Jump to content

Talk:Black Dahlia/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Possible perpetrator: Steve Hodel's father

In this article, S Hodel is described as a crime writer. However, in the Zodiac Killer wikipedia article, he's described as a retired police detective writing a book on this case, which throws a very different light. Also, it makes the unreferenced claim that in his book he implicates his own (deceased) father and that the district attorney stated Hodel's father would be prosecuted if still alive.

This seems to be a highly relevant claim, but absent from this article? I have no sources (book, DA statements) to agree or disagree with this.92.232.44.174 (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

George Hodel is addressed in the Black Dahlia suspects article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction

Is said in Early Life: " Her father built miniature golf courses until the 1929 stock market crash, in which he lost much of the family's assets. In 1930, he parked his car on a bridge and vanished." But a paragraph later is said: "At age 19, Short travelled to Vallejo, California, to live with her father, who was working nearby at Mare Island Naval Shipyard on San Francisco Bay." I think that last paart is a mistake extracted from the novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.122.13.174 (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

He vanished in 1930 when Elizabeth was six years old and was presumed dead. She later found out he was still alive and visited him in 1943. The first paragraph explains this. Wayne (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Video game

I have been removing repeated attempts by various IPs to interject a video game into the article. I have been citing that it is non-notable, uncited & that it is trivia. The game is apparently new and I'm wondering if this isn't also promotional. I'm considering requesting indefinite page protection. What do the other editors here think?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The weird thing is that while I sometimes hate trivia sections, this odd factoid may have a tiny bit of merit. The way it's been inserted repeatedly without discussion despite your completely valid reversions is annoying for sure. If one of these individuals inserting this would join this discussion, that would be awesome! What's your spin? Why do you think it should be included? Doc talk 05:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if this is poorly written or anything like that but I don't usually post on wikipedia. I actually ended up at the Black Dahlia article because of the game. The case is mentioned multiple times and the game actually has you solve the case. If you ask me, it's just as notable as the books or films in the article. If you don't want to include the game then you probably should take out the books and films section entirely.TopherRocks (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
...and who does the game deduce is the killer? Your argument about throwing the other books out is illogical - here is the notability guideline as well as the germane essay on pop culture. Video games never equate to the significance of published material on a subject except in video game articles. I would agree that fictional works that vary away from a subject are much less relevant than any serious treatise of the subject. I don't see how you can equate cruft with serious sources.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This is what is written about "trivia" according to Wikipedia Guidelines: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all."
The L.A. Noire is a Topic that can be expanded upon, not irrelevant in that it provides another instance of the influence this case has had in our pop culture and history. It doesn't seem that there is a consensus to remove the reference except for a few "editors" acting territorial about accurate, but admittedly poorly organized contributions. Please remember that these article do not belong to one person or group but are here for everyone to access and reference.The dza1 (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I have never edited this article, but I am also here reading it because of the case being talked about by the main characters in L.A. Noire, a police detective game set in late-1940s LA. Although, I agree that it shouldn't be included - at least, not yet. The game was just released a few days ago. However, I suggest that the game's notability be re-evaluated at a later date, when the game's sales can be used as a judgement of notability. Lastly, I will say that I highly doubt the game's publisher, Rockstar, would engage in promotional editing of this article. Tkm256 (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm...I'm not sure that sales is the right criteria for notability but I agree in waiting. It's okay that the game causes interest in the subject but I don't believe that the subject (article) should generate interest in the game. As for publishers using Wikipedia for promotion, we see it all the time in general. I'm not sure why Rockstar would be any different.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I for one totally agree that it doesn't belong in the article. This is a murder, something serious and a game is trivial and brings nothing notable to this article. I agree totally with Berean Hunter's reasons for removing it and I will also remove it unless there is a consensus here that it belongs which I hope doesn't happen. If the anonymous IP's continue, than yes I think asking for semi protection is the right way to go too. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Update Cirt has semi protected the article. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The game L.A. Noire is very much influenced by, and refers to, the Black Dahlia murder; I would go so far as to say it is the primary inspiration for the game. Taking place in LA shortly after the Black Dahlia murder occurs, the character you play investigates a series of murders that have some similarity to the case (and other real murders that were thought to be copycats), and the Black Dahlia is constantly being brought up as a result. Some of the victims even have "BD" written on their corpses in lipstick. At one point your character even locates the Social Security card of Elizabeth Short. At any rate, I don't know how to edit articles or I would track down relevant citations and do it myself, but for what it's worth, I can assure you that the game is every bit as relevant to this article as any book or film "inspired by" the case. A simple Google of "LA Noire Black Dahlia" will confirm this in spades. Since the game is enormously popular, it will continue to bring a flood of people to this article to read about the case. Someone may as well write a section acknowledging the connection because it will get done eventually. Oneiros42 (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I feel the need to note that the Black Dahlia isn't merely 'referenced' in L.A. Noire. A third of the game is about finding the murderer and solving the case. In the game, the player actually does find (and is forced to kill) Elizabeth Short's murderer, solving the BD case. Of course, the game has the murderer be the brother of a high-ranking politician, so the news is never publicized, leaving the case "unsolved" to correspond with our real history. I'm not saying that this alone makes the game notable or merits inclusion - just that a third of it is a very film-like video game adaptation of the case. Ibm2431 (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I just undid an editor adding this again while the discussion is ongoing. William Heirens has absolutely nothing to do with the Black Dahlia case - this kind of stuff can be wikilinked to these articles on the game's page. I'm starting to lean towards excluding this, especially with not one valid reference to back it up. If anything, a short blurb about Short only is warranted, if at all. Heirens? Really? Not for this article. Doc talk 23:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Heirens actually does have links to this article as it is widely believed that the murders he was convicted of could have been committed by the Black Dahlia killer. This is why they are linked in the game. As far as the game is concerned, the game has significant notability and it's release was reported in the news section of the newspapers as groundbreaking as it is the first video game ever to use motion capture throughout. Over 400 actors were used and the game is virtually an interactive movie where the facial expressions of the characters are clues. If the article mentions movies then the game is similarly notable. Wayne (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hadn't seen that about Heirens here - thanks for pointing it out. I think it probably falls into the realm of "I want to sell a book" on the part of researchers who came along decades later: Jack the Ripper and List of Jack the Ripper suspects come immediately to mind. It's worth noting that in John Douglas's book Mindhunter, Douglas (who interviewed Heirens in prison) was almost convinced himself of Heirens' pleas of innocence for the murders he was convicted of - but that his latent prints were actually lifted from the Degnan crime scene. Of course, there is no doubt that Heirens confessed to the three murders, blaming an "alter ego" named George Murman. Was it a coerced confession and were those prints "planted"? Plenty of speculation on that in the Heirens article. There is no mention of The Black Dahlia murder in that article, but there is here; odd. Any interesting facts about the video game belong in the article about the video game, really. Personally, I find any connection between the Black Dahlia and the Heirens murders to be creative fiction - totally unprovable. But maybe that's just me. As I said in the beginning of the thread, I am not overly concerned with a brief mention of this game in the article. But to turn this into a WP:FRINGE theory involving Heirens based on a video game and a couple of books is not even worth mentioning. Doc talk 06:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I don't believe that the video game or alternate histories are ever significant to the real subject. Heirens is almost certainly not connected to the Dahlia case. It wouldn't be hard to convince me that only proper studies of the case are the only ones that have merit here. We have the article Jack the Ripper fiction so that the crufty stuff would be kept out of the main articles and not pollute those.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Movies that are "inspired by" the case and "highly fictionalized" versions are relevant enough to be included in the article, but a videogame that directly references it multiple times in a serious and respectful fashion is not?Oneiros42 (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:TRIVIA, the entire "In the media" section should be removed. We shouldn't have a bulleted list of random information. If it's relevant enough, it can be worked into prose and get more detail than a single sentence. Lara 13:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree. I have removed that section as it only contained trivia.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This is actually something i consider valid, it is a piece of trivia and the game does mention the black dahlia quite a bit, not that it should be promotion for the game, but it *is* a pop culture reference so I think a matter of fact addition of this information would be a good thing. If someone is interested in the black dahlia and wants to see where it is mentioned, why not list a source that is true? Does it matter that the game might have a few extra people checking it out? Also there's a band called The Black Dahlia Murder. Shouldnt this be a pop culture reference too? If something truly is, I dont see what the problem was. If it was written in a way that seems to promote the game or band, that's a different story. And while the game does go in a fictional direction with the BD, it lists many facts about elizabeth short. When I looked up columbine, I saw "Elephant" (a fictional movie about a school shooting, not exactly related at all, just similar story) listed as a pop culture reference. So, I don't see what the problem is... FractalStructure (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
This article is not, nor should it be, a pop culture subject. The only articles that should perhaps have a pop culture section are pop culture subjects. You've actually bolstered the reasons for excluding it. Please read WP:TRIVIA. Also, if someone is interested in the Black Dahlia as you say then they aren't interested in the video game. With regards to the Columbine article, please see Other stuff exists.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Berean. These other things could, perhaps, be placed as "see also" links. A reasonable argument could persuade me to support that, but having detailed information on the band or the video game isn't, in my opinion, appropriate for this article based on our standards. And to counter the "other stuff exists" argument, you won't find links or references to the band Dead Kennedys in any of the Kennedy family articles. But we don't base these things on what we can find in other articles, we go by policies and guidelines. Lara 03:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, as per Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content, information about pop culture impact is part of what makes Wikipedia different from traditional encyclopedias. The only caveat listed there is that such sections be kept relevant and well maintained, not they they be eliminated entirely. Xjph (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
You've linked an essay. WP:TRIVIA is a guideline in the Manual of Style. Lara 03:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why it's such a big deal. Including an "In the Media" section with the video game included won't hurt anyone. So what if a few people don't care about it? I could link you to thousands of sections of Wikipedia articles that even less people care about, but nevertheless remain there. I also believe that one who is interested in this case may very well be interested in a video game in which they single-handedly SOLVE it.
In response to the argument over the credibility of a video game versus a film or work of literature, I would also like to add that video games are just as credible. No less research goes into these video games than into a film or otherwise. --Raddaluigi (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
You don't literally SOLVE the case, so I don't get why there is emphasis on that. It's irrelevant. Actually, no, it's not. It works against you, though. The fact that the case ends up being solved in the end sort of negates some of the research considering it's an inaccurate resolution to the case. Regardless, if the game is notable, it can have its own article. I maintain my position that it doesn't belong here. Lara 17:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I quite agree, videogames are for children, and therefore irrelavent in the grand scheme of pop culture media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.234.143.206 (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to comment on this because my piece about LA Noire was deleted a day after I posted it and hopefully i'm doing it right. Video games are not for kids. A recent study has claimed that the average age of the current gamer is 37. The information that relates to it's inclusion is exactly the same as that of the American Horror Story segment. I'm sure there are a lot of literary purists who believe that a TV Show reference should not be included but yet the powers that be has allowed this to be left on the page. As an avid user of Wikipedia I find the information o here is all encompassing and not just the usual info that someone getting a standard encyclopedia would be looking to find. I have been interested in the Black Dahlia case a previous number of times. One of which was when I saw the 2006 movie, I checked out the wikipedia page then, and now that I've played the game L.A. Noire, I have also sought information from Wikipedia for the exact same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anakoz (talk • contribs) 21:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding Anakoz. The removal of your edit had nothing to do with someone's opinion that video games are for kids. It is trivia which bears no academic merit and there has been a consensus here for some time to leave it out. Regarding the American Horror Story segment, sometimes other stuff exists but that usually doesn't help make an argument on the particular edit under discussion. I added the reference for support when someone added it because it is better to have things referenced than naught but I personally wouldn't object to removing it either. If you are interested in the subject of this article then you should realize that the video game has nothing to do with it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, L.A. Noire does not belong in the "Depictions in fiction" section of the article, partly because a video game is not a work of fiction; it's a game. The video technology makes the game resemble a movie, which may confuse the issue, but a game is a game. If L.A. Noire had the physical form of an old-fashioned board game like Cluedo or a card game like Authors, the inappropriateness of treating it as a "depiction in fiction" would be more obvious.
The discussion above indicates a consensus among editors who have had a significant involvement with crime-related articles. Wikipedia is not a democracy in which a vote count settles a question; the quality of the argument is more important. The members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography appear to have agreed on a rather strict policy regarding depictions in fiction (as seen here), and this consensus matters. Ewulp (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
This game is not relevant to this article. The article for the game doesn't even have a link to this article; it has a link to the novel which is a fictional piece loosely based on the actual case. This tragic event and the victim inspired some aspect of that game. That game has zero relevance to the tragic event or the victim. Note the distinguishment. This actually applies to the entire fiction section. Where this case inspired some work of fiction is irrelevant to this article. If notable enough, it can have its own article or be written into the prose of this one. A radio show ran an episode on the killing in 1950. Really? Who cares? "Unsolved Mysteries" ran a profile? Super. How is that relevant? She died accidentally from anesthesia while being raped by a dentist in some horror television series. What? How is that relevant? It's not even remotely similar to the actual case. For the rest of the contents, novels and movies inspired by this case seem slightly more legitimate to me; however, if such information is to be included, it not only needs to be sourced and written into prose (as opposed to being bullet-listed), it needs to clearly state that they are works "inspired by" or "loosely based on" the case, because a great deal of creative freedom was enjoyed in these works. Lara 03:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm shocked to see how people like "Lara", "Ewulp" and "Berean Hunter" belittle the work of other wikipedians! Seemingly, Wikipedia is not a group effort for you that tries to gather relevant information, but a way to gang up on other contributors and delete anything that's not part of your mindset by holding some random guideline over other peoples' heads. This kind of behaviour is the reason why wikipedia keeps losing editors. But back to topic: how can you say that pop culture is irrelevant for an article about a real life crime? Crime has always inspired art, be it in literature, painting, film, graphic novels, or, nowadays, videogames - just look at Jack the Ripper. That may be a sad fact for the poor victims, but it is not for any Wikipedia editor to decide a question of morality. If a murder has had these cultural consequences, then it should be mentioned in the respective article. One can presume that the Black Dahlia would be almost forgotten from collective memory nowadays, if it weren't for Ellroy's novel or the De Palma movie. Furthermore, if works of fiction alter real life facts according to their needs, that doesn't make them irrelevant - as fiction doesn't have to nor does it claim to always depict reality. What makes them relevant is the fact that they keep the Black Dahlia alive as a modern myth (or as a cultural meme, if you will). Very often it's these works of fiction that make people log on to wikipedia - to find out what "really" happened. I, for one, just re-read the article after seeing the ninth episode of "American Horror Story" (according to Wikipedia, the episode was watched by an estimated 2.85 millon household viewers - not relevant??). Other times, people may look for an article's pop culture section just to see how relevant the topic still is or was in our society. This wasn't just a "Trivia" section, since the entries weren't just random collected "other stuff", but were all interconnected by the fact that they are cultural dealings with the murder of Elizabeth Short. Lastly, I'd like to quote from the WP:POPCULTURE article: "such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias". For all these reasons, I strongly suggest that you reinstate the "In popular culture" section of this article - and if you think that there are not enough references, just mark the section respectively - or try to contribute the references yourselves. If you're not satisfied with what you read, don't delete it - try to improve it! Diavolino79 (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Just saying: this is a 35000+ words conversation about the inclusion/exclusion of a single line in an "obsolete" section of the article (obsolete here meaning that it's not like the article of the game is injected in "Biography" or "Murder and aftermath"). Can't we all just get along and please both sides? I propose "See also: L.A. Noire, an investigative video game in which the player eventually solves the Black Dahlia murder (albeit in a slightly/highly fictionalized telling of events)". Apparently though there's more fictional versions of the story than this game, so I move to create a Trivia section and move them here. People not interested in Trivia won't have to read it, and for the people who do read the section, it could provide them with things to learn. I learned there's a series called Unsolved Mysteries from Jennavecia (two comments above me), and I might just watch it now. - Anon, 21 November 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.216.100 (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to compromise with the sockpuppets promoting the game...there is no consensus to add but rather to keep out.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Diavolino79, no need to scare quote my name; I was born with it. Again, the game isn't relevant to this article. Note that JFK: Reloaded is not in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy article. It is not relevant. The countless video game references to Elvis Presley, not in his biography. They are not relevant. All-Pro Football 2K8 is not in O.J. Simpson's biography or the article for his murder case. It is not relevant. It's all useless trivia loosely based on whatever target celebrity. Not encyclopedic, not relevant to the biography, doesn't belong. Lara 06:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible update to the case

Seen here. Lara 01:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate Photo

I find it deeply problematic that the main photo for Short is a mug shot, portraying her as a "troubled" woman who had been arrested for underage drinking. Can this be changed to a more respectful photo?173.165.13.181 (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you might be reading into that just a little bit too much. I don't think there is any agenda to portray her as a "troubled" woman. However, if you know of any other available and more "appropriate" photos, I see no reason why a change would matter. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I, too, think it's unfortunate that we have to use the mug shot, and I expressed this several years ago. However, this is a derivative that at least doesn't immediately look like a mug shot. The crop has removed the obviousness of her disheveled hair as well. The issue is locating fair use images of her. If you find a better one, please do feel free to swap the image. Lara 16:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I can't find a better image that exists under fair use, so I guess there is no replacement. Also, I didn't mean to imply an agenda or any intent, just that the result is unfortunate.173.165.13.181 (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

press

Wasn't there any complaints about the behavior of the rabid press, and the shameful way in which they approached her mother? Its despicable. .45Colt 00:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC) .45Colt 00:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Black Dahlia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Media portrayals

Regarding this reversion. I would like to argue that (a) we should keep the previous title of the section so as to discourage the addition of exceedingly tangential material, and (b) that this video game stuff, unless secondary sources can be found to establish its relevance to the reader's understanding of Elizabeth Short, ought to be omitted.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Having "and references" in the section title is potentially confusing wrt the references section. I think we should use Kurt Cobain as a model here and name the section "Books and films on Black Dahlia" [or Short]. That removes the option for the video game junk and leaves it (at least notionally) for legitimate additions. Lara 06:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

How about we just remove the section entirely? What's there is "loosely based" and just really doesn't belong. Lara 01:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, we're not supposed to restate the article title in headings. ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 01:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I second removing the section entirely. There is no reason why AHS should be listed here. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

American Horror Story

I'm not sure if this is of interest, but should there be an entry under media portrayals about the American Horror Story episode about her? I think the title was The Creepy Little Girl. What are your thoughts? --Jamal WillsT/C 20:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that if it belongs there, which I suspect it doesn't, there will be some kind of high quality secondary source which discusses the TV episode in relation to light that it sheds on the actual subject of this article. I doubt there is any such thing, but if you can find it, we can put the TV show in. That's the usual criterion for inclusion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone else interested in discussing this item? It gets added a lot, but I don't see any reason to have it. Are their arguments in favor of it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The episode title is "Spooky Little Girl" and it's total fiction. It uses her likeness but completely fabricates everything about the story up to the discovery of her body. Fictional works that aim to profit from her death are not what the section/article are intended for. Biographical works: that's what we're aiming for with her biography. Lara 06:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
American Horror Story continues to be added every few days, most often by IPs or newly registered editors who make only this single edit—a pattern often associated with sockpuppetry. Despite repeated invitations to join the discussion on this page, no editor has come here to argue for inclusion since 2012. In that year, Diavolino79 made at least one strong argument: "Crime has always inspired art, be it in literature, painting, film, graphic novels, or, nowadays, videogames ... If a murder has had these cultural consequences, then it should be mentioned in the respective article. One can presume that the Black Dahlia would be almost forgotten from collective memory nowadays, if it weren't for Ellroy's novel or the De Palma movie." There is nothing there that I disagree with, but an indiscriminate bullet list is not a good addition to the article.
Featured articles, which represent the best of Wikipedia, do not contain bullet lists of cultural depictions. The "Legacy" section of the Donner Party says the episode "has served as the basis for numerous works of history, fiction, drama, poetry, and film." That's all; no list. Other FAs about subjects that have inspired a great deal of popular culture, such as Anne Frank, quarantine all or most of the specifics to separate articles: in this case, List of films about Anne Frank and Cultural depictions of Anne Frank, the latter of which is inevitably filled with the usual Family Guy cruft etc. It is interesting to note that even in that shambolic list there is no mention of the two-part "I Am Anne Frank" episode of American Horror Story.
I think Lara is right; there's little reason to include "Spooky Little Girl", which is not so much a fictionalized account of the Black Dahlia case as a work of fiction spiced up with one or two references to an actual person. It seems not much closer to depicting the Black Dahlia case than the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are to depicting the lives of four Italian Renaissance artists. There's a good case for keeping Ellroy and De Palma as examples of the subject's cultural impact, but I would suggest reducing the bullet list to a few lines of prose supported by secondary sources. FA Daniel Boone is a good model of a discriminating treatment; without editorial judgement, a pointless listing of hundreds of cultural depictions might have accumulated. FA Moors Murders deals with television dramatizations in one short line of prose. We don't need extended cast lists and detailed plot synopses. Ewulp (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It saddens me a bit that it's not mentioned anywhere on her page, when the series so clearly states that it supposed to be her. Sure all the facts are not correct but what adaption is anyways? Ewan Stewart plays William McMaster Murdoch in film Titanic (1997) where he shots himself in the head. This is never confirmed, thought speculated, still it is listed in the Portrayals section on his page. And what about show Doctor Who, with doctor that travels through time and space and meats historic persons and effects their life's. Most if not all famous people that is seen during that show is listed in the respective persons page. As an example: Agatha Christie. This whole argument not to include American Horror Story's portrayal of Elizabeth seems illogical and based on personal preferences. It is fiction, not factual! --85.76.176.99 (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the discussion. AHS has been added to this article at least 40 times over the last few years. Repeated invitations for interested editors to make a case for inclusion on the talk page have gone unanswered from17 August 2012 until now, so I've reverted the addition many times. This is partly for procedural reasons (content disputes should be resolved by discussion, not by edit warring); partly because a number of editors have argued against adding it and we work by consensus; and partly because the material is always unsourced. I agree with what alf laylah wa laylah said above: at minimum, a "high quality secondary source which discusses the TV episode in relation to light that it sheds on the actual subject of this article" is required. Nobody has ever provided one.
In response to your comments, the fact that many Wikipedia articles contain unsourced and sometimes trivial information is not a good reason to add it here; local consensus determines what belongs in any article, and unsourced stuff can always be removed. Editors differ on the question of how close to the facts a media portrayal must be to be included (for instance, the editors of Ludwig van Beethoven have accepted the fictionalized film Copying Beethoven but not Beethoven). The film Titanic may have depicted some speculative but plausible actions by William McMaster Murdoch, but it didn't depict him prostituting himself to a dentist who anesthetizes, rapes, and kills him so Murdoch can come back 65 years later as a ghost to consort with other ghosts one of whom is about to give birth to the antichrist.
I encourage others to join in here, pro or con. Ewulp (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

And thank you for a well put answer. As I've watched more of the series and done my research. I've noticed that Elizabeth is not the only person AHS has made a fictional portrayal off. Marie Laveau and Delphine LaLaurie are just a few of the characters that have made an appearance in the series. Angela Bassett and Kathy Bates' portrayals has been noted on their respective pages, but with what the people adding the AHS portrayal of Elizabeth missed, was, like you said, a proper source. There are in fact many articles on the World Wide Web pointing out the recognizable crime, seen in the series and with farther to do, I will share one with you from Entertainment Weekly: http://www.ew.com/recap/american-horror-story-season-1-episode-9. I hope this will finally convince the Wiki Community that Mena Suvari's Elizabeth Short is a noteworthy fictional portrayal. --85.76.76.131 (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Lol Christalion2hype (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no good reason as to why AHS should be included. Its inclusion is a promotion of turning these articles into grounds for WP:TRIVIA. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Dahlia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

You have the wrong pic. Matt Gordon has nothing to with the Black Dahlia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:146:C100:D979:EDA6:93F6:1CBA:341 (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Black Dahlia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image

It seems inappropriate to have Elizabeth Short's mugshot as her infobox photo. The article is about a murder victim and an unsolved homicide, not a criminal. Suggest we either take the portrait photo from the newspaper image farther down in the article or find another free image elsewhere to put into the infobox and put the mugshot elsewhere in the article. -- ψλ ● ✉ 03:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Mugshot in the infobox has been replaced with a portrait photo. If anyone has any thought on this or objections, please discuss here. -- ψλ ● ✉ 01:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Black Dahlia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk · contribs) 10:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A very good and thorough article, it seems. Some minor complaints:

  • The article uses Template:Sfn for book sources ("Works cited" section). However, references no 49, 71, 77, 83, 95, 100, 110, 112, 115, 116, 120, 125 and 126 all break this rule by having an entire book cited already in the source. The article should either be one or the other. Either use the Sfn template consistently or directly cite books in the reference.
    • This is something I've wondered with myself, though my understanding was that Sfn references were appropriate if you were citing multiple pages of a book throughout the article, but should not be used if simply one page number/grouping is being referenced. I may be entirely wrong on that, but for consistency's sake, I think uniformity is probably best, so I've converted them.
  • "Childhood" section: "Short was born in the Hyde Park section..." Her full name should be given in the first sentence.
    • Addressed, and bolded name since it's the first mention in the article body.
  • "Suspects and confessions" section: "Of the 60 early confessions, 25 were considered viable suspects by the Los Angeles District Attorney. In the course of the investigation, some of the original 25 were eliminated, and several new suspects were proposed." There is no source for the end of this sentence, which gives very specific figures.
    • Had to strike this as I could not find any source for those figures; I don't recall putting them there and I believe they may have already been written in the article prior to when I started working on it. In any case, I cannot find any corroboration of that statement, so I feel it best to remove it for the time being.
  • "Alleged prostitution and sexual history" section mentions a book in the text: "in Michael Newton's 2009 book The Encyclopedia of Unsolved Crimes (ISBN 978-1-438-11914-4), notes that her uterus was "small"..." The ISBN is unnecessary in the brackets. The title of the book and the authors are sufficient.
    • Agreed--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Actually, it should simply be done at something like "in the 2009 book The Encyclopedia of Unsolved Crimes", with all the publication details in a reference citation, preferably with a page number cited for the quoted material. There is no reason to mention the author name in the main encyclopedia text unless the author is notable (has his/her own article here). Also, "in the [book], notes that ..." isn't even grammatical.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@3E1I5S8B9RF7: I believe I've addressed the comments above, but let me know if something else still appears out of sorts here. Thank you again. --Drown Soda (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Conclusion

Overall, I think all my major issues were adressed. This article seems to be neutral and objectively written. I think it meets the GA criteria.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Expanding article; will continue to do more work

Hello all,

I've recently done some significant work on expanding this article and cleaning up the references and what have it. I was quite honestly surprised that no one else has taken the liberty to do so given the cultural significance of the article and the depth of detail involved (although I suppose the latter could be a deterrent). In any case, I've done significant expansion from previous versions, and would hope to see this article make it to GA status someday. I've done a lot of work organizing Short's biographical details into a consolidated "Life" section, and then split up the rest in sections/subsections focusing on her murder, the investigation, and the public discourse surrounding it.

The public discourse section is perhaps the most challenging as there are a vast number of theories and varying renditions of events, biographical details, and conflicting claims surrounding Short's life and death. I've found it best to note the disputes about such popular conceptions/facts and offer sources for them rather than make declarations in favor of one or the other. There are certain instances where rumor & largely unsubstantiated claims are obviously quashed by such evidence as the official autopsy report (which itself conflicts with John Gilmore's supposed findings), but other instances are less clear. It seems best to me to note these inconsistencies, both in the body of the article and in footnotes (as I have done), as in many cases, it's simply impossible to declare an indisputable truth either way.

If anyone has any suggestions on what else could be done here, or additional sections or sub-sections that may benefit the article, please let me know. --Drown Soda (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a band. Notably named after this case. Called the black dahlia murder https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Dahlia_Murder_(band) David Bailey jr (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

More substance needed for the article

The article describes the case in a very incomplete way. The story is essentially that a body is found, and then there are some suspects, but that's it. When was the victim seen last, and what was known about her life in the days and weeks right prior to the murder? None of this is clarified in the article at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.179.227 (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no mention of the murder of Louise Springer (the "Green Twig Murder"); it's at least as likely as the murder of Jeanne French (the "Red Lipstick Murder"). Steve Hodel and others have written about this, and the letter of an LAPD police informant (unpublished until just a few years ago) firmly connects them, George Hodel was interviewed as a suspect in both cases, and police at the time considered them connected. There were a whole series of "lone-woman murders" around this time in LA, and most of the materials written about them consider them related crimes. We either need an article on them as a set, or we need to treat Black Dahlia#Theories and potentially related crimes as the place to do that, and actually do it well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

PS: The Springer case is mentioned at Bonnie C. Templeton and George Hill Hodel, so those're places to link from when we have somewhere to link to. Need redirects from Louise Springer, Louise Springer case, Louise Springer murder, murder of Louise Springer, green twig murder, Green Twig murder, Green Twig Murder, etc. Already done that with Jeanne French and Red Lipstick Murder. Might be worth a category, too.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Photo of the corpse is violating the victims' dignity

b To publish the photo of Elizabeth Shorts' mutilated corpse violates her dignity even after her death! It serves no practical information but just voyeurism. Wikipedia policy does not permit the violation of a persons' dignity, the photo has to be removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.117.99.190 (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I recommend you read WP:NOTCENSORED. It states that, "Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable." The image in question is indeed relevant to the topic and the section it is being used in. – Braxton C. Womacktalk to me! 22:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit Wikipedia and would never do so... I just looked up this story after seeing the premiere of the current US TV show, "I Am the Night", which premiered last night, and I'm sure many more people will do the same as the season continues.

So, I left without saying anything then, but as a woman with PTSD who has personally seen actual mutilated bodies... 24-hours later, I'm still queasy and it's still on my mind. That picture really should not be on any Wikipedia article, warning or not... this should be a safe place where kids and adults can find information... plus, the medical explanation gives that information far better than any photo of that time could have without the same triggers. So please just take it down, it serves no positive purpose, helps a few freaks get their rocks off and harms the majority of readers.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.153.28.155 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, please see WP:NOTCENSORED. The problem, of course, is that pretty much everything imaginable – from clowns to leather belts to yellowish dogs to candied yams – is a "trigger" for someone, somewhere. For the actual and overwhelming majority of readers for whom crime photos are not a trigger of unmanageable personal emotional angst, an encyclopedia article that is missing well-known photographs that pertain to a major crime about which people have been writing for decades (in books that always include these photos) will simply be a crappy, incomplete encyclopedia article. This is not intended to be a crappy, incomplete encyclopedia, even at the cost of a few people being uncomfortable seeing something they should have expected to see in an article about a grisly murder. And this is not ChildrenPedia. If you want that, try World Book Encyclopedia or a similar work intended for children.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the corpse image is offensive, and this page will be seeing a lot more traffic with both a new tv adaption and podcats. please see WP:Offensive_material for guidelines that offensive material is not needed if ommission does not detract any information. I think its pretty obvious that a nude, cut up murdered body is a "trigger" incomparable to candied yams, and I find your above comment very insensitive. Arw36 (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

While I'm not personally opposed to not showing the body (I feel if anything it's unnecessary given that the descriptions in text on the page are detailed and the images in question are readily available elsewhere) - I find the reasoning put forward here to be spurious. Why would somebody sensitive to this type of imagery, to these types of topics in general, go out of their way to view this page - something only one interested in this topic would consciously do? Why would an image be the kicker for someone with a condition or temperament libel to be triggered by such content but not the thorough descriptions and circumstances as relayed on the page? As a survivor of war, torture, and gun-violence I find text to be as much a trigger as imagery and while we're all not built equally I'm not about to ask that certain text be removed from an encyclopedic article because it's too 'appropriate' for the subject matter, and the subject matter is not appropriate to me, the individual. Why would somebody sensitive to this material listen to a podcast or watch a show AND THEN GO ONLINE TO RESEARCH MORE!? They'd be likely to see the imagery via a google search due to the infamy of the case and its age before even reaching the link to this article.
In terms of reasoning - I find that to be hogwash, that "more people will see this page." You'd think members of this website would be more worried about the VERACITY AND ACCURACY of the article's information rather than the possibility for its imagery to unsettle someone if so many new readers were to view it. As for it being offensive - I hardly doubt Miss Short would much mind at this point and as for her family, they'd have bigger fish to fry given the spurious and sensationalist depictions of the events over the years (indeed, all of the trash that circulated AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER) - does anyone really think they'd be offended at a relevant Wikipedia article at this point? So who's the one getting offended here? You? Should this website remove images of the World Trade Center on 9/11 if it triggers people? I'm sure it triggers quite a lot of people - what you think is a "slam-dunk" in regards to this article is a much more important discussion when you consider the wider issue.
I think it's important not to be too blunt with sensitive topics, but the arguments shown here seem to me little more than coddling. The right way to go about it wasn't to say "It makes me feel queasy this shouldn't be here" - but to say "Is it really necessary for this image to be here given the rest of the information in the article?" If I go out of my way to watch a documentary on my war, and as a result I end up gripping tight the sides of my couch - that's not the documentary's fault for containing that information and those images. If you research unsolved killings or serial murders or crimes of such infamy and brutality - YOU JUST MIGHT SEE SOME THINGS YOU DON'T LIKE. It literally comes with the subject-matter. You don't click on an anatomy article about genitalia and complain about all of the pictures of genitals. You don't remove a picture of a certain spider from an article about said spider because a sufferer of arachnophobia happened by - there ARE instances in which crime-scene photos are completely valid and - indeed - important to understanding the subject in question, I'm not about to be quiet on this just because THIS instance isn't one of those cases. "Candied yams" might be "insensitive" but topics such as disaster, catastrophe, war, drug addiction, self-harm, mental illness, and - yes - certain crimes - are not and there is a real argument to be had for the display of those types of images, our sensibilities be damned. Our illnesses and traumas be damned. 2601:87:4400:AF2:46B:4BD5:A3CD:A512 (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Both of these files, one of which is in question above,

...have been cited to Hollywood Babylon II by Kenneth Anger (Plume Publishing) and the template used for both states that it was never registered for copyright and therefore in the public domain. It is labeled as having been scanned in China. However, quite clearly on this page it is labeled as clearly being copyrighted 1984 by Kenneth Anger. @Diannaa: am I missing something here? I have searched but have not found where copyright has been relinquished but it has been uploaded to archive.org. I doubt the claim of "Open Library" due to the copyright.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I tried to open the archive.org links and get the following message on both: "The item you have requested has a problem with one or more of the metadata files that describe it, which prevents us from displaying this page. Items may be taken down for various reasons, including by decision of the uploader or due to a violation of our Terms of Use." I've nominated both images for deletion at the Commons, as there's no evidence presented that the copyright was never renewed on these photos. The uploader's talk page at the Commons has over eighty notices about issues with uploads — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I had the same problem but found an alternate to see it...and then for some reason when I went back to archive.org and typed a manual url for page 14, it gave it to me. I've emailed you the alternate link.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, not sure how to use the Talk feature very well but I got an email that my edit was reverted:

So, here I am at the talk page and Begoon doesn't accept mail or responses. Long story short, we need to make an edit for the impact that the murder case had on society which included films and many other art forms. The Black Dahlia Murder based their band name off of the crime and without getting into too much detail, a lot of their lyrics are centered around the murder or inspired by it. The is not the run of the mill local metal band, but this band is one of the longest running and staple acts of American mainstream metal that has gone on to influence many other bands. They have toured globablly and charted with every album and have been signed with Metal Blade Records which is one of the largest metal labels in the world. The reason I state this is to show that this band is significant in the American metal scene and that they had taken their name/were directly influenced lyrically by the original murder itself. Unsolved or serial murders are often prolific in society and have a direct impact on the arts and culture that surrounds it. A legacy of this murder directly influence culture and arts in a mainstream form (whether it is metal or popular music) should denote significance. If no one will contest these statements, I will revert the original edit as Begoon suggested. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OfficialRecurrence (talk • contribs) 23:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Begoon that it should be left out. Relevant to this article, the band is trivia. That the subject matter of this article is influential on the band's name is relevant in the band's article but not the other way around. The band is not influential here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

someone put something wrong in this murder

Okay so I am here to say that her height and weight was wrong! Her height was 5'10 and her weight was 160.7 Bs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleBear101380222 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Something should probably be added about Elizabeth Short being mentioned in the game L.A. Noire

In the game, L.A. Noire, you have solve a bunch of murder cases and the Black Dahlia murder is mentioned and referenced many times in the game.

https://lanoire.fandom.com/wiki/Garrett_Mason

This page has a bit of information on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaethanC76 (talk • contribs) 11:36, April 16, 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and is in the archives. Consensus has been to leave it out.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

In this source, the word prostitute is used and I would just like to submit an edit request so it can be changed it to its proper word, sex worker. Budgie.thea (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Since Prostitute and Sex worker direct to different pages. Please comment at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_21#Prostitute if you wish. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Excessive Genealogy

Do 400 years of genealogy really add anything to the article? I’m not sure her entire family history is a relevant inclusion. Snorri Asagrimm (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Home in LA

Quote: On January 9, 1947, Short returned to her home in Los Angeles ... Manley stated that he dropped Short off at the Biltmore Hotel"

So she did not return to her "home in LA", and I'm not sure she had one at that point. In fact, did she ever have a non-temporary residence in LA? Maikel (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The seventh para has this: "Eatwell is working on a television documentary, and a revised edition of her book is due to be released in the autumn of 2018." It's a pity this wasn't updated before the article was included in "On this day". I haven't been able to find any evidence of the release of the revised edition, nor of the documentary ... so should this sentence be removed? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Larry Harnisch

Hi. For many years, I have avoided altering or editing this page and I usually read it for amusement. But I reverted from "wire photo" back to Soundphoto because this detail is easily checked in the original Los Angeles Examiner clips in the FBI file. Wiki editors should not make changes based on gut feelings as to what is "probably right." Lmharnisch (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Someone might consider expanding wirephoto to at least mention Soundphoto, which was the transmission method of INP, the photo part of Hearst's International News Service. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Elizabeth short

She was bisected at the waist 2603:6010:BB00:275B:152A:15CC:B790:AADD (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Harmful reference

If you access the link in "Fact Versus Fiction" (http://blackdahlia.info/modules/news/article.php?storyid=21), reference #136, you are redirected to possible harmful websites, even with pornographic content. So, please, just change that link for this one https://archive.ph/20130218051257/http://blackdahlia.info/modules/news/article.php?storyid=21 (which is accessed by clicking on "Archived", just beside the wrong link. Hernandesktop (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Disappeared.

Elizabeth Short did not disappear on 9th January 1947.

She was seen on 14th January, near San Diego, drinking beers with a former Marine who used the nicknames “Bob” and “Red”.

This information was reported by The New York Daily Mirror on 19th January 1947. This news article is even in the FBI files on the case.

The person she was drinking with was not Robert “Red” Manley, but a completely different person called Robert.

Please change the page to reflect this information. 2A00:23C6:410F:A001:81D5:C2FF:AE81:97B7 (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Death

I killed her 5.2.104.200 (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2024

re:cleo short; correction; add; Gloucester, Massachusetts. 184.60.171.122 (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Dahlia/Archive_2&oldid=1223974050"