Talk:Charles Manson/Archive 3

Other Edits

I’m not sure all of your changes are for the better. In a few places, you seem to have introduced error or to have eliminated something helpful.

Original sentence:

Pleading guilty in September 1959 to a charge of attempting to cash a forged U.S. Treasury check, [Manson] received a 10-year suspended sentence and probation after a young woman with an arrest record for prostitution tearfully told the court she and Manson were in love and would marry if Manson were freed.

You eliminated the word "tearfully." The source (Helter Skelter 1994, page 143) is as follows:

Leona also appeared and made a tearful plea in Manson’s behalf. They were deeply in love, she told the judge, and would marry if Manson were freed.

Presumably, this reflects the record of the court proceeding. "Tearful" and "tearfully" are not sensational. They are accurate and enhance the reader’s understanding of the personalities involved.

I’m also not sure why you say the statement smacks of plagiarism, though I know little about that subject. I think the statement originally bore a footnote that specified the Helter Skelter page from which it was drawn. My guess would be that that is enough support for a close paraphrase.

See plagiarism. Using the same words, even in a shorter sentence, without quotation marks, seems to fit the definition to me. If it reflects the court record, can that be cited? Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I address this point below, after your response to my postscript.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Original sentence:

After Folger was taken momentarily back to her bedroom for her purse, out of which she gave the intruders $70, Watson stabbed the groaning Sebring seven times.

You removed the word "groaning." Again – this is not sensational. The source (Watson’s autobiography, Chapter 14) is this:

Sebring [who had been shot and who had slumped, still alive, onto the rug] was breathing hard, groaning, and in the sudden silence I didn’t know what else to do – I went over to him and stabbed him until I thought he was dead.

The groaning is the motivation for the stabbing.

I'm concerned about plagiarism, and the use of that descriptor doesn't strike me as encyclopedic. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't see the plagiarism possibility, even by the standard you've mentioned above. The original sentence had the virtue of combining Watson's statement about the groaning with Bugliosi and Gentry's autopsy info that Sebring's stab wounds totaled seven. Being thus a synthesis of information, from separate sources, it is almost the opposite of plagiarism. Regardless — the groaning as the motivation for the stabbing of Sebring is important. Without it, the stabbing is gratuitous, incomprehensible. Maybe you can come up with a slightly-longer wording, which you will find encyclopedic.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Similarly – original sentence:

As Frykowski struggled across the lawn, Watson finished him off as well; the victim had been stabbed fifty-one times during the assault.

You changed "finished him off" to "killed." "Finished him off" is not sensational; I’m not even sure it’s indecorous. Regardless, Frykowski had already been stabbed (repeatedly – maybe by two persons), bludgeoned (repeatedly), and shot (twice). By some wording or other, the sentence should make clear that Watson had to stab him several more times to finish him off.

In my opinion, "finished him off" is disrespectful to the victim and unencyclopedic. The information about being stabbed, bludgeoned, and shot is already present, and therefore I don't think this phrase is required. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes — the information about the initial stabbing, bludgeoning, and shooting is already present; that's my point. "Killed" is slightly off, because Watson and (it seems) Atkins had already begun killing Frykowski in the living room and the front doorway. On the lawn, Watson completed killing Frykowski. I personally don't find "finished him off" disrespectful of Frykowski, but maybe you can come up with a substitute.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Original sentence:

When the group established itself in vigil on the sidewalk, each hard-core member wore a sheathed hunting knife that, being in plain view, was being carried legally. Each was identifiable by the X on his or her forehead.

You eliminated "hard-core." That changes the meaning. Evidently, some of the Family members who were on the sidewalk did not have the knives. Bugliosi and Gentry, in Helter Skelter, apply the adjective "hard-core" to those who did. I won’t bother tracking down the statements unless you ask me to, but I’m pretty sure Watson and Watkins, in their autobiographies, also distinguish "core" members of the Family from the larger group, whose membership varied. Maybe "core" would be better than "hard-core," but some distinction should be made.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case, we are agreed, though I think some rewording is required. I was under the impression that there were no unmarked members in the group, and that the "hard-core" adjective was therefore fluff. If that's the term in the book, I'd still like quotation marks. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll add the quotation marks.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: Bugliosi and Gentry's report of Leona's "tearful" plea is in their description of a proceeding that took place years before the murders and with which Bugliosi had nothing to do. That is why I say that "tearful" presumably reflects a court's record (i.e., one examined by Bugliosi after he was assigned to the murder case) and that the use of it in the Wikipedia article is not plagiarism.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's in the court record or not. I know that most of the words of the original sentence were used, which I believe constitutes plagiarism. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes — naturally, neither of us knows whether it's in a court record. My point was that (1) it apparently reflects some sort of record and (2) it is valuable. I've provided you the source sentence and its page number. Equipped with those, you should be able to eliminate your plagiarism concerns, either by rewording the sentence or using quotation marks. I would be pleased if you will do so.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Postscript: I just noticed that another editor has addressed your concern by placing "tearfully" in quotation marks. Maybe you'll find that satisfactory.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems I'm overruled by the other editors on this article, partly because I've been here for less than four months. I didn't think that was an indicator of whether or not ideas or concerns were valid, but alright. I wasn't intending to insult or accuse anyone, so my apologies to anyone upset.

Regarding my concerns about plagiarism, it was hammered into me when I considered being an English major that simply shortening a sentence and moving some of the words around was not sufficient, even if the words were cited. Quotes are also required in professional writing. Perhaps the rules on wiki are different, and if so I'd appreciate a friendly point in that direction. Again, I do not mean insult, nor am I assuming any deliberate bad edits.

At any rate, my arguments have been refuted, so I'm moving on. Best wishes. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's still kinda bugging me, so to explain why I want to show a comparison.

From the source, per an earlier editor: Leona also appeared and made a tearful plea in Manson’s behalf. They were deeply in love, she told the judge, and would marry if Manson were freed.

Original phrasing in article: Pleading guilty in September 1959 to a charge of attempting to cash a forged U.S. Treasury check, [Manson] received a 10-year suspended sentence and probation after a young woman with an arrest record for prostitution tearfully told the court she and Manson were in love and would marry if Manson were freed.

I do not currently own a copy of the source. If past/future readers (still) don't understand my concern, so be it. Again, I'm not making any further edits. I wish only goodwill. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't your length of time being here that was a concern to me, FangedFaerie, it was mostly the use of the word "plagiarism". It's considered a fairly serious charge, even if that wasn't your intention. There is so much subtext in some of the content on the page, for example, the use of the word "groaning", which establishes why Watson stabbed someone who was essentially dying. I also think there's a difference between plagiarizing a source, which implies that it is a conscious effort to pass off someone else's work as your own original research, and what we try to do here. I come across a lot of content here that is so explicitly plagiarized - the Sharon Gless article I worked a bit on tonight had content that was just blatantly copy & pasted, section titles and all, from somewhere else and no improvements were made to it - that I see a qualitative difference in trying to produce an article that is comprehensive, well-sourced and accurately presented that might use some similar phrasings as the source with citations and just trying to pass something off, especially when we aren't allowed to use original research. A stray word might creep in, but that's more properly addressed with correction and not removal. In the case of the word "tearful", the effort is to convey that what Leona did in court was play a role, although we can't, in the absence of explicit source material that says so, say "Leona pulled off a masterful performance." My sole comment elsewhere about how long you'd been here was more about how you might approach something after a few more months here. Like it or not, after we've spent a considerable amount of time on a given article, most of us become invested in its integrity, so if something seems to challenge that, we speak up. JohnBonaccorsi generally can address these kinds of concerns a lot more eloquently than I can, thus I wanted to allow him to respond to your concerns without it becoming contentious. If I seemed so, I apologize. Meanwhile, if something needs clarified, then by all means, speak up. I think a lot of citations were forced onto the article to help support what a) is common knowledge about the Manson family and b) what challenges common knowledge. In that spirit, while the Bugliosi book is one of the major sources on the page, an effort was made to incorporate outside verification of what "the Bug" said with what others said. And John was very instrumental in forming some of that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making a formal accusation of plagiarism, though I understand better why you're offended by it. I have gone over more of the text and compared it to the Google Books copy of Helter Skelter and added more quotation marks. Since the viewing of the book is limited and I don't have a physical copy, I only changed two of them.

I'm tired. I don't want to fight. I've looked over the archives of the talk page here and am dismayed by the conflict that required this page be semi-protected. I had enough of that at Sarah Palin's page, so I'm moving on to less contentious material.

Please believe that I only wanted to help. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 08:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is fighting (anymore, at least). It seems like we've made our opinions and viewpoints known and things are good. Curiously enough, the article is semi-protected because of blatant vandalism, not so much conflict over content. At some point, the conflict has dissipated. The vandalism, however has not. It takes a bit for an article to be semi-protected for 6 months, and I see that will expire next month. It goes from hours to a day, to 3 days, to a week, etc. It will take all of a couple days for protection to be necessary again when it expires. In any case, thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

After a good night's sleep I thought I'd tackle just the ref's some more. I am officially frustrated, and seriously, really, I mean it this time, I quit. The article seems to be mostly Helter Skelter paraphrased, with a sprinkling of Manson in His Own Words, and the ref list needs a lot of help but I'm not up for it. I'm still concerned that the tone of the book has leaked into the article, but not enough to keep up this headache. Best wishes. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 15:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Other edits (Part 2)

FangedFaerie –

1 - I haven’t overruled you. I have presented questions about some of your revisions. I rejected, for instance, your statement that the use of "tearful" was sensational. You were free to respond. I also left it to you to decide whether the sentence in which it appeared was plagiarism and should be adjusted.

I did respond. Quite frankly, I feel like the two of you are ganging up on me. I adjusted it, and you both seem very upset about that.

Please be careful about what you say. I don't think I have expressed any reaction at all to the revision you made to the "tearful" passage after I presented my remarks about it. I told you I thought "tearful" was not sensational, and I asked you to address your plagiarism concerns. You addressed them, and I don't think I've said anything since.

A general comment: Wildhartlivie and I are not a team. She makes her comments; I make mine. If I think I should post a comment on her talk page, I do. In the present case, the only thing I've said to her — in response to a comment she posted on my page — is that it's good she steered this discussion to the talk page. I don't think I've contributed to any of the exchanges you've had with her.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

2 – As far as I recall, disputes that have taken place on this talk page had nothing at all to do with the article’s semi-protection. The article suffered constant, often-wholesale vandalism, frequently of the sort that is a symptom of psychopathology.

My mistake, and my apologies.

Thank you.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

3 – The story about the juvenile Manson’s being sold for a pitcher of beer may be deleted from the article for all I care. As I recall, it was here when I first visited the article (although it was unintelligible, inasmuch as it didn’t mention Manson’s retrieval by his uncle). I left it because it seemed like something that was reasonably of importance to someone. Your revision of it is possibly inaccurate. When I first worked on the passage, I, too, began the sentence with "According to Manson." When I took another look at Manson in His Own Words, I decided that that might be not true. In the introduction of that book, Nuel Emmons, who crafted it, mentions that he visited Manson’s relatives for some childhood information, even though he presented all of it in first person — i.e., as if it were information from Manson himself. The passage about the pitcher of beer starts with "One of Mom’s relatives delighted in telling the story." It’s possible, in other words, that the story is one that Emmons heard from one of Manson’s relatives, not from Manson himself. I think it best to avoid wording that suggests the contrary.

Why on earth would any reasonable person believe the biographer would refer to Manson's mother as "one of Mom's relatives"? The book is written often in first person, as his account. Regardless, the pitcher story is a story, and has no outside verification. I think a "claims" or "alledges" or "according to" should be in there. But that's just my opinion.

I didn't suggest Emmons referred to Manson's mother as "one of Manson's relatives." I said it's possible the story about Manson's mother's supposed deed came to Emmons from "one of Manson's relatives" -- i.e., from someone other than Manson's mother.

The statement in the introduction of Manson in His Own Words is this:

I pieced [Manson's] childhood together with help from many sources. In addition to what he told me, which contained many gaps, I journeyed across the United States to where he was born and the places he spent the first sixteen years of his life. In Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky I talked to those who could fill in gaps and verify what Manson said. When there was new information, I would return to Manson and repeat what I had been told, to hear his words and sense his feelings about it.

What I have recorded here as a continuous chronological narrative is therefore actually the result of a long process of discussion and re-examination of the events, checking and cross-checking of details, and re-organization of the frequent, frustrating leaps of Manson's conversation. Nevertheless, it represents Manson's recollections of his life and his attitudes toward it as accurately, consistently, and coherently as humanly possible.

The passage about the pitcher of beer is this:

One of Mom's relatives delighted in telling the story of how my mother once sold me for a pitcher of beer.

That sounds as if the story might be something Emmons first heard from one of Manson's relatives — an uncle or a cousin or whatever — although Manson might have confirmed that he himself had heard it, either from his mother or someone else. My point is simply that it's not entirely clear that Manson himself is the person who has handed the story down. If the story is to be in the article, it probably should be introduced by something like "allegedly," as you say. I'm simply saying that we should avoid saying that Manson is the person who alleged it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

4 - I see that, in a few places, you have tried to "fix refs." I applaud you. If you will review the past talk-page arguments that dismay you, you will see that they had, in part, to do with that very thing. I personally dislike Wikipedia’s "name=[whatever]" mechanism for supposedly simplifying repeated citation. It can very easily confuse things. As I stated in one of those earlier arguments, I do not vouch for any of the citations at this point. There was a point at which, in essence, not a single one of the article’s footnotes was one of those "name=[whatever]" things. At that point, I was pretty sure the citations were accurate. Now, I don't know.

Me neither.

5 – To put it bluntly: Because of your unwillingness to back off from your unfounded statement that the use of "groaning" in the Sebring passage was sensational, you have made a mess of the attack on Sebring. You have managed the almost-impossible feat of defaming Tex Watson. There is no indication now that the stabbing was intended to silence the groaning Sebring (which is all you had to write). It now seems as if Watson stabbed Sebring for no other reason than that the gunshot was not fatal.

Fine, revert it to groaning and put "groaning" in quotes. I wasn't trying to "make a mess of" anything, I was trying to make the article sound more professional and less like the true crime almost-novels it's based upon. I was attempting to address your objection that "killed" was too vague. This edit seems to have further upset you, which was not my intent. I'm not a puppy to be kicked into submission, however.

Maybe I'm misreading your statement, but I think you've just combined discussion of two separate points. My remark about "killed" — which I said was inaccurate, not vague — had to do with the Frykowski murder, not the Sebring murder. At any rate, I won't be revising the passage. I've given up on it.

I'll mention, incidentally, that — your comments about being overruled, ganged up on, and kicked-puppywise notwithstanding — I have not undone a single one of your revisions. The only change I've made because of your changes is one you requested: the addition of quotation marks to "hard-core."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

6 – Thanks to you and — to dredge up old wounds — an editor who was involved in the ancient arguments that you found dismaying in the talk-page archives, the death of Frykowski is now unintelligible. It is impossible for the reader to figure out that Watson finished Frykowski off — or, if you prefer Victoriana to Mortal Kombat, ended his life — by stabbing him.

John, I resemble that remark.  :)

Frankly, I never believed I'd find another editor who could ruffle my feathers as much as you once did... until this guy came along. What a mess he's making of this article. BassPlyr23 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, "finished him off" has nothing to do with stabbing, either, so on that one you've totally lost me. It bothers me because it's not neutral, professional phrasing.

You're right: "finished him off" has nothing to do with the stabbing. When the earlier editor removed the statement that Watson's final attack on Frykowski was a multiple stabbing, the damage to the statement was essentially complete. "Finished him off," which, upon my prodding, the editor followed with the clause about the fifty-one stab wounds, at least gave the reader some faint idea that the finish might have taken the form of a stabbing. Those last fumes of coherence vanished, I thought, when you changed "finished him off" to "ended his life." That was my only point.

I'll mention that the American Heritage Dictionary offers "destroy, kill" as a definition of "finish."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the stabbing information. You'll probably think that section is too unwieldy at this point. Feel free to make further edits. None of us wp:own this article. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 20:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the stabbing information — but to be honest, I haven't even looked at it. I've given up on this passage, too.

Re the fact that nobody owns the article: That's right. The amount of work that someone puts into it doesn't matter either — so I decline the salute you offered at the beginning of your initial comment on this page. To say it again: I have not undone a single one of your revisions, and I have not participated in your emotional exchanges with Wildhartlivie (although I thought both of you made valid points). Even when I said that I "let you" determine the plagiarism question re "tearful," I was speaking about the exchange between you and me only — i.e., I was pointing out that I didn't extend discussion of the plagiarism question.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

7 – In the section about the Tate murders, you have inserted the sub-heading "Murders" before the section about the attack on the house’s four occupants. That is quite unfair to Steven Parent, who was murdered in the driveway — i.e., before the intruders reached the house. That is one of the reasons I used the word "Slaughter," which you found unencyclopedic and which some editor deleted as unencyclopedic after you objected to it on the talk page.

Wow. So "slaughter" is fair to Steven Parent, then?

"Slaughter" is not quite fair to him either. That's one of the reasons I've not argued for its reinsertion (as maybe you noticed in the comment I posted on Wildhartlivie's talk page and that you have pasted immediately below). "Slaughter" is a tad better than "Murders," in that it groups the non-Parent murders as a sort of single manic episode, distinct from the driveway killing (which would seem to have been intended in part to destroy a witness to the intruders' presence). In other words, "Slaughter" is, at least, arguably fair to Parent. "Murders" is completely objectionable.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a heading in response to this comment from Wildhartlivie's talk page.

Can you come up with a substitute for the heading "Slaughter," which, as you know, another editor has removed? If I come up with one, I'll put it there. I recall you and I both thought a heading was helpful there.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I knew you weren't addressing me, but I thought it was "helpful." Now I'm being attacked for it. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 20:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

8 - Editor Wildhartlivie gets emotional, if I may say, in defending the article, but if you will focus on the substance of her comments, as, for instance, you did with respect to "annoyed," you will find her a valuable workmate, I think.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, as I did above: the word "annoy/ed" was found in neither of the citations. I have edited the article to reflect what I did find in one of them. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 20:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And I repeat: You are confusing the exchanges between you and me with the exchanges between you and Wildhartlivie. I don't think I've commented at all about the "annoyed" question, except to say, as I just did, above, that, with respect to it, you focused on the question, not the emotion with which it was discussed.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, guys, but it isn't my view that there was a highly emotional exchange over edits as much as there was taking exception to the question of plagiarism by what is a relatively new editor. That was about as negative as anything could be taken and if it was taken that way, I have already apologized. Yes, I do sometimes become emotional but this wasn't particularly one of those times. In fact, to allow it to be discussed as dispassionately as possible, I've deferred to JohnBonaccorsi. No one has ganged up on you, but I did say that there are editors here who have strong and definitive opinions on the article. It is certainly difficult to tell at times what the "tone" of a typed statement might be, so if "in the summary [I] seemed upset", it was in response to edit summary wording such as "Smacks of POV and plagiarism" and "Annoyed," really?" The first edit summary response I made was "pls AGF and consider quotes were needed & not call things plagiarism" and I quickly tried to de-escalate the situation by asking it be brought here. I want to thank JohnBonaccorsi for his kind words about me.

Whether or not Bugliosi's book can be dismissed as "true crime almost-novels" is a bit of an opinion, but it is the primary source out there on this topic. (And in my opinion, is not nearly in the same class as say... Ann Rule true crime novels.) As I have said, efforts were made to assimilate various sources and the article isn't wholly based on it, although I suppose at some point in time in the more distant past, it was mostly from it and possibly, then, plagiarized from it. It has changed greatly from that time.

Regarding the word "annoyed", in one version of the events, Paul Watkins (I'm fairly certain) described it precisely in that way, along with more details about Manson's racist views on blacks. By the way, I'm certain "annoyed" is more professional than "pissed off". The marriage was the catalyst for Manson's distrust and growing vehement dislike for Shea. His suspicions about Shea knowing about the Family involvement in the murders and trying to get rid of the group from the property is what led to Shea's death. While the concern stated was that using the phrase "Manson was annoyed" lended a speculative tone, my view is that saying "Manson may have also been offended" is even more so. My caution was, and still is, trying to keep a speculative tone from the passage, while still having content that reflects the situation as it was.

As was discussed on John's talk page, the section heading is a matter of finding the right word or phrase to indicate the transition from entering the property and killing the witness to the point at which the event became wholesale slaughter. Perhaps "slaughter" isn't the right word, but "murders" is misleading and does ignore Steven Parent to a point. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe we'll all agree that "annoyed" is more professional than "pissed off" (although now that you mention it...).JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the rest, I got my back up when Wildhartlivie seemed to be miffed about a "relatively new editor" bringing up the question of plagiarism. Then JohnBonaccorsi, without actually reverting my edits, objected to almost all of them here with comments like "for all I care," "dredge up old wounds," and most of your point #5 above. So yes, I did feel ganged up on. I apologize for being too defensive, but it's not the first time someone has pointed out my newness as a method of dismissing me, and it 'pisses me off.'

All that aside, I reiterate that I was not trying to make accusations. As you both know, the edit summary line doesn't leave much room for comments. I've already stated my concerns about the tone of some of the descriptors used. When I said one of them "smacked of" POV and plagiarism, it wasn't an accusation so much as that's the impression I got when I read the passage.

I've seen on other pages how much editors have to tiptoe in a BLP. Manson was undeniably a lifelong criminal and involved in mass killings, but that doesn't mean we have to give in to arguably colorful or inflammatory language.

Full disclaimer: I have not read the main sources in full. I checked the text in this article against the text in the Google Books versions of two of them, and a glance at the reviews posted on the cover I vaguely recall "chilling" being used to advertise. The text itself definitely falls into the true crime category. That doesn't make it a bad book. Again, I don't think it's a bad source. My only concern has been that some of that tone has come into this encyclopedia, and I think a dry approach would be better.

Anyway, I've made all the edits I'm comfortable making now. I put up the RfC in the hopes that a good conversation will be generated. If my edits are changed to the better of the article, very well. My intent was to help it, not to step on anyone's toes. There is no such thing as a perfect article. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 05:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I'm certain "annoyed" is more professional than "pissed off".

Um, what are you talking about? While I've been here, I've never seen "pissed off" in the article, and I certainly didn't put it there. Regardless, mosquitoes annoy me. I don't think "annoyed" is the best word for someone angry enough to kill, so unless there's a source... *shrug* Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 21:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I had been in the midst of responding to your comment about this last night when you came back and struck it out here. When you did that, I assumed you had thought about the comment I made and realized it was an observation I was making and not a suggestion that anyone had put that in the article. It was mostly a joke, trying to ease the tension. Apparently you re-thought that and decided it was an accusation. You'd apologized for seeming to be defensive, but it seems you are still being so. In fact, in some interviews with family members, the words "pissed off" were used, it describes Manson's attitude about Shea's marriage fairly well, but my comment wasn't suggesting someone put it in. Also, in case it comes up again, although you'd changed your response about it, I had not left a note on JohnBonaccorsi's talk page about any of this until some time after he first responded to your post and some dialogue had already occurred. If you'll check the time stamp when I posted to his page, it was 02:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC), and all of this occurred before that. We didn't discuss him responding to you before he did. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

...although you'd changed your response about it, I had not left a note on JohnBonaccorsi's talk page about any of this until some time after he first responded to your post and some dialogue had already occurred. If you'll check the time stamp...

Yep, I thought I got it, then thought again, and realized I was still confused, thus the question. As for the above, I have no clue what you're talking about. One can feel 'ganged up on' without pre-planning or conspiracy on the part of the alleged hostiles. Yep, I'm still defensive, unalleviated. I've tried to keep my tone neutral, but apparently I'm still bugging you. I have not and will not make further edits to this article, and I hope I don't run into either of you again. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the comment that was changed here, from "Then JohnBonaccorsi, without actually reverting my edits, objected to almost all of them here after exchanges on each other's talk pages." Although you removed the part about John's objections after exchanges on each other's talk pages. I wanted to clarify that we had, in fact, not exchanged talk prior to his posting comments and objections here. I'm sorry you feel that way. You're not bugging me, but I do feel the need to clarify what wasn't clear. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've struck or removed some of my comments, because they are not helpful in improving this article. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 04:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Manson and the Monkees

This was included in the article because it is a notable misconception/urban myth that was raised as an early discussion. It is notable because it has been a point of question re: Manson for many years and is/was also covered in the Monkees article. I would suggest that if anyone have an issue with the inclusion, which was sourced, then broach it here for discussion, as its inclusion was agreeable to the regular editors on this page. This article does not contain a preponderance of trivia as do so many articles on Wikipedia, efforts have been made to curtail that. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's trivia. The only place I've ever heard this rumor is when I read it on here today. It's akin to posting "He likes green M&Ms" when in reality he only likes the yellow ones. What does it matter? It adds nothing to the article other than an external link debunking an obscure rumor. Sottolacqua (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And furthermore, keeping it here fuels discussion about it. Sottolacqua (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It matters for a few reasons. Because you had never heard this has little meaning, others have come to the talk page to ask about it, it has been written about in some publications and books and included in at least one notable BBC story [1] and editors included it for the reason that it was a notable urban myth. You decided to overrule that, twice, because you decided it was trivia. Furthermore, it doesn't fuel discussion to include something that has been covered elsewhere many times. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Backing up Wildhartlivie, this urban legend has become part of the mystique surrounding Manson and his music. As long as material is sourced and relevant to an article, it should remain part of the article. Just because YOU PERSONALLY feel it should not be in the article doesn't mean that others who edit this article (myself and Wildhartlivie being two, and I'm sure others agree with us) feel this way. Wikipedia is run by CONSENSUS, not by bullying. BassPlyr23 (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is of course a consensus and generally those accusing others of bullying don't leave messages on talk pages with words stressed in all caps. Perhaps you fail to see that the Wikipedia article not a fan page emphasizing the "mystique surrounding Manson and his music" but rather facts related to him. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It really isn't good faith to assert that this page is used as a fan page. It is exceedingly thorough in regard to Manson, the acts of him and the family, and the real effect they had on pop and music culture. All of this covered in a concise, well-sourced and professional manner, which is both thorough and pertinent. If you want to see fanpages, try looking at the predominance of articles that have indiscriminate lists of every single time an article subject is mentioned on the Simpsons or South Park. That an urban myth arose about the Monkees is a fact, and one that perpetuates, which is why it is included. Your assertion is baseless. So a couple words were capped, it was for emphasis. Passing by and not liking one statement and writing the article off as a fanpage is unacceptable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not a regular contributor to this article; however, I'd like to give my opinion as a Wikipedia and real-life editor. If this myth has been brought up by numerous editors before, it's a good idea to keep the information in the article to avoid re-hashing its importance in future discussions. Perhaps a hidden note next to the information will prevent issues such as this one. In addition, trivia is acceptable if it is incorporated into the article properly. I would classify the myth as notable trivia based on editors' interest in the past. momoricks (make my day) 00:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Investigation problem

In the first paragraph of the article’s subsection headed "Investigation" is this:

On August 10 [1969] — while the Tate autopsies were under way and the LaBianca bodies were yet to be discovered — detectives of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, which had jurisdiction in the Hinman case, informed LAPD detectives assigned to the Tate case of the bloody writing at the Hinman house. They even mentioned that the Hinman suspect, Beausoleil, was associated with a group of hippies led by "a guy named Charlie." The Tate team, thinking the Tate murders a consequence of a drug transaction, ignored the information.

That information comes from page 33 of the 1994 edition of Bugliosi and Gentry’s Helter Skelter. The book expressly says that the Sheriff’s men -- named Guenther and Whiteley -- told the LAPD men that Beausoleil "had been living at Spahn’s Ranch, an old movie ranch near the Los Angeles suburb of Chatsworth, with a bunch of other hippies. It was an odd group, their leader, a guy named Charlie, apparently having convinced them that he was Jesus Christ."

That makes no sense. If, on August 10, the Sheriff’s men were already aware of a connection among Beausoleil, Manson, and Spahn Ranch, why did they (apparently) give no attention to the subsequent raid that other Sheriff’s officers carried out at Spahn, on August 16. Indeed, Bugliosi and Gentry later appear to contradict themselves. A footnote on their page 104 (in the chapter headed "November 17, 1969") is as follows:

Ironically, on July 28 [i.e., after the Hinman murder], two LASO detectives – Olmstead and Grap – visited Spahn Ranch on another matter [i.e., not Hinman’s murder, which had not yet been learned of]. While there, they saw [Hinman’s] Fiat [which the killers had brought to Spahn after the killing], ran a spot check on the license, and learned that it belonged to Gary Hinman. Grap knew Hinman; he also knew he was a friend of the people at Spahn Ranch, and therefore didn’t feel there was anything suspicious about the station wagon’s being there. At this time, although Hinman was dead, his body had not yet been discovered.

After the discovery of the body on July 31, LASO put out a "want" on Hinman’s vehicles. Grap didn’t learn of it, or Hinman’s death, until much later. If he had known, of course, he could have directed the investigation to Spahn Ranch and the Manson Family months before Kitty Lutesinger implicated Atkins and the others [in October]. (Emphasis added)

In other words, Bugliosi and Gentry have just denied what they said earlier, namely, that the Sheriff's men were on to the Manson connection months before the desert raid.

To restate this: It’s not impossible that the Hinman investigators would have learned about the connection among Hinman, Beausoleil, and Manson by August 10 (the day they visited the Tate investigators). In the more than a week that they'd been on the Hinman case, they could have learned about it from, say, one of Hinman’s family members, who might have heard Hinman speak of Manson and Beausoleil; but if indeed the investigators knew about the connection by August 10 and were already passing the information along to LAPD, why – to ask it a second time – did they apparently pay no attention to the August 16 raid on Spahn? And why do Bugliosi and Gentry say, in the footnote just quoted, that the Sheriff’s men were not led to the Manson connection until they talked to Beausoleil’s girlfriend (Lutesinger) after the (first) desert raid on the Family -- in October?

Maybe I’m missing something –- but I think Bugliosi and Gentry have fumbled here. In The Family, Ed Sanders presents a coherent sequence of events:

Several LAPD homicide investigators were on hand during the [Tate] autopsies [on August 10]. Also at the autopsy were Sgt. Paul Whiteley and Charles Guenther of Sheriff’s office homicide, who were investigating the Gary Hinman murder. They approached the officers handling the Polanski murders and told them about the similarities between the two sets of murders: writing in blood, wounds inflicted by knives, etc. The officers of the Tate investigation considered the similarities insignificant, however, since there was already a suspect arrested for the Hinman murder when the Sebring-Parent-Folger murders were committed. (The Family, 2002 edition, pages 243-44.)

The day after the [August 16] raid on the Spahn Ranch, either Sergeant Whiteley or Deputy Guenther, the officers in charge of the Hinman investigation, called the number listed on the Lutesinger ranch card found in Beausoleil’s jeans when he was arrested. Beausoleil evidently told them that Kitty Lutesinger was his girlfriend, so the officers called to find out where she was. They wanted to talk with her about Beausoleil. They knew a woman had answered the door during Hinman’s final day, and they figured it might be Kitty.

The officers at this time knew nothing about the Spahn Ranch or Manson or Beausoleil’s connection with the Family. (The Family, pages 267-68. Emphasis added.)

Sanders goes on to explain that, in speaking with Lutesinger's mother, the Sheriff’s men learned that Kitty had run away from home (not for the first time) the night before. He says the Sheriff’s men did not know that, at that moment, Lutesinger was in jail. (He seems to mean she was arrested in the raid on Spahn.) He says that Lutesinger’s mother then filed runaway papers on Kitty and that the Sheriff’s men arranged to have the local police station contact them if Kitty showed up. (Page 268 of The Family.)

Finally, Sanders explains that, on October 11, after the first desert raid, Lutesinger, telephoning from the desert, spoke with her mother, who told her that the Sheriff’s men had been looking for her (months earlier) in connection with the Hinman murder. He says Lutesinger’s mother then explained all of this (on the phone) to a California Highway Patrolman out there in the desert and that the patrolman then called the Sheriff’s office in L.A. "This," Sanders says, "is evidently the first time that Deputy Guenther had learned of the connection between Beausoleil and the Spahn Ranch." (Page 294, emphasis added.) Sanders says Guenther and Whiteley then spent a day researching Spahn Ranch, Manson, and the August 16 raid before they drove out to Inyo County, on October 12, to speak with Lutesinger.

Without doing original research –- i.e., without speaking with, for instance, Bugliosi –- it’s impossible to make sense of this. As I say, it seems Bugliosi and Gentry fumbled –- but maybe I’m missing something. Because original research is out of the question, I suggest the Wikipedia passage be reduced to this:

On August 10 — while the Tate autopsies were under way and the LaBianca bodies were yet to be discovered — detectives of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, which had jurisdiction in the Hinman case, informed LAPD detectives assigned to the Tate case of the bloody writing at the Hinman house. The Tate team, thinking the Tate murders a consequence of a drug transaction, ignored this and the crimes' other similarities.

In other words, I think the sentence about the Sheriff's men mentioning a "Charlie" should be removed entirely. The paragraph should probably also be given an additional closing footnote: "Sanders 2002, 243-44."

I’m not planning to make the change myself, but maybe another editor will want to make it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll defer to your suggestion on this, John. It makes sense to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I've changed it. Thanks.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

additional notes/inference correction regarding "Cultural Reverberations" the final section of Charles Manson

as a voracious reader of "underground papers" from all along the west coast, but mostly Seattle, (HELIX) followed by Vancouver BC (GEORGIA STRAIGHT) Portland OR(WILLAMETTE BRIDGE) and SanFrancisco (BERKELEY BARB)during the late 1960's I recall no such glorification of Manson and his followers; The reactions was more like one of a detached "How could this happen?" to "This must be a National Security Agency/CIA or even local LA police operation set up to make the Left and Counterculture look bad. At that time the police, but especailly the LA Police were considered to be the worst in terms of severely mistreating anyone who looked counterculture-or who where politically involved; They were as close to Nazi stormtroopers as you could get You might be stopped for not having "regulation windshield wipers" ticketed, and hauled off to jail, or being beaten/ severely harassed for having a peace symbol or STOP THE WAR bumperstrip on your car. Police were commonly call "pigs" in that era; If anything, I recall a certain amount of horror that caused some people to "drop back in" to the establishment-or move to the country for its serenity and safety-which became the next big counterculture movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seashellz222 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

However, others did embrace him, the sources are present there that confirm that. I'm sure it is true that some people were horrified, but others were fascinated in a morbid kind of way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don’t offer an opinion on this, but maybe I will be permitted to say that I do object when an editor raises a question on a talk page without discussing the contents of a source that is linked in a footnote of the article and that bears on the question.

As to the question itself — The opening sentence of the article’s subsection headed Cultural Reverberation is this:

Within months of the Tate-LaBianca arrests, Manson was embraced by underground newspapers of the 1960s counterculture from which the Family had emerged.

The June 1970 Rolling Stone story linked at the first of the two footnotes in support of that sentence says this:

The most blatant, if less damaging, assault on the concept of pretrial impartiality comes not from the Establishment or the Far Right, but the Far Left, the Weathermen faction of the SDS. According to an item from the Liberation News Service, the Weathermen have made Manson a revolutionary hero on the assumption that he is guilty. Praising him for having offed some "rich honky pigs," they offer us a prize example of bumper-sticker mentality: MANSON POWER – THE YEAR OF THE FORK!

The underground press in general has assumed a paranoid-schizo attitude toward Manson, undoubtedly hypersensitive to the relentless gloating of the cops who, after a five-year search, finally found a long-haired devil you could love to hate. Starting in mid-January, the Los Angeles Free Press banner-headlined Manson stories for three weeks in a row: MANSON CAN GO FREE! M.D. ON MANSON’S SEX LIFE! MANSON INTERVIEW! EXCLUSIVE! EXCLUSIVE! Later, the Free Press began a weekly column by Manson written from jail. About the same time, a rival underground paper, Tuesday’s Child, ran Manson’s picture across the entire front page with the headline MAN OF THE YEAR: CHARLES MANSON. In case you missed the point, in their next issue they covered the front page with a cartoon of Manson on the cross. The plaque nailed above his head read simply HIPPIE.

Of course, not all the stories in the Free Press and Tuesday’s Child were pro-Manson. Some were very lukewarm, others were simply anticop. The question that seemed to split the underground editorial minds more than any other was simply: Is Manson a hippie or isn’t he?

The Helter Skelter pages identified in the second of the two footnotes are the first two pages of that book's chapter headed "February 1970." The information they provide is about the same as the above. Anyone who would like to read them will find them here. Their first paragraph is as follows:

That an accused mass murderer could emerge a counterculture hero seemed inconceivable. But to some Charles Manson had become a cause.

The question, I suppose, is whether those two sources support Cultural Reverberation’s opening sentence. As I say, I don’t offer an opinion.71.242.171.202 (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In combination with everything else the section covers, I believe it does support the statement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope it was clear that I was objecting to this section's original post, not to the post by editor Wildhartlivie.71.242.171.202 (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You were clear about it, I was just affirming that I think it is correct as it is. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Manson Pop References

We need to compile a list of all pop references to Manson. There are plenty but only a few (South Park being one of the few) are in the article. TheNad 19:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. A long time ago, it was decided by editor consensus that there was nothing of benefit to compiling what would ultimately be an endless and random list of each and every time Manson or the Family would get a comment, reference or treatment in films, tv shows, songs, books, comics, etc. "In popular culture", "trivia", etc., sections are discouraged on Wikipedia overall, with a recommendation for those that exist to be incorporated in a meaningful way into the main body of the article, which is why the section that exists is as it is. The reason that South Park and a few others are included is because an overview was all that was necessary. The items that are covered otherwise are those that are either by or directly about Manson/family in the "Manson and culture" section. The article is quite long as it is (97 kb) and adding such a section would overwhelm the more pertinent and relevant facts about Manson and the Family. If you want to start such an article (Manson in pop culture or whatever), you're perfectly free to do so, but not in the main article. Also, when you make talk page entries, please sign it by typing four tildes ~~~~. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. And I did sign... Hense there not being a "the following unsigned comment was made by..." 0_o TheNad 17:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of word: "Slaughter"

Having first read the article and then the discussion I would like to suggest "slaughter" be replaced with "massacre".

"Slaughter" is the technical term for the killing of animals, which given the content of the article is innaccurate and has unfortunate ties to the word "piggy".

"Massacre" is the usual term for any killing of a large group of people. Admittedly the numbers involved might be considered to fall below that level, but it does (at least in my Collins dictionary) emphasise that it was people that were killed.

Seeing the depth of the controversy on this page about this issue I thought it wisest not to make the change myself and leave it to those who have worked on the article for so much longer to decide. 92.237.4.111 (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the concern with the word was that it was seen as sensationalistic. However, according to the dictionary definition of "slaughter", it applies to people too, The killing of a large number of people; a massacre as "massacre" can equally apply to animals: [2]. I'm not sure that one is less sensationalistic than the other. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

My dictionary says otherwise, it states:- "n. idiscriminate killing of a large number of people. -v. kill in large numbers." (Collins english dictionary 1993) I read the word as referring to Manson's attitude to the people killed as pigs. When I read the discussion I believed this to be unintended and thought I'd sugggest a change. But if your only concern is the sensationalism or otherwise then fair enough.92.237.4.111 (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Pisoner number

What is his numer please edit this and add it to the page if yu know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.165.254 (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If yu want his pisoner numer, yu might read the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent news media reports suggest he doesn't see too many people. Proxy User (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Swastika

Charles Manson has had, for many years, a swastika on his forehead right between his eyebrows.

How did it get there? Is it a tattoo or a 'carving', as I've heard people say? Why is it there? How long has it been there?

I came to this page to find this information, it seems very strange that such a unique aspect of the guy's face is completely absent from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodeosmurf (talk • contribs) 18:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be because there really isn't information out there about when he acquired the tattoo, and we have looked. It seems to have been adapted from the X he carved into his forehead during the trial, which is covered in the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Reason for murders?

tl;dr, what was the reason to murder Tate and the others? 85.1.197.187 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the article. It tells you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New Picture

I don't know why the image that is being used is, but there are more "up-to-date" images that could be used (and should be used). The latest image taken last week should be used, and as he is in a Federal facility one imagines it is free to use. Proxy User (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I agree that at long as he's alive the latest picture should be used in the main infobox, but it seems odd that the rest of the article is completely devoid of photographs. Should older photographs be included below near discussion of older events? DavidRF (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The latest photo was published in the newspapers, etc.... what? yesterday? We can't take an image published in newspapers, etc. and use it. Fair-use images can't be used in infoboxes, it needs to be a free use image. That is also why there are not images throughout the article. The majority of them are copyrighted and the ones that were available were removed because "they don't add better understanding" to the article. Image policies have stymied the addition of photos or their retention. If you find free-use images of Manson that are relevant to a section, then sure, let us know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The source of the image is the State of California, not some newspaper photog. It has EXACTLY the same copyright conditions as the other mug shots (and the one you reverted to) produced and released to the public by the State of California. They are - the both of them - mug shots released under exactly the same conditions. Using the older image serves no purpose at all. Proxy User (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally know nothing of Wikipedia's rules on the use of photographs; but if both photographs may be used, can't they both be presented in the article? The old photograph is from the (post-Tate-LaBianca) Spahn Ranch raid of August 16, 1969, I think. It had a caption like "Booking photo." Maybe the infobox at the article's head could include that picture, with a clearer caption (e.g., "Manson booking photograph, Spahn Ranch raid, August 16, 1969"). The recently-released photo could be presented in the article's "Parole hearings" subsection, where it could be captioned, "Manson, March 2009, Corcoran State Prison." That way, the article would be — what's the word? — informative.71.242.171.202 (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think while both should be included, the Info Box image should represent the most up-to-date image of the article subject. Proxy User (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That might be a good idea, too. I really don't know Wikipedia's usual approach. If the current photo is in the infobox, then the 1969 booking photo could be placed alongside the Spahn raid info, in the article's "Investigation" subsection. Whichever the approach, captions like those I've suggested above would be helpful. These are simply my recommendations; I personally won't be making any changes. Maybe editor Wildhartlivie, who does a good job of keeping the article under control, will want to chime in here.71.242.171.202 (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've brought the issue of copyright up here: WP:Media_copyright_questions#Copyright_Status_of_Mug_Shots_Released_to_the_Press, and the consensus, such that it, is is that fair use is established for such images as mug shots released to the press. Also:

Fair-use images can't be used in infoboxes, it needs to be a free use image.

Says who? -//-Proxy User (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so everybody knows, I reinserted Manson's mugshot at the top and moved his recent picture to the "Recent developments" section, complete with a source. More people are going to recognize Manson from the late 1960's than his aging self today when they first see this article. Thanks!Jgera5 (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Images taken by a prison for identification purposes aren't technically the same thing as a mugshot. The mugshot taken at the time of Manson's arrest in 1969 has been released to the public domain. Any copy of the recently released photo has to fall under fair-use, not public domain, as one upload of it was claimed (not yours, Proxy User). The license on that was claimed to be a work of the US government, which in fact it was not. Corcoran isn't a US federal prison. Fair use is not supposed to be included in infoboxes. The older image of Manson that's been used for a long time is released into the public domain and is free use. Who says is US copyright law and Wikipedia and is posted routinely in infoboxes with no images. Fair use has to be given a rationale regarding each specific use. One reason that would be possibly acceptable is if the image is of historical significance. I think the original booking photo of Manson from the time of the murders would qualify as having historical significance even if it were fair use, but not the recent update photo, which is meaningless in context of the focus of the article. Fair use might qualify to be used in the later sections of the article covering later years and remaining in the public focus, but not in the infobox. No one is blowing smoke about this, it is fact. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you said 100%, which is why I moved the recent image further down in the article and put the old image back up. Jgera5 (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe Manson's head is shaved in that photo, I don't think he is completely bald. Stubble along the hairline is visible. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, the issue has been discussed over at the Media Copyright Questions page where the opinion is that the image is fine. Now, the other point: Fair-use images can't be used in infoboxes, it needs to be a free use image. Again, where do you get this? The comments at Media Copyright Questions don't support it. I'm not saying it isn't so, I'm asking you to support your claim, or at least supply some rational for it, since it doesn't make any sense to me, I don't see the connection. Indeed, I suspect you're telling me this as a way to keep the most current Manson pick out of the Info Box, which is where it should be. The fact is, the Infobox picture should be the most recent available, and the latest image available has no copyright issues, I don't understand why it's an issue to you, this business of Fair-use images can't be used in infoboxes, it needs to be a free use image is clearly nonsense. Proxy User (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there is no need for your attitude. There is also no need for your bad faith assertions. I'm not in the least interested in what you suspect, but I will say that I'll be quite happy to dig up the various pages where this infobox point has been made, but it will take me a bit of time because I'm currently in the middle of something else and searching for discussion takes time. I've also read the comments at WP:ICHD and there absolutely is no need for you to be pissy in your comments. I note the one example given as why a fair-use image might be acceptable is for something for which a free equivalent would not be possible - non-free logos and non-free cover art. I'd also like for you to show me "the fact" that says the infobox should have the most recent image available. It's an issue to me because I've repeatedly seen images deleted because they are fair-use vs. free-use or removed from the infobox because of the same reason. It's an issue to me because I've been involved in editing this page for the last two years and have been part of the group of editors who brought the article to the quality it is right now. So, perhaps, the question is why are you being so vehement about it? I'd also point out to you that at present, there is currently no consensus for the infobox to contain even a new free-use image instead of the older one, which the way Manson looks to most readers of the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There are various talk page and other discussions about the use of a non-free image used for identification of an article subject, including, but not limited to: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 40#Non-free images used in biography articles and WP:NONFREE, as well as instructions in multiple infobox instructiosn including [3] and [4]. The fundamental requirements for the use of a non-free image are covered fairly well in the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline#Necessary components, which basically say that in order to give a rationale for non-free images include:

• Is the image a photograph for the main subject of the article?
• Is the image being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic?
• To what degree is the image replaceable by a free content image?
• If ... the image is a photograph, the [fair-use] image is more easily replaced, even if Wikipedians may lack the resources to create a replacement.

In essence, if you are going to try to rationalize using a fair-use image in place of a free-use image, it has to meet the guidelines and not be replaceable by a free-use image which reasonably serves as a means of identification of the subject. It doesn't matter that obtaining a recent free-use image is nearly impossible (because, for example a person is in prison and isn't allowed general visitors), if a free-use is available, you will not get a fair-use image past criteria for deletion based on policy. I don't think it can be any clearer than that. The recent Manson image is a fair-use image, the old arrest mugshot is not.

Another issue in this is copyright, which is a broader concept that it appears and basically falls under the definition of copyright in terms of use here. WP:GID#Copyright concerns says: Any work created in the United States since 1978 is automatically copyrighted unless it has been explicitly placed in the public domain. Again, that policy cites the use of replaceable free content, which the image from 1971 is considered and why it is acceptable for use well before the new photo.

That begs another question, which is the actual use of an image in the infobox, which is for identification of the article subject. I'm not thinking that an image of Charles Manson from 2009 is going to be more readily identifiable for him than the one that depicts him as the person the entire world recognizes as Charles Manson. If you want more links to check, please let me know. There are 13,700 links that I found that address this issue to one degree or another. It isn't about what I want the infobox to have, it's about what my experience in working with biographies has taught me about this specific issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you talking about this as I am looking at the same issue on other pages.I am glad to see the recent pic of manson here ..I saw a recent program about him on tv. and I recognised him from this recent picture immediatly. I would not have had any idea what he looked like before the tv program as the crime was so long ago!The wonders of sensationalistic reporting at the time had left me with the impression that he had physically murdered a lot of people in awful ways and then I discovered he did'nt actually murder anyone but encouraged others to do it! I am of the opinion that if the page is a biography of a living person then the image that most reflects his looks now would be preferable but if the page is only about the crime then the life history is not required and the picture of him when he commited the crime would be more reflective .... so is it a biography of a living person or a page about a crime that happened in ...1971? and the info box is for a criminal but I would think it should be for a person and then details of the major things in his life laid out in the lede and expanded on later in the page! (Off2riorob (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

It happened in 1969. He was more complicit in the murders than just encouraging it, he was convicted of conspiracy to commit the crimes and through his position of power in the Family group, was as much responsible for it happening as if he did fire a gun or wield a knife. It's both, a biography of a person, who became a criminal and he is only notable in the context of the crime and the events surrounding and leading up to it, and the effect that this individual had on society around him during and after the event. The infobox is for a criminal because without the crimes, he wouldn't have notability to have an article. In fact, any criminal is also a person, so generally, what happens is the infobox that most reflects the reason why the person is notable is the one that is used. There really isn't an infobox for crime for people outside of criminal. People who have an article as the result of being a victim of a crime might have a WP Crime template on the talk page. Any biography should be as complete as possible, and in this case, there is a lot of material out there to provide a full biography, which isn't the case in all articles. All of it is relevant - the life before the crime, the crime itself and how it came to occur, and what might have happened afterward - to the criminal and the world around him in the context of the person. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you for explaining(Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

No problem. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes no sense

At 16:32, 28 March 2009, sentences in the article’s opening paragraph were changed. Before the revision, the sentences were these:

He was found guilty of conspiracy to commit the Tate/LaBianca murders, which members of the group carried out at his instruction. Through the joint-responsibility rule of conspiracy, he was convicted of the murders themselves.

As revised, the sentences are these:

He was found guilty of conspiracy to commit the Tate/LaBianca murders, carried out by members of the group at his instruction. His guilt hinged on the joint-responsibility theory of conspiracy, which makes all co-conspirators guilty of all crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The change to the first sentence is fine. It is a minor change in wording. The change to the second sentence renders the paragraph incoherent. There is no longer any indication that Manson was found guilty of murder. The first sentence, as revised, states he was found guilty of conspiracy. The second sentence says "his guilt hinged on the joint-responsibility theory of conspiracy." Huh? His conviction for conspiracy is not what hinged on the joint-responsibility theory of conspiracy. Saying that is like saying that his conviction for conspiracy hinged on itself. What hinged on the joint-responsibility theory was his murder conviction — which is no longer mentioned in the paragraph. If the explanation of the joint-responsiblity rule is thought to be worth keeping — as it well may be — the second sentence should be something like this:

He was found guilty of the murders themselves through the joint-responsibility rule, which makes all co-conspirators guilty of all crimes committed in furtherance of their conspiracy.

I personally will not be making the change.71.242.171.202 (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have changed it had I been home to have seen the change. There are those who truly believe Manson shouldn't be in prison because he didn't wield the knife or pull the trigger! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I figured you weren't home. I've come to know how quickly you act on these things.71.242.171.202 (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm predictable!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the word is reliable.71.242.171.202 (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I will accept reliable. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Manson image i might wanna put up

• Manson during an interview in 1981
  Manson during an interview in 1981

like it RandomGuy666 (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)RandomGuy666

Um, what image? Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Neil Young: American Masters

On Neil Young's American Masters show on PBS tonight, he mentioned Charlie Manson, how he know him, and how he was a 'song spewer.' Apparently Neil suggested him to Reprise as "out of control", and he detested the rejection he faced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.86.115 (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If this could be firmed up, it would be a good addition to the article's section headed "Recordings," I think. I've seen contact between Manson and Neil Young mentioned at a few internet spots -- here, for instance (where there is no citation for the presented quotation). I haven't found anything about such contact in the Bugliosi and Gentry book, the Watson autobiography, Manson in His Own Words, or the Sanders book. Maybe the PBS show itself would provide enough information for a simple sentence that would indicate the approximate time and place of the contact. If so, a passage something like the following could be placed at the end of "Recordings":

In [early 1968 or whatever], Manson became acquainted with rock musician Neil Young [in the Los Angeles area or whatever]. In Neil Young: Don't Be Denied, which was aired in June 2009 as an episode of the PBS series American Masters, Young spoke of this:

[Neil Young quotation from the show]

Maybe someone will be in a position to watch a re-broadcast of the show and get the information to complete the above draft. I think the show will be aired again in my area this coming Tuesday (June 16) around 4:00 in the morning, but I'm unlikely to be able to watch it or record it.71.242.190.94 (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Young told the story, but I find it quite odd that nothing has been widely printed in the 40 years since the Tate-LaBianca murders. Even if it could be verified by other sources besides Young's own statement, one must also consider how relevant that is to the context of the article. If there was a contact of any significance and anything Young had ever said or done in response, wouldn't that have surfaced by now? Otherwise, all it is is an anecdote that doesn't really impact the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything you've said is certainly reasonable. Should I have the opportunity to tape the show, I'll see if I can post a transcript of Young's remarks here; you'll be able to see what you think. But again: I don't expect to be able to record the show.71.242.190.94 (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Charles Manson and American Pie by Don Mclean

Another pop culture reference to Charles Manson and his "Family" is found in the song American Pie by the artist Don Mclean. The opening line to the fourth verse of the song says: "Helter Skelter in a summer swelter..." This is quite possibly a reference to Manson's plan for a new world order which he called "Helter Skelter" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jestabr1 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This article does not include a section for a list of mentions in pop culture or trivia that would carry an item such as that. The Manson and culture section discusses his effect on pop culture and uses a few high profile examples. That is the manner that the editors here have decided to address what would otherwise be an endless list of out of contenxt trivia, which is discouraged on Wikipedia. Another problem is that the meaning and references in the lyrics to "American Pie" are highly debated and have never been confirmed by Don McLean, so including such an item would be speculation. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Melcher transcript

At 18:02, 5 July 2009, I added a footnote to the article. The footnote included a link to an apparent transcript of Terry Melcher's testimony in the trial of Manson, Atkins, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten. The link was this:

http://truthontatelabianca.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=da355152e107bfba514382185ebc660e&topic=1699.0

About three hours later (at 20:49), an editor named Crohnie deleted the link and provided the following, very-reasonable summary of his or her action:

Remove blog, there is no way to prove this is what it is supposed to be

As I say, that was a reasonable objection to the link. In fact, I had thought someone might delete the link for that reason.

The Melcher transcript is, indeed, posted at a sort of blog — a "forum," I suppose — which is called "Truth on Tate-LaBianca." The homepage is here:

http://truthontatelabianca.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=da355152e107bfba514382185ebc660e&

I think I first encountered that forum — and looked through its transcripts of the testimony of Melcher and of Terry Jakobson — more than a year ago — maybe two or more years ago. I might have been led to it via a link at a blog called "Official Tate-LaBianca Murders Blog" — but I don't really remember. In looking through the transcripts at that time, I had to ask myself the question that Crohnie's edit summary addresses: Are these valid? Are they, in other words, accurate transcripts of the trial testimony?

That certainly is the question. Consideration of it is aided, I think, by examination of the following linked items (which are among the numerous links that are presently part of the Wikipedia article):

1 – Tex Watson's autobiography — Will You Die for Me?, including several of its particular chapters (e.g., Chapter 11).

The material at those links is conspicuously "valid" — i.e., is what it is presented as — for it is part of what appears to be Watson's own website.

2 – Case Study of the Charles Manson Group Marriage Commune

This is less-conspicuously valid. It appears to be a layman's informally-presented transcript of an article written by David E. Smith and Alan J. Rose and published in 1970 in the Journal of the American Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry and Medicine. In his intro, the layman who has executed the transcription says he believes it is "the same article that was originally published in the Journal of Psychedelic Drugs." From this, we may guess that that layman has read the Ed Sanders book The Family, which includes (on page 40 of its 2002 edition) a reference to that original article; but the layman has included no citation number (which may be found here) and no link to, say, the Journal of Psychedelic Drugs (which is now the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, whose website happens to be here).

Even so, the transcript proper — i.e., the text — appears to have been fashioned carefully and in good faith; and the name of the journal in which the layman purports to have encountered the article does, indeed, match the name in the citation I have just linked.

In short: The transcript seems — to me, at least — valid for Wikipedia purposes. It would probably not be valid as an exhibit in evidence in a court of law — or even as a document included in, say, an appendix of a printed book (for which the original journal article would have to be consulted — and transcribed independently). For Wikipedia — in my estimation — it's good.

3 – Afternoon grand-jury testimony of Susan Atkins, Los Angeles, California, December 5, 1969

Again: This is a layman's transcript. It is at a website called mansonfamilytoday.info — not any sort of official website of the California courts. Again — it appears to have been prepared carefully and in good faith. Also: It is the second of two pages, the first of which presents the morning grand-jury testimony of Ms. Atkins. Significantly, the two transcripts appear to divide the two sessions — morning and afternoon — just the way Bugliosi and Gentry indicated they were divided — i.e., between discussions of the Tate murders and of the LaBianca murders. (See Helter Skelter, 1994 edition, pages 181-82.)

In short: The transcript — unofficial though it is — seems to me to be reasonably linked at Wikipedia.

4 – Transcript and synopsis of William Garretson comments in "The Last Days of Sharon Tate," The E! True Hollywood Story, July 25, 1999

This is extremely-valuable information. It indicates that Garretson eventually said that he had, indeed, seen and heard a portion of the Tate murders. As the Wikipedia article points out, this comports with Bugliosi and Gentry's statement that the L.A. police officer who gave Garretson a lie-detector test at the time of the murders thought Garretson's denial that he (Garretson) had heard any part of the murders was "muddy" (Helter Skelter, 1994 edition, page 37).

But again: This is not any sort of "official" transcript of the E! broadcast. It appears to be simply a transcript fashioned by the layman who runs the website at which it is posted — charliemanson.com. Its strength, once again, is that it appears to have been fashioned carefully and in good faith; it even reports that Garretson didn't explain, on the broadcast, why he had withheld his information from investigators (i.e., at the time of the murders).

This sort of analysis could be applied to several other of the links that are presently part of the Wikipedia article. As you see, I have simply given some indication of the bases on which I personally regard these links as valid (for Wikipedia). If there is any Wikipedia policy that bears on the validity of such "unofficial" transcripts and the like, another editor will kindly present it here, in response to my present remarks.

As for the link in question — namely, the Melcher-testimony transcript at "Truth on Tate-LaBianca": After Wikipedia editor Crohnie deleted the link to the Melcher transcript, I e-mailed "Cats," who runs "Truth on Tate-LaBianca." For the record: I do not know the identity of Cats. As far as I know, I have never met her. I contacted her simply by using the e-mail address that is posted at that forum. As far as I know, I've not communicated with her on any other occasion.

In an exchange of e-mails, Cats has informed me of the following:

— The trial testimony that is posted at the forum ("Truth on Tate-LaBianca") is in two different forms. The testimony she first posted — such as that of Terry Melcher and [http://truthontatelabianca.com/index.php?topic=1643.0 Gregg Jakobson] — was posted before she owned a scanner. Accordingly, Cats transcribed that testimony herself — from, I gather, the pertinent volumes of trial transcript, as prepared by the official reporters of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.

— Later-posted items — such as the testimony of [http://truthontatelabianca.com/index.php?topic=3151.0 Danny DeCarlo] and [http://truthontatelabianca.com/index.php?topic=4138.0 Juan Flynn] — were posted after Cats acquired a scanner and, accordingly, are scans of the pertinent volumes of official transcript. (I urge any interested Wikipedia editor to follow those links — to the DeCarlo and Flynn testimony — to see what is meant by this.)

— The volumes of official transcript are available from the Records Department of the courthouse. Cats has informed me that these records are "pricey" — and I believe it. She has apparently posted their contents online for the benefit of the public (rather the way dutiful Wikipedia editors conduct themselves).

Cats understands the problem that is presented, for Wikipedia purposes, by the Melcher transcript — which, as I say, is unscanned. She understands that the validity of the transcript is reasonably questioned. (She has emphasized this.) Although I have not asked her to go through the labor of scanning the Melcher testimony, I have asked her whether she would be interested in posting the following at the top of the Melcher-testimony transcript:

A scan of the cover and the index page of the volume that includes the Melcher testimony.

Cats — who would like to see the link to the Melcher testimony preserved at Wikipedia's "Charles Manson" article — has said she will do that as soon as she can. Any editor who follows the links, above, to the scanned DeCarlo and Flynn testimony will see (1) that each official volume's cover indicates the page numbers that the volume includes and (2) that each index identifies the number of the specific page on which the testimony of a particular witness commences. A scan of the pertinent cover and index page, in short, will help to validate the Melcher transcript that the once-scannerless Cats transcribed by hand.

I have told Cats that I am posting the present message, to see whether other Wikipedia editors think the posting of the scanned cover and index page at "Truth on Tate-LaBianca" will be enough to validate the link to the Melcher-testimony transcript. If so, the link can be reinstated as soon as Cats posts the scans.

Note: Cats has also informed me that the Susan Atkins grand-jury testimony — which, as I've indicated, is posted at mansonfamilytoday.info — is her transcript, which was first posted at "Truth on Tate-LaBianca." She has, in fact, shown me the e-mail in which the man who runs mansonfamilytoday.info requested permission to use her transcript.

Second note: Whenever I have said that a transcript — at any website — has been prepared "carefully," I have not necessarily meant "wholly without typographical errors."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw that removal and agreed with it, which is why I didn't address it. The problem with that website isn't, in this case, its reliability or lack of it as the case may be, but that it is a type of site that specifically is mentioned in WP:ELNO. Forums aren't permitted as external links, whether used as a main body reference or at the external links section and likely would have been removed quite soon by automatic bot had Chronie not caught it. So in short, no, even posting a scan at the forum wouldn't be permitted. One of the stumbling blocks that would keep this article from being promoted to WP:GA or WP:FA would be some of the sourcing sites. The Tex Watson website wouldn't fall under the policies for WP:SELFPUB because it is being used to source content about Watson himself and is free access to the book he wrote and was published, but much of the rest would have to resourced. Links to archives of the tripod site, mansonfamilytoday.info, 2violent.com, mansondirect, and charliemanson.com would all have to be resourced if a nomination was made now. Since I think we all mutually, if not silently, agreed not to pursue GA or FA, some of the sites you mention above do remain and perhaps rightfully so, since as you said, the content is too important to omit in consideration of a higher Wikipedia rating. If the scans of the testimony themselves were available independent of the forum, it would probably be acceptable under the circumstances that we accept these other sites. Weighing the accuracy of those sites is certainly a consideration, but in this case, it is the site itself that is the problem. My 2 cents worth. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your 2 cents worth — although I'd price it higher than that. The only thing I'll mention is that the Wikipedia page you linked provides a list of links "normally to be avoided" — which is not the same as prohibited. Yes, the said list includes "discussion forums/groups" (number 10 thereon); but I would think the reason such webpages are "normally to be avoided" is that their usual contents are — well — discussion, as opposed to things like the item in question here: a transcript of trial testimony. You know me, Wildhartlivie — I keep coming back to something I encountered somewhere, in Wikipedia's "mission statement" or some such thing: Wikipedia is designed to function as a hub for sources of information on the subjects its articles treat. This seems to me a perfect opportunity for Wikipedia to function that way: forty years of rumors, misstatements, and the like pushed aside by actual trial testimony — just sitting there, waiting to be linked. You know Wikipedia's policies much better than I do — but as you can see, I'm really going to bat for this one.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I know you go to bat for things and I respect that this could be important information. The trouble is, although it is called a guideline, Wikipedia is just too firm on forums and there are actually automated bots that will blankly remove forum links. In its present form, and on that particular venue, it won't be allowed to remain. And fundamentally, despite the fact that someone worked quite hard to transcribe the document, the venue is still a discussion forum. WP:RS#Statements of opinion is stronger about forums than WP:ELNO (emphasis not added): Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs (see: WP:BLP#Sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source). And WP:BLP#Sources is a hardline policy which essentially says the same thing, and Manson does fall under WP:BLP, which has more recently been cited in containing content on articles even for hardened criminals. I'm basing this on my observations from being part of FA and GA processes and working on a huge variety of articles and I know it won't be allowed. Like I said, if she can get the actual scans of the testimony on another type of site, that changes it completely. I think it would be considerably more helpful if the content could find an acceptable home to be used as sourcing and remain in the article than trying to undo or justify a site that just progressively has become more and more impossible to use. Just sayin'. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Everything you've said makes sense.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does all make sense. We are working on another site that would be home to said documents in question and other documents pertaining to the TLB and post TLB eras. I shall have the scans of the documents on this site as well. My question being, and no disrespect meant here at all, is that there are other assorted links on this page, which are treanscribed copies of testimony which seem to pass muster and be linked to. Why are certain transcriptions allowed and others have to be scans?

As stated by John, the original transcription of the Atkins Grand Jury is mine (beared out by the previously mentioned email), linked to a different site and this is an accepted link. Why is this accepted and not a document that would have to be scanned as well?

I am just trying to understand the rules that apply so that I may follow them. And as soon as the new site with only the documents in a non-forum layout is started and with the correct documentation, I shall post the link so that it can be seen and reviewed.

Thank you all for your time and input. --Catscradle77 (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Catscradle77

Actually, I was replying regarding John's comment that you had the scans and were going to try and post them somehow on the forum, not because they were transcriptions vs. scans. However, scans of the original documents would always be preferable over transcriptions, no matter where they were, since transcriptions are certainly subject to error. Regarding the other sites, note that I did address their acceptability if we decided to sacrifice the content to pursue a good article or featured article status for the article. Basically, after it was submitted for consideration of a GA review a couple years ago or so and the first objection by reviewers was its overall length, we all seemed to tacitly agree to not pursue that (plus some slightly heated arguments over what could or shouldn't be removed). I think it was the right choice, and thus, the links to sourcing that would pass GA or FA muster for other reasons does remain. If any of those have original scans rather than transcriptions, then that would be the preferred format to use in a link, even secondarily perhaps to the trascript. Does that answer your questions? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Birth name

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please change: Born as no name Maddox[7][8][9] Manson was born to unmarried, 16-year-old Kathleen Maddox in Cincinnati General Hospital, in Cincinnati, Ohio; no more than three weeks after his birth, he was Charles Milles Maddox.[7][10][11]

To:

Born to 16-year-old Kathleen Maddox in Cincinnati General Hospital, in Cincinnati, Ohio. There is some uncertanty over the details of his birth name, with rumours of recent years that he was originally named no name Maddox, but copies of what is believed to be his birth certificate have surfaced showing that it did originally read Charles Milles Maddox.

with a reference to http://www.mansondirect.com/birthcert.html

Hufggfg (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to make this change. The article does not state that a different name was originally on the birth certificate. The article explains this and a link to the birth certificate, which was not issued until 3 weeks after his birth, is already present. There is no uncertainty to his first recorded name. At birth, his name was "no name Maddox", he wasn't given a first name at the time he was born. Three weeks later, an official name was given with the registered birth certificate. There are no "rumours of recent years", this was what was discovered at the time of the murders in 1970 and sufficient references are present to support that. The article is not incorrect in regard to the name. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Last name Manson?

Adding to what editor Wildhartlivie has just said, I’ll mention that, at what is presently footnote 9, the Wikipedia article includes a link (that was working up until about an hour ago) to a reproduction of a newspaper article whose headline is "Mother Tells Life of Manson as Boy." This appears to be the Los Angeles Times article that Bugliosi and Gentry mention on page 419 of the 1994 edition of Helter Skelter. (For those of you with other editions: This is about three pages into the chapter headed "January 26 - March 17, 1971.") As reproduced at the link, the article does not say Los Angeles Times and does not bear a date; but it does say "Times" and does include, within its text, a reference to Manson’s guilty verdict on "Monday" — i.e., Monday, January 25, 1971.

The article, which is basically an interview with Manson’s mother, includes this:

"Charles was born out of wedlock," she admits, "but it wasn’t just any man. I wasn’t a prostitute, I’ve never been a prostitute. I was just 15 years old and a dumb kid.

"But my mother was a very strict woman, very religious, so when me and my sister got a few years on us, I guess we had a tendency to be a little wild, the way kids will.

"But I didn’t go around with men that way, and when Charles came along, that had happened twice in my life. And I was really in love with Colonel Scott. He was a lot older than me, 24, and he loved me, too."

Her mother sent her with her sister to Cincinnati, to have the baby away from Ashland [Kentucky], and while awaiting the baby, she accepted the marriage proposal of William Manson, so the baby would have a name.

The baby was born Nov. 11 [sic], 1934, and was listed on the birth certificate as "No Name Moddox [sic]," after his mother’s maiden name. But that was not out of indifference, Mrs. Manson says, but because she was awaiting the arrival of her own mother in Cincinnati.

"I figured I’d already hurt her pretty bad, so I wanted to let her name the baby, you see. So she named him after my father." A few weeks later, she had the birth certificate changed to Charles Milles Manson.

Her young husband had said he would try to accept the child, she recalls, but it didn’t work out. She left Manson, returned to her mother in Ashland and began divorce proceedings.

She hoped to marry Scott, she says, but her own mother, disapproving because her divorce from Manson wasn’t yet final, stymied that by informing Scott of the birth and her marriage. Scott, too furious to wait for the divorce, married another woman a few days later.

"All that stuff you read about Charles not knowing who his father was, that’s not so. Scott used to come and pick up Charles and take him home for weekends with his own child. He just loved him," she says.

Scott died in 1954 of cancer, Mrs. Manson says.

I have trouble making sense of that.

The newspaper article says "the birth certificate" said "No Name Moddox" — sic: "Moddox," with an "o," not Maddox, with an "a." This is odd — because Kathleen Maddox’s name is incorrectly listed as "Moddox" on the birth certificate that is dated December 3 — three weeks after the baby’s birth; but that is the certificate on which the baby’s name is given as "Charles Milles Maddox" (or maybe Charles Milles Moddox – with an "o" – the typeface being hard to read). Was Kathleen's name mistyped or misrecorded on two different birth certificates — the one that said "No Name" and the one that said "Charles Milles"? Or was the reporter confused? Or did the Times coincidentally make the same mistake that was made on the certificate of December 3?

And what birth certificate is the newspaper reporter referring to here? The article gives us the impression that Mrs. Manson is telling the reporter that the baby was originally called "No Name" — but the reporter says that this is on "the birth certificate." What birth certificate? Has the reporter seen it? Again: Does it happen to have the same misspelling — Moddox — that appears on the birth certificate of December 3? (As editor Wildhartlivie has pointed out, above, the Wikipedia article does not say that "No Name" appeared on a birth certificate.)

The newspaper article says that "a few weeks later" — meaning a few weeks after the baby’s birth? — Mrs. Manson "had the birth certificate changed to Charles Milles Manson."

She did? The birth certificate of December 3 suggests that "a few weeks" after the baby's birth, the name was changed to Charles Milles Maddox (or Moddox) — not Manson. Is there any birth certificate that says Charles Milles Manson?

The real question, in other words, doesn’t seem to be whether Manson was originally called "No Name Maddox." That seems — let's say — probable. The real question is: Is Manson’s last name Manson?

When — if ever — did Charles Manson acquire the last name of Manson? Is there any birth certificate with that name on it? If there is no such birth certificate — or legal filing of a change of name — can the boy have legally acquired the last name Manson simply if, say, his mother started calling him that? Considering that this confusion involved more than one state — Kentucky and Ohio, at least — I suppose there's also a question which state's law applies.

I’ve never seen this question raised (except, frankly, by me — here). Is Charles Manson’s name Charles Manson?

To repeat: I personally can’t quite figure out the newspaper account I’ve quoted above. In reading it, the main thing I wonder is this: Was Manson’s mother under pressure from her own mother to name somebody as the baby’s father. In the original record — whatever it was — where the baby was called "No Name" — was a father identified? Again — the newspaper article says this:

"... while awaiting the baby, she accepted the marriage proposal of William Manson, so the baby would have a name."

Why did William Manson propose marriage? One possibility, I suppose, is that he loved Kathleen Maddox and saw that she was pregnant by a man, Colonel Scott, who didn’t want to marry her — but we are not told that Colonel Scott didn’t want to marry her. In fact, we are told that, later, he did have an interest in marrying Kathleen.

The article says that William Manson "said he would try to accept the child, ... but it didn’t work out. [Kathleen] left Manson, returned to her mother in Ashland and began divorce proceedings."

The article continues:

She hoped to marry Scott, she says, but her own mother, disapproving because her divorce from Manson wasn’t yet final, stymied that by informing Scott of the birth and her marriage. Scott, too furious to wait for the divorce, married another woman a few days later.

The mother informed Scott of the birth? Had he not known Kathleen was pregnant? I don’t understand this. And what was he furious about?

A possibility that comes to mind is that Kathleen Maddox falsely gave William Manson the impression that the baby had to be his (i.e., that she’d had sexual intercourse with nobody but him) — but that, until her mother showed up and, maybe, gave her a prodding, she was hesitant to identify him falsely as the father on a legal document, i.e., the birth certificate. If that's what happened, William Manson might have left Kathleen upon somehow discovering that the child was not his.

Obviously, all of that is conjecture. I'm not saying that Kathleen Maddox lied to William Manson and falsified a birth certificate and then lied about the whole thing again, three-and-a-half decades later, to a newspaper reporter. I have no way of knowing — and I'm not trying to defame her. I’m just trying to make sense of a newspaper account that does not seem to me to be very clear. Again: The birth certificate of December 3 gives the baby’s name as Charles Milles Maddox (or Moddox) and identifies the father as William Manson.

I wonder whether anyone ever tried to track down William Manson, to get his side of the story. I don’t think I’ve come across a statement of any kind from him.

Again — the real question seems to be, not whether Charles Manson was once legally known as "No Name" – but whether Manson is his legal name.

It seems odd to me that that question has never been addressed. If Bugliosi and Gentry had any doubts whether Manson’s last name was actually Manson, they didn’t voice them — not expressly anyway. On pages 136 and 137 ("November 22-23, 1969") of the 1994 edition of Helter Skelter, they say these three things:

Charles Manson was born "no name Maddox" on November 12, 1934, in Cincinnati, Ohio, the illegitimate son of a sixteen-year-old girl named Kathleen Maddox.

[Kathleen Maddox] lived with a succession of men. One, a much older man named William Manson, whom she married, was around just long enough to provide a surname for the youth.

The identity of Charles Manson’s father was something of a mystery. In 1936 Kathleen filed a bastardy suit in Boyd County, Kentucky, against one "Colonel Scott," a resident of Ashland, Kentucky. On April 19, 1937, the court awarded her a judgment of $25, plus $5 a month for the support of "Charles Milles Manson."

So — the boy was "Charles Milles Manson" by April 19, 1937. What legal standing did that name have? I wouldn’t be surprised if Bugliosi and Gentry were wondering that, too — even though they don’t raise the question.

I'm sure there are persons that would think all of the above not terribly important; but I personally find it interesting that "Charles Manson" — one of the most notorious names in history — might not even be the actual name of the person who is called by it.

PS The incorrect birth date of November 11, which appears in the Times article, is addressed by Bugliosi and Gentry in a footnote to their mention of the correct date (November 12):

As with almost everything else written about Manson's early years, even his date of birth is usually given erroneously, although for an understandable reason. Unable to remember her child's birthday, the mother changed it to November 11, which was Armistice Day and an easier date to remember.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as we're supposing a bit, I'd have to point out that when I was born, which was more than a few years after Manson, the hospitals in Cincinnati (not where I was born, but where a cousin was born) did not issue birth certificates like the one on the link of the copy. The actual hospitals issued a ceremonial certificate that looks a lot like graduation diplomas - with fancy script and official seals. Those were usually given to the parents and a copy sent to the country registrar's office and content from those copies were transferred to the registrar forms. My guess is that the hospital misspelled the name Maddox as Moddox, and if you'll look closely at the copy on the web page, the name is spelled very clearly as Moddox on line 17, informant's name or signature. I'd venture a further guess and say that when the hospital filled out the original certificate, they entered (no name) and then before it was sent to the registrar had decided on the baby's name. But it appears that the original spelling mistake was made by the hospital. There is undoubtedly more than one reason why no first name was entered right away. Maybe she wasn't coherent enough to give one. Maybe she hadn't thought of names yet. Maybe she ... well, you get the picture. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes — maybe your guess, if I follow you, is right: There was simply one certificate, which originally said something like "no name" and which the hospital did not send to the registrar until a name had been chosen (and had been substituted, on the certificate, for "no name"). — As for my other question: I wonder whether it's simpler than I realized. Let's say that Kathleen Maddox and William Manson had not yet been married on December 3, when "Charles Milles Maddox" was entered on the birth certificate. I wonder whether the boy would have legally acquired the surname Manson as soon as Kathleen and William did marry (as they apparently did). In other words: If the mother of a child who has been born out of wedlock goes on to marry the man who is named as the father on the birth certificate, does the child automatically acquire the father's surname? Maybe it's that simple: Maybe marriage to the father legitimates the birth, so to speak. This might be very basic — but I really don't know anything about the subject.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You followed me correctly. For what it's worth, the birth certificate sequence I described is exactly what happened with my birth here in Indiana. I have a really fancy hospital issued birth certificate, and then one from the county recorder's office that is stamped "official". The dates of issuance are different. I also suspect that it was much easier in 1934 or 1935 to legitimatize a child's name, so I think your supposition is probably accurate. She said the father was Manson, and they must not have been married when Charlie was born since her name is given as "Moddox". All it probably would take is the marriage to make Charlie legitimate. I'd suspect that formal adoption or paternity wasn't the issue then that it is 75 years later. Now it takes DNA testing and formal court procedures. This could be the actual case that made fathers want to be certain, you think? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting — your two birth certificates. It reminds me of some remarks I've encountered re the questions about President Obama's place of birth. I haven't really looked at the details; but there seem to be persons who are saying, with respect to some birth certificate of his, "That's not the kind of birth certificate we mean."

Your hunch that, in the '30s, it was easier to square away illegitimacy sounds as if it could be right, too. The Manson case has many elements that seem never really to have been explored. This is one of them. Just about all, if not all, of the persons who could have shed real light on it are probably dead now; but still, it would be interesting to see how, say, a lawyer with knowledge of bastardy law — past and present — would assess the information in this Kathleen Maddox newspaper article and other material that does exist. I wonder, for example, whether the "no name" holding action that seems to have taken place was not unusual in cases in which unmarried teenage girls had been sent to give birth away from home.

It's odd that the newspaper article doesn't say anything about the whereabouts of William Manson. Kathleen Maddox indicates that Colonel Scott is dead — but nothing at all is said about William. Is he alive (at the time of the newspaper article)? Does Kathleen Maddox know whether he's alive? Does she have any idea where he is? Actually — I'd have to go back to read the article to be sure; but I don't think a word is said about any of that.

You already have some sense of the questions that are on my mind:

1 — Early on, when the baby was "no name," was a father identified? If so, was it William Manson?

2 — How was the naming of a father handled in those days? Did the girl simply say who she thought the father was?

3 — Did William Manson know he was going to be named, on the birth certificate, as the father?

4 — At any point after William and Kathleen were married, did William Manson request a paternity test? I keep wondering whether that's why he took off — and whether that's why Kathleen then pursued the bastardy suit against Colonel Scott: Had William Manson been under the impression that he was the father — and then come to know he wasn't?

Well — as I say, too bad these questions weren't pursued. I'd have been pretty-well satisfied even if the newspaper reporter had simply said something like, "I tried to get answers to these questions — but I hit dead ends." Of course, he might have had some sort of informal agreement with Kathleen Maddox not to touch on certain things.

It would be interesting to know, too, whether, as you wonder, the Manson case had some impact on paternity law. Manson certainly brought new meaning to the term "vicious bastard."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It could be, Obama is in the same age range as I am. The only one of your questions I could probably answer is the paternity one - paternity then wasn't something one could pursue as they can now. I'm not even sure that anything beyond blood type was widely known and I'm not sure how applicable the law would find them in the 1930s. I think about the only thing they could conclude from one would have been the lack of paternity, and only dependent on all the blood types concerned. Proving it wasn't so easy. I think it's more likely that Kathleen married Manson because she desperately wanted to secure a father for dear little Charlie and Manson was the gullible available party. Then when that marriage failed, Colonel Scott came through. It doesn't say how long he paid, but she did win a support judgment, so she convinced someone. Interesting questions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I hadn't realized the paternity blood-tests mentioned in old movies were basically for "disproving"; but come to think of it, I suppose that that's about the only thing they could be used for. Well, anyway — that's really what I was getting at. I was wondering whether William Manson had had intercourse with Kathleen and had been led to believe, by her, that nobody else had. After he and she got married, he might somehow have learned he wasn't necessarily the only one who'd been involved with her; and then he might have insisted on a blood test that revealed he couldn't be the father he'd assumed he was. At that point, he might have taken off. If Kathleen herself had not been sure which of the two men — Colonel Scott or William — was the father (and if she had selected William as the easier target), the blood test that eliminated William would, in turn, have been ammo for pursuing the judgment against Colonel Scott. Well, I'd better say it again: I'm conjecturing in a way that is maybe unfair to Kathleen Maddox.

Not sure why I keep returning to these questions that are probably now far from illuminable. It's just a strange story — when you consider how everything played out. It doesn't seem to have left Charles Manson's mind either. From his 1992 parole hearing:

Presiding Board Commissioner Koenig: I have here under your personal factors, Mr. Manson, that you were born on — in 1934 in Cincinnati, Ohio. Your mother was Kathy Maddox, who never — and you never saw your natural father.

Inmate Manson: That's not true.

Koenig: It's not true?

Manson: No. My father's name was William Manson.

Koenig: William?

Manson: Yes

At his 1997 parole hearing, he gives his name as follows: Charles Milles Scott Manson.

I should have given you the whole Bugliosi and Gentry quote re the judgment against Scott. He seems to have come through with little, if any, cash: "Though it was an 'agreed judgment,' Colonel Scott apparently didn't honor it, for as late as 1940 Kathleen was attempting to file an attachment on his wages. Most accounts state that Colonel Scott died in 1954; though this has never been officially verified, Manson himself apparently believed it."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

William Manson must have believed he could be the father or surely he wouldn't have accepted it to start. I doubt that they had paternity tests done, I don't think it was something that could voluntarily be done then. It's only been in later years that it has become routine. I think in pre-1940, a court would probably have to order it, though I'm not sure of the specific laws by state. It's more likely she finally told him he wasn't the father and he took her at her word and left, leaving her to pursue child support from Colonel Scott. But then, we'll never know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. What a story. As you say — we'll never know.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Respect

So — Wikipedia gets some respect. From paragraph two of an August 11 Manson-fortieth-anniversary article in The Daily Telegraph (UK):

First, here’s a recap of the Manson story. For more detail I direct readers to the book by prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, Helter Skelter (1974), and the thorough Wikipedia articles.

Emphasis added.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wooo!!! Having had a look at all the related articles, I will credit us and (mostly) Rossrs for the very fine featured article he wrote on Sharon Tate, which goes somewhere different than this article in terms of the victim, the impact and... respectful... attention give to her as an individual. I'm thrilled. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well — I suppose many editors have contributed to the various articles, if you don't mind my saying so; but I know our friend BassPlyr23 has contributed much to this particular article, re Manson himself. Anyway — I'm glad you're so pleased.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I was using "us" collectively, and mostly in reference to this particular article and then the Tate article. The rest of the individual biographies aren't nearly up to the quality of this one and Tate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A.T.W.A. (Air, Trees, Water, Animals)

Was it founded by Charles Manson? Is it worth mentioning in article? 148.81.137.4 (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't founded by Manson, it was established by George Stimson and Sandra Good, after her release from prison for making death threats. It is mentioned in the "Later events" section. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

WTF

Can anyone explain what the hell happened here? Manson was in the middle of a question or something when he just starts spouting jibberish. Jedibob5 (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What? You don't speak Charlie? That's what he does. Whether it's because he truly is mad, or prefers appearing to be mad, it works for him. Personally, I think he behaves that way because he thinks that what we expect. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying pulled crap like this all of the time? This guy is really f*cked up... Jedibob5 (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying Charlie acted like this quite often. Whether it was an act to avoid being honest and or was real is anyone's guess. As I said, I think this is his act. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Have either of you ever heard the Summer of Hate 67 Sessions by Manson? It is a pre-trial recording and he seems quite sane speaking and singing there. I think it would be worth posting some information on this article on possible alternate theories as well; such as that the murders were NOT formerly envisioned by Manson, or that the helter Skelter theory is not valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.160.157 (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've not heard of it, is there a source for that? I'm not following the rest of what you said. "The murders were NOT formerly envisioned by Manson"? Not sure what you're saying. But there really is no room in this article to explore conspiracy theories or things posited without credible reliable sources. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There are actual reliable sources claiming the Helter Skelter theory was made up by the prosecutors. Charles Manson claims it himself as do others who followed the trial. Alas, despite it being beneficial that this side of it be added, I do not feel like being the one to take on the task. Five- (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

well, yes, Charlie would claim that. He also claims he didn't know the others were going to kill anyone and denies having ever suggested anything remotely like that. If he's been consistent about anything, it's been protesting his innocence. Regarding other sources, I'd certainly have to see them to know if they are valid in any way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, he's not 'crazy'. If you would watch the full interview, or if you read anything about Charles manson, you would know he is mocking the inteviewer. --79.64.234.155 (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

ATWA and ecological terrorism

I removed two categories from the article, which were returned. Those categories are Eco-terrorism and Radical environmentalism. I understand the rationale that might make someone think these categories belong on this article, but factually, Manson was not involved in eco-terrorism or radical environmentalism. He talked around ATWA, but the website/mini-movement surrounding it was Sandra Good and George Stimson, not Manson. That is a bit like adding murder categories to Good or Fromme's articles because people they were associated with committed murder. What others have done with the concept of ATWA is something else, but beyond that, we don't add categories to articles when the content of the article does not support them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I am mistaken regarding his promotion of ATWA. The redirect of "Manson Family" to this article and its inclusion of family activities made (makes) it seem appropriate. I certainly think it would be considered appropriate for "Manson Family". The fact that it's redirected here admittedly jumbles up the appropriateness though, if as you say Manson personally wasn't central to ATWA and related (Fromme, etc.) activities. Thanks for responding. Mdlawmba (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Mostly, ATWA was created around specific aspects of some of the things Manson talked about, and expanded upon. He's not a central figure in it, though, it came about "formally", long after Manson was in prison. I don't believe that Fromme and Good has a lot of direct contact with any of the Family after they were imprisoned, so it's sort of a tangential thing. The categories would certainly be appropriate at Sandra Good and the website etc, came about after Good was released from prison. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Boy Scout?

I have heard at various times that Charles Manson was a boy scout, even that he earned the Eagle Scout award at one point. Any truth to those stories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.59.87 (talk • contribs)

I can't find anything reliable online that could substantiate this claim, just rumors. If a reliable source can be found, then it could be included, but not until then. – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 03:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

He was a bit too busy at the reformatory to make Eagle Scout. I've never heard this rumor. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This link, number 6, is about the only thing that I could find. I haven't read Helter Skelter myself, but people I have asked have said that the book does not mention this at all. – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really wasn't being facetious. Manson wasn't a Boy Scout or ever achieved Eagle Scout. If that had been the case, it would have certainly been included in this article and would be something that everyone would have heard about over and over through the years - "Boy Scout/Eagle Scout becomes hippie cult leader" - much like you will hear references to Tex Watson as a high school football star, Leslie Van Houten as a homecoming princess, or... Susan Atkins as a topless dancer. Manson didn't do any of those things. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Burglarized?

Sorry to be pedantic, but the noun "burglar" comes from the verb "to burgle", therefore the word you mean is "burgled". There is no such word as "burglarize" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.51.213 (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is such a word as burglarize [5], but there wasn't foundation to change from burgled to burglarize based on misuse of the word. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

However, this article should be using American English, which uses burglarized rather than burgled. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to see a source that supports that the use of the word "burgled" is not American English. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Burglarize is preferred in American English and burgle is preferred in British English. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] Rreagan007 (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The first reference says quite clearly "but you may use whichever you prefer". That book is not what I would call a definitive source. The two sources to MacMillan dictionary, which are in fact the same source, are for the words "burglarize" and "burgle". "This is the American English definition of burgle: to burglarize a building." The American English definition. It does not state in any way that the word "burgle" is a British-use word. The Wiktionary entries state that "burgle" is British but it gives no supporting references. I do not see on Wiktionary any support for U.S. vs. British and we do not self-reference to other Wikimedia sites. This does not support your contention. I have looked at the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, Dictionary.com, thefreedictionary.com, and none of them designate "burgle" as a British word vs. burglarize as American. This is not something covered by WP:ENGVAR. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The MacaMillan dictionary entry for burgle clearly says "British", but here are a couple more. [11], [12], [13]. The first one states that "in AmE, burgle is usually facetious or jocular...In American judicial opinions, burgarize appears about 30 times as frequently as burgle." The other 2 show that Harper Collins believes there is a preference in American English for the -ize ending. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A book that explores the legalese use isn't pertinent here - and the reference in that book addresses something in 1978. None of these sources supports the WP:ENGVAR argument you're using. None of these state that there is proper grammatical acceptance of one use over another in the way that is covered by WP:ENGVAR, which covers the use of proper spelling/grammar uses in British vs. American words. Whether it is 30 times as often or 50 times as often, that it is used in the United States is the definitive argument. Since it is, it is properly used in this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you there. Burglarize is by far the predominant usage in American English and burgle is an obscure usage, as the sources I have provided demonstrate. Per WP:ENGVAR, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation....This avoids articles being written in a variety that is inappropriate for the great majority of its readers." The vast majority of American readers will find the use of burgle to be very strange, as I did when I first read it. Burglarize is the appropriate form to use here. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

don't know how to communicate with wikipedia. figured i'd try here. do people think it would be relevant to mention an observation i made: his name manson, like peterson and johnson and so on, is a combined phrase. peterson was once called son of peter and johnson, son of john. so manson would be son of man, which might have contributed to his thinking of himself as the second coming of christ (Jperkins69 (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

No, it's not notable, Manson used it as a gimmick sometimes to convince his followers that he had a celestial pipeline, but there's nothing to support that he actually believed he was the Second Coming. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Although editor Wildhartlivie is probably right that the matter need not be included in the Wikipedia article, I would like to congratulate editor Jperkins69 for apparently arriving, on his own, at an observation that is borne out in the record of the case.

The following (which appeared on this talk-page in September 2007) is from Bugliosi and Gentry's Helter Skelter (page 235 of the 1994 "25th Anniversary [of the murders] Edition"):

I [prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi] was curious about something. Up until his arrest in Mendocino County on July 28, 1967 [more than two years before the Tate-LaBianca murders], Charlie had always used his real name, Charles Milles Manson. On that occasion, however, and thereafter, he called himself Charles Willis Manson. Had Manson ever said anything about his name? I asked. Crockett and Poston both told me that they had heard Manson say, very slowly, that his name was "Charles' [sic] Will is Man's Son," meaning that his will was that of the Son of Man.

Although Susan Atkins had emphasized Charlie's surname in talking to Virginia Graham, I hadn't really thought, until now, how powerful that name was. Man Son. It was tailor-made for the Infinite Being role he was now seeking to portray.

Again, editor Jperkins69: Nice use of the brain you were born with.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

wow. i was wondering if it had ever been brought up before. that's why i wiki'd it. that's cool to know. not to worried if it's not worthy of being in the article but it's cool that Bugliosi thought of it. i figured, surely, it had been addressed somewhere by now. thanks john.

You're welcome. I thought you'd get a kick out of the information.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

re: Cultural reverberation

Small suggested addition - amongst performers who have taken their names from the Manson Family could be added Kasabian.(Available light (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

Done. Great suggestion.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Parole & Children

There is a section which states "Of those convicted of Manson-ordered murders, Grogan would become, in 1985, the first—and, as of 2009[update], the only—to be paroled.[143]"

Should be added that Lynette is out as well...possibly in the section that discusses her time in jail and crimes, since she wasn't directly convicted of the manson-ordered murders... Might also mention that Susan has now passed away due to terminal brain cancer.

And there are a few people out there claiming to be his children. I was hoping to find out more about them on here, maybe that should be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.140.118 (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I added that Fromme had been paroled, though it does not invalidate the statement regarding those convicted of murders. I thought the Atkins death had been added, but apparently not. It has been. There are probably a lot of people out there who claim to be Manson's son, but what we have regarding his legitimate children is already in the article. Their names and whereabouts are not known and to my knowledge, nothing credible or reliable has been published about that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Should be added that there is another putative child of Manson's, whom he has communicated with and acknowledged, in the press of 11/26/09 (Sun, Daily Mail, etc.)and this seems to be reliable. Pythoness Mar (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Swastika clarification

At 18:18, 30 October 2009, editor BassPlyr23 noted (in the article) that the recent official photograph of the imprisoned Manson revealed Manson's forehead swastika still in place. I personally do think that that was worth adding to the article — because comments on this talk page have suggested that many persons come to Wikipedia precisely to find out about the swastika. My fellow editors, we know we've had no real luck determining when the swastika first went onto Manson's forehead — or what, if anything, it means to Manson. Even so, I think it's time we tried to put some light on the subject. At 21:01 and 21:10, 30 October, I made two revisions to try to do that. In the first revision, I noted that the swastika was apparent at least as early as the Snyder interview. I don't have a written source for that: I've simply watched the video.

In the second revision, I eliminated the article's passing indication that Manson's trial X was "later changed into a swastika." That left the reader with the impression that the X became a swastika before the trial's conclusion. That might not be true — and, in fact, as far as I know, it isn't true. I replaced that with a statement that the X "eventually" became a swastika — and I directed the reader to the article's "Remaining in view" section, where I'd remarked on the Snyder interview.

I supported the Snyder statement with a YouTube link to a clip of the Snyder interview. Wildhartlivie: I know you're going to be bothered by that — because of the copyright question. If you think the link should be eliminated, eliminate it. My own view is that the link is provided simply to document what is now part of history: Manson had the swastika by the time of the Snyder interview. That would seem to be "fair use." If the clip of the Snyder interview shouldn't be at YouTube in the first place — well, that's the concern of whoever holds the Snyder copyright.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not bothered by the additions, but yes, I am bothered, greatly, by linking to a clip from a copyrighted program. While you're right, that the post on YouTube is the concern of the copyright holder - and YouTube - Wikipedia takes a fairly firm stance on linking to copyright violations.There are sources out there for the interview and fair use doesn't cover using violations of copyright law. I will attempt to find a usable citation to the Snyder interview. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything you've said is valid. I myself did a quick bit of Googling, in an effort to find some written reference to the swastika in the Snyder interview — but I didn't come up with anything.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, on page 499 of Bugliosi's afterword, in the 1994 edition of Helter Skelter, there's a remark that Manson appeared at his then-last parole hearing — of 1992 — with "the defiant swastika still very visible on his forehead." The use of the word "still" suggests that Bugliosi had already made a reference to the swastika — but I haven't spotted an earlier reference to it, either in the afterword or in the epilogue, "A Shared Madness," that precedes it (and that dates, I think, to the book's original edition, of 1974).JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to start looking through the book. But keep in mind that just because the word "still" is mentioned doesn't definitely mean it is in there elsewhere. I found an obituary for Tom Snyder at the New York Times that includes a photo and the swastika is fairly apparent. [14] Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I say substitute the New York Times link for the YouTube link, if you don't mind doing it. As I've just learned, the 1988 Evergreen edition of Manson in His Own Words has a photo (between pages 108 and 109) that is captioned "Manson, about 1984, with the swastika he cut on his forehead visible" — but that's three years after the Snyder interview. The New York Times link does the trick.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay — I felt a little lazy asking you to make the subsitution, especially after you'd done the work of tracking down the link. I've made the substitution myself. If you don't think the wording's right, just put it the way you think it should be.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I finished watching a tv show and it was all done. I'll update the link to use the cite web template. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Great.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Col Scott

I reverted an addition to the early life section regarding content in the Bugliosi book about the racial heritage of Manson's named father, Col Scott. Later research disproved this much earlier evidence/supposition, although assembling the support from acceptable sources has been a bit difficult. See the mentions here on charliemanson.com and the passage in Helter Skelter is here on pages 617-618. Darwin Scott was definitely white and was definitely Col Scott's brother. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, correct? Judging someone visually does not put the finally word on nor in any way officially verifies their racial background, in my opinion that is perhaps the biggest lesson in US race relations to date.Darwin was not Manson's father and there are no cites or information above that disprove my cites from one of the most official Manson history texts which is Helter Skelter. What you've provided is a photo of Scott's brother and passage from Helter Skelter stating that Darwin Scott was murdered. There is no other proof I've yet seen to discount an official institutional record which Bugliosi cites in which non-white ancestry was mentioned several times. Just because Darwin looks white to the "majority" does not mean there is no non-white ancestry, especially in the southern united states. As you may already know, in parts of the South, one 32nd and even less black ancestry is still considered legally African American or 'colored' as many older birth records state. At one point in I believe ten states it was one drop. Verified information like this usually only becomes "hearsay" or "disproved" when the person is an icon to white supremacists (as Manson is) or when the "public thinks he looks white", but public opinion is not the basis for inclusion or exclusion as you know, verifiable information is. Its important information because Bugliosi stated that he still wonders if it were true and that it did not matter ultimately if there was ancestry or not but that if Manson believed there was. And that it could have created inner turmoil, self loathing and disgust about blacks which he obviously has displayed. No one has yet to produce Colonel Scott's birth certificate (just as J. Edgar Hoover's birth records have mysteriously vanished) or a photo either. Even if they do, this information was committed to SEVERAL institutional records and is not hearsay. It's clearly verified via Bugliosi. Please leave it the article. It is "new" information to many people out there who have not followed the Manson saga as closely as you or I. Thanks.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And at what point did I say "he doesn't look 'colored'? But thanks for your lecture on what qualifies as African American in the United States, I'll be sure and pass that information along to my niece, so she can finally be clear about ancestry, although I believe you are misinformed. There are no longer such distinctions, nor the need for it. I posted two quick places where the Scott connection could be supported. Thanks for repeating the quote on my userpage, although it is not valid here as an argument. Thanks, also, for your pop psychology analysis of Manson's state of mind, I'll be sure and add that to my accreditation. I did not say it was hearsay, I said it was disproven. Including supposition included in 60 year old case notes is not confirmation and I dare say, based on my actual experience in analyzing such historical case notes, that they often were full of conjecture and gossip. You know, if you watch this page so closely, have at it. I'm tired of fighting off the vandals and the biased editors who stick in anything in order to have edited the article. The content is trivial, the formatting is crap, and presentation is poor. I believe I'm going to remove this page, finally, from my watchlist. Ah, and one more thing - thanks for the condescension. It's an experience of which I never tire. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The statements placed in the article by editor Catherine Huebscher accurately reflect what is stated in Helter Skelter. They are well-worded and well-footnoted, and the information is not trivial.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'm retired from the article. Work out the cite template formatting and context folks. Adios. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yikes — I don't even know what cite template formatting is. I hope you'll reconsider.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't play the race card via your niece, it makes no sense.

"Including supposition included in 60 year old case notes is not confirmation and I dare say, based on my actual experience in analyzing such historical case notes, that they often were full of conjecture and gossip..."

That is your experience and your opinion, not Bugliosi's and is conjecture in and of itself. How has it EVER been disproved that the case notes are incorrect? Where and when?

"There are no longer such distinctions, nor the need for it."

Perhaps and hopefully for those doing the new DNA testing ala Skip Gates, but we are talking about Manson who was a virulent racist who hated and feared blacks so why leave it out of the article if it is referenced? You wrote Darwin Scott was "definitely white" and based Col Scott's ancestry on an article almost as old as the Manson case files themselves. So much is lost in translation when one debates via the web, so sincerely no condescending was intended. I am a bit surprised you would have a quote from Manson, a sexist and racist killer on your user page to welcome people (which is of course your right) and not at least have included Bugliosi's provocative passages about Manson possibly being part black for speculation, as John Bonaccorsi and I have. Seeing as every other well known public figure, especially multi-racial people, have their ancestry divulged and sifted through. Why not Manson if it is properly referenced?Catherine Huebscher (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Children

I'm sure there are lots of "illegitimate" manson kids running around, but.... Should Matthew Roberts be mentioned as a child? It seems as if he's the son of Manson and has the story/mother to back the claim up (plus the looks). (Charlesblack (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

State of this article

This article is very poorly written. It's filled with improperly used quotation marks, awkward wording, sentences written in the passive voice and others that start with lengthy dependent clauses.

For reasons I don't fully understand, another editor removed the copy edit tag and removed several edits I made that were clearly supported by citations. I have replaced the tag. Please don't remove it until there is a consensus. I am Zeus, king of the gods (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am the editor who removed the copy-edit tag — and then revised several awkwardly-worded sentences in the article's first section ("Early life"). Please state which of your "clearly supported" edits I removed. As I recall, I removed a caption in which you had falsely indicated — without any supposed support — that the photograph at the article's head was taken on Manson's conviction date. I also reverted the opening sentence, in which you had introduced the unnecessary adjective murderous — misspelled. The article's current opening paragraph, as revised by you, indicates that the Tate-LaBianca murders took place on August 8 and 9, 1969, though Rosemary and Leno LaBianca did not arrive at their home, where they were murdered, until after 1:00 am on August 10. (See the opening paragraphs of the chapter headed "Sunday, August 10, 1969," near the head of Bugliosi and Gentry's Helter Skelter.) You have turned a once-coherent introduction into wiki-junk. Who, for instance, are "the Polanskis," who are now mentioned without any prior reference to them in the second paragraph's opening sentence? I could raise several other questions.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To mention another of your improvements: The introduction formerly stated that Manson "was found guilty of conspiracy to commit the Tate-LaBianca murders, carried out by members of [the Manson Family] at his instruction. He was convicted of the murders themselves through the joint-responsibility rule, which makes each member of a conspiracy guilty of crimes his fellow conspirators commit in furtherance of the conspiracy's object." As revised by you — at 20:48, 20:59, and 23:10, 1 January 2010 — the article now meaninglessly states the following:

Manson was found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder through the joint-responsibility law, which makes each member of a conspiracy guilty of crimes his fellow conspirators commit in furtherance of the conspiracy's object.

Huh? He wasn't found guilty of conspiracy through the joint-responsibility rule (not "law"). He was found guilty of conspiracy via evidence that he ordered and orchestrated the murders. Through the joint-responsibility rule — which is part of the law of conspiracy — he was convicted, in turn, of the murders themselves, in which he had not participated. In short, the article's introduction — as revised by you — now contains no statement that Manson was convicted of the Tate-LaBianca murders. To the extent that your sentence is intelligible, it indicates, inanely, that Manson was convicted of conspiracy through the law of conspiracy.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

From prosecutor Bugliosi's summation — for your edification:

Although the evidence at this trial shows that Charles Manson was the leader of the conspiracy to commit these murders, there is no evidence that he actually personally killed any of the seven victims in this case. However, the joint responsibility rule of conspiracy makes him guilty of all seven murders.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever your issues with this particular editor are, JohnBonaccorsi, the tag should remain and needs to be there. Your (at least recent) edit history seems to focus "unduly" on this article, and, as I'm sure you're aware, no editor can truly "own" an article as theirs alone. Please don't remove tags that encourage other editors from improving articles. Thank you! Doc9871 (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Kindly limit yourself to comments about the article's contents — as I have limited my own comments above.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm telling you not to remove tags; and yes, you're right, maybe I diverged from the article's contents in my comment. However, I can comment anywhere I want at any time, on any WP page, and no one has to "kindly" or otherwise tell me about this policy... Doc9871 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that you're free to remark here personally and unfavorably on my particular interests at Wikipedia, I'd say you're probably mistaken — and probably in violation of Wikipedia policy; so be grateful I've asked you kindly.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite used to this rationale, for sure <eyeroll>. I did not directly accuse you of any impropriety, so I don't think it's fair to continue along that line. I admitted that I may have gotten off the subject, meaning I wasn't trying to insult you as an editor. I'm sorry for any statement I made that may have been construed as a personal attack against you, and I assure you that my interests lie with improving WP and not scrutinizing particular editors. Now, are we going to move onwards and upwards? Doc9871 (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My statement stands — and I have little interest in your eyeroll. As for moving onwards and upwards — you'll find, if you'll consult the article's edit history, that I was in the process of doing that when I was forced to deal with your distraction. I'm still waiting for you to make a specific comment about the article's contents. I note, for instance, that you have not remarked on any of the points I raised above. Your "interest in improving WP" apparently does not extend to that.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Forced to deal with your distraction". Choice words. Is this how you view my contribution to this WP article here? A "distraction"? 'Nuff said... Doc9871 (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Inasmuch as my first comment to you had to do with your remark about my personal interests at Wikipedia, it's obvious what I meant by "distraction" — so spare me your victim's pose. I won't be exchanging any more remarks with you unless you make specific points about the article's contents.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, just trust me on this one, I am no victim! I have no interest arguing with those who won't benefit from it, either (not you specifically, just people in general). This should make for some really fun "play dates" in the future, no? (not you specifically, just people in general) I'll comb through this article at my convenience... (not this article specifically, just articles in general). Good night! (not this particular night, just nights in general) ;P Doc9871 (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, for what it's worth - you are doing a good job of copyediting the article - just not a good job of dealing with other editors who have an interest here... Doc9871 (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of internal link for 2009 image of Manson

Two editors have recently removed an interal link I created in the info box that leads to a 2009 pic of Manson displayed in the subsection titled "Recent developments", located several paragraphs down in the article. It reads as follows:

Click here for an image of Manson at age 74, taken in early 2009.

The link is right under Manson's 1969 pic displayed in the info box.

California prison officials released the 2009 pic which was subsequently placed on the CNN website. The first editor, user:John, removed it because he found it "a bit yuck," whatever that means. The second editor, user:McSly, removed it because he believed the information was dubious and unsourced. This of course isn't true. The reference to the CNN story is currently citation number 174 (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/19/california.manson.photo/index.html). It's been there some time, long before these two editors removed my internal link.

I have replaced the link twice now. Please keep it there. I am Zeus, king of the gods (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I put in the image it links to, and I was shocked that Manson at 74 wasn't already in the article. Mug shots are perfectly acceptable on WP, esp. of convicted criminals (where there is no WP:UNDUE). No reason to keep deleting Zeus' contribution to the article... Doc9871 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the link must be changed from Charles Manson#Recent Developments to Charles Manson#Recent developments (notice capitalization), otherwise it won't work with Opera. 80.59.28.253 (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly acceptable to me! Zeus? Doc9871 (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Cite tags in lead

Why are there citation needed tags in the lead section of this article? There is no need for citations in the lead when the content is covered in the main body of the article. And for the record, there is no precedent for including a link to a photograph contained in the same article. That is completely unnecessary and redundant to the image itself being in the article. It is messy in appearance. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Heehee! The citation tags are needed in the article intro because: the intro really sucks powerfully, being extraordinarily too long, and mentioning Guns 'n' Roses, among other reasons. I agree with the reversion of the image link, in hindsight, esp. as there is no precedent for it. There wasn't an image of Manson at 74 here before that, and I suspect Zeus got excited that there finally was one, at long last... Doc9871 (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says the lead should summarize the entire article and should be 3 or 4 paragraphs long, depending on the size of the article. That would be why the Beatles was mentioned, since a substantial part of the article addresses Manson's influence on pop culture (not as trivia, but real influence. I don't especially think the lead sucked at all. It was one of the things that wasn't faulted when the article started its FA review. No one faulted how it was summarized, only the length of the article, for which we withdrew it. And looking back, I don't see a mention of Guns 'n' Roses in the lead before so much controversy started (here), or before the number of inane paragraphs were added to the lead. I see no good reason for this article to have been expanded by nearly 7000kb of text. Where it wasn't clear that the article supported the lead contents, there were cites. But I'm seeing citation tags where the article clearly supports the lead content. I think some editors have been overly-harsh about this article, which multiple editors wanted to submit it for good or featured article status. It distresses me greatly to see how it is being ripped apart. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead should be "no more than four paragraphs long"; and that's really being generous. "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited." If you don't think my challenge is notable, how about any truly unreasonable editor further down the line, who has every WP right to challenge it? Don't listen to me - throw caution to the wind. When you get the "nutbags" complaining, don't say I didn't tell you so, because they have every right to complain... Doc9871 (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you'll find very few featured articles, which are the standard to which all articles should aspire, that have less than four paragraphs in the lead. I don't know who it was that added 7000kb of content to this article, but I know it wasn't myself or John Bonaccorsi. The lead most certainly did conform to verifiability until it was massively attacked in December and the lead made into about 7 paragraphs. I'm questioning why all of this happened. I'm seeing a lot of unnecessary content and unnecessary expansion from what it was here. I suggest all of that be undone and it taken back to where it was before the wordiness gods got ahold of it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to say there were eight intro paragraphs when you entered that... Hell, clean house! I thought this intro was the very backbone of the recent edits... Doc9871 (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's what John has been trying to work on, but I suspect his heart isn't in it. The intro from early on was quite good and covered important aspects of the article without sounding amateur-hour. What happened to it in the meanwhile is mostly where I see your complaints lay (and where mine lay as well). This happens to be one of those articles where new editors like to charge right in and make unhelpful edits. Going back to where it was is a good thing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree - just wiped out one part of the"new" intro. Let's continue, please :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, the intro's reference to Guns N' Roses and Marilyn Manson was inserted a long time ago, to replace "several musicians" — or some such phrase that an editor had disparaged as vague. ("Weasel words," I think he said, in Wikipedia shorthand.) I personally have had no part in the intro's very-recent changes, all of which, as I indicated in "State of this article" above, were, to my mind, junk. I'm glad to see editor Wildhartlivie has restored the intro in its previous form.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I recall the "what musicians" question. The Guns 'n' Roses recording of Manson's work stirred up the pot quite a bit. One of the additions to the lead included a paragraph that discussed Paul McCartney's comments about the song Helter Skelter and the fact that it mentions a slide and doesn't mention apocalyptic race wars. Well, duh. Totally unrelated content to the article. Manson had nothing to do with the slide mentioned. Plus it was sourced to references that wouldn't pass WP:RS muster. Just sayin'. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to the new photo of Manson

This link keeps being added but I see no reason for it. If the readers are interested in Manson they will see the updated photo later in the article. There is no reason to link to the new photo under the old photo. It doesn't make any sense plus it looks horrible and unencyclopedic. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

May two photographs be placed at the article's head? For some time, it seems, there has been much editorial concern whether the introductory image of Manson will be recent or vintage. Why not both? Manson 1969, Manson 2009.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As I noted in the edit summary when I removed the link, there is no precedent for using a redirect link to another photo in the article. It's redundant and totally unnecessary. As for two images in the infobox area, there really isn't a way to link it and it is available on the page. Articles don't have two photos unless they are about two people. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Commutation?

At 08:25, 6 January, an editor changed the intro's wording to indicate that Manson's death sentence had been "commuted" to life in prison. The verb the editor replaced was "reduced."

"Reduced" is better, I think. In the first place, it's the verb Bugliosi and Gentry use in the epilogue of Helter Skelter:

The sentences of the 107 persons awaiting execution in California were automatically reduced to life imprisonment.

More importantly, Manson's death sentence was eliminated by action of a court, not the governor of California. Maybe any criminal-penalty reduction — whether it be the act of a court or an executive — may properly be called a commutation, but I think the Wikipedia article should stick with "reduced," to be sure.

Another point to keep in mind is that it's not clear that Manson's penalty was really "changed." The California Supreme Court decided that the death penalty Manson and many others had been given was not in accord with the California Constitution. The court said, in a way, that Manson's death penalty was a nullity ab initio (i.e., from the beginning); so again, "commutation" might not be the right word.

At the moment, I won't revert the edit. I'll wait to see whether any comments are posted here.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Who was it that reduced the sentence? According to the article on commutation of sentence, commutations of state charges are handled by the governor's office. If the California governor ordered the reduction in state death sentences, then the use of the term is correct. I think who instituted the life sentence is key here, although grammatically, the sentence sounds good, if it fits. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the reduction was handled entirely by courts — which might be why Bugliosi and Gentry used the verb "reduced," not "commuted." You'll recall that the California Supreme Court decision that neutralized the death penalty included the following (which is already part of the Wikipedia article):

[A]ny prisoner now under a sentence of death ... may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the superior court inviting that court to modify its judgment to provide for the appropriate alternative punishment of life imprisonment or life imprisonment without possibility of parole specified by statute for the crime for which he was sentenced to death.

That, as I've said, is one reason why I think "reduced" is the safer — and thus better — choice.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What else?

What else has been added in the last month or so that needs to be discussed here? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes for discussion

• In the Childhood section, wording has been changed from "According to Manson, his mother, alleged to be an alcoholic, once sold him for a pitcher of beer to a childless waitress, from whom his uncle retrieved him some days later" to a flat statement: "Manson's mother was a heavy drinker. According to a family member, she once sold her son for a pitcher of beer to a childless waitress, from whom his uncle retrieved him some days later." Does the source support a flat declaration of alcoholism/heavy drinking and does the source support the story being told by "a family member and not Manson?
• What is the rationale for changing "He would one day characterize her physical embrace of him on the day she returned from prison as his sole happy childhood memory." to the poor grammar of "Manson himself later characterized.."?
• Why was the content about Beausoleil's arrest moved to the Tate murder section? This is disjointed content.
• There is a lot of breaking up of sentences, which effectively takes some of the content out of being sourced. How does the editor justify removing content from sourcing? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In just about each of those cases, Wildhartlivie, both the revision and the original were written by me — so if I've damaged the work of an editor, that editor is I. I was merely trying to simplify the sentences, in response to the copy-edit tag; but with respect to each revision, I weighed the question you have raised. My attempted answers:

1. The sources probably do support a characterization of Manson's mother as a heavy drinker — but the word "allegedly" might be a good addition to the sentence. In the Manson-bio section of Helter Sketler, Bugliosi and Gentry quote a family member who says Kathleen Maddox "ran around a lot, drank, got in trouble." Manson in His Own Words says she "drank a lot." I don't recall what Maddox herself said in the 1971 newspaper interview that, at the moment, I can't find again on the internet. She might simply have said that, as she came into her young womanhood, she "got a little wild." Anyway — "allegedly" certainly won't hurt. As for the "pitcher of beer" story: that should definitely be attributed to a family member, not Manson himself. It's in Manson in His Own Words: "One of Mom's relatives delighted in telling the story of how my mother once sold me for a pitcher of beer." Etc. In that book's intro, Nuel Emmons says he spoke with Manson's family members to check certain things, even though he eventually cast the book as an account rendered by Manson himself. It's quite possible Manson simply told Emmons that a family member used to tell the story; but on the other hand, Emmons maybe got it from the family member directly. In a sense, it doesn't matter — because Emmons says, in the intro, that he was careful to check everything he heard with Manson himself. Accordingly, the book really is, in a way, "Manson in his own words" — but because we can't be sure Manson himself remembered the beer-pitcher event — or had even heard about it before Emmons spoke with relatives (of Manson) — I think it best to say it was reported by a family member.
2. I changed "would one day characterize" to "later characterized" just because it sounded simpler, less pathos-laden; but both wordings are mine. I'm not sure the new form is grammatically defective — but if you'd like to go back to the original, please do.
3. I would ask you to think again about the proper placement of the Beausoleil-arrest sentence. I think it really does work better as the intro to the Tate-murders section. The Hinman-murder section wraps up neatly without it — and then, in the section about the Tate murders, we see the arrest triggering Manson's thought that "now is the time for Helter Skelter." I won't fight you on it — but as I say, you might want to think about it.
4. Here's what I've already posted on your personal talk page: In each of my acts of sentence-simplification, I took some care, I think, to preserve citations — or, at least, a single citation that would cover an entire paragraph; but I might have made some errors. Maybe you should look through the article and let me know anything specific that bothers you. If a citation needs to be reinstated, I'll help you find it, in Helter Skelter or whatever.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The horror

I see the copy-edit tag has had the effect I feared it would: the article is now undergoing all sorts of improvement — if you take my meaning. Adios.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the community effort of improvement what Wikipedia is about? -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It sure is.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that this is the second article upon which you have never worked in the past that I am actively working on that you suddenly took an interest. Your edits have removed key statements that were placed in order to support the use of categories. What was it that drew your attention to the efforts being made on this article, upon which you have never edited before, which is the same case as on Black Dahlia? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I must withdraw my snide comment. I now realize that several of the edits that prompted me to make it were very good. I apologize to the editors whom I insulted.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I was "insulted", I was actually kind of amused by the inappropriateness of the statement. That being said, I'm glad you have retracted the statement as it is true - the edits were quite good and did improve the article. There were a number of run-ons that comprised an entire paragraph (not good form at all). There are also a number of statements in this article which are good to include, however, their placement seems "disjointed". There has to be a way to include them in the article without having them sticking out like a sore-thumb and not really relating to the text surrounding them. I'll be back later this afternoon to work on this some more. Have a good day, John. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record: There were several long, awkward sentences — constructions in which too much information had been packed. I don't think there were any run-ons. A good day to you, too.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting myself

For a long time — maybe two-and-a-half years — the article's "Childhood" subsection contained the following:

No more than three weeks after his birth, he was Charles Milles Maddox.

"He," of course, is Manson.

I am pretty sure I myself wrote that sentence, when I saw that Manson's Certificate of Live Birth was dated December 3, 1934 — exactly three weeks after his birth. Although the certificate could not clarify the entire history of the naming of Manson, it made clear that no more than three weeks after his birth, he was Charles Milles Maddox.

Within the past week or two, after a copy-edit tag was posted on the article, I began simplifying several of the article's sentences, including that one. In fact, I changed that sentence only a day or so ago, at 03:57, 7 January. I changed it to this:

Within weeks, he was Charles Milles Maddox.

As you see, that doesn't merely "simplify" the sentence: it changes the sense of it. The phrase "within weeks" suggests that Manson didn't receive the name until at least a week had passed — but we really don't know when he received the name. We know only what I originally wrote: no more than three weeks after his birth, he was Charles Milles Maddox.

Because a heated discussion about Manson's birth record has taken place on the present talk page, in the section headed "Faulty revisions," I am going to restore the sentence's original form.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I support your change back and also support the revert of content by you, me and LaVidaLoca to the early childhood portion of the article. The rewrite misused content from the sources and suggested conclusions not supported by the sources. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well said.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Faulty revisions

SkagitRiverQueen –

Manson's Certificate of Live Birth reading "Charles Milles Maddox" is linked in the footnotes of the Wikipedia article and is dated December 3, 1934 — exactly three weeks after his date of birth. The Wikipedia article used to include, as well, a link to a 1971 L.A. Times piece that was, in part, an interview with Manson's mother. That link is now dead, but the piece included this:

The baby was born November 11 [sic], 1934, and was listed on the birth certificate as "No Name Maddox," after his mother's maiden name. But that was not out of indifference, Mrs. Manson says, but because she was awaiting the arrival of her own mother in Cincinnati.

"I figured I'd already hurt her pretty bad, so I wanted to let her name the baby, you see. So she named him after my father." A few weeks later she had the birth certificate changed to Charles Milles Manson [sic].

All of that goes against your revision of 03:11, 8 January 2010. If you have documentation that supports your revision, please present it — and footnote it. The footnote that presently supports your revision is the one that has long been in place, the one, as I say, that shows a certificate dated December 3.

Doc9871 —

There was no grammatical problem with the sentence of mine that you changed. Your rewording didn’t correct anything: it changed the sentence's sense. As revised by you, the sentence indicates that, while he was at McNeil Island, Manson claimed to have become interested in his psychology. That’s incorrect. The original and correct sense of the sentence — as I wrote it — is that Manson has claimed that, while he was at McNeil Island, he became interested in his psychology.

I am going to put the article back the way it was.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted, "At McNeil Island, he himself has claimed, (my emphasis) Manson became interested in "understanding and knowing [his] own mind." I don't know if you wrote that, but that edit, as it was, was certainly incorrect. Sometimes an edit will show up on a page's history credited to another editor, usually the last edit on the list. I always assume good faith, and I wouldn't have reverted your very last edit (as it is correct), so I guess there was a misunderstanding? Doc9871 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote that. It's not incorrect. It says that Manson has claimed that he became interested in his pscyhology while he was at McNeil Island. That's true.

Your revision was this:

At McNeil Island, Manson has claimed that he became interested in "understanding and knowing [his] own mind."

I now realize that your revision makes no sense at all. It suggests Manson is presently residing at McNeil Island.

Anyway — I restored my sentence and then reworded it, to eliminate what you found awkward.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The "awkward" part was the "he himself has claimed", which is why I emphasized it in my last comment. Maybe my solution after deleting that part wasn't the best, but you took care of that, for sure. Jeez, just trying to help ;> Doc9871 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I doesn't matter when it was dated. It is a Certificate of Live Birth and a COLB is the *original* birth certificate. He may have been registered in the hospital records as "No Name Maddox" but the COLB is the offical record - period. Further, I'm going to ask you to step back a moment, John, and think about whether or not the rationale of reverting an entire section that was edited well *should* be reverted just because you disagree with one thing. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That isn't the issue. The issue is what the first record called him. I agree with JohnBonaccorsi's revert to the former version. I do not think your edits were helpful, accurate or improved. You have reverted this three times. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen —

You are now arguing — and editing — in bad faith.

If it doesn't matter when the certificate was dated, then why did your revision of 04:34, 8 January, state this:

A popular belief amongst Manson researchers is that he was not given a first name for at least two weeks following his birth, with his birth certificate reading "No Name Maddox." An official copy of Manson's live-birth certificate has surfaced, however, verfying he was never known as "No Name" Maddox, but was named "Charles" within days of his birth.

Even if the point you made above were to be granted — I mean your point that the Certificate of Live Birth is the only official record (as I am unable to say) — it would justify, at most, a revision like the following:

... was first dubbed "no name Maddox." His Certificate of Live Birth, which is the official record, is not dated until three weeks after his birth. It reads "Charles Milles Maddox."

As for your other revisions — you wrote:

It is believed that Maddox had arrived in Cincinnati at that time after running away from her home in Ashland, Kentucky

It's not clear how Maddox got from Ashland to Cincinnati. The L.A. Times article I've already cited says "[h]er mother sent her with her sister to Cincinnati, to have the baby away from [her native] Ashland[, Kentucky]." In a Manson in His Own Words passage that I myself have placed in the article, there is something about Maddox's having run away — but it's not clear. All of this information is very hard to pin down, which is why the passages you altered had been carefully worded.

You also wrote:

It is surmised by Manson researchers that Manson never really knew his biological father.

Again — the sources make it difficult to say anything certain about this. In Manson in His Own Words, there is this:

[Colonel Scott] didn't stick around long enough to even watch [Kathleen Maddox's] belly rise. Father, my ass! I saw the man once or twice, so I'm told, but don't remember his face.

In the L.A. Times article, on the other hand, Kathleen Maddox said something about Colonel Scott's having shown an interest in Charles — having shown as much of an interest in Charles as he did in "his own" children — something like that. That article, as I've said, is no longer online; thus I can't provide the quote.

In sum — and to repeat: The details of these topics are hard to pin down — and as far as I know, these statements of yours can not be supported.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning for what I wrote and what I changed later? It's called making edits, realizing the edits were not completely correct, researching further and correcting that which is incorrect. You might want to take a look at the following article WP:DEADLINE to better understand that editing Wikipedia takes time, involves lots of changes, and that it's all an okay thing. Look, how about we work on editing this article together, rather than against one another, okay? There's no reason that can't happen, is there? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not working against you — and if you'll permit me to say, I'm not interested in working with you. I don't have to read WP:DEADLINE — whatever that is — to understand that editing Wikipedia takes time and involves lots of changes. If you doubt that, consult the history of my work at this encyclopedia. It's not "all an okay thing" if by "all" you mean a rash of careless revisions. If I notice that any Wikipedia editor revises the article faultily, I'll try to correct the problem.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And before you hasten to suggest that I'm being un-Wikipedia-ish by disparaging "working with" you — consider how much trouble I took to prepare the detailed response to which you have just obnoxiously responded by intimating that I'm working against you. If there's any Wikipedian with, say, three or four functioning neurons, maybe he or she will agree that the preparation of such a careful response qualifies as "working with" an editor. I can assure you it "took time" and "involved lots of changes."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you aren't interesting in harmonious editing - that's too bad; so be it. But don't forget that anyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia - including the articles you choose to work on and take a lot of time doing just that. As it says when you hit that "save page" button - "If you do not want your writing to be edited...then do not submit it here". Have a good evening. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again — you try to shift the ground of the discussion. It is you who passively-aggressively undermined harmonious editing, with your response above. You continue to undermine it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who responds to someone who's trying to work things out with them in one breath with, "I'm not working against you" and then immediately follows it up with, "I'm not interested in working with you" is behaving passive-aggressively. The, when given a friendly suggestion to look at a related thought in a Wikipedia article answers with, "I don't have to read WP:DEADLINE..." you show yourself to be just plain aggressive. I'm not trying to shift the ground of anything - I've tried to be polite, to offer an olive branch, and offer to work together with you. The only person I see undermining anything in this conversation is you, sir. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

SRQ - please note how John and I resolved our very brief edit conflict above on this article (almost instantaneously compared to the drawn-out "misunderstandings"). This is how to work together effectively, as we will continue to do... Doc9871 (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't presume you have the right or permission to patronize me. This isn't the first time you've done it - I'd appreciate it if you'd stop. Anyone who says to another editor, "I'm not interested in working with you" is clearly not interested in resolving anything with me, regardless of how things worked out between you and that same editor. I tried, he's not interested. It's really quite obvious and simple. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

SRQ - I'm just trying to help you work better with other editors, not "patronize" you. That's all, seriously... Doc9871 (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Even you have noted above on a different day that John has problems dealing with other editors in this article. Even without that comment from you, it's obvious John doesn't like working with other editors on this article in general - I'm not the first. I'm not one to give phony, disingenuous compliments and back-slaps in order to get a difficult editor to like me. One doesn't have to make friends to edit alongside and cooperatively with other editors - I'm not here to make friends, just edit articles. If he doesn't like my edits, that's too bad. Unfortunately, he reverted a lot of good edits in the section I worked on tonight - all because of one statement. That's just plain stupid and disruptive and non-productive. At the moment, there are several areas in this article that really, really stink - and the truth is, John is the one who mucked much of it up. There's way too many disjointed statements, run-on sentences, hideous syntax and grammar, unencylopedic prose, and a lot of flowery speech that shows the editor writing it all has been trying too hard. None of this bodes well for an online reference and the honest truth is that it all needs to be redone. I tried - it was reverted for no reason other than a knee-jerk reactive response (from John) and a personal vendetta (not John - another editor). Instead of telling me how successful you are in working better with other editors, you might want to pass that sage wisdom onto those who really need to hear it. Because, seriously, the only thing one needs to do in Wikipedia to get along with others is work cooperatively. But...thanks, anyway. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You CANNOT launch into a tirade against any editor and expect to not be censured! You MUST focus on WP and the edits themselves, and never focus on editors, as you repeatedly do! I can't help you any more, I'm afraid... Doc9871 (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly why you called me a "whiner" on your talk page the other day - because you "focus [only] on WP and the edits themselves", right? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

For posterity's sake - I was speaking to another editor on my talk page, and I called "someone" a whiner. I never mentioned your name directly, nor did I EVER insinuate that I am infallible, or that I haven't ever been guilty of focusing on editors myself. In fact, I prefaced my suggestions to you about abstaining from attacking other editors by admitting my own culpability, on more than one occasion; I would be an fool not to, as it's all there on record anyway. There is already strong evidence of WP:HOUNDING of Wilhartlivie and her "gang" here, as well as WP:OUTING and consistent gross incivility. When you return from your block, please refrain from attacking other editors and engaging in edit warring. Doc9871 (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Regardless of any dispute you have, you have violated WP:3RR with your return of this content to which other editors have clearly objected. Stop changing this back. It is incorrect and misquotes sources. LaVidaLoca (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

First offenses

What's up with the "First offenses" section? There are no dates given other than the 1951 escape from the Indiana School for Boys. Without any dates, the reader has no reference point for when these offenses happened. Whomever wrote this section and has the references handy needs to do some clean up here. As it is, the section is worthless for encyclopedic purposes. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Whomever" wrote this section? Learn some basic English. After a three-day block, you have obviously returned to this article belligerently, determined to get your way on something or other. Your revision of 22:59, 13 January, is yet another misrepresentation of the history of the naming of Manson. By stating that "it is believed" that Manson was briefly known as "No Name Maddox," you cast doubt upon a fact that is supported by the 1971 L.A. Times article-cum-interview to which I have already referred (in "Faulty revisions," on the present page). Similarly, your reference to unnamed "Manson researchers" who have "surmised" that Manson might not really have known his father is meaningless and goes against the sources' information (also cited in "Faulty revisions"). Lastly, the material you changed had no "syntax problems." You seem to have no idea what syntax is. I will be undoing your revision, though I will reinstate the information that William Manson is named as the boy's father on the Certificate of Live Birth.

As for the subsection headed "First offenses": Bugliosi and Gentry's Helter Skelter, which is the source of its information, does not provide the dates you would like to see — but that doesn't matter. The subsection is a continuation of the preceding subsection, headed "Childhood," which ends with events of 1947. As a continuation, it picks up with an account of Manson burglaries and goes on to say that he was placed in the Indiana School for Boys "at age thirteen" — i.e., in 1947 or '48 (as elementary arithmetic based on his birth year reveals).JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here. You've entered numerous weasel phrases, including your favored "surmised by researchers". Your edits raised objections from multiple editors here and are not accurate. Another weasel phrase would be "it is believed". Editors agreed, despite your insistance, that the article was correctly and well worded. You didn't bother to mention you moved around other sections. If I beat John to reverting, I apologize to him. This is a delayed continuation of edit warring. LaVidaLoca (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's stick facts about edits and leave personalities and speculation about behavior out as it does nothing to work toward making this article better. If you have something to offer about the edits themselves, please do so, but also be certain to do so without the uncivil and unneccessary editorial. If you object to what you see as "Weasel phrases", that's understandable. The rest of the commentary, however, is really unneccessary and inappropriate. As far as dates for this section - dates are one of the things that makes encyclopedias encyclopedic (not to mention that it's just good writing technique when providing facts). If there are any dates to be applied here from the references listed (or even a date spread), they need to be added. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To correct myself: Bugliosi and Gentry do, in fact, indicate that Manson's 1951 escape from the Indiana School for Boys took place in February of that year and that his transfer to Washington's National Training School for Boys took place in March. If you think those months should be specified, please enter them. I personally don't think they're necessary. The material is immediately followed by the article's subsection headed "First imprisonment," which begins with Manson's October 1951 transfer to Natural Bridge Honor Camp and thus reveals that the Indiana escape and the Washington transfer took place before that month. That's detail enough.

Your comment to editor LaVidaLoca is objectionable. You are obviously simply trying to throw back into some editor's face the charge that was fairly leveled against you before you were blocked — i.e., that your comments were personal and did not have to do with edits themselves. Nothing that has just been said to you by editor LaVidaLoca was inappropriate.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't only addressing LaVidaLoca, I was also addressing you. Please stop commenting on me and attempting to analyze why I am saying what I am saying and why I edited what I did. Article talk pages are for discussing edits, not other editors. Yes, I do believe the dates should be included - this is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias include dates. Not including dates or time frames is confusing for a reader unfamiliar with the subject at hand. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. And for the record, I do not have rollback, so I did not "rollback" your edits as you claimed when you reverted me. That's one revert. You use poor grammatical phrasing, insert multiple instances of phrases that are confusing in nature. At least 3 and maybe 4 editors objected to your "reworking" of content. Just because you waited e few days after being blocked to return does not make your editing a continuation of that effort. Please stop "improving" the article and stop making unfounded accusations against other editors. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It was my mistake that I stated you used rollback. For that error, I apologize. Regardless, it's not good faith nor appropriate editing behavior to completely revert an entire section that was edited in good faith based on a few edits you see as disputable. I will continue to "improve" this article because it could stand improving. Furthermore, I am just as important to Wikipedia as anyone else here. It is not the right of *anyone* to keep others from editing an article unless they are being disruptive and/or vandalizing. And even in those types of cases, it is up to administrators to block someone from editing, not other editors. If you think my edits were vandalism or disruptive to Wikipedia, please feel free to report me to AN/I. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I stated my reasons. Other editors have agreed. That is consensus. Please stop be so aggressive in your posts. I can certainly give a revert count here since that has been exceeded in the past. LaVidaLoca (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a consensus amongst non-adminsitrators to keep editors from editing. I'm sorry you think my posts are aggressive when all I have been doing is trying to stay on-topic by talking about edits and asking everyone not talking about edits to stay on-topic. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well — you certainly sound sorry.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be disengenuous. There certainly can be consensus against edits that are made. Other editors have agreed that your edits are not progressive or accurate. The consensus is that your edits are unhelpful. Perhaps if you first proposed changes for discussion that might make things clearer. Otherwise, it seems clear that objections should be expected, until there is agreement that something is constructive and improves the article. At present, that does not exist. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop editorializing on me personally and stay on-topic by talking about edits only. There can certainly be a consensus about specific edits, but that isn't what I said. From what you and LaVidaLoca wrote above, it appears you both believe I should stop editing this article all together. It doesn't matter that you think I should stop "improving" this article - anyone is allowed to edit this article just like any other article in Wikipedia. My edits were not vandalism, nor were they disruptive. All they did was change some bad, overly flowery, unencyclopedic (and in some cases, immature) grammar and syntax. All of that is improving an article, not disrupting it. Unless you have a case for, or evidence of, my edits actually being disruptive rather than productive, there is no legitimate reason for my edits being reverted completely. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is editorializing on you personally and are factually talking about edits you've made. Your comments about what you think I or Wildhartlivie believe, no one has said and to claim so is a defacto personal comment. Please desist from making personal comments. Listen to your own advice. In fact, at least three other editors disagree with the changes you have made and that has been expanded upon here and in edit summaries. It is obvious that you have a different perception of what comprises "bad" grammar and syntax, but at least three other editors have spoken in favor of it, and that does make a consensus agaisnt your opinion. You are in fact, making changes with which at least one editor with an English composition post-graduate degree disagrees and disputes. LaVidaLoca (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"No one is editorializaing on you personally" - No, that's incorrect. "[Editors] are factually talking about edits you've made" - That's also incorrect. No one is talking specifically and only about edits, but about me personally. It's very clearly so - all one has to do is read the words of you and the other two editors above. "at least three other editors disagree with the changes you have made and that has been expanded upon here and in edit summaries" - What has been "expanded on" is that the three of you don't want me to "improve" the article. That was also stated clearly. "It is obvious that you have a different perception of what comprises "bad" grammar and syntax" - That's correct. As someone who makes a living correcting the incorrect grammar and syntax of others, I'm confident I have a pretty good handle on what comprises good grammar and syntax. The larger problem here, however, is that you were either inciting, or taking part in, edit warring by completely reverting the entire section I edited. As Wikipedia:Reverting states: "Revert vandalism on sight, but revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. Edit warring is prohibited". You did exactly the opposite of what is acceptible for reverting. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

<sigh> There simply is no discussion here, only bad faith accusations. I refuse to discuss this with you if you are going to continue asserting you personally are being discussed. Please stop making this personal. What has been said here is that at least three different editors do not see your edits as "improvements". LaVidaLoca (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what "three different editors agree on" based on biased opinion (and the bias is clear from statements all three of you made above based on your perceptions and assumptions of *why* I was making the edits). What matters is that I am an experienced Wikipedian who is trying to do what Wikipedia editors (experienced and inexperienced) are asked to do - edit an article. No article is considered complete or perfect to the point of where new edits and editors to an article should be seen as unwelcome. By saying there is a "consensus" against my edits, it is obvious that I am being told my edits here are unwelcome. By being told that I need to stop "improving" this article, it is obvious I am being told that my edits here are unwelcome. That is not an acceptible attitude and is considered uncivil behavior against the standards and overall goal of Wikipedia. I will be consulting other editors and/or administrators as to whether or not I have grounds to take this further to AN/I (or any other appropriate Wikipedia noticeboard). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice. We don't agree with your edits and out comes the "I'm going to a noticeboard to make this an AN/I or whatever else I can think up to do". Give it a rest. You're the one who continues to maintain there are personal attacks here. Very nice. How many articles have you done this on? Two, three, four? It happens every time you arrive at an article and try to force your viewpoint on it. No, your edits don't "improve" the article. Not in any way. LaVidaLoca (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you misquoting and misrepresenting what I said? I said I was going to consult with other editors and/or administrators as to whether or not I have grounds to go to AN/I, not that I am going to go to AN/I. There's no resemblance between what you claim I said and what I actually did say. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate effect that asking people to stay on-topic so often moves the discussion one step further off-topic. (It takes two, but most people step into dyads once there's a possibility for one, so you can't really assign blame. (If that made no sense, ignore it.)) There certainly are ad hominem remarks going both ways in this section, and I see less discussion of edits than would be ideal. The solution to that problem is simply to discuss the edits.

They're much easier to discuss one at a time. SRQ, is there a particular edit you'd like to discuss first, of the ones you made? Maybe the one in the section below, that JohnB is talking about? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This has gone on way too long for me to continue with any of it tonight. I have other things to do that take precedence over hashing through all of this and the above will have to be embarked upon at another time (probably tomorrow) when I'm refreshed and don't have a lot of studying to do. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We'll see you then. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision of 00:56, 14 January

At 00:47, 14 January, the article's "Childhood" subsection included this:

For a period after he was born, his mother was married to a laborer named William Manson, who had been identified as father on the Certificate of Live Birth and whose last name, at some point, the boy received. The boy's biological father appears actually to have been a "Colonel Scott", against whom Kathleen Maddox filed a bastardy suit that resulted in an agreed judgment in 1937. It is unclear whether the boy ever really knew him.

At 00:56, that was changed to the following:

Sometime after Manson's birth, Maddox married a laborer named William Manson,. The elder Manson was named as father on his stepson's Certificate of Live Birth; it is unclear when Charles Maddox's last name was changed to Manson. The boy's biological father appears actually to have been a "Colonel Scott", against whom Kathleen Maddox filed a bastardy suit that resulted in an agreed judgment in 1937. It is unclear whether the boy ever really knew him.

In addition to its prolixity and the comma carelessly left near the end of its first sentence, the revision has two sense problems:

1. The indication that Kathleen Maddox's marriage to William Manson did not last has been lost.
2. "Stepson" begs the question of William Manson's relationship to Charles Manson. It's not certain, in other words, that William Manson was not the natural father of Charles Manson. (Yes, William Manson is identified as Charles's stepfather in the infobox at the article's head — but the article proper, at least, should not include such an identification.)

The verb-change from "had been named" to "was named" is also, arguably, a bit of a problem — because it gives the impression the identification of William Manson as the boy's father, on the certificate, came after the wedding of Kathleen Maddox and William Manson. Because we don't know the wedding date of those two, "is named" is probably best.

I am going to restore the original wording. Before the words "Certificate of Live Birth," I will place the words "the boy's." I will use "is named" instead of "had been named" or "was named."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not appropriate, nor is it cooperative editing behavior to completely revert what another editor has done based on a few things out of place. It is not a sole editor's right to decide that decent, good-faith edits should be completely removed. What is appropriate here is for two editors to work together and make compromises through talk page discussion(s). *That* is the way to be a responsibile editor in Wikipedia. No one owns Wikipedia articles. Everyone is allowed to contribute and to do so without fear of having their good-faith, productive edits reverted in total just because another editor doesn't like them. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, guys, can we hold off on editing for a few minutes here, please? I've got something mostly written that I want to post, and I think I can help with this. Would people mind just a brief break in the editing while we talk a little bit? I guess I'm offering to informally mediate, if editors here want to accept that offer. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen — I clearly indicated your revision's problems — problems that amounted to more than "a few things out of place." Had you demonstrated, on this talk page, a willingness to respond simply, politely, and in detail to such a statement of problems, I would have awaited a response from you; instead, I simply changed what you had written. More importantly, I didn't "completely revert" what you had done. If you will look at what I placed in the article, you will see that it reflects some of the changes you made. If you have a response to the criticism I offered above, please post it here.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. You suggest that everything would have been better between us if *I* had done something differently. Your choice to use ad-hominem right off the bat (rather than indicating you were interested in working together on the article) with ' "Whomever" wrote this section? Learn some basic English. After a three-day block, you have obviously returned to this article belligerently, determined to get your way on something or other' said something differently to me. As well, on January 8 you said, "I'm not interested in working with you". Are you suggesting that if I had responded differently then the ad-hominem wouldn't have happened and you would have then been "interested in working with [me]"? I'm getting mixed messages here. Perhaps you can explain further? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that wasn't the response GTBacchus was looking for. I'm really sure he said to drop those sorts of comments. LaVidaLoca (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a response to my criticism of your revision of 00:56, 14 January, please post it here.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that "Learn some basic English" is inappropriate, as well as more of what you cited there. However, can we have that conversation elsewhere? I'll host it at my talk page, if that helps. Here is for article-talk. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just noticed that, at 23:06, 13 January, editor SkagitRiverQueen entered, on this talk page, a post headed "Childhood section," in which she described and explained the changes she had made to the article's section on Manson's childhood. It was five minutes later, at 23:11, that SkagitRiverQueen posted "First offenses," which I regarded as belligerent. When I read "First offenses," I had not seen the post headed "Childhood section." I thought that, after a three-day block related to her revisions of the article's childhood material, SkagitRiverQueen had simply returned to change that material again, without explanation, and had then gone on simply to disparage the article's "First offenses" material. That is why my response to her "First offenses" post included my criticism of her "Childhood" edits — criticism I would otherwise have positioned in her post called "Childhood section." In short: had I seen SkagitRiverQueen's "Childhood section" post, I would probably have thought her at least a little bit less belligerent — and would probably have responded to "First offenses" more temperately.

GTBacchus — I appreciate your mild tone; but I will say that I don't think "Learn some basic English" is inappropriately directed to an editor who repeatedly blathers about (unspecified) "syntax," "grammar," and other problems, while frequently creating typos, ungrammatical constructions, and other such problems for other editors to clean up in the article. If other editors are not to be burdened with such cleaning up, such an editor needs to be brought up short.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess when I say "inappropriate", I'm really thinking in terms of success rate. Bringing someone up short can "work" or not, depending on a lot of contextual variables. Complicated stuff. Perhaps you and I disagree on this matter.

We really don't need to talk about which statement made by whom (that's right, "whom" ;)) was more or less appropriate or helpful than which other statement, though. The way to go is forward, with discussion of edits. If anyone needs to seek sanctions against anyone else, that's not for this talk page, and I'm happy to entertain conversations elsewhere, if that seems like that will help. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And lest I myself be accused of being unspecific:

07:18, 7 January: Editor JohnBonaccorsi corrects SkagitRiverQueen punctuation

07:37, 7 January: Editor Wildhartlivie corrects SkagitRiverQueen ungrammatical construction

02:37, 14 January: Editor JohnBonaccorsi removes stray SkagitRiverQueen comma of 00:56 (as noted above)

I could probably come up with a few others — but I think my point is made.JohnBonaccorsi (talk)

GTBacchus — I guess you and I just posted comments at about the same time. You're right about bringing someone up short. Maybe it's a judgment call. Anyway — let's hope things work out.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi. I've just looked over the edits made today, and I've got some observations, which I hope you don't mind my sharing. Here are the edits: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13. Since I began typing this, there's been a fourteenth (reverting 11), and another talk page section has started, but I've gotta post this before I grow old.

• JohnBonaccorsi, your edits are very easy to read and follow. You make one change at a time, you use the section edit links, and your edit summaries are clear, descriptive and focused. Article histories can be difficult to untangle and read, and edit summaries aren't the best place to have a conversation. "See talk" is just about the most appropriate way to smoothly transition from a reversion to a discussion; thank you for doing that.
• Edits 1, 2 and 4 are SkagitRiverQueen's, and they are significant section reworkings of "Childhood", "First imprisonment" and "Second imprisonment" respectively. Edits 3, 5 and 6 are some back-and-forth with the "Childhood" section, and then Edit 7 is LaVidaLoca reverting all the way back to before edit 1. That means that Edits 1-7 had no net effect, as far as the actual text of the article. They did have the effect of putting 1, 2 and 4 on the table as putative rewrites. That's a lot of suggested changes there.
• Edits 8-10 are JB working on the "For a period after he was born" paragraph of "Childhood"; they combine into this. Edit 12 is also JB, snipping a bit from the "Second imprisonment" section.
• Edit 11 is SRQ again, with a much less extensive edit to "Childhood" than earlier - essentially, it's Edit 1 restricted to a single paragraph, namely the one JB was working on in 8-10. It's a little tricky to see what the change is, due to an error that SRQ caught and corrected in Edit 13. You can see it here; you just have to ignore the bit under "First imprisonment".
• These edits all happened more-or-less concurrently with the above talk page section, which concerns another section of the article: "First offenses". That talk page section has a whole lot of ad hominem remarks in it.

Ok, SkagitRiverQueen, check it out: This is what I recommend. You've got a lot of ideas for edits that you believe will improve the article. That's awesome; thank you for wanting to make it better. If you implement them as many at a time as you did in edits 1, 2 and 4, you're very, very likely to end up at 1 + 2 + 4 = 7. Reverted all the way; no net gain. (Funny how that worked out, huh?)

Now, I wouldn't have made edit 5. It was going to be pointless; the first revert in a situation that you know to be tense pretty much always is. That's why I play 0RR. Once B and R have happened, it's time for D. A second R leads to a third one so much of the time, and they add nothing to the history but worry lines.

What I'd do after the first revert is to isolate one small change that's part of your rewrite, re-make just that one change, and comment on the talk page about it. Then don't do any editing until a conversation happens. That means a conversation has to happen, and it's got to somehow stay on topic.

That last bit, about staying on-topic, is directed to everyone here to whom it applies — you know who you are. Each editor in good standing, which includes every one of us here, is welcome to work on any article. There are no topic bans affecting this situation. If you want to get a topic ban, you're welcome to seek one, but only ArbCom gives those out, and they won't talk to you until after an RfC or two and couple dozen AN/I threads have gone down. Nobody's going to block anyone from this article anytime soon (unless someone freaks out and starts deleting everything or something), so you have to work together.

So... SkagitRiverQueen, I'd love to see your reply to JohnBonaccorsi's comments about your edit. B and R have happened, so we have to D. Let's just hash it out. I am addressing the additional issues you bring up above, but I'm going to do part of that somewhere else on the wiki, that I think will be more appropriate. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

The Tom Snyder interview has now been removed in total which I think maybe mistaken. I personally liked that information. Can it be returned in full like it was before all the activity of the night? John I think you originally put it in and removed the little bit that was left last night. Would you mind putting it back into the article? I think it actually adds to the articles interest plus it breaks the referencing up a little so that the article isn't being referenced from just a couple of citations. Of course this is my POV about it but do any of the other editors here have an opinion about this? Thanks for your thoughts and of course for reading, :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the quotation from the interview? A long time ago, the article's "Early life" section ended with this:

Snyder: Let's go back to 1967, the time you were winding up serving a term of a number of years, ten years, and written accounts indicate that you told the authorities, "Don't let me out, I can't cope with the outside world." Do you have a recollection of that? And do you —

Manson: You're making a desperate plea out of something, man. There's no desperate plea out of it. I said I can't handle the maniacs outside, let me back in.

Snyder: I didn't use the word desperate. That's your word, Charles.

Manson: Yeah, well, your inflection and your voice tones were, uh, implications there.

Editor Wildhartlivie deleted that, I think, a long time ago, probably simply to shorten the article. At 00:56, 14 January, I merely deleted the long-remaining reference and link to the interview — a reference and link she'd left simply out of politeness, I think. As I recall, I deleted them because editor SkagitRiverQueen had removed them — as misplaced; her deletion had been undone when a multiple-edit revision of hers had been reverted.

I'm not sure what you think should be reinstated — but maybe editor Wildhartlivie and you will be able to discuss it here.

I hope that's clear enough.

PS Re your revision of 12:55, 14 January: The name "Charles" had been used because, in that place, the reader might not know whether "Manson" meant Charles or William. A better form, originally, would probably have been something like "Manson (Charles)" — but there are countless Wikipedia editors who would have removed that and left an edit summary that read simply "grammar."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi John, your ps makes sense, feel free to revert me. On reverting me, never ever worry about my feelings getting hurt. I try to help and if a reasonable editor undoes or changes what I do, well that's what happens here. So feel free to revert me. As for the Snyder stuff, I have to collect my thoughts on it. For some reason I was thinking of something different so maybe I have the wrong place. I get tired by this time so right now just ignore because I don't honestly remember what I was thinking, sorry about that. Thanks for responding though, not much use am I right now! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

John i just caught your addition of Manson (Charles) and the edit summary 'grammar'. Thanks I enjoyed the laugh. I really was caught by surprise and actually enjoyed something light hearted for once. Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad you got a kick out of it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Childhood section

The childhood section has been rewritten. Previously, it did not flow well, nor was the verbiage and syntax used well placed. William Manson was named on Manson's Certificate of Live Birth - this information has been included in the section. A new paragraph for the details of the bastardy suit has been created - as it was previously, that information was lumped together with everything else. Because of that information's importance, it has been placed in its own paragraph. A couple of redirects were appropriately added. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note

Hi all, it's clear that there's significant work underway around here, good for ya'll, but I just dont care enough to read the talk and see what's happening. So the point I'm going to make has likely been made before, maybe even recently. Nontheless, I'll risk it, because this article suffers from having a vast amount of material only indirectly related to Manson himself, such as the actions of Atkins and Watson, et al. Question: why does something so significant as the Family not have its own article? This would be a very linkable article, and would make both it and this article more coherent, and comprehensible. Check the current article size, btw, 108k is a lot of text. In fact, the Family itself is interesting enough that there should probably be a separate Tate/LaBianca Murders article. Imho.

I strongly suggest that most of the material on the family and the murders should be split into a separate article on The Manson Family, and I can't understand why it hasn't been. But I don't actually care, so, as always and ever, do what thou wilt shall be the hole in the law... Eaglizard (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)(fixtEaglizard (talk))

This is a subject that has been brought up before and the overriding opinion is that everything that is relevant to the murders is also relevant to the Manson article because he was tried and convicted of those crimes and the actions of the co-defendants were directly related to the conviction. It has a lot of content because there are a lot of events to cover. It has to be here because the crimes and the trial relate to Manson himself. Anything in here is relevant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't relevant, or that it doesn't belong here. I'm saying that my few years experience as a WP copy-editor tells me that if there were two separate articles, then they would both be much better articles. As it is, you're spending a lot of time nitpicking over stuff because you're trying too hard to pack too much into one article. Imho, that is. (But, I don't care to argue the point. I already did my time in the trenches in a side-skirmish to the Great Antisemite Edit Wars, and I've learned to recognize polarized and rigidified opinions when I see them. Reading just a little bit of the talk here makes it quite obvious that improving this article is and will continue to be a very slow, painful process, which interests me very little. Have fun, ya'll!) Eaglizard (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, posting this means you disagree. But don't be mislead by the discussion above. This article was stable for a very long time until just recently. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, my point precisely: I disagree. But, I'm not willing to fight over it. I have an idea though, so I might be back around in a day or two. Perhaps my initial impression of a high level of contentiousness was wrong? Eaglizard (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, currently there are two camps, both of which are strongly opinionated. However, I suspect that the majority of editors here are firmly against splitting this article up. We pulled it from GA and FA consideration for that very reason. The article is clearly well researched and supported and this has been thoroughly discussed in the past. Besides this article, there are articles at Helter Skelter (Manson scenario), Recordings by Charles Manson and myriad articles about individual members, all of which need enhancement and referencing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Eaglizard for putting into perfect words the exact way I feel about editing this article but wasn't able to piece together in my mind. First of all, I agree that not only is there too much being packed into one article, but I also believe there is too much "literary" effort here. Rather than reporting the facts in a straight-forward manner, there's more flowery language than necessary - especially for an encyclopedia article. The other thing that pops out at me with the flowery wording and too-long sentence construction is that the editors appear to be trying too hard. Truth is, no one's going to gain any real notariety or citations or awards through what is written here - there will be no Pulitzers for how well any of us edits Wikipedia. Now, back to the meat of what Eaglizard wrote ... "polarized and rigid opinions...[make it] quite obvious that improving this article is and will continue to be a very slow, painful process". Like Eaglizard, I have now come to the same conclusion and am just as disinterested as he/she is. I'm not in the least interested in "slow and painful" right now - as my life is currently quite full. Oh, I'll keep the article on my watchlist and I'm certainly not leaving the project, but as far as fighting those polarized and rigid opinions any more in this (or any other) article goes...I've got better things to do with my brain and time than to worry about childish lines drawn in the sand out of the need for some to control a bunch of words on a computer screen. Life's too short, the sun will still rise tomorrow, and in the global scheme of things, Wikipedia is just Wikipedia (which pretty much equals little - if anything - of real, meaningful importance).

Indeed - "have fun, y'all!" --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean you're not going to respond to the direct questions asked of you by GTBacchus, and you are dropping your one-sided war here? You know, for someone who is always slamming around words like "comment on the content, not the contributors" and "stop making personal comments", there is a terrible amount of bad faith comments being cast about in that post. Because other editors completely disagree with you does not mean people are drawing childish lines in the sand or are polarized and rigid. It means simply that your POV is not in agreement with the other editors here. Sorry you feel like Wikipedia has no real, meaningful importance. Is that why Jimbo Wales' face pops out of the corner of your talk page? There is nothing wrong with putting forth literary effort, except, perhaps, in your eyes. Mark this down, folks, her life is too full to bother with this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as a general note and warning to everyone involved here, stop with a) the personal attacks, b) edit warring over personal attacks, and c) leaving templated warnings on experienced user's pages. I would respectfully suggest the two most recent comments made and removed stay gone as neither one was dealing with the article, and everyone get back to the subject at hand. Leaving warning templates for experienced editors is only fanning the flames. Have a cup of tea, and take a few deep breaths. Dayewalker (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that an experienced editor who left the message she did to JohnBonaccorsi KNOWS better than to leave such a comment and the attack in the edit summary where she called me a hypocrite most certainly qualifies as well. For someone who drags people to WP:AN/I as often as she does, she KNOWS better and such templated warnings are justified, experienced or not, those posts were vicious. LaVidaLoca (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Making any retaliatory "personal attacks" against SRQ, whatever the reason and however slight and subtle, only diminishes the argument of her edit warring, further giving her ammunition to fight back with: "The pot calling the kettle black". Whether her attacks are more vicious or not is irrelevant (I believe) in the eyes of the administration, who are clearly and actively involved, and watching. She cannot face further sanctions for edit warring if the other editors engage in the same behavior she is accused of. My past comments on this issue are on record... Doc9871 (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Dayewalker and Doc9871 are entirely correct. LaVidaLoca, that means your last post above. You don't have to call someone out as "vicious", and when you do, you make yourself look worse, and you weaken your position. Stop. Do not comment on the contributor. Do not speculate about the contributor's motives. Just rise above it. Nobody in this dispute is clean; everyone who rises above it wins. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My Changes

I made many helpful changes to this article but I see now that other editors have reverted nearly all of them. I must say, I find that disappointing and bit insulting as well. Therefore, I won't be making any others. I am Zeus, king of the gods (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Question, why has the User:Moby-Dick3000 altered this statement? There could be something I am missing but it seems it should not be altered. as you can see in this dif the comment was altered by a different editor. Just curious, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Only Moby can say "why". I reverted the change, nonetheless. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Good, thank you, I think that is appropriate. I saw it after I had posted this. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

New changes

I am sorry to see the large changes done to the article without even a peep on the talk page. There were other editors who disagreed with these changes in the past. I for one will not continue here at this time since what is discussed is ignored. Good luck with the article. I've had this on my watchlist for a long time, I may remove it soon but will watch it for a little bit longer to see if discussions that are productive are initiated. Thanks and happy editing, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I had fully intended to put something here about the changes and inviting dicussion regarding those changes, after finishing my most recent edits. Unfortunately, I was distracted from doing so by an event here at my home, and didn't get around to doing so until now. When I started to do so, I saw you had commented, Crohnie. It was not my intention to leave comments here about the changes out of the picture. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been watching this page for long but I have been considering providing more information on it. In my opinion there should be more information about the abuse Manson endured as a child not because I think it should be viewed as an excuse but because it will help people understand how troubled children turn into troubled and violent adults. I also disagree with some of the changes although I think it is accurate mostly. I'm not sure how important the suggestion about his father being black is. It is in Bugliosi's book but there clearly isn't anything to back it up including his skin color. I doubt if this is true and doubt if it should be a high priority; however there should be more about extensive reports of abuse not only to Manson but many other killers. This is backed up by many reliable sources and it isn't being explained to the public well enough. I trust your intentions are sincere and if so and the sincere people abandon articles then the less sincere people will take over. Not that I think the recent work is insincere just that I think some of the priorities should be considered more carefully. Zacherystaylor (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think adding more *referenced* information on the abuse he endured as a child could certainly enhance the article. Caution should be taken, however, in making sure that undue weight is not given to the subject. This is a big article with a lot of information - putting undue weight on Manson's childhood abuse could unbalance the article somewhat and end up being unproductive. Just my two-cents. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed however I don’t think we’re in danger of providing undue weight on this. There is a lot of research indicating how important this is although it doesn’t all refer to Manson. I am only considering adding what does relate directly to Manson on this article. This will be based on two sources already cited here, Neumon Emmons and Bugliosi. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Then...you know what? Edit away! The more different eyes we can get looking at and editing this aritcle, the more it will improve. As long as your edits are referenced and factual, your edits will likely be supported. Happy editing. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Intent to correct

Because of a series of edits executed from 17:11 to 17:53, 16 January, by editor SkagitRiverQueen, the article includes the following paragraphs:

Charles Manson was born to an unmarried 16-year-old named Kathleen Maddox in Cincinnati General Hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio. Inititally, Manson was known by "no name Maddox." On the Certificate of Live Birthrecorded three weeks after he was born, Manson's legal name is Charles Milles Maddox. For a period of time following her son's birth, Maddox was married to a laborer named William Manson. The elder Manson is named as father on Charles Manson's original birth certificate, however, at a later date, Maddox would file a suit naming another man as her son's biological father.

Although it is unclear when Manson was given the use of his stepfather's surname, by the time a bastardy suit was filed by his mother, his last name had been changed Manson. In the suit, Maddox names a "Colonel Scott" as Manson's biological father and the suit resulted in an agreed judgment in 1937. In the quasi-autobiographical Manson in His Own Words, Colonel Scott is characterized as "a young drugstore cowboy ... a transient laborer working on a nearby dam project." It remains unclear, however, whether Manson ever actually knew "Colonel Scott."

In 1947, Maddox attempted to have her son placed in a foster home but failed, as there were no placements available. The state of West Virgina then proceeded to send Manson to the Gibault School for Boys, in Terre Haute, Indiana. After 10 months at the school, he fled from there to find his mother. Maddox subsequently rejected him.

Following his mother's rejection of him, Manson burglarized a grocery store allowing him to rent a room. More burglaries followed, including one from which he stole a bicycle and ended when he was caught in the act. Manson was subsequently sent to an Indianapolis juvenile center. After one day of confinement, Manson escaped but was recaptured and then placed in the well-regarded Boys Town. Four days after his arrival there, Manson escaped with another boy. The pair committed two armed robberies on their way to the home of the other boy's uncle.]

Apprehended during the second of two grocery-store break-ins, Manson was sent, at age 13, to the Indiana School for Boys. He would later claim he was brutalized sexually there.] After a number of failed attempts, Manson finally escaped with two other boys in 1951. In Utah, the trio was was caught driving to California in vehicles they had stolen. Along the way, they had burglarized several gas stations. For the federal crime of taking a stolen vehicle across a state lines, Manson was sent to Washington, D.C.'s National Training School for Boys. Despite four years of schooling and an I.Q. of 109 (he later tested at 121), Manson was still illiterate. It was at this time that a caseworker labeled him aggressively antisocial.

Those paragraphs have several defects:

"known by 'no name Maddox'" — Faulty locution. "Known as," if anything, would be correct — but because "no name Maddox" is in quotation marks, even "known as" is not necessary. "Was" is all that is necessary.

Removal of comma after Certificate of Live Birth suggests there is more than one Certificate of Live Birth. Comma belongs there. Also — no space was left between "Certificate" and "recorded."

"legal" before "name" is unnecessary and either tendentious or obfuscatory. Should be removed.

"For a period of time following" — Questionable use of "following." Should be "after."

"original" birth certificate. Problem the same as with "legal."

"at a later date" — Prolix. "Later"

"Although ... Manson." Awkwardly-worded sentence. Should be split in two. More importantly: Reference to bastardy suit right after preceding paragraphs’s mention of a suit filed by Kathleen Maddox leaves the reader thinking that two different suits are being mentioned. "changed Manson" should be "changed to Manson."

"remains unclear" — Why "remains"? "Is" unclear.

"state of West Virginia sent him" — From the sources — Helter Skelter and Manson in His Own Words — I personally can’t tell the location (state) of the court that sent Manson to Gibault. In Manson in His Own Words, the subject is addressed in a paragraph in which it is said that "[t]he next couple of years" – i.e., those that came some time after the return of Manson’s mother from prison – "saw us [Manson and his mother] in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio,West Virginia, and probably a couple more states." Reference to West Virginia should be removed.

"After 10 months at the school, he fled from there to find his mother." – Faulty locution. Should be "fled it." "Find his mother"? Complete mischaracterization. From Manson in His Own Words: Sick of Gibault and tired of waiting, I ran away. Naturally, I went straight to Mom’s. From Helter Sketler: He remained at Gibault ten months, then ran away, returning to his mother.

"Subsequently" rejected him? — Pointless and misleading. Gives the impression the rejection took place after an interval. From Manson in His Own Words: She turned me in and the next day I was back at the Home for Boys. From Helter Sketler: She didn’t want him, and he ran away again. "Subsequently" should be removed.

"Following his mother's rejection of him, Manson burglarized a grocery store allowing him to rent a room." Defective construction. Gives impression the grocery store was allowing him to rent a room. As the Wikipedia article originally indicated, the burglary brought him cash, which enabled him to rent a room. Also — faulty use of "following." Should be "after."

"More burglaries followed, including one from which he stole a bicycle and ended when he was caught in the act." Another defective construction. I won't waste time trying to characterize this one.

"After one day of confinement" — "Confinement" = unnecessary and confusing. "There" will do.

"Well-regarded" Boys Town. — Well-regarded by whom? Catholic priests who like to watch over little boys? Pointless.

"brutalized sexually" — Wikipedia article originally said, "sexually and otherwise." That is supported by pages 44-45 of Manson in His Own Words (2002 edition). On those pages are, for example, this: Back at the school, a guard gave me thirty lashes with the escape strap. "And otherwise" should be restored.

"(he later tested at 121)" — A complete sentence has no place in a mid-sentence parenthetical remark.

"Still illiterate" — Why "still"? Despite the schooling and his IQ, he was illiterate.

"It was at this time" — Unnecessary and misleading. Gives the reader the impression that Manson’s having been deemed aggressively antisocial has already been mentioned.

I will be correcting these problems. Because there are so many of them — and because the time I can give to the Wikipedia article is quite limited — I have had to compose the present notes hastily. I'm not even going to give them a close check for typos and such. What time I have I will give to the correction of the article.

If an editor disagrees with the criticisms above, he or she will please respond to them here.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing what I wrote is fine, John - after all, this is Wikipedia and that's what Wikipedia is about. Reverting wholesale or changing most of what I wrote to be reverted back to what it was before, however, is not. IMO, from what I see above (and I haven't really yet looked at it all in detail) you're being extremely picayune about what was changed. As I have stated before, much of the wording, syntax, and grammar - along with too many run-on and complex sentences - needs to be cleaned up in this article. In many cases, what I changed was based on the immature writing style. In other cases, the flowery wording just wasn't encyclopedic. I know you have stated previously that you are not interested in working *with* me (when I suggested we should work with each other rather than against each other), but in the interest of the article, keeping the peace, and the project in general, could you reconsider working in concert? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

John go for it. You know the references really well. I can't help right now because I'm having one of those days where I shouldn't have gotten out of bed. Did you help the article when it was a FA article (which it isn't anymore unfortunately). --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in knowing exactly what you mean by "go for it", Crohnie. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's my take on your criticisms of the recent edits:

"known by 'no name Maddox'" — Faulty locution. "Known as," if anything, would be correct — but because "no name Maddox" is in quotation marks, even "known as" is not necessary. "Was" is all that is necessary

Disagree. No one *knew him* "by" that name, that was what had to be put into the record until a legal name was given and recorded. During that time period (and up into the 1970s) it was not uncommon for "No Name" or "Baby Boy/Baby Girl" to be used as a designator and indication that a name had either not yet been given or the child was to be put up for adoption and was a ward of the state. Because he had not yet been given a name, the hospital had to put down something - he was "known as" by the State of Ohio for record purposes and until a name was given and recorded with the county registrar.

Removal of comma after Certificate of Live Birth suggests there is more than one Certificate of Live Birth. Comma belongs there. Also — no space was left between "Certificate" and "recorded."

Not hardly. And...no space was left? So what? Everyone makes mistakes. Even you. But seriously, if you need a comma in that place to make you feel better, by all means add it back in.

:"legal" before "name" is unnecessary and either tendentious or obfuscatory. Should be removed.

Not unneccessary at all. His name wasn't legally anything until it was recorded by the county registrar. "Tendentious or obfuscatory"? Sorry, but...LOL.

"For a period of time following" — Questionable use of "following." Should be "after."

Either/or. Whatever.

"original" birth certificate. Problem the same as with "legal."

Not. Big difference between original birth certificate issued by hospital in those days and the Certificate of Live Birth recorded by the county registrar.

"at a later date" — Prolix. "Later"

Yep - "at a later date". At a date later than the one recorded on the COB and when Maddox claimed Manson the Elder was Manson the Younger's father.

"Although ... Manson." Awkwardly-worded sentence. Should be split in two. More importantly: Reference to bastardy suit right after preceding paragraphs’s mention of a suit filed by Kathleen Maddox leaves the reader thinking that two different suits are being mentioned. "changed Manson" should be "changed to Manson."

Okay.

"remains unclear" — Why "remains"? "Is" unclear.

It "remains unclear" until Manson says otherwise. After he's no longer on this earth and there is no possibility of him clearing it up (or a family member clears it up), it "remains unclear". Really though, it's just another way of saying it. I felt that "is unclear" sounded like an immaturely constructed statement.

"state of West Virginia sent him" — From the sources — Helter Skelter and Manson in His Own Words — I personally can’t tell the location (state) of the court that sent Manson to Gibault. In Manson in His Own Words, the subject is addressed in a paragraph in which it is said that "[t]he next couple of years" – i.e., those that came some time after the return of Manson’s mother from prison – "saw us [Manson and his mother] in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio,West Virginia, and probably a couple more states." Reference to West Virginia should be removed.

Okay.

"After 10 months at the school, he fled from there to find his mother." – Faulty locution. Should be "fled it."

Okay.

"Find his mother"? Complete mischaracterization. From Manson in His Own Words: Sick of Gibault and tired of waiting, I ran away. Naturally, I went straight to Mom’s. From Helter Sketler: He remained at Gibault ten months, then ran away, returning to his mother.

I'm pretty certain that it already said, "find his mother". I could be wrong, though. How about if it read, "After 10 months at the school, he fled from it and went straight to where his mother was living". ?

"Subsequently" rejected him? — Pointless and misleading. Gives the impression the rejection took place after an interval. From Manson in His Own Words: She turned me in and the next day I was back at the Home for Boys. From Helter Sketler: She didn’t want him, and he ran away again. "Subsequently" should be removed.

The use of the word there is neither pointless nor misleading. The rejection did take place after an interval - it took place after he left Gibault. Look at the definition of the word "subsequently" - it fits this just fine.

"Following his mother's rejection of him, Manson burglarized a grocery store allowing him to rent a room." Defective construction. Gives impression the grocery store was allowing him to rent a room.

No it doesn't. It gives the impression that because he obtained money he stole from the grocery store he now had the means to rent a room. Something he didn't have before he stole the money.

As the Wikipedia article originally indicated, the burglary brought him cash, which enabled him to rent a room. Also — faulty use of "following." Should be "after."

No, it's not a "faulty use" of "following". The event followed his mother's rejection of him. And likely *because* of his mother's rejection of him - after she rejected him and wouldn't allow him to live with her, he had to get the means to provide shelter for himself.

"More burglaries followed, including one from which he stole a bicycle and ended when he was caught in the act." Another defective construction. I won't waste time trying to characterize this one.

Then why bring it up at all? Now you've wasted my time. I can see that I made an error when editing it - why not just mention it needs to be fixed? Why the snarkiness? Honestly, John - your attitude is getting really old.

"After one day of confinement" — "Confinement" = unnecessary and confusing. "There" will do.

No, "confinement" is neither unneccessary nor confusing. The word is clear and it's just another way of saying that he was confined there. Go on, live dangerously...leave it as "confinement". ;-)

"Well-regarded" Boys Town. — Well-regarded by whom? Catholic priests who like to watch over little boys? Pointless.

"Pointless"? LOL! Now your youth and lack of knowledge in Americana is showing. Go ahead, look up Boys Town.

"brutalized sexually" — Wikipedia article originally said, "sexually and otherwise." That is supported by pages 44-45 of Manson in His Own Words (2002 edition). On those pages are, for example, this: Back at the school, a guard gave me thirty lashes with the escape strap. "And otherwise" should be restored.

No, "otherwise" should not be restored. The addition of the word leaves the reader asking, "and otherwise, what?" Don't forget, the casual reader - who is the majority of those reading Wikipedia, BTW - isn't going to be grabbing the reference and immediately reading for further information. Either include what "otherwise" actually is, or leave it out. Leaving it in is confusing. Wikipedia is supposed to be reader friendly.

"(he later tested at 121)" — A complete sentence has no place in a mid-sentence parenthetical remark.

I agree. So why was it already in there? I didn't put the parenthesis in.

"Still illiterate" — Why "still"? Despite the schooling and his IQ, he was illiterate.

Uhh...because despite the schooling he had and his IQ of whatever it was, he was *still* illiterate, that's why. "Still" should stay. Without it, the statement seems like it's missing something. Not to mention, it's properly descriptive.

"It was at this time" — Unnecessary and misleading. Gives the reader the impression that Manson’s having been deemed aggressively antisocial has already been mentioned.

No, it's neither unnecessary nor misleading. But, if there's no reference for when the caseworker declared him antisocial (which is kinda funny, because caseworkers can't give psychological diagnoses such as that), then take it out.

I will be correcting these problems. Because there are so many of them — and because the time I can give to the Wikipedia article is quite limited — I have had to compose the present notes hastily. I'm not even going to give them a close check for typos and such. What time I have I will give to the correction of the article.

There really aren't that many of them. And don't forget, Wikipedia is meant to be a work in progress, there's no deadline here. Relax, John - let's work on this together and cooperatively. It *is* possible, you know... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)