Talk:Leatherface/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gein

Here's a link to [1] where the explicitly say that Gein wasn't a direct inspiration for any character, but for the film as a whole. I think people may have been misunderstanding what he inspired. Bignole 20:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a very good link to IMDb, that tells how he inspired the TCM movies and Leatherface. --Mikedk9109 20:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I checked that. The first problem is that it's IMDb, and they are highly unreliable, but sometimes right. The other is that what you linked is to the inspiration behind [[Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III], it isn't about the original film. "The Saw Is Family" is from Part III, and the crew are the same as from part III. I haven't seen the film, but maybe the third one tried to inspire more from Gein, but it doesn't seem like the original had the intention of Leatherface being an Ed Gein inspiration. I think the entire movie was an inspiration of Ed's, and it's probably better to say it that way then to perpetuate further misunderstanding about the character basis. Bignole 20:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I know I read on a site that the director of the original said that he had a dream about Ed Gein, and decided that would be a good idea for Leatherface for TCM. I'll have to go find that site. --Mikedk9109 20:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Make sure Tobe's quoted, cause it wouldn't be good to have a site just say that Tobe said it when he may not have. I'm going to remove the two links and place the top one up there, and rewrite the sentence to fit, until we have a legitimate source (like Gunnar, or Tobe or Kim) actually say different. It seems like everyone else is interpreting the similarities. Bignole 20:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. --Mikedk9109 22:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Personality

I don't think we are ever going to get a specific source that says "Leatherface is not evil or sadistic", however I think that is shown in the films where we see that Leatherface is manipulated by his family into doing so and doesn't know better. Even in the remake, we see Hoyt goading Leatherface on telling him that "meat is meat and bone is bone" and bringing up Leatherface's childhood to spur him on.--CyberGhostface 15:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You could find a source where they are comparing him to other horror icons. Otherwise the sentence probably needs to go. You are making a factual statement about an opinion, even if the opinion is rather obvious, it's still an opinion of an editor. I wouldn't doubt that there is some comparision of horror icons out there by something worthy. Bignole 15:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, no one is going to want to search the internet ot just find a source, when it is already in the films. Just watch the films, and if you don't think he is evil and sadistic. I dont know what is. --Mikedk9109 15:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's just it, you're saying that we should put information into an article that we are too lazy to actually research? If everyone followed that philosophy then all the articles would have no sources, they'd all point to their respective talk pages where it says "watch it for yourself". Even your own statement says "just watch the film and if you don't think....i don't know what is". You're requesting people watch the movies so they can see your opinion of his behavior. I could easily see his personality in your favor, but I could also easily see others seeing his personality as "evil and sadistic". Yes, his family manipulated him, but there's a saying about how influence doesn't make you do something you don't want to do. Even someone that is mentally handicapped has free will, and will often times say "no". My point is that anyone can walk away thinking something different about his personality, that's why we need an outside source for that. Obviously it would be extremely hard to get Tobe's opinion of him (though that would be nice), but that isn't what sourcing is. It can simple be a comparison of the horror icons by a reputible source. Bignole 15:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Guess we'll have to do some searching. -Mikedk9109 15:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is just my opinion about the statement, I'm obviously no authority at Wikipedia. But, I think currently this articles is probably the best "horror icon" article at wikipedia. It actually has some sources, it isn't written entirely in "in-universe" format as if the person was real. I think it has great potential and I'm merely trying to look to the future of what the article would need if we want to build on it more. Here is Jabba the Hutt's page, and it's a featured article. Leatherface may not have as much information (when we're done) but I think we could look at that like a model for what this page could be. Bignole 15:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Pic

I restored the original Infobox picture that was there, this time it won't get deleted, because I used the correct copyrights and summary. --Mikedk9109 15:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

New Bottom Template

Has anyone though of creating a "80's Horror Icons" template? I mean, Freddy, Chucky, Jason, Pinhead, Leatherface, etc...are usually always associated with each other, and I thought it might be appropriate to have a template at the bottom (below the TCM temp) that has each of them so you can jump to the other characters. I was just thinking about that while looking for comparisons to them. Bignole 15:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe something like this

Modern Horror Icons

This way it's nice and neat, and doesn't look like some pages where it's "see Also" and they list everyone. Of course this was just a test, and I didn't come up with all modern icons, just a quick list of the more famous. Bignole 15:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thats a good template. --Mikedk9109 15:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It could still use some work, and obviously anyone's welcome to go there and fiddle with it. Maybe insert some more names (as long as they fit the bill..and if there's a question then it has a talk page as well), or maybe shrink the text a bit. I beefed it up cause there weren't that many names. Bignole 15:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I redirected the Michael Myers, Pinhead, and Candyman names all to their respective articles. They originally went to the disambiguation page. --Mikedk9109 15:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think that any of the Devil's Rejects belong there?--CyberGhostface 00:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, because they were only in one movie right? --Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me) 00:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Two...House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects.

I don't know, I don't really think of the as "Icons" but if you want to include them then go ahead. --Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me) 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Part 2 Picture

I really don't think that that picture should be included. This article is not that long and It doesn't need three pics. There should be one from the original series (Infobox Pic), and from the remake series (2003 remake pic). But I think the part 2 one needs to go. --Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me) 00:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove it if you want.--CyberGhostface 00:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. --Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me) 19:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

This is why I said "only the original information". The infobox should contain only information that's generalized belief (weight, height), and information from the original. We cannot swap original and remake information to fill in "blanks". If the original didn't specify something then you cannot fill it in with remake information. It's better to just note the "addition" or "change" in the "Remake and Prequel" section. This does not include "height" because each actor portraying him is probably a different height and we can't change that for every incarnation (that's why I say "general belief"). See what I did over at Jason Voorhees. I have 2 sources giving a general belief of heigh and weight. Also, Leatherface is not a real person, so trying to fill in the gaps to make it seem like he is creates a really odd picture. This is the reason why the opening paragraph doesn't say "Leatherface, whose real name is Thomas Hewitt". Bignole 23:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I cited the information for the birthday and place. How do we know it was from the remake and prequel. They never say his birthday or place in the remake or prequel. --Mikedk9109 (sup) (stalk me) 19:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that was where they got it, because I know they don't say his birthday or place in the original, any of the originals. Heck, even the "location" is just "a small Texas town", with no specific location. If it isn't in the prequel then I'm wondering where that source got it's information from. I know some people like to use "fan created" canon. That doesn't work here though. Bignole 19:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mixing

I hate all this crap about how this article cannot mix and match. I mean some people have only watched the originals. Some people have only watched the remake series. You guys are saying that if it isn't in the orginal, its not true. Whats the point of having an article on Leatherface, if your not going to use all of the information available. Some people are going to come along and read this article, and say "huh? I thought he was from Travis County". Or, "I thought his name was Thomas Hewitt." But no, only the "true" information from the original is included. Maybe the director is adding information to the remakes to fill in the holes in Leatherfaces character, that were not included in the original. The holes that are filled in the remakes make Leatherface more interesting since we know more about him. This is an encyclopedia, and all the information that can be used, can and should be used. Maybe if we used all the available information this article would be alot better and whould maybe someday be a featured article. Why don't you think about that. --Mikedk9109 (sup) (stalk me) 23:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The remake is featured in the article. We just can't have remake information in the infobox. I'd say more, but I need to be getting off and chances are bignole will probably explain it better. And what makes the remake more important than the original? You say someone who watched only the remake and is ignorant about the film's history will be confused...what about someone who only saw the Tobe Hooper original and sees remake-centric information in the infobox? What if a remake of Nightmare on Elm Street came out that says Freddy Krueger is a cowboy from Oklahoma? Should that information be added to the infobox to not confuse the newbies?--CyberGhostface 23:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is about facts. Not about cowboys. I'm talking about filling in the holes that Tobe did not. Whatever, I don't feel like arguing. But if you want this article to be complete shit, then go ahead. I'm sick of these stupid rules. --Mikedk9109 (sup) (stalk me) 23:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You missed my point completely. What if someone made a remake of Freddy Krueger, and made him a cowboy? Would that be grounds for modifying his infobox? Yes or no? An extreme case, but no different than adding remake-centric information to Leatherface's profile.--CyberGhostface 23:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fictional character articles are not about listing everything you can about the character. It isn't about their fictional life history, because more characters don't exists past what their original incarnations provide. Fictional character articles are supposed to be about the "out of universe" information; the concepts, the designs, the men behind the mask, etc...not about "Leatherface killed so and so on so and so date". The information from the "in universe" POV can't be picked and choose. Otherwise you'd be adding retconned info all the time. "in universe" info should be sectioned out per film that it was established. INFOBOX info should contain info that was agreed upon by all sources. If someone expands on that information in a way that others do not then it should be into that respective films subsection. Bignole 23:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So, just because its a remake and the information is being added makes it non notable? If its not about their history then what is it about? Take this as an example. If we were talking about your life, would you just include the information about when you were a teenager? But not about the time when you were and adult? I don't think so. You add information as you go on. Thats exactly what the remake is doing. Adding new information to Leatherfaces character. Doesn't anyone see what I'm getting at here? --Mikedk9109 (sup) (stalk me) 00:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We're aren't trying to inhibit the article Mikedk, it's just about properly sectioning everything because this is an encyclopedia and not a fan website that chronicles the life the character. There are already sites for that sort of thing. This article is about trying to enlighten readers to the work done outside of the character, while also allowing for quick backstories so that the reader can understand or refresh their memory to what happened in the films. And MY LIFE is a consistent turn of events and never backtracks or retcons. I didn't start my life as a 30 year man, and later someone came in and told me what happened to me as a child. That is what we are saying, this is a fictional character. It's about properly placing it, and trying to "mix and match" for the best result is not encyclopedic. Like I said, look at Jabba the Hutt, this is a "featured article" for a fictional character, it should give you an idea of how the page should look. Bignole 00:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what this encyclopedia does. Provides biographys. And a biography includes all the information from their life, even if their fictional. But whatever. I guess I'm done editing this page. --Mikedk9109 (sup) (stalk me) 00:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Biographies on REAL people, not fictional people. There is a policy that dictates what you put in a fictionalized article, and it's "out of universe" information. You can include in-universe stuff, just not detailed events, because that's what fan websites are for. Don't be difficult about this Mikedk, we've discussed it before, and it'd be a shame to lose an editor that actually cares about the article's verifiability. Bignole 00:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler tag?

Does this article need a spoiler tag?--sin-man 06:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Enemies

I changed it to 'People who harm his family' because I doubt Leatherface sees the various people that he chases/kills as Enemies. He probably (given the context of the films) sees the various individuals as food. (Such as we kill Cows for food but does that make Cows our enemy?) Jamesbuc

I think that "Enemies" isn't a good word for any of the infoboxes. They really don't provide anything but fan info for the character, we should probably find better words or ditch all of them altogether from all the pages. As for Leatherface, in Part 2 he blatantly killed people that knew nothing about his family in the opening. I think we are going to end up getting into a lot of symantics regarding "who's an enemy". It may just be best to remove that as "unencyclopedic" content from all the fictional character pages. I removed the "birth/death" from Jason as it starts to get into the "in universe" fancruft. Bignole 20:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Its probably best though to keep Ghostface's one as that one DOES have a specific target. (well exept when Mickey donned the outfit maybe) Jamesbuc

Any suggestions about the others? So far, I can agree that Ghostface usually has one specific target in all three films; but I'm thinking that all the others probably need to be taken down completely because they are more generalized. Bignole 12:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Orczy Leatherface?

Baroness Orczy wrote a book called Leatherface in 1916. A possible source for the name?

Enda80 03:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Enda80

Well, unless Toby Hooper mentions it, we can't deal in possibilities, it would reflect Original Research. Bignole 03:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ed Gein reference

In the two-disc DVD, Hooper makes reference to wanting to create "a whole family of Ed Geins" so I think thats a pretty fair assumption that Leatherface himself is (loosely) based on him.--CyberGhostface 02:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Charlie is his brother not his uncle

Charlie is luda mae's son and tom is her adopted son so that makes him his adopted brotherMonkey From Uranus 16:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Then why does he call him his nephew?--CyberGhostface 18:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming it has something to do with age diffrence between them like how my 6 year old cousin calls me uncle moe even thou i am his cousin not his uncle--Monkey From Uranus 15:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Then what you are doing counts as speculation. As it stands right now, Thomas has been referred to as Charlie's nephew. There's nothing else to it.--CyberGhostface 18:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Age means nothing when it comes to cousins and uncles. I've had step-aunts and uncles that were my younger. Since Thomas is adopted, he could have a father that was his younger.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

But if he is his uncle then he has to be luda mae's brother ,and last time i checked no one calls his sister ma--Monkey From Uranus 13:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Luda Mae didn't officially "adopt" Thomas, and by "officially" I don't mean legally, I mean she didn't sit down and say "you will be my son, and I'll be your mother". She's said "my boy" before, but she doesn't refer to him as her "son". Though, the film does refer to Charlie as his uncle. The question should be: Did the filmmakers screw up with the relative titling, or is there just something we're missing in who's actually related to whom, and how. Regardless, the film explicitely stated that Charlie was his uncle, in the mean that Charlie considered himself Thomas' uncle. This isn't a biography about Leatherface (at least it shouldn't be, and the page does need work), but we don't correct inaccurate terminology. If there is an inconsistancy, like Charlie is his uncle one minute, but then later claims to be his father, then you can note that. But just because he's Luda's son, and says he's Thomas' uncle doesn't mean there is any inconsistancy other than lack of evidence to say who actually adopted him.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  13:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok so.....wait maybe that chick who found him isn;t luda mae ??--Monkey From Uranus 16:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall. I have "The Beginning" at home, unopened. I can verify later (at work right now). I can also verify what she refers to Thomas (e.g. son, boy, child, etc).  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  16:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait...how could the lady who discovered Leatherface not be Luda Mae? I mean, there's no question whatsoever to this. Obviously she looked younger, but that's expected given Leatherface was a baby at the time.--CyberGhostface 16:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is an exact quote from the 2003 remake that Luda Mae says about Leatherface: "Nothing but cruelty and ridicule for my boy, all the time he was growing up. Does anybody care about me and my boy?" According to this entry at dictionary.com, a boy can be a son. So, if Leatherface is Luda Maes son, and Charlie calls her mama, that makes them brothers. —mikedk9109^SIGN 16:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Then why does Hoyt call him his nephew if they're brothers?--CyberGhostface 16:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We can just assume that since the aga difference is there, he calls him his nephew. Or he refers to him as his nephew as a cover-up for something. —mikedk9109^SIGN 16:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you're making speculation.--CyberGhostface 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think age would matter when it comes to brothers. Like I said, I've had aunts and uncles that were 10 years my younger. We don't know that Hoyt (Charlie) is even biologically related to Luda Mae. She could have "adopted" him just the same, and thus he calls her "ma". She could very well be his sister. If say their parents died when Charlie was young, and she raised him, it could be second nature to refer to her as "ma". But we are getting into OR here. We can only say what is verifiable, and disecting the heritage of the Hewitt clan would be Original Research. As for the "boy" quote. "May be son" and "is son" are different. Again we would be applying OR to that statement because it isn't clear what she's referring to as far as parenthood.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  16:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the parenthood —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkey From Uranus (talk • contribs) 03:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

...and that means what, exactly?--CyberGhostface 04:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Luda mae is the trannie's mama and charlie is his brother now stop vandalising the page with your uncle charlie--Monkey From Uranus 06:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Quit tossing around big words to further your agenda. 'Vandalism' is the deliberate removal or changing of information to deliberately disrupt an article. Not something that you don't agree with. Check your definitions next time so you don't come off sounding like an ass.--CyberGhostface 21:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but trying to create a "family tree" for a film, that does not specifically provide one, is original research. If Luda calls him "boy", she could mean many things, but "nephew" is rather clear. We cannot "interpret" movies on wikipedia, we can only go by what's there when describing something, and Charlie says "nephew". At best, just remove the part that says "Thomas' uncle/brother", and just have it start with "Charlie ....".  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do) 

I have just found out that a certain intergalactic chimp just vandalized my user page and that of another user who was defending me with homophobic grafitti, and attempted to block me by using a bunch of templates. This is after he accused me of vandalism. All of this because he disagrees with me on Hoyt's relation to Leatherface. Can this get any more pathetic?--CyberGhostface 21:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoyt never says that he (Hoyt) is Tommy's uncle. The real hoyt said and I qoute "thet retared nephew of your's killed a man" User:Lord Ciron 2.0

From the film: "You don't like playin' with me anymore 'cause I'm a pussy, that's what you said. Well my nephew Tommy ain't no pussy, maybe you wanna play with him for a little while."--CyberGhostface 14:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

O.K. I'm sorry I forgot about that oh and about my idea of shots of the Grandma, daughter, Jedidiah I would like to add to the list: his mom, the hook-handed-dude and Tex User: Lord ciron 2.0

But those aren't members of the family from the remake. But if you're talking about referring to them in a seperate place, go ahead.--CyberGhostface 16:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Buddy but I don't know how to uplode. And I mean original not remake could you put 'em Up? User: Lord ciron 2.0

Do you have any links to the images?--CyberGhostface 16:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We have a link on chiansaw 3 and one on chainsaw 1 the review with screencaps for #1(Grandma and a good shot of Grandpa} and all we need now good mess of greens {tech aka hook handed dude}

User: Lord ciron 2.0

I have another link thats got a bunch of shots go to Internet Movie Database's TCM2 page go to pics link the have pics from all the films except ALL AMERICAN MASSACRE. User: Lord ciron 2.0

Birth place

Where did this information come from? Bignole 19:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

the information saying that leatherface was born in a meat factory and his mother dying after giving birth to him and her workers leaving him for dead by putting him in a dumpster came from the remake's prequel. 13jason13voorhees13 20:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an old discussion, where the birth place in the infobox gave a specific city in Texas (before the prequel had come out).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

its possible it could have been referring to bubba sawyer jr. (original) and not thomas hewitt (remake).

Edward Sawyer

Haven't seen TCM2 yet...is Nubbin's real name revealed there? (And I'm posting it here because no one's really updated Edward's page in a while). If not, should we change it back to Nubbins?--CyberGhostface 02:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No. I've seen the movie before and the only name given to him was "nubbins." but, i'm not sure if they got the name "edward" from another source. maybe another film, fan fiction (like bill moseley's texas chainsaw manicure or william hooper's all american massacre), books, comics, etc. i'm not sure, but i've never heard his real name being edward. so, i'm not sure if its true or if some fan had gone to some random website with unreliable information or speculated nubbins' real name to be edward. 13jason13voorhees13 21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it should be called "Nubbins", as that is the most recognizable name for the character. Superman is really Kal-El/Clark Kent, but he's most recognizable under "Superman" (also, Clark Kent has his own article).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But, I'm still curious as to how Nubbins' real name is Edward because I haven't heard it in any of the original tcm movies before. and i don't read the comics, novels, watch fan-made films, etc. so i wouldn't know. 13jason13voorhees13 00:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ga failed

I'm a horror fan and have seen all the movies except for the one with Zelweger, Hopper, and McConaughey, so I should be able to give this a decent review. Here's the issues I see:

• Lead is too short.
• The lead is written from a mostly in-universe perspective see WP:WAF. A simple way to avoid this is to say "the character" instead of "he" occasionally, or the "the character is portrayed as" instead of "he is" at times. I'm not an expert at writing entries like this so reading WP:WAF would help..
• The prose needs work there's a lot of unnecessary extra words—if you can say it in five words instead of ten do so. Less words is almost always better. Here's roughly how the second sentence of the article should look compared to how it looks now when vetted for both WP:FICT and prose concerns:
  • Before:"He is "severely mentally retarded and mentally disturbed", he will often use a chainsaw and will also use a sledgehammer for slaughtering his victims for food."
  • After:"The character is portrayed as "severely mentally retarded and mentally disturbed", and often uses a chainsaw and sledgehammer to slaughter his victims." There's no need to say for food since you're saying he's a cannibal in the next sentence and it unnecessarily lengthens the sentence.
• "Leatherface lives with a family of cannibals, who are often abusive and violent towards him. Leatherface and his family were inspired in part by notorious serial killer Ed Gein[3], who also wore the skin of his victims." First off, the beginnings of the two sentences are very similar and therefore sound redundant you could just say "They" or better yet "The characters" to maintain an out-of-universe perspective, to start the second sentence. However, the sentences have several other problems. Gein inspired Leatherface not the family, Gein's family was not a family of cannibals and he began his perversions when he lived alone after his mother died. Also, "...who also wore the skin of his victims." Up to this point you haven't mentioned that Leatherface wears the skin of his victims so how could someone "also" do it.
• The ref formatting is incorrect see WP:CITE/ES.
• Other parts of the article also use an in-universe perspective. It reads partially like a biography (again see WP:WAF) and there is too much use of "he" and "Leatherface" instead of "the character". Even the part where actors discuss the character they treat the chracter as real (such as the Terrence Evans and Andrew Bryniarski comments). Those two comments are useful but here's an example of the kind of comments that should be put alongside them from someone like the director or writers:"When we decided to create the character we wanted to..." or "We strived to make him be..". By contrast, the Mask section is fairly out-of-universe.
• What is this The Shocking Truth you're referring to? If it's a source cite it.
• Informal language "greenlit", "Says producer...",
• Other prose issues:"Here, Leatherface's real name is Thomas Brown Hewitt." Using "Here," to begin a sentence in this context is pretty bad, say "In these films,".
• Any direct quotes should have a source per WP:CITE.
• "Leatherface in this continuity suffers from a facial disfigurement and skin disease that ate away most of his nose." — "in this continuity" is clunky, say "In this series of films, Leatherface..."
• The whole article needs copy-editing. After I fail this I'll copy-edit some of it myself. Quadzilla99 03:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did a little work copy-editing and expanding the lead it still needs some expansion. There should be a summary of the changes in among films in the lead. See WP:LEAD just remember the lead is a summary of the article so just summarize what's there. Quadzilla99 04:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The Shocking Truth is a documentary on the Texas Chainsaw Massacre DVD...I'm not sure how to cite it exactly.--CyberGhostface 00:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Use the Template:Cite video template.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

size

I believe leatherface is 6' 4" 1/2.

Need a source, because we have one for his current height. Bignole 02:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

i'd say he's 6'3 - 6'5 because that's how tall the actors that play him are. gunnar hansen is about 6'4 or 6'5, bill johnson is 6'3, robert jacks is 6'3, and andrew bryniarski is 6'5. but, i don't know how tall r.a. mihailoff is. you could also say leatherface is 6'7 or 6'8 since tobe hooper provided gunnar hansen with 3 inch heeled boots to make leatherface look really tall. 76.184.174.20 01:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Leatherfacewithludamay.PNG

Image:Leatherfacewithludamay.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fictional amputees?

I was wondering, since he got his arm chopped off in the remake, if this would apply to him?--CyberGhostface 01:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the remake can qualify it, as it violates the canon of the original, where he does NOT lose any limbs (quite contrary, he's doing sort of a victory / anger dance with the chainsaw using both hands). I don't think he is generally perceived by most fans as an amputee, unless he's being mistaken for Ash Williams, the OTHER chainsaw guy of horror whose amputee status is not only undeniably canonical, but integral to the plot. --74.7.55.66 22:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't violate the original's continuity because it was never part of it to begin with. And this article isn't solely about the original, but all of his incarnations, of which the remake is probably second only to the original film in terms of notability. Whether or not most fans view him as an amputee doesn't change the fact that at the end of the remake (and in the comics) he's missing an arm.--CyberGhostface 23:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Leatherfacewithludamay.PNG

Image:Leatherfacewithludamay.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bubba's Name

In the south, "Bubba" is slang for brother. Are we really sure that "Bubba" is his name? Cicaneo (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, Wiki even has an article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubba

So I'll just go ahead and change it. If one of wiki's own articles isn't proof enough, then I'll be damned. Cicaneo (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I edited Real Name

There were supposed to be capitals, there weren't. I added them, it also looked like some freak kid edited that part last. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackass2009 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Main image

I've been looking around and I think we should probably change the main image for the page. Given that the details of his mask change from picture to picture, I don't think it matters which film we choose from. I've found a few images that we can look at; I think the key is capturing all of his essence (i.e. the main image should be of him with his chainsaw, given that that is an iconic item for him). Here are some possibilities: 1, 2, 3. We could also do a screen capture from any of the films, but I think that promotional images tend to have better lighting for the purposes of illustrating the look of a character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My personal preference is for either 1 or 3.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Which movie is 1 from? I actually kind of like 2 the most (it's in colour, which 3 isn't), although 1 looks suitably crazed. Seems weird not to use Gunnar Hansen though.  Paul  730 22:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

1 is from Part 2. It's probably the closest to the original look of the mask, but that's neither here nor there. I think we need a better representation of the character than what we currently have and the original movie doesn't provide a lot of promo images or good enough lighting to do a screen capture.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm torn between 1 and 2. The only thing which counts against 1 is his formal wear, whereas 2 has him in his more classic butcher apron. Dunno, it's up to you.  Paul  730 23:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I like three is because it's a close up of him, you see formal wear, plus the apron, plus a good look at his mask and chainsaw. To me, the fact that it's not in full color doesn't matter so much because it isn't like Freddy's sweater where you should be able to see the red and green. What's surprising is that no one else has weighed in on this. Let me put in a request for comment at the Horror Wiki to see what others think, or if someone else has a better image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I like image number 3 as well. It does seem to capture the character as a whole, but isn't there a colour version of the image available? It doesn't really matter, as long as the image represents Leatherface in his entirety. --TaerkastUA 21:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are we on this?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well, I'm going to put in the first image. It's close to the original, and we get the chainsaw which is what he is known for. It's a better image than we currently have.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Leatherfaceaboutaboy4.PNG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Leatherfaceaboutaboy4.PNG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Leatherfaceentertainmentweekly.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Leatherfaceentertainmentweekly.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Reception of the character

Shouldn't there be some kind of reception or recognition of Leatherface as one of the most known/influential horror movie figures? --Matt723star (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)