkast (Discuss) 16:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Final FA attempt in June[edit]

I'm determined to make it an FA this year before I possibly retire from Wikipedia. So, in June, I'll try to do this, dunno what else needs to be done, possible source vetting if any, apart from that, the prose seems good, so anybody is free to suggest any other things which could be done. --Tærkast (Discuss) 21:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 August 2012[edit]

In themes and analysis, it only says that three men are killed in quick succession. This should be changed to four because, at the end of the movie, the hitchhiker is run down by a semi-truck quickly. Thank you. (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

I'm not sure the recent citation date style and publisher changes were necessary. They make the citations inconsistent and listing the websites instead of the publishers makes it seem untidy in my view. The status quo worked.--Tærkast (Discuss) 21:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There has never been a problem with the way the citations were for four years. If this is to get another shot at FA, I hope things will be consistent. If others feel the new way is better, then make it consistent. --Tærkast (Discuss) 13:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
As far as the date styling, it needs to both be consistent and reflect the country of origin. We do not say "Day Month Year" in the united stated. So, it needs to be returned to the correct style. I'm not sure what the issue is with the websites/publishers. Could you point an example out to me?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
An example would be changing "publisher=British Board of Film Classification" to "". I don't really feel it's necessary, since there was nothing inherently wrong with using the actual publisher instead of the sites themseleves. I went back to the originals, but I have a feeling it might get changed again. I don't want this to become a huge issue. --Tærkast (Discuss) 14:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm ok with changing it back. I don't know of a reason to do that, maybe the editor has a reason. I know it was not a concern at the last (or any) FA review.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
General consensus will decide which citation style to keep. I will point out the difference between the 'work' and 'publisher' parameters though, even if you some of you already know: 'work' is for the name of the website itself, and 'publisher' is for the group or company who handles or "publishes" the website. I'm quite certain there were several references which had the name of the website in the 'publisher' parameter where they weren't supposed to be, so my changes were just a fairly quick way of dealing with what I saw to be a lack of reliability in the sources. These URL cores can be changed to the website title; e.g. the text displayed in the banner of the website. Publishers can be added, but only if they are the actual publishers behind the website.
Please also do it manually; I made quite a few other changes which took a fair while which were just reverted. I will try to help once we've reached a consensus. As for changing the date formats, I apologise; so it's Wikipedia policy to go mdy on American-subject articles? I was unsure, and used to adding dmy to other articles. Once it's confirmed I will change them back. Lachlan Foley (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
For dates, we generally follow the country of origin for the topic. We can use that date template (that we use in the infobox) as it converts based on where you are. As for the publishers, if there is a valid reason then I'm ok with that. I'm not sure what content edits you did because nothing is actually showing. I see paragraphs shifts but because the entire paragraph is shifted it blocks seeing individual content changes. I'm sure that Taerkast did not realize that there were content changes, because it did not look like there was...even to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
No I had not realised it actually, so I probably should have been more thorough. Regarding the publisher issue, I agree, the reason seems valid. So let's shelve differences and work together, because I want one last attempt at FA in the near future :) I'm not sure I would have another attempt in me after that.--Tærkast (Discuss) 21:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

FA push[edit]

I know we've been through quite a few of these before, so what's the harm in another one? --Tærkast (Discuss) 13:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting to wrong person[edit]

In the plot section, the article links to wrong person. This part "Leatherface and the hitchhiker bring an old man, "Grandpa" (John Dugan), from upstairs to share the meal." It redirects to John C. Dugan not the actual actor John Dugan who played the role of Grandpa. There is no wiki page for the actor John Dugan so one should be made or the redirection to wrong Dugan removed.

Just thought it should be fixed to avoid confusion.Hitman731 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Done: Thanks for catching this. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

FA attempt[edit]

Anybody reckon it's ready for another FA attempt? I'd like it to be my magnum opus of Wikipedia as it were :) --Tærkast (Discuss) 13:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. bd2412 T 22:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The Texas Chain Saw MassacreThe Texas Chainsaw Massacre – I don't know why the proposed title of the old original 1974 film cannot be used. Many non-primary sources use it. Both titles are accurate and unambiguous, but "chainsaw" is easier and more convenient to type than "chain saw". The film's credits, an official source, can't be the ONLY reliable source. Books use "chainsaw", and so do articles. George Ho (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose: neither is definitively the most common name, and the official name has a space in it as is noted in the article. Ivanvector (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - even a Google search for "Texas Chain Saw Massacre" brings up mostly hits for "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and an image search showing titles on film posters and covers returns a vast majority in favor of the single word. bd2412 T 20:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment why do you need the "The"? -- (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It's part of the title; see WP:THE. George Ho (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, all the other films in the franchise use "Chainsaw" as one word, and even the film poster for this article uses it that way. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It isn't just the film's credits, its the registered name of the film. If you read the source next to the name, it takes you to the copyright office that shows that film's name IS "Chain Saw". The fact that people join the word is neither here nor there. People change titles for simplicities sake all the time when writing about a film or book, or whatever. That doesn't change the name of the subject. "Chainsaw" already redirects to that page. So, if someone types The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, they still get The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. So, there isn't an argument about a reader not knowing to put a space in "Chain Saw". Not to mention there already is another, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", it's the 2003 remake, which is the same title, only with "Chainsaw" together. Your "google search" ( was picking up the 2003 film in it. If you read the individual results, you'll see many are actually talking about the remake when they join the name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME - the proposed title is what the film is recognized as. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: In Google Books, I searched for "texas chain saw massacre" 1974 vs. "texas chainsaw massacre" 1974. The results are 2,220 vs. 4,820, with the non-spaced results being closely tied with the release year (e.g., "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)"). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    I think that comes down to people just knowing that the word is typically written "chainsaw" (referring to the tool, not the film) when writing, and thus habitually write it as such when writing the title of the film. If you found that (and it isn't true) more people wrote "Mortal Combat", instead of "Mortal Kombat", we wouldn't change the title of the game/film just because in writing people decided to spell the word correctly. The entire point is that the film is copyrighted as "Chain Saw", there was a point to Hooper breaking that title, and we're debating about "ease of search". It doesn't impact search at all, and it's better to be "Precise" (it's in the COMMON NAME guidelines) when you can. Given that there is another film "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (2003), it's better to leave this page here. I've never seen COMMONNAME used as an argument for a space in a word. That is not what COMMONNAME is meant to be used for when writing article titles. Especially not when it does not impact searching ability. To be more clear, it specifically says in the guideline: "Editors should also consider the criteria outlined above. Ambiguous[5] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." - The proposal is to move to an inaccurate title (because we know what the copyright is) just because people are writing it inaccurately. That kind of goes against the guideline that people are using to argue for its change.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    I think that passage from WP:COMMONNAME is worth repeating: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." For those who have supported so far (George Ho, Fortdj33, BD2412, Taylor Trescott), what do you think? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    The theatrical release poster in the article clearly shows "chainsaw" as a single unspaced word. I really can't see calling this inaccurate, in light of that. bd2412 T 15:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    That is a marketing thing, and has nothing to do with the actual name of the film. Two different areas here. I can show you countless film posters where the title there does not match the title of the actual film. But since you point to it, I'll provide you with this: Here is the poster, really big. If you look in the credits of that poster, you will see "Chain Saw".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you for that link! I was thinking about this but could not find an extra-large image of the poster. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bignole. As you can see at [1] (3:30) there is clearly a space in "chain saw". The title registered at the Public Copyright Catalog also has a space. The film's proper title definitely has a space. Betty Logan (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the film itself is more reliable than many other sources? George Ho (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
We're saying the film, the copyright on the film (set by the studio), the film poster's credits, and the fact that the reality is its name IS "Chain Saw" makes it reliable that that is the name. COMMONNAME even specifically says not to create an inaccurate title simply because multiple reliable sources are spelling it that way.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
"Chainsaw" isn't accurate? Surely, it refers to the original film correctly, as well as other films and franchise. George Ho (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It isn't accurate to what the title actually is. The title IS "Chain Saw", it is not "Chainsaw". Yes, the franchise is considered "Chainsaw", because every film after joins the words. That is not the case for the 1974 original. The franchise page joins the words, the 2003 remake joins the words, this page should not be joining the word. Just because they changed it later does not mean we should be respelling things on older films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It's accurate to the film. One title shouldn't make the other inaccurate just because they aren't exactly the "same". The spelling of the title shouldn't affect how both titles reflect the film. It isn't similar to choices of words, like "Spanish flu"/1918 flu pandemic and Obamacare/Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. --George Ho (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Even if we accept "Chainsaw" as an acceptable alternative title, there is still no indication it is more commonly used. Google may simply return a higher hit rate for "chainsaw" because it will also include references to the sequels too. I opened up the first ten web sources in the article and [2][3][4][5][6][7] all spell it with "chain saw" while [8][9][10][11] all spell it with "chainsaw". Hardly conclusive. Both the American Film Institute and the British Film Institute use "chain saw" too (although the BFI acknowledge "chainsaw" as an alternative title). There is little in it in terms of actual usage; however, the film's credits and copyright entry explicitly use "chain saw" which I consider decisive in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking at sources, the ones published after 2004 use "chain saw" because of Wikipedia mainly. The ones in 2004 and beforehand used "chainsaw". I'd say that old doesn't die off that quickly. --George Ho (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the official title being "Chain Saw" and not "Chainsaw". This is evidenced in the film's title sequence, in its copyright registration, and in the billing block of the original poster. For whatever reason, the main title on the poster says "Chainsaw", but I think we grant too much importance to that image. If film articles did not have posters in film infoboxes, I doubt this issue would be as debatable, so it should not hinge on that. Therefore, per WP:COMMONNAME stating to avoid inaccurate article titles even if they are commonplace in reliable sources, the status quo is sufficient. A final note on something I just discovered as I wrap this up: On, the DVD does indeed show the spacing! If film infoboxes used title sequence screenshots or recent home media covers, I doubt this would be as much of an issue. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why people oppose it as "inaccurate". "National Lampoon's" was taken out of Animal House, yet it's still accurate without it. "Chain Saw" more accurate as proper noun than "Chainsaw"? Sources add "1974" or "original film" or "first film" to distinguish the film from other sequels and remakes. Non-primary sources aren't that useless, are they? George Ho (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting the example of Animal House. There, we're removing an extra part of the name and slimming it down. Here, you're saying you want to change the spelling of the name to fit with what you think it should be, not what it actually is. That is what COMMONNAME is referring to when it says "inaccurate". The guideline says be "precise". That's referring to how you spell the name. The precise and ACCURATE way to spell the name is "Chain Saw". You're trying to argue that more sources say "chainsaw", that's irrelevant to the fact that that isn't how the film spells the name. It would be like arguing that since "Happyness" is actually spelled "Happiness", we should change the name of "In Pursuit of Happyness" to "In Pursuit of Happiness" just because a lot of sources are spelling it that way.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
You're not even sure why the film spells it that way. I'm unsure either. Look at A Boy Was Born. The 'was' was lowercased, yet people prefer "Was". Accuracy of that title didn't affect the title itself and the composition, yet people whined over the spelling! How can "accuracy" extend to spelling of the title? Why should a spelling change affect the title and the title's reflection to the film? I mean, "chainsaw" (also spelled "chain saw") is a mechanical, automatic buzzer that cuts things... and people! --George Ho (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
As for "Happyness"/"Happiness", I don't think it's unintentional as much as "Chainsaw"/"Chain saw". I don't see intention of the title discussed in interviews. George Ho (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to assume good faith on your edits, when as the debate starts to move away from your favor you accuse the article of copyright infringement and the piece that you are wanting an Admin to remove is the piece that happens to be sourcing that the name of the article be "Chain Saw"? (Striking that comment, I see what you're actually trying to get removed now. I apologize for that. Upon initial glance it looked like it was about the title in the lead) With regard to "intentions", it doesn't matter. If we find a reliable source discussing the reasoning, which might have been an accident or just "I thought it was cool", it doesn't change the fact that that IS the name of the film. Your desire to change that has no bearing on the title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You know what? Arguing with you is losing fun, as our positions haven't changed. I hoped that arguing capitalization and spellings aren't worth dehumanizing society. I was wrong. Same for Star Trek Into Darkness, dot the i, and A Boy Was Born. George Ho (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per previous rationales, this has been discussed before; this has in any case been the stable name of this page for a not inconsiderable amount of time.--Tærkast (Discuss) 15:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is how every serious horror-film historian knows it, and that's the onscreen title. What inattentive latter-day journalists erroneously call it doesn't change what's on the screen. (And "chain saw," two words, is in fact the correct spelling, according Merriam Webster here. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source for themes[edit]

Could someone take a look at this source, and write about it for the "Themes" section? [12] It's an essay exploring various themes of the film, and the way the film potrays certain subjects etc. I'm not sure how to incorporate it adequately into the article. --Tærkast (Discuss) 22:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Cast List[edit]

So I had added a cast list to this article and it was deleted since the cast was mentioned in the plot. My argument for that is even though the cast is mentioned in the plot it is still helpful to have a cast list in the article as well.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSFILM#Cast, it is not mandated that a cast list exist. Given that the actors are in the plot, and a casting section exists, another list does not really serve any real purpose. If people just need a list, then they can go to IMDb.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Song ("Chain Saw") by the Ramones[edit]

It should be noted that the song "Chain Saw" by The Ramones should be added; The late Dee Dee Ramone was a fan of horror films such as TCM and Pet Sematary; Writer Stephen King was also a fan of the Ramones and used their 1989 song Pet Sematary in the 1989 film adaptation of the film of the same name. (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


Does anyone know if at any point in the movie "Pam" is ever called "Pamela" as a full name? I noticed this at but I am not sure if that is an assumption by fans or if there is actually a quote in the script or end credits to confirm it. Ranze (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


I saw a version of this movie with soft soundtrack and an interview with Tobe Hooper while watching the movie. He seemed to find much of the movie extremely funny, especially Leatherface's confusion at being invaded by the series of outsiders, and the dinner scene with the whole family mimicking Marilyn Burns' crying, the hitchhiker pretending to wipe his eyes. Does anyone know if it was originally intended to be a comedy? HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Wasn't Killed[edit]

In the plot it says Jerry was killed by Leatherface. Actually, there is nothing in the film to suggest that Jerry was killed. Jerry enters the house and sees the freezer being rattled from the inside. He opens it and Pam looks up out of the freezer. Leatherface enters, hits Jerry with a hammer and pushes Pam back into the freezer and locks it. Remember, the hammer had never killed anyone else in the movie. It was always just the first step to killing them. So, Leatherface turns around after putting Pam back in the freezer and he is shocked. Jerry is gone. Frantically, Leatherface looks all over trying to find him. He looks out the window, but doesn't see him. He is visibly distressed that he lost Jerry. Jerry isn't seen again in the movie. Later in the movie, Drayton can tell Leatherface is distressed. Drayton says something along the lines of "What's wrong? Did you lose somebody?". Leatherface nervously replies "No." Remember these aren't exact quotes, this is just my recollection. It seemed clear to me that the movie implied that Jerry had gotten away. Or, in the very least, the movie could have intended it to be open to interpretation (I still think it's clear that Jerry was never killed by Leatherface). This should be fixed on Wikipedia. (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)