Talk:Charles Manson/Archive 4

Responses to responses

"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.

You are correct: he was not "known by" No Name Maddox. That is what I said. You are the one who wrote that he was "known by" No Name Maddox — at 17:13, 16 January, if you care to check. As I have argued above, even "known as" is neither necessary nor necessarily correct. I will restore "was."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

A comma will certainly make me feel better. Good grammar always does. If there is only one Certificate of Live Birth, the comma is necessary. Instead of "adding it back in," as you say, I might simply write, "A Certificate of Live Birth" — and leave the comma out.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

:"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.

Again — you make my point for me: If he had no legal name before anything was recorded by the registrar, then there is no need to characterize the recorded name as "legal." That it was legal goes without being said, in other words. The use of the word "legal" unnecessarily raises a question whether he had an earlier "legal" name. In addition: it is not the place of Wikipedia to pronounce on Charles Manson's legal name. I will be removing "legal."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"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.

Yet again — you make my point for me: We have no idea who, if anyone, was named on the "original" birth certificate, whatever that might or might not have been. We know only that William Manson was named as father on the Certificate of Live Birth (a photocopy of which is linked in the article). I will be removing "original."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"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.

The "date" recorded on the Certificate of Live Birth is not mentioned in the sentence in which you have used the phrase "at a later date" — so "later date" means nothing. This combines with the confusion caused by your erroneous reference to the "original birth certificate" to make this sentence unreadable. I will revise it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"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.

It "remains" unclear only if the Wikipedia article refers to some clarification effort that was unsuccessful. It "is" unclear.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"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". ?

Yes — you are wrong: you wrote it, at 17:11, 16 January. You might have done me and the Wikipedia editors who are reading this exchange the courtesy of taking a moment to check that on your own; instead, you have wasted more of our time. I don't think it necessary to say anything about his having gone straight to his mother; but if you would like it, I'll add it, when I will put the sentence back in shape.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"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.

"Subsequently" suggests an action following upon another, as in, say, "She threw him out of the house; subsequently, she disowned him." In this case, Manson simply went to his mother, who rejected him. There's nothing "subsequent" about it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"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.

Please read the sentence again. As worded, it suggests that a grocery store was "allowing him to rent a room." Moreover, it says nothing about the cash he obtained from the burglary. Consequently, the reader can have no idea how the burglary enabled him to rent a room — if, as I say, the reader is even able to figure out that it was the burglary that "allowed him to rent a room." I will be rewording the sentence.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

My point is simply that the word should be "after," not "following." "Following" would be used in a sentence such as, "Following the parade was a long line of street sweepers." I will start the paragraph with something like, "Now he was on his own," if, as I am pretty sure, a citation to Manson in His Own Words will support that.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"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". ;-)

The word "confinement" leaves the reader confused whether Manson was put in, say, some sort of isolation, as opposed to an ordinary wing or ward or whatever-it-might-be-called of the place. In fact, he seems to have set thirty-some other boys free with him. (Manson in His Own Words 2002, page 39.)JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"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.

As it happens, I was on the grounds of Boys Town exactly two weeks ago, when I was in Omaha, Nebraska, on a family matter. "Well-regarded" is obviously POV. I will remove it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"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.

In context, "and otherwise" obviously means non-sexually; but if you think some detail would be helpful, I won't revise the sentence without adding it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"(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.

You turned the parenthetical remark from a phrase, which is proper, to a complete sentence, at 17:26, 16 January. Maybe you were bothered by the verb "tested" — as if it had been intended to indicate that Manson, as opposed to his IQ, had been tested. I'll try some wording that might not cause what I think bothered you.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"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.

Uhh ... "still" is redundant when the sentence begins with "despite."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"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.

The statement is footnoted. It's from Helter Skelter, 1994 edition, page 138:

Detailed records were kept on Charles Manson during the time he was [at the National Training School for Boys, in Washington, D.C.] ... Observed his first case worker, with considerable understatement, "Charles is a sixteen-year-old boy who has had an unfavorable family life, if it can be called family life at all." He was, the case worker concluded, aggressively antisocial.

"It was at this time" adds nothing to the sentence and is merely awkward. There is nothing in the paragraph to suggest the assessment was made other than "at that time."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

An interesting approach

...that ya'll have got here. I don't believe I've ever seen editors come so close to blows (or at least, personal attacks) over such incredibly minor points of grammar and syntax! But it really does appear, to me, as if all of you are sincerely trying to maintain civility, and that's a good thing.

For some reason, I'm getting an interest in this topic, and I might be editing this thing myself in the very soon-time. We'll see. I'm curious to see how difficult it will actually be.

For a first suggestion, I'll ask this: if it was fairly common for children to have the appellation "No Name" at that time, then what exactly makes it encyclopedic in Manson's case? Did it somehow affect his later life? (I doubt it, but maybe it did.) This seems to me like exactly the sort of "telling detail" that gets picked up by pro writers (something Carlton Stowers would write, to be specific). Which makes it the kind of thing that causes this to sometimes sound more like a True Crime novel than an encyclopedia article, in my opinion.

I suggest simply removing the reference to 'no name', since this article is already too long as it is. Responses? Eaglizard (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What I remember from reading Helter Skelter when it first came out in the 70s, Bugliosi tried to make it seem as if Manson having "No Name" attached to him was certainly a stigma and the beginning of his anti-social, murderous psyche. At least that's the impression I got from how it was being presented. But - I am inclined to agree with you. I think the no name thing is really kind of a waste of space and has no real bearing on this encyclopedia article. Oh, and BTW - there's kind of more of a history going along with your observation of things almost coming to "blows" over grammar and spelling, and other nitpiccky stuff. But no matter - my hope is that things in this article will finally turn around and more editors will edit and not be rebuffed and discouraged from editing it as in the past. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Whenever I step into a potential minefield like this, I prefer to focus on the postives that I can find, and look forward, ignoring whatever went on. I'm not going to get involved in any of it, so I don't really need to care. :) Also, I seem to recall mention of the 'no name' thing in "His Own Words", so maybe it was of significance to Manson, which would make it encyclopedic - although we should also point out that it was important to him, by way of showing notability of the fact.

Also, I'll note that I decided to just be myself and copy edited the crap out of the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the intro. I put about an hour into those two 'graphs, so I sincerely hope they won't be wholesale reverted. I believe I can defend each change I made (largely on the grounds of concision, although I did add at least one fact (ie, about the Beach Boys recording (and not crediting) Cease to Exist)). So, now I'll sit back and see what happens.. lol Eaglizard (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw them and think they are good edits. I know I certainly won't be reverting them. Thanks for the work you put into "those two 'graphs". --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

To JB, you are certainly correct, I was thinking of Boys Town and such as 'foster homes', which I guess they really aren't. And I guess 'more than half his life' would obviously cover some of his childhood, which is what I was trying to bring out there. And ofc its not too important, since it's covered in some detail very shortly below. Eaglizard (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving question

Does anyone have a problem with someone setting up a bot to archive this talk page? Another editor actually brought up this question, hey Doc :). I remember watching an ANI thread about this and this question should be brought to the active editors prior to the installation of a archive bot. So, anyone mind? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive it, but leave the last couple of days' worth of posts and new sections here - especially since they reference changes that are likely to happen soon. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion SRQ, and I certainly agree that the last posts should remain open. BTW, I must point out that this was what changed "commuted", not Eaglizard. "Credit is given where credit is due"... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The bot was already set up on this page. It was set to archive any section that hasn't had any comments in a month. To deal with the page length I've changed the setting to 14 days. Hopefully that should make the page more manageable. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:35, 20 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Revision of 07:52, 18 January

At 07:52, 18 January, the article's intro was revised to include the following:

Manson claimed this song ["Helter Skelter"] was a coded message to him and his followers, instructing them to precipitate an apocalyptic race war, by way of murder.

When did Manson claim that? I know of no source that says that.

The same revision introduced this (parenthetically):

Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi wrote perhaps the first book about the murders, also titled Helter Skelter.

Perhaps the first book about the murders? It was predated by at least two — The Family (1971) and Five to Die, it might have been called, published before the trial.

Evidently, any Wikipedia editor is now free to type whatever comes into his head re this article.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) John - I'm fairly certain Manson *did* claim that. Now...the trick is finding a source to use as a reference for it. So...I will place a citation needed tag on it. One more note on references in this article - there are many books out there on Manson and the Manson Family - Helter Skelter is a good reference, but it's not the only good source out there (just a reminder). Now - as far as "any Wikipedia editor"...well, yes, any Wikipedia editor is welcome to edit this article. Again, I urge you to read WP:DEADLINE to get an understanding that there is no rush, no deadline to get everything "right". Wikipedia is a work in progress - there will be errors, there will be things that can and should be reworked, but it doesn't have to happen *now*. It's a work in progress, after all. Accusing Eaglizard of "typ[ing] whatever comes into his head" is an unfounded accusation, an uncivil comment, and just really rude and out of line. These repeated snarky comments of yours really do need to stop. It's just off-putting to others who may want to take part here. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"...perhaps the first book..." has certainly got to go, as unfounded and not referenced; possible weasel, as "perhaps" gives the reader nothing but opinion... Doc9871 (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As usual — editor SkagitRiverQueen shows herself to be a pernicious and disruptive presence at this article. I know nothing about pursuing administrative action against a Wikipedia editor — and I have never before considered pursuing any sort of administrative action against an editor — but I hope someone who understands how such action is pursued will do something about editor SkagitRiverQueen.

No statement to the effect that Manson said "Helter Skelter" was instructing the Family to carry out murders to trigger war is in Helter Skelter; The Family; My Life with Charles Manson; Child of Satan, Child of God; or Will You Die for Me? That every Wikipedia article is a "work in progress" does not mean that an editor may freewheelingly place an unsupported statement in it and then justify the inclusion of the statement with a "citation needed" tag.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about, John? Exactly what have I done or said here tonight that would make you think action needs to be taken against me? If you want to use fighting words like that, you really should plan on having something to back it up, don't you think? Now...back to the topic, rather than being off-topic and lobbing insults and accusations, please.

John - I seriously doubt you have every single Manson quote committed to memory - so...with that in mind, let's not rule out the possibility that such a thing was said by Manson, before jumping the gun, here. I also seriouslly doubt Eaglizard was placing anything "freewheelingly" (is that actually a word? ;-). And yes, it is perfectly acceptible to place a cite needed tag on something if it might be, or has been, challenged. The cite needed tag is there as a reminded that a ref needs to be found - it's not something used to justify anything, "freewheeling" (now, I *know* *that's* a real word ;-) or otherwise. Can we start concentrating on content, text, and edits, rather than others' editing abilities, please? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

John - if you pull something like you just did (here [1]) in the Manson article again, I will not hesitate to take the issue to an admin. Please leave immature attempts at making a point out of articles - what you did was disruptive and just plain vandalism. That kind of behavior is simply not tolerated in Wikipedia. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's China Syndrome time!!! Doc9871 (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No point in burning yourself alive like a Buddhist monk protesting the Vietnam War, is there? Please, let's stop this madness!!! Doc9871 (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Now, if I just had some popcorn - time to sit back and watch the show. It's been a long time since I've seen someone shoot themselves in the foot (oh...wait, it was just a few days ago, actually). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, SRQ, about the Helter Skelter coded message. "let's not rule out the possibility" has never been a valid reason to include something in an article, even with {{cn}} on the end of it. If a source isn't found in the next couple of days I think the paragraph should be reverted to the version prior to this edit. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:20, 18 Jan 2010 (UTC)

By saying "let's not rule out the possibility", I was hoping Eaglizard would take the opportunity to provide a reference for what he included and that John would give time for him to do so without reverting it immediately. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It's really okay, you know, for unreferenced facts that are added to be reverted immediately. The burden is on someone who wants to include a fact, to provide a reference for it. It's just as easy to look for a reference with the fact out of the article as it is with the fact in. No deadline, right?

I agree that adding nonsense to the article to make a point is disruptive. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's okay for unreferenced facts to be immediately reverted. The bigger problem here, however, was that Eaglizard was feeling as if he/she never wanted to edit this article again *because* everything they were adding/removing was being deleted and/or reverted by JohnBonaccorsi. And he was correct. Anything that didn't fit within what John wanted or liked was being reverted and torn apart into pieces and nitpicked to death. That kind of nitpicking really takes the enjoyment out of editing WP, to be truthful. Eaglizard felt that editing this article - an article he has a right to edit - was becoming too much of a hassle all because of one editor. My thought was that if a cite needed tag was placed, and Eaglizard was given the chance to read the discussion about the statement that was being challenged, he could either make the change or revert it himself. I was afraid that one more contributor who wanted to edit the Manson article would walk away and not come back - and that's not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. We are supposed to encourage each other to edit, not chase everyone away. Whether Eaglizard's statement was wrong or right wasn't the point (and I do believe that he may, at least in part, be right) - the point was that he made a bold effort and should be given the chance to do something with it, not just get ticked off that once again one of his edits was reverted by the same editor. By placing the , I was trying to compromise with John as well as buy some time for Eaglizard. After all...there is time to be had since WP isn't on a deadline, n'cest pas? ;-) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thus the break out the popcorn comment. He can't defend himself so drop the attacks on him please. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The "popcorn comment" was no different than the comments made by Doc (immediately preceding my "popcorn comment"), Crohnie. Are you also telling Doc that he/she shouldn't make the comments he/she did? There are - and were - no "attacks". In fact, I tried very hard to get John to reconsider what he was doing by intentionally vandalising the Manson article before ever placing the "popcorn comment". What's more, the "popcorn comment" was essentially me throwing up my hands and saying, "I told you so, I tried to help you, but go on if you must - knock yourself out by shooting yourself in the foot". But, if you seriously feel the "popcorn comment" was so heinous that I need to be reported for it, feel free to take it to a WP notice board. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're still making any kind of remarks about other editors at all. If someone suggests I've attacked another editor, my reply isn't "take me to a noticeboard." I say, "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult anyone," and that's true when I say it. What's so hard about just treating others extremely well? If you want to throw up your sands and say "I told you so", do it on some other page, preferably on some other website. That is an entirely inappropriate use of this page, which is for working on the article.

More to the point, have you found a citation for the claim? Are you looking for one? If not, I'm pretty happy to remove the claim. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about an editor who was commented on in self-defense (which you, yourself, told me was perfectly acceptible if tempered and rare). Now I feel like I was set up to fail. Nice. -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean to set you up. I really just want the talk here to focus on the article. If I've been inconsistent, then I apologize.

So about that claim... sources? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm not the one who made the claim or the edit, you should probably be directing that question to Eaglizard. I was only trying to help keep an editor who wants to edit the article from leaving in disgust and keep another editor from blowing a gasket because the edit was made. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to inquire from anyone who defended the edit in addition to the editor who made it, not that SRQ was necessarily the only one being asked. Anyone can answer. Since no one has, it seems safe to say no one has a source, and until then the paragraph can be reverted. I'll do that now. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:58, 19 Jan 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the claim should be left out of the article until someone comes up with a source for it. I've made an edit accordingly, and I think the ball is in the court of those who believe the claim is a fact. So far, it seems to be showing the hallmarks of an urban myth: Everyone is pretty sure they heard or read it somewhere, but the actual sources apparently don't corroborate that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

But "Mikey", the kid who was in the "Life" cereal commercials, did actually die after ingesting a large amount of Pop Rocks and Coca-Cola, right? His stomach exploded, is what I heard (from some kid's older brother)... Doc9871 (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bugliosi's entire legal theory at trial and a large part of his book both depend entirely on the theory that Manson interpreted the song as a message from the Beatles to start a race war. Its among the least disputable facts in the entire article. The problem was that I was attributing it to Manson instead of the real source, Bugliosi. Also, Paul Watkins stated in that movie that Charlie had made that statement to the family; I'm willing to bet Watkins also testified to that fact at trial. What makes this such a point of contention?

In any case, I tried another version, with proper attribution to Vinnie. Maybe this will make us happy? Eaglizard (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's in the intro, so citations aren't supposed to be there. The whole point is citing the entry, with a footnote to the referenced sources. "Paul Watkins stated in that movie..." is a perfect example. Stated where? Footnotes are needed... Doc9871 (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

PS - I should have put the full quote in: "Also, Paul Watkins stated in that movie that Charlie had made that statement to the family." This is called hearsay... Doc9871 (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations in the intro are fine, and even expected somewhat "nowadays". If the claim is elaborated on later in the article and cited, that would probably be sufficient, but is it? And even so, the citation can be in the lead as well, to alleviate any concerns about a contentious "fact". Equazcion ^(talk) 18:20, 19 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't mention Watkins in the intro (besides trying got maintain brevity). I don't think the Bugliosi book needs a citation (in the intro), because this theory is covered in the article, and its on dozens of pages in that book (in fact, proving his controversial theory was the main reason I believe he wrote that book). Let me ask this: does anyone actually dispute the fact that Bugliosi claimed that Manson considered the song a coded message from the Beatles to start a race war? Imo, this is the sort of easily verifiable knowledge that almost doesn't need citation, considering its covered in great detail further down. But if people are going to fight over it, we can put an ugly citation to the Prosecutor's Closing Argument, as cited in the Trial section. Eaglizard (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There you go! Cite it. Best way to avoid any possible argument or get reverted as original research, isn't it? Doc9871 (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I disagree. I never put citations in the intro of an article. If the material is relevant for the intro, then it certainly should appear again in the article, and should be properly cited there. Makes for better reading, in my opinion. But I'm not one to fight over it. :) Eaglizard (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's really fighting over the location of the citation. If the claim is repeated in the body of the article and cited, that would probably be alright with everyone here. The problem is that it's not. Let's focus on whether the claim belongs in the article at all. So far it would seem that it doesn't. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:35, 19 Jan 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be cited in the intro if it's adequately cited in the body. This wasn't. I shouldn't have mentioned the intro citation standard concerning an unreferenced copyedit... Doc9871 (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Eaglizard, I think the edit you made is good. I'm not fussed about where in the article something is cited; intro or body suits me fine. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Equazcion and GTBacchus in that it's not where the edit is cited, it's if it is cited in the first place. Must be cited... Doc9871 (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a quote from http://www.beatlesbible.com/features/charles-manson/:

In Manson's mind, The Beatles's songs included a number of coded messages and hidden meanings. Manson wasn't alone in finding hidden - often non-intended or non-existent - meanings in The Beatles' songs. After all, John Lennon's Glass Onion had positively encouraged them. However, Manson's interpretations had abhorrent and devastating consequences way beyond the intentions of the songs' creators. "Like, Helter Skelter is a nightclub. Helter Skelter means confusion. Literally. It doesn't mean any war with anyone. It doesn't mean that those people are going to kill other people. It only means what it means. Helter Skelter is confusion. Confusion is coming down fast. If you don't see the confusion coming down fast, you can call it what you wish. It's not my conspiracy. It is not my music. I hear what it relates. It says 'Rise!' It says 'Kill!' Why blame it on me? I didn't write the music. I am not the person who projected it into your social consciousness."

There's some contradiction there, but this seems to be saying Manson felt the music "related" to "rise" and "kill". The straight claim that he heard a coded message to start a race war seems oversimplified and doesn't properly reflect what he was actually thinking (if that can ever be truly ascertained). Equazcion ^(talk) 18:44, 19 Jan 2010 (UTC)

I love that quote from him. But I think what's being missed here is the thing I missed at first, too: Manson didn't claim this stuff - actually, he denied the "helter skelter" scenario, in court -- well, to the best of his limited ability he denied it. This was all Bugliosi's theory, to the point that I've seen (don't remember where) arguments that it's mostly bullshit, that they just liked the Beatles (who didn't?), etc. Pretty sure I've heard Sandra or Lynette deny that there was any 'helter skelter' scenario. Even heard that Paul Watkins was 'coached' on the scenario ahead of time for his testimony. But then, they were all trying to get away with murder, so you can't believe them.

Point is, the theory is mentioned later in the article, in the trial section, and is properly cited, to a copy of Buggy's closing argument, where he spells out his theory in detail. (Remember, he had to convince a skeptical jury that Manson was equally guilty, even tho not present at the murders, so he had to demonstrate clearly the link between Manson and the murder scenes: which was among his fav exhibits at the trial: a blow-up of the words 'healter skelter' in blood on the wall.) So not only is it already cited in the article, it's attributed to its proper source: Bugliosi, and not Manson. (Made a slight edit to rmv statement that Manson 'took' the phrase; maybe it was Sadie or Tex or someone else.) Eaglizard (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, shit, just noticed that the closing statement link used for the cite is now dead. It's used in at least 3, possibly more places. I suppose that screws things up. And I am not in the mood for web searching tonite...Eaglizard (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Today's edits

I made some edits today in the childhood, first offenses, first imprisonment, second imprisonment, the manson family, and involvement with wilson, melcher, et al sections. I think they are good edits (well, pretty much everyone who edits in good faith thinks their edits are good, don't they? ;-) and improved the article in the areas of syntax, flow, and ease of reading. It occured to me while I was reading some of what had been there (and I changed) that as editors we have to remember that Wikipedia is for everyone - young, old, educated and non-educated - and that it is supposed to be reader friendly. I have thought for a long time that this article has had too much prose-like writing and complicated reading in it. I think a good number of the changes I made have helped move the article toward being more reader friendly. If anyone feels a need to discuss the edits, feel free to do so here. But let's all remember (please) - civility first, okay? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff! You made a lot of improvements, imo. However, I don't think you went nearly far enough. :) I've rewritten the entire "First Offenses" section as an example of what I'm talking about. I'm curious to hear what you think; I rather like my writing style, but then, who doesn't like their own thoughts most of all? :) I do tend to wholesale rewrite stuff sometimes. I especially tend to eliminate passive constructions ("a letter was written" becomes "he wrote"), and to condense phrasing by rearranging sentence structure. Occasionally, I'll replace 'sent' with 'remanded', for instance, or 'apprehended' with 'caught', for variety. That sort of thing. I try hard to avoid adding (or removing) any actual information; I try hard to retain as much of the original text as is useful, esp. where its flavorful, like 'trio'. Opinions? Eaglizard (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't understand this sentence, need clarifing & direction

This sentence under the Childhood section is impossible to read nor understand. "Several statements in Manson's 1951 case file from the seven months he would later spend at the National Training School for Boys in Washington, D.C., allude to the possibility that Scott was African American." Several statements (what statements?), case file from seven months (what case file, what is this trying to say?). Then there is a pause to go on to allude that Scott was an African American? It is bouncing all over the place and has no direction. I also think that too much undue weight is being given to the Live birth certificate. Do we need to talk about his birth this much? It seems to me his birth is not this much of an importance. This article gets critism for being too long and the new edits have made it even longer. I think more editors are needed here before anything else is added. We need to cut out some of the fluff that is in it to give more weight to what Manson is notable about and that's is the murderous spree and the family he put together to accomplish his agendas. Thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) The sentence you mention in the beginnning of your comments is essentially as it was when JB created it. If you have questions about it, you can ask him. (2) Actually, it's not "bouncing around" at all and it really quite concise. If someone else has problems understanding it, please speak up. (3) The COB is mentioned a couple of times and the sentences presenting that imformation were actually improved last week (with JB's assistance). I COB thing has actually calmed down some in the paragraph and the thoughts brought together better than they were originally. If anyone else sees an issue with the COB info, please speak up. (4) The new edits have definitely NOT made this article longer - there were a number of things I cut out. (5) the article has been had too much "fluff" for a long time, and it is now in the process of getting "fluff" removed. What I did yesterday is just scratching the surface. (6) More editors before anything else is added? Who's adding? I know I didn't add anything yesterday. Merely copyedited. And yes, sure, there can always be more editors. (6) This article is about Charles Manson, not just "the murderous spree" and the Manson Family, ergo, it's fine to keep the article focused on Manson, rather than the murders. As another editor brought up, it's a good idea to make two seperate articles: one on just Manson and one on The Family. That way, some of *your* concerns will be addressed *and* the article will be pared down considerably. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Today's reverts

Just want to make it clear that the reverts I made today were only about making sure references were in place for two very strong statements. Calling Manson a "guru" is a strong statement that should be backed up by an exact reference. If it was added because it sounded good (don't know, because I didn't put it in), then it shouldn't be there. If it was added because he was actually called a "guru" by those in the Haight (as the statement implies), then it should be referenced appropriately with a page number. As far as the $$ amount Wilson ended up paying out as a direct result of the Family's presence in his home over a number of months, that is also a very strong statement. $$ amounts should always be contain specific references, as they are considered to be statistical information. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to read the references at the end of the sentences. It is in there, all of it. I am leaving the article because even my minor edits are reverted so there is no reason to be here. I gave edit summaries for the little work I did yesterday. References should be at the end of a sentence if at all possible. There are big changes being made so that when two editors plans to make two articles out of this article is in play this article is prepped for it. A plan like this is usually discussed at the TP. Too many big edits are being made and errors are occuring because of this. I had to remove ref. that were duplicates because of what I believe was to fast of edits and too big of edits. I had suggested a while back to make smaller edits and come to the talk page and discuss the changes made in the article. Instead changes are being made in large sections, then a note placed here not to change them but to discuss the changes after the fact. This seems backwards to me. It should be changes made, then see what other editors active on the article feel about it. Some of the work being done is not accurate to the sources which is why John lost his cool a while back. So in closing, I'll be out of here if my work is not wanted here. As I also said another time, I think the extensions of Manson's birth that has been added applies too much weight which all I was told is this is about Manson so it's ok. When an editor questions a policy it's supposed to be discussed. I don't consider my challenge about this issue discussed at all. I would like to add, the changes I made yesterday I did with the references. Happy editing, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Below are my comments re: Crohnie's comments above:

You need to read the references at the end of the sentences.

I read them - or, more accurately, I saw them. How is looking at the references going to tell me whether or not what I am asking is true? In case you forgot, I am asking if Manson was actually called a "guru" by those in the Haight and whether the $100k is verified through the references provided. Do you know the answers or are you just believing and trusting those questions are covered by the references because they were put there? I am challenging those two statements (as is the right of everyone reading the article). If you look at the article on providing refs, you will see that it states clearly - anything that is or could be challenged needs to be referenced. As you are probably aware, verifiability and truth aren't necessarily synonymous in Wikipedia.

References should be at the end of a sentence if at all possible.

I imagine that's true, however, I put cite needed tags after the specific things I am questioning, not references. There's a difference.

There are big changes being made so that when two editors plans to make two articles out of this article is in play this article is prepped for it. A plan like this is usually discussed at the TP.

I imagine that if that's the case, it will be discussed on the talk page at the appropriate time. But, my edits have nothing to do with "prepping" for anything. My edits are about making the article more reader-friendly over a broader spectrum. The sheer size of the article alone is enough to scare some readers off, but if the reading is a little easier, maybe more people will actually read and comprehend what they are reading. As it has been for too long, the article has been full of prose and complex sentence constructs that has no doubt left some readers scratching their heads and saying, "I have no idea what I just read". Further, prose and complexity (unless the subject matter is prose or a complex subject) is not encyclopedic.

Too many big edits are being made and errors are occuring because of this. I had to remove ref. that were duplicates because of what I believe was to fast of edits and too big of edits.

<shrug> Well...it's a good thing you were here to notice that error. But, mistakes happen in editing, don't they? No big deal, really. There's no deadline here. Nothing's going to the printing press. Nothing's lost if there are some errors in the wake of editing, you know.

I had suggested a while back to make smaller edits and come to the talk page and discuss the changes made in the article. Instead changes are being made in large sections,

I'm sorry, but that's just not practical for most people editing WP. Not everybody has the time (or patience) to make small edits piece by piece and then sit and wait for other editors to come along and dissect what they did so everyone can discuss it.

then a note placed here not to change them but to discuss the changes after the fact

Well, that's just not true. Where did I ever say, "don't change my edits" on the talk page?

It should be changes made, then see what other editors active on the article feel about it.

Uhh...that's what I did, Crohnie. And, in case you haven't noticed, *I am* "active on the article" (and now, so is Eaglizard).

Some of the work being done is not accurate to the sources

Can you back that up with specifics so we can talk about where what I edited is not "accurate to the sources"?

which is why John lost his cool a while back.

<sigh> John made a personal choice to do some very stupid things that got him banned. No one made that happen, no one was holding a gun to his head, no one pushed him over the edge - *he* did it all by himself. Intentionally vandalising and article and then making what were seen as legal threats is just *so* not cool. I gave him adequate warnings on this talk page about the vandalism, and I gave him adequate warning on his talk page. He refused to stop. I have tried to reason with him regarding his behavior and attitude, Doc has tried to reason with him regarding his behavior and attitude, other editors have tried to reason with him regarding his attitude and behavior. Heck, the admin who blocked him gave him an out. But each time, he refused to listen and decided he knew better.

I think the extensions of Manson's birth that has been added applies too much weight which all I was told is this is about Manson so it's ok.

What "extensions"? All I added in that section was changing "birth certificate" (which was incorrect) to COLB (which was correct). The rest of how that was all twisted around is on John, not me. If anything, I pared that section down some (more than once, IYRC, and it was reverted more than once) and made it less complicated to read. You recollection here is a little fuzzy - I told you that information on Manson (including his birth) was appropriate in this article because it's an article about Manson (which it is) - I was using it as reasoning, not an excuse to give undue weight to anything (as you seem to be stating).

When an editor questions a policy it's supposed to be discussed. I don't consider my challenge about this issue discussed at all.

Isn't that what we're doing right now?

I am leaving the article because even my minor edits are reverted so there is no reason to be here....So in closing, I'll be out of here if my work is not wanted here.

Who has said "[your] work is not wanted here"? If you really are chosing to leave, please do it only because you honestly no longer want to contribute to this article, nothing else. Your "minor edits" were removing cite needed tags where I think two points need to be referenced specifically. The nature of Wikipedia is that "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here". Everytime you click the "Save page" button below the edit summary, that statement is there. *Everything* in Wikipedia is subject to change. Everything. It's not personal, so please don't take it that way. When I changed what you edited, I didn't think to myself, "those edits came from Crohnie and her edits aren't wanted here". Why are you taking my reverts personally? *I'm* certainly not making them personal...

More edits

I have made more edits to sections of the article today - Hinman Murder through Apprehension. As a whole, the edits were basically correcting some awkward and complicated sentence constructs as well as breaking up some run-ons along with correcting syntax and some grammar. Over all, just trying to make the article more reader friendly for a wider range of readers. Comments? Bring 'em here. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Im not sure about this but their is a character in a old computer game (Battle Zone 2) named charles manson so perhaps that should be mentioned in the cultural reverberation section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.137 (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Spahn Ranch grammar

I believe the last sentence of paragraph # 2 in this section should be corrected for grammar. The sentence dealing with Lynette Fromme and how she got her nickname, which reads in part: "...she was given nicknamed "Squeaky"." should be changed to "...she was given the nickname "Squeaky"." or "...she was nicknamed "Squeaky"." Wheelmaid (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. That should be dealt with by the editor who felt the section needed syntax improvement and grammatical changes. Perhaps that editor will address the errors in language that were introduced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You're free to change it yourself if you'd like, "Wheelmaid". After all, that's part of what Wikipedia's about - anyone being able to edit, that is. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If you noticed it, why didn't you do something about it? Edits, not editors; the good of the encyclopedia, not personal attacks and personalities, WHL. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Because I'm not interested in having to ask your permission to correct bad grammar errors, misplaced references and language mistakes that has led to the article being tagged for copy-editing. God forbid, I get pulled into a situation where you revert because I didn't complain soon enough or find you templating the regulars when you don't agree that something is wrong, redundant or talks down to the reader. I would direct anyone who wonders to the great revert war SkagitRiverQueen embarked upon to return her redundant wording as I noted below. This article is open for anyone to edit, no one should have to ask your opinion or permission to correct bad wording. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit reverts

Earlier this evening, SkagitRiverQueen edited a section of this article, changing wording from "Because she did not participate in the killings, Kasabian was granted immunity in exchange for her testimony." to "Because she did not participate in the killings, Kasabian was granted immunity in exchange for her testimony detailing the what happened on nights of the crimes." I removed that phrase because it was not only grammatically incorrect, it didn't make sense. She replaced the phrase with "detailing what happened on nights of the crimes." That additional phrase is redundant and I removed it. As I said in my edit summary, no one was expecting her to testify about tap-dancing bears. The content is self-evident and stating is a way of "writing down" to the reader, it doesn't require explanation. She reverted my removal, stating "you didn't complain about it before when it was already there for months I've reverted it back". I once again removed the offending phrase, and she proceeded to post a 3RR template on my talk page, reverted it once again to return to insulting the reader, and posted a "rvt back - there was no error in what was there - 3rr is now in effect, WHL" edit summary. This editor makes multiple edits to this article, then posts here warning editors to "discuss" problems with her edits (just as the complaint directly above this one) and edit wars to retain her preferred, inferior version and then templates the regulars while she is tooling along. This phrasology is both redundant, insulting to the reader, and stinks of instructional creep. What? Because she edited the article, she now owns it and controls what it says? No. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Further corrections suggestions

NOTE: That was my very first edit and in following the written protocol about not attempting to edit "semi-protected" articles until I had some experience, I posted it here. I surely didn't mean to offend anyone.

Some more suggestions:

Under the heading "LaBianca murders": First paragraph, first sentence: "The following the Tate murders..." might I suggest to change the word "the" to "then" or just delete the word all together and begin the sentence with "Following".

Under the heading "LaBiance residence": Last paragraph, last sentence: "...the group was released a just few days later." , I would suggest changing the order of the words "a just" to "just a".

Under the heading "Apprehension" : First paragraph, 5th sentence : "Watson and Krenwinkel, were soon arrest, as authorities in McKinney, Texas and Mobile, Alabama had picked them, respectively upon notice from the LAPD." An addition of "ed" to "arrest" and the word "up" after "picked them", I suggest here.

Under "Ongoing disruptions": First paragraph, second to last sentence: "Since their knives were in not concealed but in plain view...", I suggest deleting the word "in" that appears right before "not concealed".

2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: "Former Family member Barbara Hoyt...agreed to accompany the Moorhouse to Hawaii." , I suggest deleting the word "the".

Under "Defense rests": First paragraph, 4th sentence: "In the judges chambers, ... told Judge Olmert...". I noticed in preceding paragraphs, the judge's name was "Older".

Under "Conviction and penalty phase": First paragraph, 6th sentence: "Among some the weak points...", I suggest the word "of" be added after the word "some" and before the word "the".

2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: "On the same day the verdicts and juror recommendation that the death penalty were announced,...", I believe requires some clarification such as "be instituted" or something similar to be added after "death penalty" or the word "of" or "for" instead of the words "that the".

Hope these help more than hinder...Wheelmaid (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out these errors, "Wheelmaid". Funny, but this all seems so very "familiar"... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And is that a tacit suggestion of sockpuppetry? Nice way to bite the newbie. No it isn't familiar, John would quote the sources. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"To both of you. You both need to disengage from each other. That means completely. No more accusations from either of you about the other. Both of you need to read meatball:DefendEachOther and rely on others to make any reports, because this level of sniping is unsatisfactory. I've left the indentical message on both your talks, because I don't want to hear about who started it. Be the bigger person, and walk away." -- ++Lar: t/c 22:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC) "She's not to post to your talk page, you're not to post to hers. You're not to comment on her further, she's not to comment on you further. If I see it continueing, I'll take it to AN/I to get it formalized and if that fails then yes, ArbCom is a very real possibility. This is a big wiki. Find something else to do, ok?" -- ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

To Wheelmaid, you have some good suggestion here. Does the protection prevent you from editing? I don't know if it does or not but if it doesn't please make the edits. If you are in error don't worry someone will fix it again. The best way to learn Wikipedia is to be bold. I too had a fear of editing directly when I first became an editor but you will get more comfortable and bolder as time goes on to edit more. So please if the protection doesn't prevent you from making edits, go ahead and be bold. Welcome to the project and happy editing, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I made the recommended changes above. The mix up of the judges names happened I believe, when the paragraph was removed from the location I put it to and brought to the other paragraph during the rewrite. I think it may be best for this article to bring the whole article back to what it was prior to the rewrite so that changes can be made more slowly and carefully to avoid these kind of errors that have now been coming up. Thoughts everyone? --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with taking it back to before the errors in language and movement of the references occurred. The last good version I note is here, where we are certain that all of the source citations and the content line up. Thanks for noting the problems you found, Wheelmaid. We've known they are in there, it's just sorting them out that is the problem. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Returned paragraph

This paragraph doesn't belong where it is being placed. These are two different trials and two different judges as the editor above brought to our attentions. I have returned it back to where it should be placed. Chronological order is not an issue for this, accuracy is, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Chronological order doesn't matter, eh? So I guess that explains why you don't think telling the reader Hughes' body was found and then in the next paragraph telling the reader that he was missing isn't conflicting information? Not to mention the fact that the paragraph you replaced is about a time prior to the verdicts and you have now inappropriately placed it in a section about the conviction phase (*after* the guilty verdicts have already been returned - the paragraph clearly states such). I know you're trying to make a point here, but why do it to the detriment of the article and the encyclopedia as a whole? Please put it back where it belongs and *then the appropriate fixes can be made to make the judge info match up, okay? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

First off I am not trying to make any point so please refactor this. I am trying to get the article correct. As the other editor who brought it to attention stated, the two different judges makes this very confusing where you want to put it. I think it belongs where it is so at this time I am not willing to move it but I would love other editors to explain to me where this belongs and why. If I remember correctly it was originally in the location I put it plus it follows the citations in that section. I was reading the citations yesterday prior to my moving the section to try to figure out why there are different judges. I do not know the citations real well in this article and I'm still try to read them all and remember them. Let me put it this way, I am very open to input from other editors. I am not positive that my placement is correct but I know where I moved it from caused confusion to the reader that commented earlier. So let's try to talk this out politely. I think this should be easily resolved with opening discussions up. I will see if I can get some of the other editors who have shown interest in this article to come and comment. Please do the same if you know of others that would be interested in this discussion. I think the more input we get about this the better the article will be. I think you are interested in article improvement so lets try to get this one section correctly placed. Personally I'd like to revert the article back to when it was stable and then work the article in smaller edits so that the edits can be discussed if needed. Right now there has been too many large edits done that its hard to see everything clearly. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with getting the opinions of other editors *if*, (1) no canvassing for the sake of bias occurs, (2) everyone behaves themselves and leaves ad hominem out of the equation, (3) we work forward and don't keep looking into the past of the article (thinking that it was fine before and now it's not).

The article may have seemed stable to you previously, however, to be frank - it was a mess in the areas of syntax, grammar, cohesion, and encyclopedic tone. I've never said I was a perfect editor, Crohnie, but I do have a good eye for what works in an article and what doesn't. What was there previously did not work for the average reader and it needed to be changed. I'm not the only person who has stated as much, either.

I *am* interested in the article improving - if I weren't, I wouldn't still be here trying to improve it. As far as "too many large edits" are concerned - sorry, but that's a no-go. There's nothing wrong with large edits - you, yourself, advised "Wheelmaid" to be bold in editing. Yet, when I have been bold in editing, you take exception. Whatever. I'm going to continue to edit the article - that's just a fact - and when stuff like this occurs, it can be discussed here. But, I'm not going to take everything I do to the talk page in a manner that suggests I need "permission" to edit. That's just not the way Wikipedia works and it was never meant to work like that. Nor should it. Doing so takes away from the spirit of the entire project.

--SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation Correction

In the first sentence of Justice System/Investigation/Tate Residence, "The Tate murders became news after the Polanski’s housekeeper," Polanski's should be written Polanskis' to indicate that the housekeeper works for more than one person named Polanski. Alternatively, the word "the" should be removed so that the phrase reads, "The Tate murders became news after Polanski's housekeeper." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.214.111 (talk • contribs)

Actually, the -s' would only apply if the proper noun ended in -s, which it clearly does not. Since the remainder of the article does not specify if this housekeeper was an employee of just one of the Polanski's, removing the is not an option. The way the sentence is written is both clear and grammatically correct. And I am a complete bitch when it comes to proper grammar.

That being said - in the future please DO NOT HESITATE to make the edits. Minor copy writing edits like these are not the kind of thing you need to gain permission or an consensus to change. By all means...go ahead and improve Wikipedia! If it turns out your edit/correction is not best for the article, trust me - someone will come along (like me) and fix it. Happy Editing!! ocrasaroon| ^{blah blah blah} 06:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the IP is correct. If the statement is that the housekeeper was in the employee of Sharon and Roman, the correct spelling would be "Polanksis'" or correctly, the "the" would come out. If it refers to the couple, they are the Polanskis. If one were saying she was in the employee of Roman Polanski only, the spelling would be "Polanksi's" and the "the" would come out. It depends on what the writer was trying to convey. And for the record, this article is under permanent semi-protection and an IP editor such as this one could not edit it his or herself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Natural Causes??

It says in the one paragraph this:

It was announced in early 2008 that Susan Atkins was suffering from brain cancer.[195] An application for compassionate release, based on her health status, was denied in July 2008,[195] and she was denied parole for the 18th and final time on September 2, 2009.[196] Atkins died of natural causes 22 days later, on September 24, 2009, at the Central California Women's facility in Chowchilla.[197][198]

Should that be changed? A far as I know, she died from the brain cancer, not natural causes. Kjscotte34 (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind...the official statement that was released said Natural Causes, so disregard my previous post. Kjscotte34 (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't an official statement about regarding her death that said "natural causes", it was a statement made by a spokesperson on behalf of the prison at the time of her death. There's a difference. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well still..it was sourced that's why I didn't change it. If someone else wants to, and has a reliable source they can feel free! Kjscotte34 (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to leave "natural causes." People with brain cancer can still die of natural causes, or car accidents as a matter of fact. UltraEdit (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientology addition

An editor added a rather lengthy bit about Scientology to the article that read in part: Manson learned of Scientology from fellow convicts Lanier Ramer, Gene Deaton and Jerry Milman, Manson's roommate at McNeil Island Penitentiary. Allegedly, Lanier Ramer was a Doctor of Scientology who left Scientology to establish his own splinter group and was later incarcerated at McNeil Island for criminal activities including armed hold-up robbery.

The editor then returned to further add: "(22 June 1970) Report of interview with Raul Morales, Re: Charles Manson. According to Raul: Raul arrived in prison on McNeil Island, Washington, in 1962 and became a cellmate of Lafayette Reimer, allegedly a trained Scientology auditor (about Level I in Raul's estimation) and was introduced to Scientology at that time. Reimer was auditing in prison at that time and in one ten-man cell had managed to gather a group of about seven, all in Scientology. Charles Manson entered later and studied... Manson... would, for a time, talk about nothing but Scientology... After a while, however, Manson was screaming to get away from his auditor..."

I removed this because it puts far too much weight on Scientology as it applies to Manson and far outweighs the content needed to merely mention his short term dabbling in the subject. We have the sourced statement that he was interested. We have the sourced statement that Bruce Davis was involved. We don't need the personal history of a person that was involved in Scientology in prison with Manson, nor do we need a statement by someone who was bunked with someone else who isn't relevant to the tale of the Manson family saga. We don't even know precisely who Raul Morales is, nor does that matter. Too much tangential history to include here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it dilutes the article. UltraEdit (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinks removal

An editor removed a bunch of the links but I restored some of them along with fixing a typo that was made. We use the wikilinks to encourage readers to see other articles. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinions?

This article was at one time rated very high and I think reverting it back to a more stable version would be best for the article. I would prefer to revert the article back to a more stable location and then rework what is necessary. I suggest looking at around this area to revert back to. The reason I pick around this time is because the ratings of this article back them are better than what the ratings would be now. Opinions? --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The version you chose is a bit older than the one I found, but your link is fine. I would suggest that this be done section by section to ensure that some parts that are actually good be retained. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Do it up; article needs improvement. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Where do I locate the rating of this article? Above it says B but it not recent. I thought it was rated a C or lower but I can't seem to find it. I think this article needs to get back to being at least a good article to prepare for even higher status. I don't think the way the article is written right now should be rated as a B. The last main edits that were done were not that good. There is a lot of things in this article that is trivial that should not be here. We need to revert this article back, which I comment on in the above section. I can't work this article by myself as I'm not that good of an editor and I know it. I'd like to see the article reverted back to when John (sorry don't remember his last name) worked the article since he was so knowlegeable about the Manson case. What do others think about rolling the article back to then? Thanks,--CrohnieGal^Talk 12:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It is rated B, it meets the criteria, although it was basically at least a good or featured quality before it was dumbed down. I think there is sufficient agreement in the note from March to take this back where it was before its IQ was lowered. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to the prior version when SRQ was not editing this article per this discussion and the one from March. I hope others will have time now or in the near future to work this article back to it's GA status at least. The SPI case against SRQ came back positive for socking so I am doing this under deny and WP:RBI (which was suggested by an administrator. The socking was the last straw for me. If others think this should be moved back to a different location feel free to alter what I've done. I hope the socking will now stop but I will be reverting her edits whenever I come across big chunks like she did to this one that didn't have consensus to do. I hope you agree with my boldness here. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I support this. I have removed the copyedit tag, as it didn't need copyediting at this point, and fixed a few things. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No Name Maddox

Charles Manson's birth cirtificate seems to have recently surfaced and it does not say No Name Maddux, but Charles Milles Maddox. Bugliosi seems to have been misinformed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgg3B9HiD8g

Scabboy (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)scabboy

Edit request from 81.154.234.2, 20 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The house was owen by Terry Melcher and was rented to Sharon Tate

81.154.234.2 (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please express your request in a 'please change X to Y' manner and supply reliable sources for factual changes. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Good Ol' Charlie

He's much more than a criminal, although this seems to be disregarded in the opening sentence. I request the addition of musician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.58.58.156 (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Details of Murders in the Article

Is it really necessary to go into such detail about how Mason (and friends) committed their murders? I believe the current level of details is totally unnecessary, and bordering on voyeurism.

I think that it should suffice to mention where, when, why and any implements used. The blow-by-blow specifics are really over the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyGod (talk • contribs) 07:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. The level of detail is wholly unnecessary and the tone is voyeuristic. 11,000 words on Manson's life, along with 135 references, is excessive. This article is roughly the same size as the article on Nelson Mandela. Rubywine (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from AnnaSmith1964, 2 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please document that Charles Manson was a programmed monarch slave. Also, please document how he came to be programmed and a reference to the Illuminati as well.

Here's my source: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/if_chapter2.htm

AnnaSmith1964 (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this source is not a reliable one, and the the information could/should not be included per WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I would also read WP:FRINGE if I were you. elektrikSHOOS 17:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The article mentions Manson's relatives in McMechan, W.V. I took a tour of the West Virginia State Penitentiary in Moundsville and the tour guide said that Manson wrote to the prison warden and asked to be transferred there so he could be near to relatives (McMechan is a couple towns north). The prison warden's four word reply: "When hell freezes over". The correspondence can be seen in a museum at the end of the tour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.40.115 (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sharon Tate's full name and link missing

Shouldn't the murder of Sharon Tate contain her full name (only listed as Tate) and contain a link to her biography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by G.d.carter (talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision of 17:31, 17 October 2010

At the above-indicated time and date, the third paragraph of the article’s section headed "Tate murders" was revised as follows:

When the four [Family members] arrived at the entrance to the Cielo Drive property, Watson climbed a telephone pole near the gate and cut the phone line. He had been to the house previously in preparation for the assault.

Before the revision, the final sentence of that paragraph was this:

He had been to the house previously, on Family matters.

The revision is not only completely false, it is misleading. It gives the reader the erroneous impression the Tate murders had somehow been planned before the night on which they took place. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that in any of the sources — and certainly not in Tex Watson’s autobiography, which is the source of the information about Watson’s visits to 10050 Cielo Drive before the murders.

The said information is in two of Watson’s chapters — 6 and 9 — the latter of which is footnoted in the Wikipedia paragraph and has thus apparently been completely ignored by the editor who made the revision. Astoundingly, the revision seems to be completely gratuitous. That is, it seems to have been made for no reason whatever, on no basis whatever, by an editor who felt entitled simply to change facts.

The relevant passages from Watson’s autobiography are the following. First — from Chapter 6:

[When Family member] Dean [Moorehouse] told me he had to drive up to Ukiah for trial on an LSD charge I decided to go along. Until the problem with the women, Dean had continued to be a sort of spiritual advisor to Dennis, and he apparently still had that status with Terry Melcher, because he told me that Terry was loaning us his Jaguar XKE and a credit card for the trip north.

We picked up the car one morning at Terry’s house in Benedict Canyon, a rambling ranch-style place at 10050 Cielo Drive. It was the first time I’d been to the house, but it would not be the last.

Second — from Chapter 9:

Charlie decided I should go to Terry Melcher and see if he would be willing to help bail Gregg [Jakobson] out, even if it wouldn’t do anything for us. ... The next morning I hitchhiked into Beverly Hills and went to 10050 Cielo Drive for the second time. I pushed the gate button as I’d seen Dean do and wandered up to the back door. The driveway was fairly long and I took it slowly, listening to see if anybody was up yet. Ten months later, on that same driveway, I would kill a human being for the first time in my life — the first, but not the last.

Those are the only pre-murder Cielo Drive visits that Watson mentions. As you see, they had nothing at all to do with any sort of "preparation for the assault." No source — neither Watson’s autobiography, which I have just quoted, nor any other — suggests that Watson visited Cielo Drive in "preparation" of any kind for the murders. The Wikipedia revision — to repeat — is false, gratuitous, and shamefully misleading. It should be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.114.149 (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Steven Parent

article,the cold blooded murder of Steven Parent,barely more than a child at 18 years,is included merely as a small detail in the paragraph concerned with the family's initial entrance.Yet the murders of the other,richer victims is covered in a blow by blow,stab by stab,shot by shot detail.

From this disparity one must draw the conclusion that the author(s) believe that he was less important than the others. He wasn't,and the full details of his reason for being there,method of murder etc. should be given unless the article is rewritten to exclude all of this detail for all involved (please).76.166.245.241 (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The passage that treats the murder of Parent currently reads as follows:

Backing their car down to the bottom of the hill that led up to the place, the group parked there and walked back up to the house. Thinking the gate might be electrified or rigged with an alarm,[2]:176-184 they climbed a brushy embankment at its right and dropped onto the grounds. Just then, headlights came their way from farther within the angled property. Telling the women to lie in the bushes, Watson stepped out, gave a command to halt, and shot to death the approaching driver, 18-year-old Steven Parent.[2]:22-25[46]After cutting the screen of an open window of the main house, Watson told Kasabian to keep watch down by the gate.[2]:258-269[2]:176-184[46] He removed the screen, entered through the window, and let Atkins and Krenwinkel in through the front door.[2]:176-184

The details of the attack on Parent may be added if (a) that paragraph is split in two, (b) two sentences are appended to the first of the resultant paragraphs, and (c) the opening sentence of the resultant second paragraph is modified. These suggested revisions, with footnotes, are in boldface below:

Backing their car down to the bottom of the hill that led up to the place, the group parked there and walked back up to the house. Thinking the gate might be electrified or rigged with an alarm,[2]:176-184 they climbed a brushy embankment at its right and dropped onto the grounds. Just then, headlights came their way from farther within the angled property. Telling the women to lie in the bushes, Watson stepped out, gave a command to halt, and shot to death the approaching driver, 18-year-old Steven Parent.[2]:22-25[46] Before Watson fired four bullets into him through the open driver's window, Parent pleaded not to be hurt and told Watson he wouldn’t "say anything." As Parent raised his left hand to shield his face, Watson slashed at it from palm to wrist with a knife that severed tendons and the band of Parent’s wristwatch, which was knocked into the car’s back seat.

The intruders advanced to the main house, where Watson cut the screen of an open window and then told Kasabian to return to the gate, to keep watch.[2]:258-269[2]:176-184[46] He removed the screen, entered through the window, and let Atkins and Krenwinkel in through the front door.[2]:176-184

Parent’s reason for being at the Polanski residence is treated in the article’s subsection headed "Investigation," which is the first part of section 4, "Justice System."71.242.114.149 (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jolaroux, 8 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} found a bunch of typos i can fix

Jolaroux (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you want me to copy this to a subpage that you can edit? CTJF83 chat 01:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do people keep saying what Manson "knew" or "didn't know" or "BELIEVED?" Nobody knows for sure what Manson believed. For example, "Manson's mistaken belief that he had killed Crowe was seemingly confirmed by a news report of the discovery of the dumped body of a Black Panther in Los Angeles." It's a known fact Manson shot Crowe & left the scene. Manson didn't take the time to dump the body so why would he "believe" it was Crowe's "DUMPED body" being described in the news article? MAKES NO SENSE!!! BUT THEN AGAIN, NONE OF THE ORIGINAL HELTER SKELTER THEORY MAKES ANY SENSE!!! Maybe all the false testimony & Bugliosi BS can finally be disproven & hopefully Giovanni Di Stefano will get Manson a new trial & THE TRUTH CAN FINALLY BE REVEALED!!! So much of the evidence contradicts itself & if Manson was GIVEN HIS 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHT &/OR ALLOWED TO TESTIFY & BE HEARD BEFORE THE JURY NONE OF THIS WOULD EVEN MATTER BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T BE THE BIG BAD WOLF! TEX WATSON WOULD BE!! Aliken4Atwa (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Second sentence of paragraph 1, second sentence of paragraph 2

The second sentences of each of the two opening paragraphs have errors.

The second sentence of paragraph 1 reads as follows:

He was found guilty of conspiracy to commit the Tate/LaBianca murders carried out by members of the group at his instruction.

Problem: Needs a comma after murders.

The second sentence of paragraph 2 is this:

Manson misconstrued the lyrics to be about an apocalyptic race war he believed the murders were intended to precipitate.

First problem: Misconstrued violates Wikipedia’s "Neutral Point of View." That is, it is not Wikipedia’s place to remark on the validity of Manson’s interpretation of the song "Helter Skelter" or anything else (no matter how idiosyncratic or absurd his interpretation might seem). Accordingly, the word misconstrued should be replaced by construed — or, to put it more simply, took.

Also, "an apocalyptic race war he believed the murders were intended to precipitate" is inaccurate. "He believed" should be deleted, and the phrase should be recast as follows: "an apocalyptic race war the murders were putatively intended to precipitate." (If not putatively, then supposedly, though putatively seems to me the apt word.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.103.46 (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Why do people keep saying what Manson "knew" or "didn't know" or "BELIEVED?" Nobody knows for sure what Manson believed. For example, "Manson's mistaken belief that he had killed Crowe was seemingly confirmed by a news report of the discovery of the dumped body of a Black Panther in Los Angeles." It's a known fact Manson shot Crowe & left the scene. Manson didn't take the time to dump the body so why would he "believe" it was Crowe's "DUMPED body" being described in the news article? MAKES NO SENSE!!! BUT THEN AGAIN, NONE OF THE ORIGINAL HELTER SKELTER THEORY MAKES ANY SENSE!!! Maybe all the false testimony & Bugliosi BS can finally be disproven & hopefully Giovanni Di Stefano will get Manson a new trial & THE TRUTH CAN FINALLY BE REVEALED!!! So much of the evidence contradicts itself & if Manson was GIVEN HIS 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHT &/OR ALLOWED TO TESTIFY & BE HEARD BEFORE THE JURY NONE OF THIS WOULD EVEN MATTER BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T BE THE BIG BAD WOLF! TEX WATSON WOULD BE!! Aliken4Atwa (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Apart from its being belligerent, your statement completely misses the point of my recommendation that the words "he believed" be deleted from the second sentence of the intro's second paragraph.

A long time ago — back when the article was intelligible — the sentence referred to an "apocalyptic race war the murders were putatively intended to precipitate." You'll notice that that has nothing to do with what Manson believes or doesn't believe. In fact, it doesn't even have anything to do with Manson, who, frankly, isn't very interesting. It has to do with the fact that the murders are "reputed" to have been intended to precipitate a race war.

At some point, some Beatle lover decided that that sentence had to be revised to make clear that Manson had "mis"construed the song "Helter Skelter" to be about a race war. In the course of revising the sentence to make that clear, that same editor inanely changed the sentence's wording to state that "Manson believed" the murders were "intended to precipitate" the race war. That, if you will take a moment to consider it, makes it sound as if Manson learned about the crimes by reading about them in a newspaper. The sentence's problem has nothing to do with what Manson believes or doesn't believe; it has to do with whether or not the article's intro is ridiculous, as it presently is. Of course, in the grand Wikipedia tradition, no helpful editor has taken a moment to act on the simple suggestion I've made here.

As for your own point, that the reference to the "dumped body" of a Black Panther MAKES NO SENSE, because, after all, Manson didn't dump Bernard Crowe's body anywhere: the statement that Manson and the others at the Spahn Ranch considered the dumped body that was reported on the news to have been Crowe's body appears in the autobiography of Tex Watson — I know: LIAR!! — and is not at all bizarre. There were other persons, criminals, in the room where Crowe was shot, and Manson and the others could reasonably have thought those persons dumped the body somewhere to avoid being connected with a homicide in illegal circumstances. Here, if you don't mind reading a few big words, is the passage from Watson's book, Chapter 13:

At the ranch the next day, Charlie couldn't stop talking about how he "plugged blackie." We all assumed Crowe had died, especially when a report came on the news that the body of a Black Panther had been dumped near U.C.L.A. the night before. This made us a litte uneasy, since we hadn't figured on getting involved with the Panthers, and Charlie got even more nervous when almost immediately it seemed that all kinds of blacks started showing up, renting horses. He was convinced they were Panther spies and he started posting armed guards at night and having us sleep scattered back in the hills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.103.46 (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

The ill-founded statement above from editor Aliken4Atwa makes clear that the article's subsection headed "Crowe shooting" should indicate that Bernard Crowe was not alone in his apartment when Manson shot him. The article's current sentence about the shooting is this:

Manson countered on July 1, 1969, by shooting Crowe at his Hollywood apartment.

That should be revised as follows:

Manson countered on July 1, 1969, by shooting Crowe in the presence of Crowe's associates, at Crowe's Hollywood apartment.

So — my three recommendations are these:

1. In subsection headed "Crowe shooting," change sentence to this: Manson countered on July 1, 1969, by shooting Crowe in the presence of Crowe's associates, at Crowe's Hollywood apartment.
2. In first paragraph of intro, change second sentence to this: He was found guilty of conspiracy to commit the Tate/LaBianca murders, carried out by members of the group at his instruction. (I.e., add comma.)
3. In second paragraph of intro, change second sentence to this: Manson took the lyrics to be about an apocalyptic race war the murders were putatively intended to precipitate. (I.e., eliminate misconstrued, which violates NPOV; add putatively; and eliminate he believed, which makes it sound as if Manson was unconnected to the crimes and read about them in a newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.103.46 (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)