Talk:Charles Manson/Archive 5

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

Word salad?

Does Manson have what is known as word salad? Why is he so weird?--83.248.89.93 (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Poor, Grammar, Please, Fix

Before the murders, he was a singer-songwriter on the fringe of the Los Angeles music industry, chiefly through a chance association with Dennis Wilson, founding member and drummer of The Beach Boys.

Change to proper use of commas:

Before the murders he was a singer-songwriter on the fringe of the Los Angeles music industry chiefly through a chance association with Dennis Wilson, a founding member and drummer of The Beach Boys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.22.110 (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  • The article has many compositional problems — but those two commas are not among them.71.242.167.237 (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


Delineation of Convictions?

Is it too much to expect someone doing a Wikipedia article on Charles Manson et al to delineate the specific murder-related crimes Manson family members were convicted of? How many people was Charles Manson found guilty of killing? Seven? Nine? Ten? What exactly were the "27 separate counts" divided among which four defendants? Who was convicted of what in separate trials? I find it ridiculous that I have to point this out about what one would expect to be a serious article.~No~IDs~please~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epischedda (talk • contribs) 17:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As per Bugliosi's book:

Manson, Krenwinkel, and Atkins: 7 counts of murder and one count of conpiracy each. Van Houten: 2 counts of murder and one count of comspiracy.

total: 27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.20.196 (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Should be removed

A long paragraph about Nikolas Schreck and his documentary Charles Manson Superstar has been added to the article's subsection headed "Remaining in View." All but the first sentence of it should be removed.

The paragraph is POV ("considered one of the most authoritative and comprehensive documentaries on the subject").

It is irrelevant (full of verbiage about Schreck's conclusions).

It is erroneous and confuses the article (claims that the prosecution argued that Manson thought Terry Melcher was living at the Tate house on the murder night — even thought the Wikipedia article points out earlier, in the subsection headed "Encounter with Tate," that Manson had been told by Rudi Altobelli that Melcher no longer lived there).

It blathers about the "admitted" copycat motive (re helping Beausoleil) as if this has not been mentioned anywhere else in the article, even though it's been dealt with thoroughly (and brought into doubt) in the footnoted section about the trial.

The whole paragraph is precisely the sort of internet junk that Wikipedia should be trying not to be.108.52.30.154 (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


PS From prosecution's closing argument (which is linked at article's end):

... when Charles Manson sent his robots out on a mission of murder, since the only qualifications the victims had to have was that they be white and members of the establishment, obviously, it made immense sense to Charles Manson, so he may just as well select a residence that he was familiar with, particularly one where he had been treated rather shabbily and whose former occupant, Terry Melcher, had rejected him.

Emphasis added.108.52.30.154 (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed you're still using this tactic after all this time. If you will not pursue the extremely simple avenue to getting unblocked: what the heck are you still doing here? I cannot comprehend your motivation for commenting, admitting who you are, and making no effort to actually improve the article because of whatever "greater reason" you have. It's stupid. And it's old. Doc talk 11:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Also - this absurd and pointless edit makes me want to see you blocked, either as a sock of an indefinitely blocked editor or a disruptive impersonator. What exactly is your problem? Do speak up... Doc talk 11:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Doc — There was nothing absurd or pointless about my comment you linked at the Carlin talk page. It was an effort to change the article from fanboy slop.
I object to your use of the word tactic — and I object to your indignation. A long time ago, I posted on a Wikipedia page a statement I considered necessary. An administrator deemed it a legal threat and said I was blocked if I were not to withdraw it. I thought it inappropriate to withdraw it. That's not a problem. That's action. I might just as well ask you why you think Wikipedia should be permitted to operate as it does, with no real means of addressing possible libel of persons who edit under their actual names.
As your own statement immediately above makes clear, this is not the first time you have posted an objection to a talk-page statement that I have posted in good faith in an attempt to improve this article. If you think the criticism I have stated above (re the Schreck material) is a good one, you should act on it. I'm not disrupting anything. My course of action is not enigmatic: I'm choosing to ignore a block I think is unfounded. I'm making serious contributions to the discussion of this article. I'll be frank and say you seem more interested in playing Wikipedia social leader than in acting on my suggestions. The Schreck material I've discussed above mars the article. It is, as I have pointed out, junk. You're more interested in cutting me off than in simply acting to remove it. You, I think, are the one who has a problem. I am pretty sure that just about any interaction you and I personally have had on a Wikipedia talk page has been proper.108.52.30.154 (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
PS Doc — I can't give this matter any more attention. Should you choose to post a response to my remarks above, I won't see it. I looked in on the article and saw the Schreck material, which struck me as something from a Manson fanpage. I've made clear why I think it should be struck from the article. — John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia, PA, USA108.52.30.154 (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not interested in "cutting you off" - you are. If you want good faith: retract your ridiculous legal threat and come back aboard. Otherwise, you are not a legitimate editor here by the rules established long before you or I joined here. Smarten up, please. Doc talk 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 3 November 2011

"part of 'the hole in the infinite" under Helter Skelter should be "part of 'the whole in the infinite"

Withoutsin (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: I had a look at the sentence you mentioned and noticed it's in quotes, and referenced to a certain book see here. I couldn't find a copy of the book anywhere, but would like to understand your reasoning for the change. Could you please explain? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Google says it's "the hole" and not "the whole". 4.4 million vs 1 result. --uKER (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's a transcription of Chapter 12 of My Life with Charles Manson (by Manson Family member Paul Watkins, with Guillermo Soledad): http://tatelabianca.blogspot.com/2006/06/my-life-with-charles-manson-chapter_30.html The transcript, which could, of course, have been mistyped, says "hole"; and that's my memory of the text, which I borrowed from a library a few years ago. Somewhere else — in the same book, I think — the phrase is completed in a sentence that goes something like this: "Charlie said the Beatles were a hole in the infinite, which love poured through." I emphasize: I'm paraphrasing, from memory — but that suggests that hole, not whole, is the correct word.108.36.209.26 (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
PS Here's the passage whose sentence I paraphrased, immediately above, from memory. It's from page 64, Chapter 5, of the Watkins-Soledad book (My Life with Charles Manson, Bantam Books, 1979. ISBN 0-553-12788-8). Manson is speaking:
"The idea is to kill off the programs society has stuck us with…to deprogram ourselves…to get rid of the past shit…to submit to the love and come to Now. That's why we sing and make love together and see our fears for what they are…steps to a higher consciousness. It's like the man on the cross, dig. He just loved. He just submitted to his love and all his body carried was love; there were no programs inside him. He was clear, just a hole in the infinite that love poured out of."
Charlie would often refer to himself as a "hole in the infinite"; the implications were obvious, and I remembered Snake's comment the first day I came to Spahn's: "Charlie is Jesus Christ."
See also the following, from the book's Chapter 3:
We drove up Topanga Canyon Boulevard, past Devonshire to Santa Susana Pass, then up to the Chatsworth foothills. The girls talked about Charlie and the family, how mellow their life was there, how deeply they all felt Charlie's love. "Charlie," Brenda intoned, "is just a hole in the infinite through which love is funneled." It all sounded pretty hokey to me, and I didn't pay much attention, until Snake flashed a beatific smile and said simply, "Charlie is Jesus Christ."
They both giggled. I let it slide, thinking it some sort of inside joke.108.36.209.26 (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Reported Facts

This article states that Charles Manson's birth date is November 12, 1934 but he himself has spoken and said that his birth date is November 11, 1934 - which is Veteran's Day.

As many people know, date reporting is Vital (it is known as a Vital Record). I request that the True facts be represented, and that no altering of true fact be allowed. Please correct the discrepancy of Charles Manson's reported birth date. 107.3.77.47 (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.77.47 (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

107.3.77.47 (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the birth certificate (which is linked in the article's footnote 10): http://www.mansondirect.com/birthcert.html
The discrepancy is addressed in Bugliosi and Gentry's Helter Skelter:
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.
That's a footnote to the fourth paragraph of the book's chapter headed "November 22-23, 1969" (page 136 of the 1994 25th Anniversary Edition).108.36.209.26 (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

homosexual rape

Apparantly he was convicted for homosexual rape as well. http://library.thinkquest.org/C007102/Murderers/manson.htm Shouldn't that be in the article.--41.151.14.6 (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, unless there's a much better source. See WP:RS. That source is not reliable by WP standards. Cheers :> Doc talk 04:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The article reports it. See the first paragraph of the subsection headed "First imprisonment."108.36.209.26 (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
So... if it's already in the article then I'm not sure what you're asking should be in the article. Doc talk 06:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The editor who pointed out that the article reports it is not the editor who asked about it.108.36.209.26 (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Very true - I got confused :) Perhaps they will respond, and perhaps not. Cheers! Doc talk 09:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Really interesting entety with clear philosophy

I was just wondering, have you guys looked in to any of hes interviews also, like this one here with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZFKRtwCLog Daniels  ? There is a lot of new white rabbits one could fallow and research further. I feel like something important is missing from this article, cant understand what. And what about hes birth date, was it really on 12 or is it on 11 as he told? Why lie about it, besides numerology and other upcoming events in this numeric world ?

Waffa 02:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waffa (talk • contribs)

Edit request on 27 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The Manson website, ATWA.com, was discontinued in 2001. [The following information should be added.] ATWA, which is an acronym for "All The Way Alive," now operates a website out of Berkely, California, and it was last updated in October 2009. The website contains quotes and philosophy from Manson, Sandra Good, and Lynette Fromme, and focuses on environmental issues.

Website address: http://www.allthewayalive.com/One_World_Order/one.html Beadbop (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Beadbop (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot add that without an independent reliable source.  Chzz  ►  07:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

pathology?

could use more info on what psychiatrists think of him, what mental illnesses he had/has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.165.150 (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 January 2012

I'm requesting that the Charles Manson article be edited to reflect the fact Manson ALLEGEDLY believed in "Helter Skelter" but this has NOT been confirmed by the man himself. As a matter of fact, Vince Bugliosi stated in a recent interview that "Helter Skelter" was NOT on Manson's mind and the killers had the instinct in them already to commit the murders. This interview can be found on "YouTube" and is what I consider to be a total contradiction to Bugliosi's past claims. This is how I feel the following article sections should read:

{Manson allegedly believed in what he called "Helter Skelter," a term taken from the song of the same name by The Beatles. It was said Manson believed Helter Skelter to be an impending apocalyptic race war, which he described in his own version of the lyrics to the Beatles' song but this is debatable since Manson never publicly confirmed anything of the sort. According to prosecutor Vince Bugliosi, Manson supposedly believed his murders would help precipitate that war. From the beginning of his notoriety, this connection with rock music linked him with a pop culture in which he ultimately became an emblem of insanity, violence and the macabre.}

{Helter Skelter Main article: Helter Skelter (Manson scenario)


For some time, Manson had been saying that racial tension between blacks and whites was growing and that blacks would soon rise up in rebellion in America's cities.[29][30] He had emphasized Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination, which had taken place on April 4, 1968.[23] On a bitterly cold New Year's Eve at Myers Ranch, the Family members, gathered outside around a large fire, listened as Manson explained that the social turmoil he had been predicting had supposedly also been predicted by the Beatles.[26] The White Album songs, he allegedly declared, told it all, although in code. Furthermore, it was said he maintained (or would soon maintain), the album was directed at the Family itself, an elect group that was being instructed to preserve the worthy from the impending disaster.[29][30]

In early January 1969, the Family escaped the desert's cold and positioned itself to monitor L.A.'s supposed tension by moving to a canary-yellow home in Canoga Park, not far from the Spahn Ranch.[2]:244–247[26][31] Because this locale would allow the group to remain "submerged beneath the awareness of the outside world,"[2]:244–247[32] Manson called it the Yellow Submarine, another Beatles reference. There, Family members prepared for the impending apocalypse,[33][34] which, around the campfire, Manson had allegedly termed "Helter Skelter," after the song of that name.

By February, the so-called "Helter Skelter" vision was complete. The Family would create an album whose songs, as subtle as those of the Beatles, would trigger the predicted chaos. This is just a theory however and many have viewed the album differently. Supposedly, ghastly murders of whites by blacks would be met with retaliation, and a split between racist and non-racist whites would yield whites' self-annihilation. Blacks' triumph, as it were, would merely precede their being ruled by the Family, which would ride out the conflict in "the bottomless pit"—a secret city beneath Death Valley.[35] At the Canoga Park house, while Family members worked on vehicles and pored over maps to prepare for their desert escape, they also worked on songs for their world-changing album. When they were told Terry Melcher was to come to the house to hear the material, the women prepared a meal and cleaned the place; but Melcher never arrived.[29][33]}

{Crowe shooting

On May 18, 1969, Terry Melcher visited Spahn Ranch to hear Manson and the women sing. Melcher arranged a subsequent visit, not long thereafter, on which he brought a friend who possessed a mobile recording unit; but he himself did not record the group.[2]:156,185[36]

By June, Manson was allegedly telling the Family they might have to show blacks how to start "Helter Skelter".[2]:244–247[34][37] When Manson supposedly tasked Watson with obtaining money supposedly intended to help the Family prepare for the conflict, Watson defrauded a black drug dealer named Bernard "Lotsapoppa" Crowe. Crowe responded with a threat to wipe out everyone at Spahn Ranch. Manson countered on July 1, 1969, by shooting Crowe at his Hollywood apartment.[2]:99–113[2]:91–96[38][39]

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. Although Crowe was not a member of the Black Panthers, Manson, concluding he had been, expected retaliation from the group. Spahn Ranch was turned into a defensive camp, with night patrols of armed guards.[38][40] "If we'd needed any more proof that Helter Skelter was coming down very soon, this was it," Tex Watson would later write, "[B]lackie was trying to get at the chosen ones."[38]}

{Hinman murder

On July 25, 1969, sometime Family member Bobby Beausoleil along with Mary Brunner and Susan Atkins went to the house of acquaintance Gary Hinman, to persuade him to turn over money Manson thought Hinman had inherited.[2]:75–77[38][41] The three held the uncooperative Hinman hostage for two days, during which Manson showed up with a sword to slash his ear. After that, Beausoleil stabbed Hinman to death in a panic. Before leaving the Topanga Canyon residence, Beausoleil, or one of the women, used Hinman’s blood to write "Political piggy" on the wall and to draw a panther paw, a Black Panther symbol.[2]:33, 91–96, 99–113[42]

In magazine interviews of 1981 and 1998–99,[43][44] Beausoleil would say he went to Hinman’s to recover money paid to Hinman for drugs that had supposedly been bad; he added that Brunner and Atkins, unaware of his intent, went along idly, merely to visit Hinman. On the other hand, Atkins, in her 1977 autobiography, wrote that Manson directly told Beausoleil, Brunner, and her to go to Hinman’s and get the supposed inheritance—$21,000. She said Manson had told her privately, two days earlier, that, if she wanted to "do something important," she could kill Hinman and get his money. Whether this is a factual account or not on the part of Atkins remains to be seen[41]}

{Tate murders

Beausoleil was arrested on August 6, 1969, after he had been caught driving Hinman's car. Police found the murder weapon in the tire well.[2]:28–38 Two days later, Manson allegedly told Family members at Spahn Ranch, "Now is the time for Helter Skelter."[2]:258–269[38][45]

On the night of August 8, Manson allegedly directed Watson to take Atkins, Linda Kasabian, and Patricia Krenwinkel to "that house where Melcher used to live" and "totally destroy everyone in [it], as gruesome as you can."[2]:463–468[46] He supposedly told the women to do as Watson would instruct them.[2]:176–184, 258–269 Krenwinkel was one of the early Family members, one of the hitchhikers who had allegedly been picked up by Dennis Wilson.[2]:250–253 The current occupants of the house, all of whom were strangers to the Manson followers, were movie actress Sharon Tate, wife of famed director Roman Polanski and eight and a half months pregnant; her friend and former lover Jay Sebring, a noted hairstylist; Polanski's friend and aspiring screenwriter Wojciech Frykowski, and Frykowski’s lover Abigail Folger, heiress to the Folger coffee fortune.[2]:28–38 Tate's husband, Polanski, was in London working on a film project; Tate had been visiting with him and had returned to the United States only three weeks earlier.[citation needed]}

{LaBianca murders

The next night, six Family members—Leslie Van Houten, Steve "Clem" Grogan, and the four from the previous night—rode out at Manson’s alleged instruction. Displeased by the panic of the victims at Cielo Drive, Manson accompanied the six. He allegedly wanted "to show [them] how to do it."[2]:176–184, 258–269[48] After a few hours’ ride, in which he considered a number of murders and even attempted one of them,[2]:258–269[48] Manson allegedly gave Kasabian directions that brought the group to 3301 Waverly Drive. This was the home of supermarket executive Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary, a dress shop co-owner.[2]:22–25, 42–48 Located in the Los Feliz section of Los Angeles, it was next door to a house at which Manson and Family members had attended a party the previous year.[2]:176–184, 204–210}

{Hoping for a double crime, Manson had allegedly gone on to direct Kasabian to drive to the Venice home of an actor acquaintance of hers, another "piggy." Depositing the second trio of Family members at the man's apartment building, he drove back to Spahn Ranch, leaving them and the LaBianca killers to hitchhike home.[2]:176–184, 258–269 Kasabian thwarted this murder by deliberately knocking on the wrong apartment door and waking a stranger. As the group abandoned the murder plan and left, Susan Atkins defecated in the stairwell.[2]:270–273}


If you people aren't willing to allow the article to be edited, the least you can do is permit a disclaimer to be posted at the top of the page stating that some items in the article can be deemed as debatable contrary to popular belief. I have to say, I find it rather convenient that you chose to make this article semi-protected. I guess the possibility of the flip-side to the Manson case being exposed is too much for you huh? It seems you're so willing to accept the sensationalistic "Helter Skelter" drama and don't want anyone to believe anything else. Why else would this page be semi-protected? I can't think of 1 good reason for this.

ATWA WOLF (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected because of persistent vandalism and questionable editing from disruptive users. Any autoconfirmed editor can edit the article, keeping in mind that their edits will be watched but many, and judged accordingly with the many policies and guidelines that are in place. Cheers. Doc talk 19:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Typo

There is a typo in section 5.1 Remaining in view.

Bobby Beausoleil's last name is misspelled as Beausoliel.

Elpato77 (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Doc talk 23:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested clarification

The article's section headed "Trial" begins as follows:

The trial began June 15, 1970. The prosecution's main witness was Kasabian, who, along with Manson, Atkins, and Krenwinkel, had been charged with seven counts of murder and one of conspiracy.

This is a reference to the trial of Manson and the three women for the Tate and LaBianca killings — but that is not clear to the reader. The reader unfamiliar with the events might be wondering whether the trial also had to do with the Crowe shooting and the Hinman murder, which the article mentions earlier, among "Family crimes." In fact, someone who posted on this talk page a while back said he wasn't clear what murders Manson had been convicted of.

Maybe the first of those two sentences quoted above should be reworded:

The trial of Manson and three women for the seven Tate and LaBianca killings began June 15, 1970.108.36.209.26 (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks good - just make the changes, 108.! Cheers :) Doc talk 12:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you like the suggestion. I can't make the change myself; the article is locked.108.36.209.26 (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
And you know what my suggestion is on how to get around that, as always ;> Doc talk 04:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

If someone could please change "assistant librarian" to "library assistant", I would appreciate it very much. Being a librarian generally requires an MLIS, which Mary Brunner did not have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.194.11 (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Doc talk 05:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

The line in the third paragraph referencing Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys is somewhat misleading. Strictly speaking, it does say correctly that Manson was on the fringe of the music scene through his association with Dennis, but the "founding member and drummer for the Beach Boys" line clouds that a bit and could be incorrectly construed as saying Manson was a founding member/drummer for the Beach Boys. I'd recommend changing the line to read, simply: "Before the murders, he was a singer-songwriter on the fringe of the Los Angeles music industry, chiefly through a chance association with Dennis Wilson of The Beach Boys." The article doesn't need any additional detail as to Dennis Wilson's role in the band. Its irrelevant and can be confusing. Just my $.02Laxpanther (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. In fact, the sentence's original wording was what you suggest: "Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys" — or maybe "Beach Boy Dennis Wilson." The article has had no capable oversight for about two years.108.36.209.26 (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request 12 April 2012

In the third paragraph in the section titled "Remaining in view," it states "In the 1980s, Manson gave four notable interviews." However, the paragraph then goes on to list only three interviews, the "first," "second," and "last." The "last" interview took place in 1988. The following paragraph lists what I assume is the "fourth" interview, taken in 1989. Shouldn't this be the "last" interview of the 1980s, as referenced at the start of the third paragraph? I recommend changing the word "last" to "third" in the sentence beginning "The last, with Geraldo Rivera..." I also recommend combining these two paragraphs since they follow one thought started in the third paragraph. 128.223.131.207 (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Andrew

You are correct. This and other problems arose when an incompetent editor added the material about the Schreck piece. A complaint about that material has already been posted on the present page — and has been ignored. The article has had no capable oversight for about two years.108.36.209.26 (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding new section

I started work on a new section, but feared it would be deleted within seconds, so decided to post it here first, for discussion. It would deal with the philosophical and religious views of Manson and co. Dealing with: Echokill, Nuness (Order of the Rainbow), Aryan Brotherhood, ATWA, Scientology and The Process Church... Please help me expand this, comment, argue, destroy, etc, so that we can get a proper section of the views within the Family; However "mad" there are enough of them to warrant inclusion. --Torsrthidesen (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"==Religious and Philosophical Views==

For several years, Manson kept in touch with members of the Family who still followed Manson, in particular Sandra Good and Squeaky Fromme. Manson moved away from the White-Black civil war he had claimed would take place, and focuses more on ecology. Sandra Good and Lynette Fromme joined The Process Church of The Final Judgment, and continued for some time to send threatening letters to CEOs regarding pollution. In 1974, from prison, Manson formulated a new religion called "Nuness" or "The Order of the Rainbow". Little is known in particular about this movement, which consisted mainly of Good, Fromme and Manson. Manson assigned colours to various former and present members (Lynette Fromme became Red, Sandra Good became Blue). [1] Following his incarceration, the Family became affiliated with The Aryan Brotherhood, where Kenneth Como became a influential member. However, the relationship was strained, and the group split, claiming that Manson was too far left and not racist or violent enough. Fromme and Good also formed the movement "Echokill" around the mid 70s, continuing their ecology work, they wore long ominous hooded red gowns.[2] Squeaky Fromme also spearheaded a book which would elaborate the Family philosophy, however the project was abandoned when she realized how incriminating the book would be. From the end of the seventies and until today, Manson would concentrate more on the ATWA movement; A philosophy based on ecology, leftist dialectics, anti-pornography and violence and anti-pollution, though much of the philosophy is muddled by contradictory statements and shock value. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torsrthidesen (talk • contribs) 07:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ed Sanders, The Family, p.446
  2. ^ Ed Sanders, The Family, p 445-447
Should I just add it, or will someone delete it immediately? --Torsrthidesen (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
If it's what you proposed above, it will be deleted per WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, lack of citations, etc. Doc talk 07:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Archive note: The two citations shown above were not visible with the original comment due to a formatting error. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 May 2012

My edit is based on my objection to the depersonalisation of women in this article.

Throughout the article, female individuals are frequently referred to as the belongings of Charles Manson, whilst men are named and described in terms of their backgrounds, interests, and current/previous occupations. I would be pleased to see the indiscrepancies between the two corrected.

Thanks; otherwise a stimulating article. 121.45.100.252 (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The above edit request would be more helpful if it were more specific — i.e. if it were phrased more in the form of "please change X to Y" with specific quoted text for each instance of "X" and "Y" (as recommended in the heading generated by the edit request template as shown above). I don't want to have to read the whole article to determine for myself whether the above general complaint of bias is legitimate or not (and how to fix it if I decide that I agree). My basic understanding is that most of Manson's most devoted followers were women, and I think that is simply a well-documented fact rather than an indication of bias in the way the article is written. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Per the instructions in the edit semi-protected template, "'Please change X' is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form 'please change X to Y'." Feel free to make a specific request and it may be accepted. I'm not your research assistant; I'm a volunteer like you. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 04:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Height?

No mention on this page of his height, of which debate exisit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.166.252 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 15 April 2012‎ (UTC)

If debate exists, that's probably why it's not mentioned in the article: there's no reliable source for it. —C.Fred (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure it's mentioned in The Family and Helter Skelter... Surely they are reliable sources? And surely the prison must have a good record of it? --Torsrthidesen (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
He's not a tall man. I can tell you that. Maybe 5 1/2 feet? Doc talk 05:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
He's taller than most think, taller than 5'1. His lack of heigh has been hyped by anti-Manson nuts. --Torsrthidesen (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Kindly identify an anti-Manson nut who has said he isn't taller than 5'1.108.36.209.26 (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The most common answer if you Google "How tall is Charles Manson?" seems to be 5'2. That's pretty short. Doc talk 01:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I just watched a documentary that contained an interview with Vincent Bugliosi. In the documentary, Bugliosi mentioned that Manson was about 5 feet 2 inches in height. The documentary, from 2008, is entitled Will You Kill for Me? Charles Manson and His Followers. This is the Internet Movie Database link for the film: [1]. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Manson is 5'7 as referenced in the official police report during the raid on Spahn Ranch. [2] Twarwick666 (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This question is difficult to answer. The Spahn Ranch raid report, which is linked in the comment immediately above, seems merely to be parroting information from Manson's July 1967 California Driver's License, which may be seen at http://airtreeswateranimals.blogspot.com/2010/11/charles-manson-was-born-on-11-11-34.html Note that the said report mimics the license's November 11 birth date, which is incorrect. (See the birth certificates at the same link.)

In Helter Skelter, there is a photograph that may be seen at http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/24152813/Charles+Manson+mansonfull.jpg It shows Manson in front of a height chart after his October 1969 arrest at Barker Ranch. The photo is apparently what Vincent Bulgiosi relied on when he said, in Helter Skelter, that Manson was 5-2 (chapter headed "November 19-21, 1969").

The photo—i.e., the height-chart itself—has a problem: the distance between the four-foot and five-foot marks looks to be much more than a foot. The distance between the four-foot mark, which is the chart's bottom point, and the floor is not four times the distance between the four and five-foot marks. The chart, in other words, appears to be useless; it's hard to figure out what the police were using it for.

At http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6hpMUiZGBuQ/SS2VcAbv3mI/AAAAAAAABro/XBUSLKt5R1U/s1600-h/CCF11262008_00000+-+Copy-744646.jpg is a fairly-recent photograph of Manson standing next to a woman who reports her own height as 5-3. (See http://mansonmysteries.blogspot.com/2009/08/charles-manson-5-foot-2.html?showComment=1345417323833#c7747271698612697999 ) The woman puts Manson's height, at the time of the picture, at about 5-4, which, if she is accurately reporting her own height, seems right.

Although there are persons to whom this subject is important, the Wikipedia article should avoid it, I think, simply because of these difficulties with it.108.52.83.38 (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Investigation by police; Danny Galindo

This article should mention Danny Galindo, who was in charge of both crime scenes. No police are identified by name although surely their names are known -- saying "The Tate Team" and "The LaBianca Team" would be better if we knew who was on the teams. As an aside, Danny Galindo should have an article of his own: see http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/08/local/la-me-danny-galindo8-2010apr08 for his obituary. He is also the subject of the recent book "L.A. '56" by Joel Engel. This book says that after being shot down over Germany and held as a prisoner of war, he escaped, immediately volunteered for more missions, and was shot down again. 72.179.53.2 (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Eric

--108.52.83.38 (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Proposition

This article reads like a rehash of Vincent Bugliosi's Helter Skelter- despite the overwhelming amount of material available on the subject.

I would like to bounce this idea off of folks here for possible editing- I have studied the case since 2007, and I have identified 4 theories as to the motive of the murders, and several about how they went down. I suggest splitting the section "Helter Skelter" into a section titled "Possible Motives" with 4 subsections- "Helter Skelter" (Racist war, as proposed by Bugliosi), "Music as Motive" (Proposed mainly by the media at the time of trial, and still heavily spoken of today, that the murders were revenge on Terry Melcher), "Drug Burn" (That the murders were not preplanned and were the result of a drug deal gone wrong, as proposed by Marlin Marynick, Nuel Emmons, and Nikolas Schreck, three legitimate authors on the subject), and "Occult motives" (Which range from Masonry, to Satanism, to revivalist Baptism fundamentalism, to Scientology and also have been written about extensively by authors and spoken of by interviewers.)

You have to understand from an objective point of view, this page appears rather biased, and might as well, in current form, be titled "Helter Skelter" since almost all the material and sources come from only this one possible motive, but other legitimate, well studied motives do exist. This article makes use of only a quarter or so of available legitimate material, but over time it might be possible to weed through the corpus of books etc and pick out some alternative theories and explanations which are both objective and valid. Twarwick666 (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In all the time that you’ve been studying the case, did you bother reading Bugliosi’s final summation? It’s linked in the Wikipedia article; it includes this:
Now, why were these murders committed? Well, this trial answered that question. There appears to be three motives for these murders. There was Manson's hatred, his hatred for human beings, and his passion and lust for their violent death. Anyone who could order these seven savage, horrendous murders had to have a lust, a passion for violent death. The evidence at this trial amply showed Manson's complete immersion and engrossment and preoccupation with death, blood, and murder.
Another motive—another motive—was Manson's extreme antiestablishment hatred. Unquestionably, on both nights, Charles Manson was viciously striking out at the establishment; and with respect to the Tate residence particularly, the establishment's rejection and repudiation of him. Of course, the principal motive for these murders, the main motive, was Helter Skelter, Manson's fanatical obsession, his mania with Helter Skelter. Helter Skelter was Charlie's religion, a religion that he lived by. To Manson, Helter Skelter was the black man rising up against the white man, and then the black-white war.
It also includes this:
One doesn't have to stretch the imagination to realize that the Tate residence was symbolic to Charles Manson, and particularly the establishment's rejection of him. Now, with an overall motive for these murders, an overall motive of Helter Skelter, the victims who Charles Manson ordered murdered really didn't make too much difference to him. As long as they were white and members of the establishment they were qualified, as it were. On the evening of August the eighth, 1969, when Charles Manson sent his robots out on a mission of murder, since the only qualifications the victims had to have was that they be white and members of the establishment, obviously, it made immense sense to Charles Manson, so he may just as well select a residence that he was familiar with, particularly one where he had been treated rather shabbily and whose former occupant, Terry Melcher, had rejected him. If the Tate premises, ladies and gentlemen, did not symbolize the establishment to Charles Manson, no residence, no premises, ever would.
In short, Manson’s antipathy to Melcher was an element of the prosecution’s case against Manson; it’s part of the record of the trial. The Wikipedia article presently says—accurately—that the prosecution cited Helter Skelter as the main motive. That statement is footnoted with a link to Bugliosi’s summation, where the Wikipedia reader is able to learn more. If that’s not enough, a brief paragraph may be placed at the end of the article’s section headed "Trial." The paragraph could be something like this:
The prosecution cited two other motives. The first was Manson’s "hatred for human beings, and his passion and lust for their violent death."[1] The second was Manson’s "extreme antiestablishment hatred."[2] In choosing the Tate residence, which had been Terry Melcher's residence and where he had been treated "rather shabbily" the day he encountered Sharon Tate and Shahrokh Hatami,[3] Manson was "striking out ... at the establishment’s rejection and repudiation of him."[4]
As for your other two subjects—"Drug burn" and "Occult motives": the Wikipedia article presently draws not only on Helter Skelter but on two interviews with Robert Beausoleil and on autobiographies of three Family members (Watson, Atkins, and Watkins), two of whom were Tate-LaBianca defendants and the third of whom was a prosecution witness. In none of those sources, as far as I am aware, is there even a whiff of a statement to support those motives. The "overwhelming amount of material" to which you refer is dross, which you attempt to dignify by repeating the adjective "legitimate."108.52.83.38 (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Prosecution’s closing argument
  2. ^ Prosecution’s closing argument
  3. ^ Prosecution’s closing argument
  4. ^ Prosecution’s closing argument
Your claim that all other information is dross is not based in reality, merely opinion. If, for example, Nuel Emmons or Nikolas Schreck (both of whom have spoken to Manson repeatedly) are correct, the prosecutions case is actually bunk. Perhaps though you are right about the approach, perhaps it would make more sense to add a new section later in the article listing some of the more prominent alternative theories- for while most conspiracy driven authors and moguls seem to have made most of their information up, Emmons and Schreck have both poured over police reports and spoken with associates of Manson, or of the deceased.

For example, the article says nothing about Susan Atkins' recent unfinished autobiography, in which she recants the entire Helter Skelter myth and admits it was entirely made up on the spot. One look at the section here in talk about Manson's height should be a good indication of how much misinformation about the case and Manson himself there is- his height is clearly, according to police reports, 5'7, but yet folks continue to state he was 5'2 based on a police photo which is fairly obviously flawed in measurement.

I am wondering why you refer to all material other than that which supports the currently widely believed Helter Skelter theory as useless dross- when in reality anyone who has bothered to compare the police reports to the prosecution can see there are discrepancies which are irreconcilable- for example, Watson giving three different versions of how he entered Cielo Drive, the police report stating it appeared drinks had been offered to the killers (who, according to Bugliosi, never knew anyone from the Manson Family) we can also see a problem if we study phone records, which Schreck points out show that several calls were made to Cielo Drive before the murders from Spahn Ranch. And what about the time elapsed during the killings? The prosecution claims it lasted 20 minutes when witness testimony (which was suppressed from making it to the jury) indicates the Cielo Drive incident lasted for hours? There is more to this case than meets the eye, and far more than merely Helter Skelter. I'll probably change the article anyways- I can properly source it and if it is removed by anyone other than a moderator, I'll probably flag their change. Twarwick666 (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"There is more to this case than meets the eye" is the sort of thing that can be said about anything, if someone is inclined to raise doubts. The Family members who participated in the events at Cielo Drive have given what are essentially consistent accounts of the events that took place there. Please be specific: What are Watson's three different versions of his entry into Cielo Drive? What evidence is there that the Cielo Drive incident lasted for hours? What phone records show calls from Spahn to Cielo Drive—when?108.52.83.38 (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed your comment included more than the one paragraph on which I just remarked. Thanks for remarking on the confusion over Manson's height. If you'll go back to the post, above, in which that subject is discussed, you'll see that I happen to be the one who provided the information that clarified the discussion. I'm the one who pointed out the problem with the police photo—a problem that has never been pointed out by anyone else, as far as I know, in more than forty years; but now you, who, immediately above my comment about that subject, posted a comment in which you didn't even express any awareness of the photo, presume to inform me that the photo is "fairly obviously flawed." If you had paid attention to the rest of my comment there, you would see that I also pointed out that the Spahn Ranch raid report appears simply to mimic Manson's Driver's License information (weight, height, hair and eye color, and incorrect birth date). There's no reason to think that whoever entered that information in the raid report did anything other than check Manson's driver's license info. The raid report sheds no light on the question of Manson's height. That's not a question in which I'm particularly interested. I'm interested in pointing out your disordered handling of information.108.52.83.38 (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm also struck by your reference to "Susan Atkins's recent unfinished autobiography, in which she recants the entire Helter Skelter myth and admits it was entirely made up on the spot." That misrepresents Atkins's document so grossly as to be little better than a lie. (I'm being polite.) I hope Wikipedia editors who are looking in on this discussion will remember that you said that. If they'd like to examine Atkins's document for themselves, so that they'll be able to evaluate your remark, they may see it at http://www.susanatkins.org/6-Myth.html 108.52.83.38 (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Note re my own post of 2:23, 22 August 2012: The post's final question—"What phone records show calls from Spahn to Cielo Drive—when?"—was added at 5:12; i.e., it wasn't part of the original post. I should have posted it separately, not inserted it in that post. It was unfair of me to add it to that post.108.52.83.38 (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct birthday is November 11

In the film Charles Manson Superstar, Manson says "I was on 11/11/34". More proof including birth certificates is found at the following link (which can be used for a source) http://airtreeswateranimals.blogspot.com/2010/11/charles-manson-was-born-on-11-11-34.html I would update it myself, but the page is protected. 172.129.131.143 (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The birth certificates there show November 12, not 11.108.52.83.38 (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect link

In the article's opening paragraph is a reference to the "joint responsibility rule," which is part of the law of conspiracy—i.e., of criminal law. At 23:28, 25 August 12, an editor linked the phrase to Wikipedia's article about joint and several liability, which is something else entirely. The editor seems to have meant well, but the link should be removed.108.52.83.38 (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Money?

I thought this was a very good article, very thorough, but I kept wondering where Manson and the Family's money was coming from. I assume burglaries, petty crime and perhaps dealing drugs, but the article isn't specific about this. The Linda Kasabian entry mentions that Family members broke into houses while their owners were sleeping and then stole money and credit cards. Could the article be amended to include this information? This is the passage: "Kasabian began joining "family" members on their "creepy crawls", quietly sneaking into random homes in Los Angeles to steal money while the occupants slept. These and other criminal activities were the means by which the members of the "family" supported themselves, and Kasabian was willing to participate."Risssa (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Manson Family -- separate entry?

Would it possible to have a separate entry under "Manson Family"? I was actually looking for information on the members of the Family but was redirected to this page on Charles Manson instead. There are links to several family members but most of those are for the people who were arrested in conjunction with the infamous murders. Is there a list of all or most of the members? What happened to them, why they joined, where they went?Risssa (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

other murders tape evidence search warrant

On October 5, 2012, the Los Angeles Police Department fails to obtain a search warrant when a federal judge in Texas blocks their attempt to obtain 1970's tapes of conversations between a Manson family member and his attorney. LA Police believe this evidence could help solve more than a dozen murders.(FoxNews)--68.231.15.56 (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I erased what I wrote earlier,because I read it wrong, but anyway, that guy Matthew Roberts is NOT Mansons son. CNN paid to have a DNA test done with DNA from Mansons biological grandson. The results were negative. The grandson and Roberts shared no genetic markers at all. Here is the link to CNN so you can update about this. http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/23/us/ohio-manson-grandson/index.html --74.240.236.45 (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Booking photo bias

Isn't it a bit biased to use the booking picture of Manson in the infobox, especially when other pictures are not only available, but are used later in the article? Even if he is most renowned for being a criminal, or the picture was iconic or definitive, it does not present him in a neutral light, and we have a responsibility to make sure that we represent everyone, even those guilty of appalling crimes (perhaps especially those), in a fair, unbiased way. --xensyriaT 22:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Two things:
  1. Manson is not just "most renowned" for being a criminal: it is his only renown. No one ever would have heard of Charles Manson if the murders never occurred, so he is known only as a criminal, making a mug shot quite appropriate for his image.
  2. I doubt any free images of Manson (outside of mug shots) exist. Images taken by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation are fair game, since they have been deemed to be in the public domain. In other words, if it weren't a California mug shot, there would probably be no image at all. Doc talk 01:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I won't get into a flame war over this, but it really doesn't seem encyclopaedic to use a mugshot at the top of the page and imply neutrality, regardless of what a person is famous for. As for point two, I wasn't joking about there being other pictures of him in the article; one of them doesn't have serial numbers either, which really don't seem to be a helpful addition to the picture. --xensyriaT 02:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, getting into a flame war over this would not be advisable. We have a great many articles with mug shots as the lead/infobox image - Al Capone jumps first to mind. If you were talking about O.J. Simpson or Phil Spector, who were notable for other things before they became convicted criminals, I could understand your argument in terms of WP:UNDUE. But Manson?! You really lost me at the end: whether or not the inmate placard is visible in either of the other two images of Manson in this article, they are still mug shots. The image without the numbers was taken from the source as it is, and not cropped by a WP editor. Cheers... Doc talk 01:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh wow...how dare Wikipedia use a mugshot to illustrate how a life-long multiple felon looks. The picture is clearly gonna besmirch Manson's reputation as a cuddly hippie who was just always at the wrong place at the wrong time. Someone needs to find a picture of Manson at one of the Family picnics where he's smiling, laughing and waxing poetic about Beatles songs. Better yet, someone should go visit him in prison and take a picture! Oh, but that still portrays him as someone who is locked up and, you know, not fit to be a part of society. Oh geeze...that just brings us back to where we started. Oh well, I guess Wikipedia will have to just continue assault the minds of readers by illustrating a man who has spent more years washing his shorts out in the toilet of his cell than most people have lived as a someone who is locked and only notable for being involved in two high profile murder cases and a shitload of other crimes. I think I'm gonna go to the Jack the Ripper page and complain about that illustration used that show the suspect skulking about and being shady. After all, Jack the Ripper wasn't actually caught doing anything wrong. I propose we should change the name to Jack the May Have Stabbed Some Chicks as well. All this POV pushing...yuck. 24.72.173.203 (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Charles Real Last Name

It's not Manson, it's Moddox. Why it is wrong on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lceller (talk • contribs) 23:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read the article or did you just see the bolded name of Manson and decide to complain? The first paragraph explains that his original last name was "Maddox" and then his name was changed to Manson. I could see if this weren't explained at all but the name issue is clearly there, explained and sourced. While Manson is arguably insane, I think his mother and he probably know his last name situation and how it's spelled better than people who have just read a bunch of crappy books about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.173.203 (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Trouble following some parts

Hello -- thanks for a thorough piece, clearly well-researched and exhaustively sourced.

I'd like to humbly suggest that an edit may be warranted for clarity's sake. I had some trouble following the story described in the "Family" murders and "justice system" sections. I certainly don't mean or want to start a flame war. It just seems as though the subject of each paragraph comes at the end instead of the beginning, making it harder to figure out what each paragraph is about until after the fact. Extensive use of the passive voice makes it somewhat more difficult still. I'd have made some of the edits myself but the article is locked.

One other thing: I knew nothing about this subject before reading the article, but the parts about Karabian seem more than a bit self-serving -- her story is taken as true and any credibility issues about her are dismissed without being addressed sufficiently to my mind.

In any case it's really an excellent article. Thanks very much for teaching me about this fascinating subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.72.200.37 (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Location of Spahn Ranch is wrong

Spahn Ranch is in the Santa Susana Mountains above Chatsworth, California.

It is not "near" Topanga Canyon.

It is near Topanga Canyon Blvd., which runs north, terminating far away from Topanga Canyon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Williams (talk • contribs) 18:31, 17 December 2012‎ (UTC)

Manson's ethnicity

I have done some genealogy research on Manson and would like to edit the following paragraph in the Childhood section of his biography.

From 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 "Colonel Scott" was African American.[2]:555 These include the first two sentences of his family background section, which read: "Father: unknown. He is alleged to have been a colored cook by the name of Scott, with whom Charles's mother had been promiscuous at the time of pregnancy

"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 "Colonel Scott" was African American.[2]:555 These include the first two sentences of his family background section, which read: "Father: unknown. He is alleged to have been a colored cook by the name of Scott, with whom Charles's mother had been promiscuous at the time of pregnancy. However census and military records indicate that both Colonel Scott and his father Walker Scott (1883-1974) were listed as 'white' as well as his mother Gladys Cline (1886-1924)."

Sources for this are: http://search.ancestry.com/iexec?htx=View&r=an&dbid=6224&iid=4584818_00242&fn=Colonel&ln=Scott&st=r&ssrc=pt_t51261272_p13172369312_kpidz0q3d13172369312z0q26pgz0q3d32768z0q26pgplz0q3dpid&pid=82658692

http://search.ancestry.com/iexec?htx=View&r=an&dbid=6482&iid=KY-1643958-2557&fn=H+Walker&ln=Scott&st=r&ssrc=&pid=30054151

Hdboxing (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Right now, Wikipedia:No original research is the applicable policy here. Location (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I have set this edit request to "answered" as Not done: per the above response. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Correction

Marilyn Manson also covered the song Sick City on the album Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death). NO HE DIDN'T!!! Where?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.116.43 (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no evidence that Marilyn Manson has EVER recorded a cover of this song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.56.205 (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Or that he was a founding member of The Beach Boys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.250.168 (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done on the unsourced song cover. I don't see the founding member of The Beach Boys bit, but he certainly was not one. Doc talk 05:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Charles Manson's birthday.

I have yet to find any birth certificate on Charles Manson. I have heard that there was one under "no name" Maddox, which I have found to be non-existent, and I can't find one under Manson either. There is an ongoing debate as to the date that Charles Manson was born. I was able to find an article which was an interview with his mother who is quoted as saying "the baby was born on November 11. Manson has always contended that his birthday was the 11th, only the media itself has reported it to be the 12th which Manson attributes to them not wanting his birthday and veterans date to coincide. If the birth certificate is actually available someone should post an image of it, to clarify the actual date of birth.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginajudd1 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.newspaperarchive.com/
Click on footnote eleven.96.227.135.168 (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MUG

I think that consensus has been reached many times before that mug shots are not used in infoboxes of living persons according to Wikipedia:MUG. The last discussion was at Luka Magnotta. I don't really care if others are adamant about keeping it in the infobox but we should keep a standard no matter how infamous the subjects are. With Leona Helmsley I cropped it but it was uncropped for years and just made her infobox look like crap. I have emailed a friend of hers to get a better image but no response so far.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:MUG does not say "mug shots cannot be used in infoboxes on BLPs". It just says images should not be used "out of context" to present a person in a false or disparaging light. Manson is notable only as a famous criminal, so using a mug shot does not portray him in an "out of context" way. It simply presents a noteworthy person in a manner entirely consistent with what makes him noteworthy. If you want to assert that there is a Wikipedia policy about something, you should point to a policy page. It is clear that although consistency is desirable, the existence of WP:OTHERSTUFF in other articles is not very persuasive in discussions. Consensus needs to be reached on a case-by-case basis unless there is some applicable policy or guideline (and even then there tends to be some exceptions). Also, Luka Magnotta has not been convicted of anything, and Leona Helmsley was noteworthy for things other than being a criminal. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I see your point. As I said before I don't really care about this article so I won't debate it further. I tried to remove the mug shot from Bill Gates but gave up on that one as well. The records have been lost and there is no RS about why it was taken but other editors seem to enjoy having it in the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also, on the Talk:Luka Magnotta page, there are other reasons given for not using the available mugshot, including the copyright status of the available image. And of course in the Leona Helmsley article, the mugshot is actually used, so that's not such strong evidence that they are generally unacceptable as a matter of policy. For Bill Gates, I guess the mugshot is generally considered harmless and amusing (and it's way down in the article). Note that you can find some prior discussion of the Manson mugshot in the archives of this Talk page. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Books about Charles Manson

Manson: The Life and Times of Charles Manson by Jeff Guinn, published by Simon & Schuster on August 6, 2013. ISBN:9781451645163

August 1, 2013 170.20.11.11 (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Myth of Helter Skelter

"Manson believed in what he called "Helter Skelter," a term he took from the song of the same name by The Beatles. Manson believed Helter Skelter to be an impending apocalyptic race war, which he described in his own version of the lyrics to the Beatles' song. He believed his murders would help precipitate that war. From the beginning of his notoriety, a pop culture arose around him in which he ultimately became an emblem of insanity, violence and the macabre. "

Very tersely, Charles Manson has never spoken about the term "Helter Skelter". When asked multiple times, he denied any existence of any plot to begin a "race war", or any use of the term "Helter Skelter" as a reference to such plots. He maintains that it was a buzzword picked up by a media outlet and popularized ad nauseum. This Paragraph in its entirety should be immediately removed due to extreme bias.


The section on Helter Skelter cite only Watkin's and Watson's books. This is a narrow view, considering the dozen or so hours of talk with Charles Manson available to the everyday internet man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.171.199.253 (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Stephen 24/03/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.171.199.253 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Very tersely: the only things that have been repeated ad nauseam—ever since Manson's trial itself, in fact—are denials like yours.96.227.135.168 (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, god the quantitude of fanboys for this murderer just strikes me as nearly unfathomable. Whatever he said afterwards in order to get himself out of prison does not change the fact that he said the stuff about "Helter Skelter". Period,84.112.106.126 (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Postscript


If Mason was a racist then why did he order the killings of Tate and the LaBiancas? So much of this article is based on hearsay and myth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.250.100 (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Manson murders

Shouldn't the "Manson murders" be a separate article, distinct from this one (which, presumably, is about the biography of Charles Manson)? There are many instances of far less notable murders that have their own Wikipedia articles. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Section or separate article for cultural depictions?

I came here from the article for the 1984 film Manson Family Movies. I ended up finding that while there were enough mentions to where it could merit a mention somewhere on this article, there wasn't really a lot of coverage that I could find. I didn't really want to put it up for deletion and lose the article history in case someone in the future digs up more coverage, so I redirected it here. I was just wondering- is there any merit in creating an article for cultural depictions of Manson? There's been so many in notable enough places that we'd have enough to make a separate page. Thoughts? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It sounds as if you have some knowledge of the topic and a serious interest in it. Why don't you start a page and see what happens? To avoid any Wikipedians who may be a little quick to delete it (or any other new page), just make sure your initial post, however brief, has been carefully prepared, with one or two well-formatted footnotes. (To be honest, I don't know the workings of Wikipedia very well, but that's my advice.) Here, in the Manson article, you could post a "Main article" link to your article; you could post it at, say, the beginning of the "Cultural reverberation" subsection.108.16.92.227 (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not really as familiar with it, to be honest. Other than knowing that there have been some appearances on South Park and one or two TV films, that's about it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Granted parole?

http://empirenews.net/charles-manson-granted-parole/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lead holder (talk • contribs) 22:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Fake Article

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/mansonparole.asp It was posted by a satirical news site. Rainfall10110 (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Members of Manson family

Good day, could someone please add the names of notable family members to the protected page. Maybe due to the length of the section "Manson family" would an own article be the best solution.

It's very strange I think that this has not been done before and that Wikipedia nowhere gives a readily available list, at least of those persons involved/convicted in/of the murders. What is that (intentional?) censorship all about? Looks very bad, for Wikipedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 Fixed (people with their own articles only). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

James L. T. Willett

Should the murders of James and his wife be part of this article? It seems to me to be guilt by association. 212.130.116.215 (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, Manson didn't kill anyone by his own hand. All the killings were done by his followers, not him personally. The article covers "the Family" and surrounding events as well as the actions of Manson himself. There is no separate article that discusses things done by his followers that he may not have been involved in. The article doesn't explicitly say Manson was involved in the murder of the Willetts, or the murder of Ronald Hughes either, or in Squeaky Fromme's attempted assassination of Gerald Ford, for that matter. The Willett murders were directly connected to his followers and the house where several of them were living (as well as the Willetts) – Reni was killed and buried in the house, their baby was found alive there, etc. We will probably never know the details of exactly how much the Willetts themselves may have been connected to Manson – they were killed before they could tell anyone about it (and probably to prevent them from being able to tell anyone about it). —BarrelProof (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Update

No mention of Afton Burton (Star)?

no mention of afton burton (aka star)? she's his new wife — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.87.104 (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Did they actually get married? You're right. Something about her should be added. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
In the news today – apparently they have obtained a marriage license. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I added information yesterday about the marriage license. They are not yet married. Joebedford (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Boy's Town in Omaha in 1947

Time today has an article with a photo caption of Manson as a boy that reads "Charles Manson at age 13, three days before he ran away from Boy's Town in Omaha in 1947." However, the Wikipedia article says nothing about Boy's Town in Omaha. It identifies a place that Manson fled in 1947 or 1948 as the "Gibault School for Boys in Terre Haute, Indiana". Were those two separate incidents, or does one of them contain incorrect information? —BarrelProof (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think his time in Boys Town is mentioned in the article's section headed "First Offenses."173.49.197.125 (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, yes it is. Perhaps I was searching for "Boy's" instead of "Boys". So that was two separate incidents – he escaped from two different places around 1947 (at the age of 12–14). Which escape was first? If the Time article is correct (assuming Wikipedia has his birth date correct), it appears that the escape from Boy's Town had to be between November 12 and December 31, 1947, which is only about a six-week period. But the description of the other incident says his mother tried to put him in foster care in 1947 and then after he was instead put into the Gibault School, he fled 10 months later. Probably that means the Gibault School escape was in 1948, after the escape from Boy's Town. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Because it's been a while since I've focused on these details—and because I'm trying to address your concern while, to be honest, I should be concentrating on something else—I'm having a little trouble following what you're saying. Let me start by presenting and remarking upon information from the chapter headed "November 22-23, 1969," in Bugliosi and Gentry's Helter Skelter.

1—Birth date is November 12, 1934, which is what Wikipedia states. In fact, the Wikipedia article's Footnote 9, which is now a dead link, used to be a photocopy of the birth certificate itself. It bore that date.
2—Manson was put into the Gibault School in 1947, when he was twelve years old. Bugliosi and Gentry don't say when his stay there began, but they say it lasted ten months.
3—Manson ran away from Gibault, went to his mother, who rejected him. Ran away, committed burglaries, was arrested. Was put in an Indianapolis juvenile center, from which he escaped after one day. Was apprehended, was sent to Boys Town when a priest intervened at the court. Bugliosi and Gentry do not specify the dates of any of these events.
4—Four days after Manson arrived at Boys Town, he and another boy stole a car, and they fled the place. En route to the home of the other boy’s uncle, they committed two armed robberies. Again, Bugliosi and Gentry don’t specify the dates, but they say this first armed robbery of his was committed by Manson when he was thirteen. That means on or after November 12, 1947.
5—In the three weeks after their arrival at the uncle’s house (in Peoria, Illinois), Manson and the other boy committed two break-ins, during the latter of which, they were caught. Manson was sent to Indiana School for Boys. Bugliosi and Gentry say he was still thirteen, which puts all of this before November 12, 1948.
6—Manson spent "three years" at the Indiana place, escaped in February 1951. That suggests the Indiana stay began around February 1948.

The Time article you linked says the Boys Town photograph is from 1947, when Manson was thirteen. That’s not inconsistent with the information above. Manson was twelve years old until November 12, 1947. If he went to Gibault at the beginning of that year, his ten months there could have ended in time for the four days at Boys Town to have begun before that year was out.

On the other hand, Chapter 94 of the 2002 edition of The Family, by Ed Sanders, puts Manson’s whole Boys Town episode—from his being sent there until his escape from the place—in 1949. Sanders shows a photo of the judge shaking hands with Manson as the latter is en route to Boys Town. Sanders says it is a 1949 photo and seems to be saying that an article about Manson’s being sent to Boys Town was in a 1949 issue of the Indianapolis Star.

If you’d like to read Bugliosi and Gentry’s account of the info I’ve presented above, go to http://books.google.com/books?id=cwf7fqxjRigC&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=%22Paroled+in+1942,+Kathleen+reclaimed+Charles,+then+eight.%22&source=bl&ots=y4BpOPFKwn&sig=1KOdU0M46q46_SD_uSoT6ueKRwk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QAlsVLn1FIiuyQSY24GoBw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Paroled%20in%201942%2C%20Kathleen%20reclaimed%20Charles%2C%20then%20eight.%22&f=false

As I’ve said, the Sanders info about the Boys Town episode is from Chapter 94 of the 2002 edition of The Family. To be specific, it’s on pages 432 and 433. I’d link that, too, at Google Books for you, but Google Books doesn’t seem to offer a preview of that book.

The above was composed hastily; hope I’ve addressed your concern. I’m not sure I’ll have an opportunity to revisit this page anytime soon.173.49.197.125 (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

PS If you want to see the photograph that’s in the Sanders book, go to http://michaeljesse.net/projects/crime/manson/ About two-thirds of the way through the brief essay at that link is a hyperlink that reads "Dream Comes True for Lad; He’s Going to Boys Town." If you'll click on that, you'll see the photograph. Also at that webpage is a newspaper article from which the photograph is said to come. According to the webpage, the newspaper article, in which Manson is said to be fourteen years old, is from March 7, 1949—the year Sanders gives for the photo. As you’ll see, the photograph seems to have been taken on the occasion when the photograph at the Time article was taken: Manson is dressed the same, has the same haircut. If the article truly is from 1949, Bugliosi and Gentry would seem to have been way off in saying Manson was at the Indiana School for Boys for three years that ended in February 1951.173.49.197.125 (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the very thorough reply! That's clearly different from what I thought. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. Yes, I suppose the possibility you suggested doesn't quite fit with the info in either Helter Skelter or The Family; but in presenting your question, you led me to notice the chronological clash, noted above, of the two books' accounts of the Boys Town episode. Well—maybe someone else will somehow address that in the Wikipedia article; the raw info is now here, on the talk page. Cheers.173.49.197.125 (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2014

Reference #110 no longer links to an article 70.191.204.90 (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed [3] with a link to an archive of the original article. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Tattoo

Extended content

so was the swastika a tattoo or was it carved out (a scar)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 601:7:8500:982:2002:3712:67e4:2c15 (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2014‎ (UTC)}

Not sure there's a clear answer to that question.173.49.197.125 (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It's clearly a prison tattoo, John. For one thing, it's blue. I would guess that the tattoo ink was just ballpoint pen ink. A search for a definitive reference that specifically states that it's a tattoo rather than a scar is underway. Doc talk 00:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't have the eyes for that, but you sound as if you can tell. Good luck finding a reference, which would be a good addition to the article. The article does include a link to a photograph that seems to confirm a swastika's presence on Manson's forehead as far back as the Tom Snyder interview. I don't have the eyes to tell whether it's been modified since that.173.49.197.125 (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
There are many excellent references for it being a tattoo (and not a scar) out there like this: "The images were taken at the state prison in Corcoran, Calif., in June 2011. They show Manson with unruly gray hair, a scruffy beard and a now faded swastika tattoo on his forehead." [4] Doc talk 06:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe that answers the question that was posted at the head of the present talk-page section. Knowing little about tattoos, I don't even know whether a tattoo can be said to have faded. Similarly, I don't know whether a tattoo can have been spruced up, or whether, instead, this is the same tattoo he had in the days of the Tom Snyder interview.173.49.197.125 (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't play dumb with me, John. Know that the more coverage this article gets, the less I'll be likely to see your non-answers in threads like this. Because you are an indefinitely blocked user who refuses to get right with their sanction. You bring the Javert out in me! How do I allow you, a wiki-criminal, to operate on articles such as this? Should we ignore the rules? Oh, the humanity! Doc talk 10:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by non-answer. Even though I once did quite a bit of research about tattoos, for a bit of writing I was required to do, I know virtually nothing about the look of them. If you say that's obviously a prison tattoo, I'll figure you're probably right, even though the very phrase "prison tattoo" is one I would be hard pressed to use in a sentence. I answered the question because I happened to see it and knew that, if I were not to give some kind of answer to it, it might well go ignored, as most questions seem to at Wikipedia. Take a look at my detailed answer in the previous thread, about Boys Town, and then please direct me, just for the fun of it, to a similarly detailed, thorough, and respectful answer at this pig-house of a website.173.49.197.125 (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
You are not allowed to answer any questions here. We have rules here, John. And one of those rules is to not allow indefinitely blocked users who shirk their bans to comment here. You have never indicated any desire to clear up the legal threat that you issued which lead to your indefinite block. You are evading your block by responding in any way to any question at this talk page. You are an editor in bad standing. I'm not going to just forget the rules of the site because time has passed. Clear up your block. Doc talk 06:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Please do not address me again.173.49.197.125 (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Request denied. You are no different from any other editor that decides to go at it their "own" way in this "pig-house" of a website. From blocking the IPs you use, to semi-protecting the pages you frequent, you will be dealt with. All you have ever had to do was rescind your foolish legal threat. You stubbornly refuse to do so. So I will stubbornly see to it that you not participate here as an indeffed user. I'm not looking the other way with you any longer. Doc talk 01:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
While you're at it, go visit the Wikipedia article about Tony Hibbert (British Army officer). To protect Wikipedia from my polluting presence, be sure to revert the article to the form it was in on October 13, 2014, before I began revising it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Hibbert_(British_Army_officer)&oldid=629446034 It was a fairly good example of slapdash Wikipedia nothingness. I won't be communicating with you again.173.49.197.125 (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
PS I myself just visited Tony Hibbert (British Army officer), to see whether any Wikipedia editor "in good standing," as you would say, had worked on it since my finishing with it, about a month ago. Sure enough, it had been improved, with a typo ("an" for "a") and a typical Wikipedia dangling participle, both of which I troubled myself to correct, while this pig house is not yet rid of me.173.49.197.125 (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting info that may be worth noting

From The Beatles Forever by Nicholas Schaffner, page 129: "...Charlie Manson, who made the Beatles his rationale for murdering the wife of Roman Polanski. The famed director's diabolical Rosemary's Baby was filmed in the New York apartment building presently inhabited by John Lennon". Mind you, the book was written in 1977. Could this be notable for inclusion? If so, could someone please add it in where they see fit? It might also be worth noting on some other articles, such as Roman Polanski, Sharon Tate, etc. - Bossanoven (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No, please. So what if the movie was filmed in the same building (The Dakota?) that Lennon lived in, years later? I mean there are coincidences, and then there's these sorts of things. Not notable, borderline WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and a few other reasons why it should not be included. Doc talk 07:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Manson/Archive_5&oldid=1079606954"