![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It isn't your length of time being here that was a concern to me, FangedFaerie, it was mostly the use of the word "plagiarism". It's considered a fairly serious charge, even if that wasn't your intention. There is so much subtext in some of the content on the page, for example, the use of the word "groaning", which establishes why Watson stabbed someone who was essentially dying. I also think there's a difference between plagiarizing a source, which implies that it is a conscious effort to pass off someone else's work as your own original research, and what we try to do here. I come across a lot of content here that is so explicitly plagiarized - the Sharon Gless article I worked a bit on tonight had content that was just blatantly copy & pasted, section titles and all, from somewhere else and no improvements were made to it - that I see a qualitative difference in trying to produce an article that is comprehensive, well-sourced and accurately presented that might use some similar phrasings as the source with citations and just trying to pass something off, especially when we aren't allowed to use original research. A stray word might creep in, but that's more properly addressed with correction and not removal. In the case of the word "tearful", the effort is to convey that what Leona did in court was play a role, although we can't, in the absence of explicit source material that says so, say "Leona pulled off a masterful performance." My sole comment elsewhere about how long you'd been here was more about how you might approach something after a few more months here. Like it or not, after we've spent a considerable amount of time on a given article, most of us become invested in its integrity, so if something seems to challenge that, we speak up. JohnBonaccorsi generally can address these kinds of concerns a lot more eloquently than I can, thus I wanted to allow him to respond to your concerns without it becoming contentious. If I seemed so, I apologize. Meanwhile, if something needs clarified, then by all means, speak up. I think a lot of citations were forced onto the article to help support what a) is common knowledge about the Manson family and b) what challenges common knowledge. In that spirit, while the Bugliosi book is one of the major sources on the page, an effort was made to incorporate outside verification of what "the Bug" said with what others said. And John was very instrumental in forming some of that. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 07:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
FangedFaerie –
1 - I haven’t overruled you. I have presented questions about some of your revisions. I rejected, for instance, your statement that the use of "tearful" was sensational. You were free to respond. I also left it to you to decide whether the sentence in which it appeared was plagiarism and should be adjusted.
2 – As far as I recall, disputes that have taken place on this talk page had nothing at all to do with the article’s semi-protection. The article suffered constant, often-wholesale vandalism, frequently of the sort that is a symptom of psychopathology.
3 – The story about the juvenile Manson’s being sold for a pitcher of beer may be deleted from the article for all I care. As I recall, it was here when I first visited the article (although it was unintelligible, inasmuch as it didn’t mention Manson’s retrieval by his uncle). I left it because it seemed like something that was reasonably of importance to someone. Your revision of it is possibly inaccurate. When I first worked on the passage, I, too, began the sentence with "According to Manson." When I took another look at Manson in His Own Words, I decided that that might be not true. In the introduction of that book, Nuel Emmons, who crafted it, mentions that he visited Manson’s relatives for some childhood information, even though he presented all of it in first person — i.e., as if it were information from Manson himself. The passage about the pitcher of beer starts with "One of Mom’s relatives delighted in telling the story." It’s possible, in other words, that the story is one that Emmons heard from one of Manson’s relatives, not from Manson himself. I think it best to avoid wording that suggests the contrary.
4 - I see that, in a few places, you have tried to "fix refs." I applaud you. If you will review the past talk-page arguments that dismay you, you will see that they had, in part, to do with that very thing. I personally dislike Wikipedia’s "name=[whatever]" mechanism for supposedly simplifying repeated citation. It can very easily confuse things. As I stated in one of those earlier arguments, I do not vouch for any of the citations at this point. There was a point at which, in essence, not a single one of the article’s footnotes was one of those "name=[whatever]" things. At that point, I was pretty sure the citations were accurate. Now, I don't know.
5 – To put it bluntly: Because of your unwillingness to back off from your unfounded statement that the use of "groaning" in the Sebring passage was sensational, you have made a mess of the attack on Sebring. You have managed the almost-impossible feat of defaming Tex Watson. There is no indication now that the stabbing was intended to silence the groaning Sebring (which is all you had to write). It now seems as if Watson stabbed Sebring for no other reason than that the gunshot was not fatal.
6 – Thanks to you and — to dredge up old wounds — an editor who was involved in the ancient arguments that you found dismaying in the talk-page archives, the death of Frykowski is now unintelligible. It is impossible for the reader to figure out that Watson finished Frykowski off — or, if you prefer Victoriana to Mortal Kombat, ended his life — by stabbing him.
7 – In the section about the Tate murders, you have inserted the sub-heading "Murders" before the section about the attack on the house’s four occupants. That is quite unfair to Steven Parent, who was murdered in the driveway — i.e., before the intruders reached the house. That is one of the reasons I used the word "Slaughter," which you found unencyclopedic and which some editor deleted as unencyclopedic after you objected to it on the talk page.
8 - Editor Wildhartlivie gets emotional, if I may say, in defending the article, but if you will focus on the substance of her comments, as, for instance, you did with respect to "annoyed," you will find her a valuable workmate, I think.
JohnBonaccorsi (
talk)
18:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, guys, but it isn't my view that there was a highly emotional exchange over edits as much as there was taking exception to the question of plagiarism by what is a relatively new editor. That was about as negative as anything could be taken and if it was taken that way, I have already apologized. Yes, I do sometimes become emotional but this wasn't particularly one of those times. In fact, to allow it to be discussed as dispassionately as possible, I've deferred to JohnBonaccorsi. No one has ganged up on you, but I did say that there are editors here who have strong and definitive opinions on the article. It is certainly difficult to tell at times what the "tone" of a typed statement might be, so if "in the summary [I] seemed upset", it was in response to edit summary wording such as "Smacks of POV and plagiarism" and "Annoyed," really?" The first edit summary response I made was "pls AGF and consider quotes were needed & not call things plagiarism" and I quickly tried to de-escalate the situation by asking it be brought here. I want to thank JohnBonaccorsi for his kind words about me.
Whether or not Bugliosi's book can be dismissed as "true crime almost-novels" is a bit of an opinion, but it is the primary source out there on this topic. (And in my opinion, is not nearly in the same class as say... Ann Rule true crime novels.) As I have said, efforts were made to assimilate various sources and the article isn't wholly based on it, although I suppose at some point in time in the more distant past, it was mostly from it and possibly, then, plagiarized from it. It has changed greatly from that time.
Regarding the word "annoyed", in one version of the events, Paul Watkins (I'm fairly certain) described it precisely in that way, along with more details about Manson's racist views on blacks. By the way, I'm certain "annoyed" is more professional than "pissed off". The marriage was the catalyst for Manson's distrust and growing vehement dislike for Shea. His suspicions about Shea knowing about the Family involvement in the murders and trying to get rid of the group from the property is what led to Shea's death. While the concern stated was that using the phrase "Manson was annoyed" lended a speculative tone, my view is that saying "Manson may have also been offended" is even more so. My caution was, and still is, trying to keep a speculative tone from the passage, while still having content that reflects the situation as it was.
As was discussed on John's talk page, the section heading is a matter of finding the right word or phrase to indicate the transition from entering the property and killing the witness to the point at which the event became wholesale slaughter. Perhaps "slaughter" isn't the right word, but "murders" is misleading and does ignore Steven Parent to a point. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 00:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This was included in the article because it is a notable misconception/urban myth that was raised as an early discussion. It is notable because it has been a point of question re: Manson for many years and is/was also covered in the Monkees article. I would suggest that if anyone have an issue with the inclusion, which was sourced, then broach it here for discussion, as its inclusion was agreeable to the regular editors on this page. This article does not contain a preponderance of trivia as do so many articles on Wikipedia, efforts have been made to curtail that. Thank you. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 03:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of the article’s subsection headed "Investigation" is this:
That information comes from page 33 of the 1994 edition of Bugliosi and Gentry’s Helter Skelter. The book expressly says that the Sheriff’s men -- named Guenther and Whiteley -- told the LAPD men that Beausoleil "had been living at Spahn’s Ranch, an old movie ranch near the Los Angeles suburb of Chatsworth, with a bunch of other hippies. It was an odd group, their leader, a guy named Charlie, apparently having convinced them that he was Jesus Christ."
That makes no sense. If, on August 10, the Sheriff’s men were already aware of a connection among Beausoleil, Manson, and Spahn Ranch, why did they (apparently) give no attention to the subsequent raid that other Sheriff’s officers carried out at Spahn, on August 16. Indeed, Bugliosi and Gentry later appear to contradict themselves. A footnote on their page 104 (in the chapter headed "November 17, 1969") is as follows:
In other words, Bugliosi and Gentry have just denied what they said earlier, namely, that the Sheriff's men were on to the Manson connection months before the desert raid.
To restate this: It’s not impossible that the Hinman investigators would have learned about the connection among Hinman, Beausoleil, and Manson by August 10 (the day they visited the Tate investigators). In the more than a week that they'd been on the Hinman case, they could have learned about it from, say, one of Hinman’s family members, who might have heard Hinman speak of Manson and Beausoleil; but if indeed the investigators knew about the connection by August 10 and were already passing the information along to LAPD, why – to ask it a second time – did they apparently pay no attention to the August 16 raid on Spahn? And why do Bugliosi and Gentry say, in the footnote just quoted, that the Sheriff’s men were not led to the Manson connection until they talked to Beausoleil’s girlfriend (Lutesinger) after the (first) desert raid on the Family -- in October?
Maybe I’m missing something –- but I think Bugliosi and Gentry have fumbled here. In The Family, Ed Sanders presents a coherent sequence of events:
Sanders goes on to explain that, in speaking with Lutesinger's mother, the Sheriff’s men learned that Kitty had run away from home (not for the first time) the night before. He says the Sheriff’s men did not know that, at that moment, Lutesinger was in jail. (He seems to mean she was arrested in the raid on Spahn.) He says that Lutesinger’s mother then filed runaway papers on Kitty and that the Sheriff’s men arranged to have the local police station contact them if Kitty showed up. (Page 268 of The Family.)
Finally, Sanders explains that, on October 11, after the first desert raid, Lutesinger, telephoning from the desert, spoke with her mother, who told her that the Sheriff’s men had been looking for her (months earlier) in connection with the Hinman murder. He says Lutesinger’s mother then explained all of this (on the phone) to a California Highway Patrolman out there in the desert and that the patrolman then called the Sheriff’s office in L.A. "This," Sanders says, "is evidently the first time that Deputy Guenther had learned of the connection between Beausoleil and the Spahn Ranch." (Page 294, emphasis added.) Sanders says Guenther and Whiteley then spent a day researching Spahn Ranch, Manson, and the August 16 raid before they drove out to Inyo County, on October 12, to speak with Lutesinger.
Without doing original research –- i.e., without speaking with, for instance, Bugliosi –- it’s impossible to make sense of this. As I say, it seems Bugliosi and Gentry fumbled –- but maybe I’m missing something. Because original research is out of the question, I suggest the Wikipedia passage be reduced to this:
In other words, I think the sentence about the Sheriff's men mentioning a "Charlie" should be removed entirely. The paragraph should probably also be given an additional closing footnote: "Sanders 2002, 243-44."
I’m not planning to make the change myself, but maybe another editor will want to make it. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 07:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
as a voracious reader of "underground papers" from all along the west coast, but mostly Seattle, (HELIX) followed by Vancouver BC (GEORGIA STRAIGHT) Portland OR(WILLAMETTE BRIDGE) and SanFrancisco (BERKELEY BARB)during the late 1960's I recall no such glorification of Manson and his followers; The reactions was more like one of a detached "How could this happen?" to "This must be a National Security Agency/CIA or even local LA police operation set up to make the Left and Counterculture look bad. At that time the police, but especailly the LA Police were considered to be the worst in terms of severely mistreating anyone who looked counterculture-or who where politically involved; They were as close to Nazi stormtroopers as you could get You might be stopped for not having "regulation windshield wipers" ticketed, and hauled off to jail, or being beaten/ severely harassed for having a peace symbol or STOP THE WAR bumperstrip on your car. Police were commonly call "pigs" in that era; If anything, I recall a certain amount of horror that caused some people to "drop back in" to the establishment-or move to the country for its serenity and safety-which became the next big counterculture movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seashellz222 ( talk • contribs) 05:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
We need to compile a list of all pop references to Manson. There are plenty but only a few (South Park being one of the few) are in the article. TheNad 19:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Having first read the article and then the discussion I would like to suggest "slaughter" be replaced with "massacre".
"Slaughter" is the technical term for the killing of animals, which given the content of the article is innaccurate and has unfortunate ties to the word "piggy".
"Massacre" is the usual term for any killing of a large group of people. Admittedly the numbers involved might be considered to fall below that level, but it does (at least in my Collins dictionary) emphasise that it was people that were killed.
Seeing the depth of the controversy on this page about this issue I thought it wisest not to make the change myself and leave it to those who have worked on the article for so much longer to decide. 92.237.4.111 ( talk) 10:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
What is his numer please edit this and add it to the page if yu know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.165.254 ( talk) 20:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Charles Manson has had, for many years, a swastika on his forehead right between his eyebrows.
How did it get there? Is it a tattoo or a 'carving', as I've heard people say? Why is it there? How long has it been there?
I came to this page to find this information, it seems very strange that such a unique aspect of the guy's face is completely absent from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodeosmurf ( talk • contribs) 18:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
tl;dr, what was the reason to murder Tate and the others? 85.1.197.187 ( talk) 19:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why the image that is being used is, but there are more "up-to-date" images that could be used (and should be used). The latest image taken last week should be used, and as he is in a Federal facility one imagines it is free to use. Proxy User ( talk) 17:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I've brought the issue of copyright up here: WP:Media_copyright_questions#Copyright_Status_of_Mug_Shots_Released_to_the_Press, and the consensus, such that it, is is that fair use is established for such images as mug shots released to the press. Also:
Says who? -//- Proxy User ( talk) 04:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Images taken by a prison for identification purposes aren't technically the same thing as a mugshot. The mugshot taken at the time of Manson's arrest in 1969 has been released to the public domain. Any copy of the recently released photo has to fall under fair-use, not public domain, as one upload of it was claimed (not yours, Proxy User). The license on that was claimed to be a work of the US government, which in fact it was not. Corcoran isn't a US federal prison. Fair use is not supposed to be included in infoboxes. The older image of Manson that's been used for a long time is released into the public domain and is free use. Who says is US copyright law and Wikipedia and is posted routinely in infoboxes with no images. Fair use has to be given a rationale regarding each specific use. One reason that would be possibly acceptable is if the image is of historical significance. I think the original booking photo of Manson from the time of the murders would qualify as having historical significance even if it were fair use, but not the recent update photo, which is meaningless in context of the focus of the article. Fair use might qualify to be used in the later sections of the article covering later years and remaining in the public focus, but not in the infobox. No one is blowing smoke about this, it is fact. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
There are various talk page and other discussions about the use of a non-free image used for identification of an article subject, including, but not limited to: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 40#Non-free images used in biography articles and WP:NONFREE, as well as instructions in multiple infobox instructiosn including [3] and [4]. The fundamental requirements for the use of a non-free image are covered fairly well in the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline#Necessary components, which basically say that in order to give a rationale for non-free images include:
In essence, if you are going to try to rationalize using a fair-use image in place of a free-use image, it has to meet the guidelines and not be replaceable by a free-use image which reasonably serves as a means of identification of the subject. It doesn't matter that obtaining a recent free-use image is nearly impossible (because, for example a person is in prison and isn't allowed general visitors), if a free-use is available, you will not get a fair-use image past criteria for deletion based on policy. I don't think it can be any clearer than that. The recent Manson image is a fair-use image, the old arrest mugshot is not.
Another issue in this is copyright, which is a broader concept that it appears and basically falls under the definition of copyright in terms of use here. WP:GID#Copyright concerns says: Any work created in the United States since 1978 is automatically copyrighted unless it has been explicitly placed in the public domain. Again, that policy cites the use of replaceable free content, which the image from 1971 is considered and why it is acceptable for use well before the new photo.
That begs another question, which is the actual use of an image in the infobox, which is for identification of the article subject. I'm not thinking that an image of Charles Manson from 2009 is going to be more readily identifiable for him than the one that depicts him as the person the entire world recognizes as Charles Manson. If you want more links to check, please let me know. There are 13,700 links that I found that address this issue to one degree or another. It isn't about what I want the infobox to have, it's about what my experience in working with biographies has taught me about this specific issue. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 10:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thank you for explaining( Off2riorob ( talk) 13:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
At 16:32, 28 March 2009, sentences in the article’s opening paragraph were changed. Before the revision, the sentences were these:
As revised, the sentences are these:
The change to the first sentence is fine. It is a minor change in wording. The change to the second sentence renders the paragraph incoherent. There is no longer any indication that Manson was found guilty of murder. The first sentence, as revised, states he was found guilty of conspiracy. The second sentence says "his guilt hinged on the joint-responsibility theory of conspiracy." Huh? His conviction for conspiracy is not what hinged on the joint-responsibility theory of conspiracy. Saying that is like saying that his conviction for conspiracy hinged on itself. What hinged on the joint-responsibility theory was his murder conviction — which is no longer mentioned in the paragraph. If the explanation of the joint-responsiblity rule is thought to be worth keeping — as it well may be — the second sentence should be something like this:
I personally will not be making the change. 71.242.171.202 ( talk) 18:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
like it RandomGuy666 ( talk) 01:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)RandomGuy666
On Neil Young's American Masters show on PBS tonight, he mentioned Charlie Manson, how he know him, and how he was a 'song spewer.' Apparently Neil suggested him to Reprise as "out of control", and he detested the rejection he faced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.86.115 ( talk) 04:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Another pop culture reference to Charles Manson and his "Family" is found in the song American Pie by the artist Don Mclean. The opening line to the fourth verse of the song says: "Helter Skelter in a summer swelter..." This is quite possibly a reference to Manson's plan for a new world order which he called "Helter Skelter" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jestabr1 ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
At 18:02, 5 July 2009, I added a footnote to the article. The footnote included a link to an apparent transcript of Terry Melcher's testimony in the trial of Manson, Atkins, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten. The link was this:
About three hours later (at 20:49), an editor named Crohnie deleted the link and provided the following, very-reasonable summary of his or her action:
As I say, that was a reasonable objection to the link. In fact, I had thought someone might delete the link for that reason.
The Melcher transcript is, indeed, posted at a sort of blog — a "forum," I suppose — which is called "Truth on Tate-LaBianca." The homepage is here:
I think I first encountered that forum — and looked through its transcripts of the testimony of Melcher and of Terry Jakobson — more than a year ago — maybe two or more years ago. I might have been led to it via a link at a blog called "Official Tate-LaBianca Murders Blog" — but I don't really remember. In looking through the transcripts at that time, I had to ask myself the question that Crohnie's edit summary addresses: Are these valid? Are they, in other words, accurate transcripts of the trial testimony?
That certainly is the question. Consideration of it is aided, I think, by examination of the following linked items (which are among the numerous links that are presently part of the Wikipedia article):
This sort of analysis could be applied to several other of the links that are presently part of the Wikipedia article. As you see, I have simply given some indication of the bases on which I personally regard these links as valid (for Wikipedia). If there is any Wikipedia policy that bears on the validity of such "unofficial" transcripts and the like, another editor will kindly present it here, in response to my present remarks.
As for the link in question — namely, the Melcher-testimony transcript at "Truth on Tate-LaBianca": After Wikipedia editor Crohnie deleted the link to the Melcher transcript, I e-mailed "Cats," who runs "Truth on Tate-LaBianca." For the record: I do not know the identity of Cats. As far as I know, I have never met her. I contacted her simply by using the e-mail address that is posted at that forum. As far as I know, I've not communicated with her on any other occasion.
In an exchange of e-mails, Cats has informed me of the following:
Cats understands the problem that is presented, for Wikipedia purposes, by the Melcher transcript — which, as I say, is unscanned. She understands that the validity of the transcript is reasonably questioned. (She has emphasized this.) Although I have not asked her to go through the labor of scanning the Melcher testimony, I have asked her whether she would be interested in posting the following at the top of the Melcher-testimony transcript:
Cats — who would like to see the link to the Melcher testimony preserved at Wikipedia's "Charles Manson" article — has said she will do that as soon as she can. Any editor who follows the links, above, to the scanned DeCarlo and Flynn testimony will see (1) that each official volume's cover indicates the page numbers that the volume includes and (2) that each index identifies the number of the specific page on which the testimony of a particular witness commences. A scan of the pertinent cover and index page, in short, will help to validate the Melcher transcript that the once-scannerless Cats transcribed by hand.
I have told Cats that I am posting the present message, to see whether other Wikipedia editors think the posting of the scanned cover and index page at "Truth on Tate-LaBianca" will be enough to validate the link to the Melcher-testimony transcript. If so, the link can be reinstated as soon as Cats posts the scans.
Note: Cats has also informed me that the Susan Atkins grand-jury testimony — which, as I've indicated, is posted at mansonfamilytoday.info — is her transcript, which was first posted at "Truth on Tate-LaBianca." She has, in fact, shown me the e-mail in which the man who runs mansonfamilytoday.info requested permission to use her transcript.
Second note: Whenever I have said that a transcript — at any website — has been prepared "carefully," I have not necessarily meant "wholly without typographical errors." JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 06:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes it does all make sense. We are working on another site that would be home to said documents in question and other documents pertaining to the TLB and post TLB eras. I shall have the scans of the documents on this site as well. My question being, and no disrespect meant here at all, is that there are other assorted links on this page, which are treanscribed copies of testimony which seem to pass muster and be linked to. Why are certain transcriptions allowed and others have to be scans?
As stated by John, the original transcription of the Atkins Grand Jury is mine (beared out by the previously mentioned email), linked to a different site and this is an accepted link. Why is this accepted and not a document that would have to be scanned as well?
I am just trying to understand the rules that apply so that I may follow them. And as soon as the new site with only the documents in a non-forum layout is started and with the correct documentation, I shall post the link so that it can be seen and reviewed.
Thank you all for your time and input. -- Catscradle77 ( talk) 21:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Catscradle77
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Please change: Born as no name Maddox[7][8][9] Manson was born to unmarried, 16-year-old Kathleen Maddox in Cincinnati General Hospital, in Cincinnati, Ohio; no more than three weeks after his birth, he was Charles Milles Maddox.[7][10][11]
To:
Born to 16-year-old Kathleen Maddox in Cincinnati General Hospital, in Cincinnati, Ohio. There is some uncertanty over the details of his birth name, with rumours of recent years that he was originally named no name Maddox, but copies of what is believed to be his birth certificate have surfaced showing that it did originally read Charles Milles Maddox.
with a reference to http://www.mansondirect.com/birthcert.html
Hufggfg ( talk) 11:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Adding to what editor Wildhartlivie has just said, I’ll mention that, at what is presently footnote 9, the Wikipedia article includes a link (that was working up until about an hour ago) to a reproduction of a newspaper article whose headline is "Mother Tells Life of Manson as Boy." This appears to be the Los Angeles Times article that Bugliosi and Gentry mention on page 419 of the 1994 edition of Helter Skelter. (For those of you with other editions: This is about three pages into the chapter headed "January 26 - March 17, 1971.") As reproduced at the link, the article does not say Los Angeles Times and does not bear a date; but it does say "Times" and does include, within its text, a reference to Manson’s guilty verdict on "Monday" — i.e., Monday, January 25, 1971.
The article, which is basically an interview with Manson’s mother, includes this:
I have trouble making sense of that.
The newspaper article says "the birth certificate" said "No Name Moddox" — sic: "Moddox," with an "o," not Maddox, with an "a." This is odd — because Kathleen Maddox’s name is incorrectly listed as "Moddox" on the birth certificate that is dated December 3 — three weeks after the baby’s birth; but that is the certificate on which the baby’s name is given as "Charles Milles Maddox" (or maybe Charles Milles Moddox – with an "o" – the typeface being hard to read). Was Kathleen's name mistyped or misrecorded on two different birth certificates — the one that said "No Name" and the one that said "Charles Milles"? Or was the reporter confused? Or did the Times coincidentally make the same mistake that was made on the certificate of December 3?
And what birth certificate is the newspaper reporter referring to here? The article gives us the impression that Mrs. Manson is telling the reporter that the baby was originally called "No Name" — but the reporter says that this is on "the birth certificate." What birth certificate? Has the reporter seen it? Again: Does it happen to have the same misspelling — Moddox — that appears on the birth certificate of December 3? (As editor Wildhartlivie has pointed out, above, the Wikipedia article does not say that "No Name" appeared on a birth certificate.)
The newspaper article says that "a few weeks later" — meaning a few weeks after the baby’s birth? — Mrs. Manson "had the birth certificate changed to Charles Milles Manson."
She did? The birth certificate of December 3 suggests that "a few weeks" after the baby's birth, the name was changed to Charles Milles Maddox (or Moddox) — not Manson. Is there any birth certificate that says Charles Milles Manson?
The real question, in other words, doesn’t seem to be whether Manson was originally called "No Name Maddox." That seems — let's say — probable. The real question is: Is Manson’s last name Manson?
When — if ever — did Charles Manson acquire the last name of Manson? Is there any birth certificate with that name on it? If there is no such birth certificate — or legal filing of a change of name — can the boy have legally acquired the last name Manson simply if, say, his mother started calling him that? Considering that this confusion involved more than one state — Kentucky and Ohio, at least — I suppose there's also a question which state's law applies.
I’ve never seen this question raised (except, frankly, by me — here). Is Charles Manson’s name Charles Manson?
To repeat: I personally can’t quite figure out the newspaper account I’ve quoted above. In reading it, the main thing I wonder is this: Was Manson’s mother under pressure from her own mother to name somebody as the baby’s father. In the original record — whatever it was — where the baby was called "No Name" — was a father identified? Again — the newspaper article says this:
Why did William Manson propose marriage? One possibility, I suppose, is that he loved Kathleen Maddox and saw that she was pregnant by a man, Colonel Scott, who didn’t want to marry her — but we are not told that Colonel Scott didn’t want to marry her. In fact, we are told that, later, he did have an interest in marrying Kathleen.
The article says that William Manson "said he would try to accept the child, ... but it didn’t work out. [Kathleen] left Manson, returned to her mother in Ashland and began divorce proceedings."
The article continues:
The mother informed Scott of the birth? Had he not known Kathleen was pregnant? I don’t understand this. And what was he furious about?
A possibility that comes to mind is that Kathleen Maddox falsely gave William Manson the impression that the baby had to be his (i.e., that she’d had sexual intercourse with nobody but him) — but that, until her mother showed up and, maybe, gave her a prodding, she was hesitant to identify him falsely as the father on a legal document, i.e., the birth certificate. If that's what happened, William Manson might have left Kathleen upon somehow discovering that the child was not his.
Obviously, all of that is conjecture. I'm not saying that Kathleen Maddox lied to William Manson and falsified a birth certificate and then lied about the whole thing again, three-and-a-half decades later, to a newspaper reporter. I have no way of knowing — and I'm not trying to defame her. I’m just trying to make sense of a newspaper account that does not seem to me to be very clear. Again: The birth certificate of December 3 gives the baby’s name as Charles Milles Maddox (or Moddox) and identifies the father as William Manson.
I wonder whether anyone ever tried to track down William Manson, to get his side of the story. I don’t think I’ve come across a statement of any kind from him.
Again — the real question seems to be, not whether Charles Manson was once legally known as "No Name" – but whether Manson is his legal name.
It seems odd to me that that question has never been addressed. If Bugliosi and Gentry had any doubts whether Manson’s last name was actually Manson, they didn’t voice them — not expressly anyway. On pages 136 and 137 ("November 22-23, 1969") of the 1994 edition of Helter Skelter, they say these three things:
So — the boy was "Charles Milles Manson" by April 19, 1937. What legal standing did that name have? I wouldn’t be surprised if Bugliosi and Gentry were wondering that, too — even though they don’t raise the question.
I'm sure there are persons that would think all of the above not terribly important; but I personally find it interesting that "Charles Manson" — one of the most notorious names in history — might not even be the actual name of the person who is called by it.
PS The incorrect birth date of November 11, which appears in the Times article, is addressed by Bugliosi and Gentry in a footnote to their mention of the correct date (November 12):
Hmm. I hadn't realized the paternity blood-tests mentioned in old movies were basically for "disproving"; but come to think of it, I suppose that that's about the only thing they could be used for. Well, anyway — that's really what I was getting at. I was wondering whether William Manson had had intercourse with Kathleen and had been led to believe, by her, that nobody else had. After he and she got married, he might somehow have learned he wasn't necessarily the only one who'd been involved with her; and then he might have insisted on a blood test that revealed he couldn't be the father he'd assumed he was. At that point, he might have taken off. If Kathleen herself had not been sure which of the two men — Colonel Scott or William — was the father (and if she had selected William as the easier target), the blood test that eliminated William would, in turn, have been ammo for pursuing the judgment against Colonel Scott. Well, I'd better say it again: I'm conjecturing in a way that is maybe unfair to Kathleen Maddox.
Not sure why I keep returning to these questions that are probably now far from illuminable. It's just a strange story — when you consider how everything played out. It doesn't seem to have left Charles Manson's mind either. From his 1992 parole hearing:
At his 1997 parole hearing, he gives his name as follows: Charles Milles Scott Manson.
I should have given you the whole Bugliosi and Gentry quote re the judgment against Scott. He seems to have come through with little, if any, cash: "Though it was an 'agreed judgment,' Colonel Scott apparently didn't honor it, for as late as 1940 Kathleen was attempting to file an attachment on his wages. Most accounts state that Colonel Scott died in 1954; though this has never been officially verified, Manson himself apparently believed it." JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 04:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
So — Wikipedia gets some respect. From paragraph two of an August 11 Manson-fortieth-anniversary article in The Daily Telegraph (UK):
Emphasis added. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 15:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Was it founded by Charles Manson? Is it worth mentioning in article? 148.81.137.4 ( talk) 16:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone explain what the hell happened here? Manson was in the middle of a question or something when he just starts spouting jibberish. Jedibob5 ( talk) 21:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
No, he's not 'crazy'. If you would watch the full interview, or if you read anything about Charles manson, you would know he is mocking the inteviewer. --
79.64.234.155 (
talk)
00:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed two categories from the article, which were returned. Those categories are Eco-terrorism and Radical environmentalism. I understand the rationale that might make someone think these categories belong on this article, but factually, Manson was not involved in eco-terrorism or radical environmentalism. He talked around ATWA, but the website/mini-movement surrounding it was Sandra Good and George Stimson, not Manson. That is a bit like adding murder categories to Good or Fromme's articles because people they were associated with committed murder. What others have done with the concept of ATWA is something else, but beyond that, we don't add categories to articles when the content of the article does not support them. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 22:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I have heard at various times that Charles Manson was a boy scout, even that he earned the Eagle Scout award at one point. Any truth to those stories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.59.87 ( talk • contribs)
Sorry to be pedantic, but the noun "burglar" comes from the verb "to burgle", therefore the word you mean is "burgled". There is no such word as "burglarize" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.51.213 ( talk) 20:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) The first reference says quite clearly "but you may use whichever you prefer". That book is not what I would call a definitive source. The two sources to MacMillan dictionary, which are in fact the same source, are for the words "burglarize" and "burgle". "This is the American English definition of burgle: to burglarize a building." The American English definition. It does not state in any way that the word "burgle" is a British-use word. The Wiktionary entries state that "burgle" is British but it gives no supporting references. I do not see on Wiktionary any support for U.S. vs. British and we do not self-reference to other Wikimedia sites. This does not support your contention. I have looked at the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, Dictionary.com, thefreedictionary.com, and none of them designate "burgle" as a British word vs. burglarize as American. This is not something covered by WP:ENGVAR. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
A book that explores the legalese use isn't pertinent here - and the reference in that book addresses something in 1978. None of these sources supports the WP:ENGVAR argument you're using. None of these state that there is proper grammatical acceptance of one use over another in the way that is covered by WP:ENGVAR, which covers the use of proper spelling/grammar uses in British vs. American words. Whether it is 30 times as often or 50 times as often, that it is used in the United States is the definitive argument. Since it is, it is properly used in this article. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 03:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
don't know how to communicate with wikipedia. figured i'd try here. do people think it would be relevant to mention an observation i made: his name manson, like peterson and johnson and so on, is a combined phrase. peterson was once called son of peter and johnson, son of john. so manson would be son of man, which might have contributed to his thinking of himself as the second coming of christ ( Jperkins69 ( talk) 02:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC))
wow. i was wondering if it had ever been brought up before. that's why i wiki'd it. that's cool to know. not to worried if it's not worthy of being in the article but it's cool that Bugliosi thought of it. i figured, surely, it had been addressed somewhere by now. thanks john.
Small suggested addition - amongst performers who have taken their names from the Manson Family could be added Kasabian.( Available light ( talk) 09:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC))
There is a section which states "Of those convicted of Manson-ordered murders, Grogan would become, in 1985, the first—and, as of 2009[update], the only—to be paroled.[143]"
Should be added that Lynette is out as well...possibly in the section that discusses her time in jail and crimes, since she wasn't directly convicted of the manson-ordered murders... Might also mention that Susan has now passed away due to terminal brain cancer.
And there are a few people out there claiming to be his children. I was hoping to find out more about them on here, maybe that should be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.140.118 ( talk) 00:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Should be added that there is another putative child of Manson's, whom he has communicated with and acknowledged, in the press of 11/26/09 (Sun, Daily Mail, etc.)and this seems to be reliable.
Pythoness Mar (
talk)
19:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
At 18:18, 30 October 2009, editor BassPlyr23 noted (in the article) that the recent official photograph of the imprisoned Manson revealed Manson's forehead swastika still in place. I personally do think that that was worth adding to the article — because comments on this talk page have suggested that many persons come to Wikipedia precisely to find out about the swastika. My fellow editors, we know we've had no real luck determining when the swastika first went onto Manson's forehead — or what, if anything, it means to Manson. Even so, I think it's time we tried to put some light on the subject. At 21:01 and 21:10, 30 October, I made two revisions to try to do that. In the first revision, I noted that the swastika was apparent at least as early as the Snyder interview. I don't have a written source for that: I've simply watched the video.
In the second revision, I eliminated the article's passing indication that Manson's trial X was "later changed into a swastika." That left the reader with the impression that the X became a swastika before the trial's conclusion. That might not be true — and, in fact, as far as I know, it isn't true. I replaced that with a statement that the X "eventually" became a swastika — and I directed the reader to the article's "Remaining in view" section, where I'd remarked on the Snyder interview.
I supported the Snyder statement with a YouTube link to a clip of the Snyder interview. Wildhartlivie: I know you're going to be bothered by that — because of the copyright question. If you think the link should be eliminated, eliminate it. My own view is that the link is provided simply to document what is now part of history: Manson had the swastika by the time of the Snyder interview. That would seem to be "fair use." If the clip of the Snyder interview shouldn't be at YouTube in the first place — well, that's the concern of whoever holds the Snyder copyright. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 21:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I reverted an addition to the early life section regarding content in the Bugliosi book about the racial heritage of Manson's named father, Col Scott. Later research disproved this much earlier evidence/supposition, although assembling the support from acceptable sources has been a bit difficult. See the mentions here on charliemanson.com and the passage in Helter Skelter is here on pages 617-618. Darwin Scott was definitely white and was definitely Col Scott's brother. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 08:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, correct? Judging someone visually does not put the finally word on nor in any way officially verifies their racial background, in my opinion that is perhaps the biggest lesson in US race relations to date.Darwin was not Manson's father and there are no cites or information above that disprove my cites from one of the most official Manson history texts which is Helter Skelter. What you've provided is a photo of Scott's brother and passage from Helter Skelter stating that Darwin Scott was murdered. There is no other proof I've yet seen to discount an official institutional record which Bugliosi cites in which non-white ancestry was mentioned several times. Just because Darwin looks white to the "majority" does not mean there is no non-white ancestry, especially in the southern united states. As you may already know, in parts of the South, one 32nd and even less black ancestry is still considered legally African American or 'colored' as many older birth records state. At one point in I believe ten states it was one drop. Verified information like this usually only becomes "hearsay" or "disproved" when the person is an icon to white supremacists (as Manson is) or when the "public thinks he looks white", but public opinion is not the basis for inclusion or exclusion as you know, verifiable information is. Its important information because Bugliosi stated that he still wonders if it were true and that it did not matter ultimately if there was ancestry or not but that if Manson believed there was. And that it could have created inner turmoil, self loathing and disgust about blacks which he obviously has displayed. No one has yet to produce Colonel Scott's birth certificate (just as J. Edgar Hoover's birth records have mysteriously vanished) or a photo either. Even if they do, this information was committed to SEVERAL institutional records and is not hearsay. It's clearly verified via Bugliosi. Please leave it the article. It is "new" information to many people out there who have not followed the Manson saga as closely as you or I. Thanks. Catherine Huebscher ( talk) 12:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Please don't play the race card via your niece, it makes no sense.
"Including supposition included in 60 year old case notes is not confirmation and I dare say, based on my actual experience in analyzing such historical case notes, that they often were full of conjecture and gossip..."
That is your experience and your opinion, not Bugliosi's and is conjecture in and of itself. How has it EVER been disproved that the case notes are incorrect? Where and when?
"There are no longer such distinctions, nor the need for it."
Perhaps and hopefully for those doing the new DNA testing ala Skip Gates, but we are talking about Manson who was a virulent racist who hated and feared blacks so why leave it out of the article if it is referenced? You wrote Darwin Scott was "definitely white" and based Col Scott's ancestry on an article almost as old as the Manson case files themselves. So much is lost in translation when one debates via the web, so sincerely no condescending was intended. I am a bit surprised you would have a quote from Manson, a sexist and racist killer on your user page to welcome people (which is of course your right) and not at least have included Bugliosi's provocative passages about Manson possibly being part black for speculation, as John Bonaccorsi and I have. Seeing as every other well known public figure, especially multi-racial people, have their ancestry divulged and sifted through. Why not Manson if it is properly referenced? Catherine Huebscher ( talk) 22:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there are lots of "illegitimate" manson kids running around, but.... Should Matthew Roberts be mentioned as a child? It seems as if he's the son of Manson and has the story/mother to back the claim up (plus the looks). ( Charlesblack ( talk) 23:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
This article is very poorly written. It's filled with improperly used quotation marks, awkward wording, sentences written in the passive voice and others that start with lengthy dependent clauses.
For reasons I don't fully understand, another editor removed the copy edit tag and removed several edits I made that were clearly supported by citations. I have replaced the tag. Please don't remove it until there is a consensus. I am Zeus, king of the gods ( talk) 16:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Two editors have recently removed an interal link I created in the info box that leads to a 2009 pic of Manson displayed in the subsection titled "Recent developments", located several paragraphs down in the article. It reads as follows:
Click here for an image of Manson at age 74, taken in early 2009.
The link is right under Manson's 1969 pic displayed in the info box.
California prison officials released the 2009 pic which was subsequently placed on the CNN website. The first editor, user:John, removed it because he found it "a bit yuck," whatever that means. The second editor, user:McSly, removed it because he believed the information was dubious and unsourced. This of course isn't true. The reference to the CNN story is currently citation number 174 ( http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/19/california.manson.photo/index.html). It's been there some time, long before these two editors removed my internal link.
I have replaced the link twice now. Please keep it there. I am Zeus, king of the gods ( talk) 22:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Why are there citation needed tags in the lead section of this article? There is no need for citations in the lead when the content is covered in the main body of the article. And for the record, there is no precedent for including a link to a photograph contained in the same article. That is completely unnecessary and redundant to the image itself being in the article. It is messy in appearance. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 06:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
This link keeps being added but I see no reason for it. If the readers are interested in Manson they will see the updated photo later in the article. There is no reason to link to the new photo under the old photo. It doesn't make any sense plus it looks horrible and unencyclopedic. -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
At 08:25, 6 January, an editor changed the intro's wording to indicate that Manson's death sentence had been "commuted" to life in prison. The verb the editor replaced was "reduced."
"Reduced" is better, I think. In the first place, it's the verb Bugliosi and Gentry use in the epilogue of Helter Skelter:
More importantly, Manson's death sentence was eliminated by action of a court, not the governor of California. Maybe any criminal-penalty reduction — whether it be the act of a court or an executive — may properly be called a commutation, but I think the Wikipedia article should stick with "reduced," to be sure.
Another point to keep in mind is that it's not clear that Manson's penalty was really "changed." The California Supreme Court decided that the death penalty Manson and many others had been given was not in accord with the California Constitution. The court said, in a way, that Manson's death penalty was a nullity ab initio (i.e., from the beginning); so again, "commutation" might not be the right word.
At the moment, I won't revert the edit. I'll wait to see whether any comments are posted here. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 16:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
What else has been added in the last month or so that needs to be discussed here? Wildhartlivie ( talk) 21:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I see the copy-edit tag has had the effect I feared it would: the article is now undergoing all sorts of improvement — if you take my meaning. Adios. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 05:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I must withdraw my snide comment. I now realize that several of the edits that prompted me to make it were very good. I apologize to the editors whom I insulted. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 10:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
For a long time — maybe two-and-a-half years — the article's "Childhood" subsection contained the following:
"He," of course, is Manson.
I am pretty sure I myself wrote that sentence, when I saw that Manson's Certificate of Live Birth was dated December 3, 1934 — exactly three weeks after his birth. Although the certificate could not clarify the entire history of the naming of Manson, it made clear that no more than three weeks after his birth, he was Charles Milles Maddox.
Within the past week or two, after a copy-edit tag was posted on the article, I began simplifying several of the article's sentences, including that one. In fact, I changed that sentence only a day or so ago, at 03:57, 7 January. I changed it to this:
As you see, that doesn't merely "simplify" the sentence: it changes the sense of it. The phrase "within weeks" suggests that Manson didn't receive the name until at least a week had passed — but we really don't know when he received the name. We know only what I originally wrote: no more than three weeks after his birth, he was Charles Milles Maddox.
Because a heated discussion about Manson's birth record has taken place on the present talk page, in the section headed "Faulty revisions," I am going to restore the sentence's original form. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 22:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
SkagitRiverQueen –
Manson's Certificate of Live Birth reading "Charles Milles Maddox" is linked in the footnotes of the Wikipedia article and is dated December 3, 1934 — exactly three weeks after his date of birth. The Wikipedia article used to include, as well, a link to a 1971 L.A. Times piece that was, in part, an interview with Manson's mother. That link is now dead, but the piece included this:
All of that goes against your revision of 03:11, 8 January 2010. If you have documentation that supports your revision, please present it — and footnote it. The footnote that presently supports your revision is the one that has long been in place, the one, as I say, that shows a certificate dated December 3.
Doc9871 —
There was no grammatical problem with the sentence of mine that you changed. Your rewording didn’t correct anything: it changed the sentence's sense. As revised by you, the sentence indicates that, while he was at McNeil Island, Manson claimed to have become interested in his psychology. That’s incorrect. The original and correct sense of the sentence — as I wrote it — is that Manson has claimed that, while he was at McNeil Island, he became interested in his psychology.
I am going to put the article back the way it was.
JohnBonaccorsi (
talk)
04:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
SkagitRiverQueen —
You are now arguing — and editing — in bad faith.
If it doesn't matter when the certificate was dated, then why did your revision of 04:34, 8 January, state this:
Even if the point you made above were to be granted — I mean your point that the Certificate of Live Birth is the only official record (as I am unable to say) — it would justify, at most, a revision like the following:
As for your other revisions — you wrote:
It's not clear how Maddox got from Ashland to Cincinnati. The L.A. Times article I've already cited says "[h]er mother sent her with her sister to Cincinnati, to have the baby away from [her native] Ashland[, Kentucky]." In a Manson in His Own Words passage that I myself have placed in the article, there is something about Maddox's having run away — but it's not clear. All of this information is very hard to pin down, which is why the passages you altered had been carefully worded.
You also wrote:
Again — the sources make it difficult to say anything certain about this. In Manson in His Own Words, there is this:
In the L.A. Times article, on the other hand, Kathleen Maddox said something about Colonel Scott's having shown an interest in Charles — having shown as much of an interest in Charles as he did in "his own" children — something like that. That article, as I've said, is no longer online; thus I can't provide the quote.
In sum — and to repeat: The details of these topics are hard to pin down — and as far as I know, these statements of yours can not be supported. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 05:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Regardless of any dispute you have, you have violated WP:3RR with your return of this content to which other editors have clearly objected. Stop changing this back. It is incorrect and misquotes sources. LaVidaLoca ( talk) 18:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
What's up with the "First offenses" section? There are no dates given other than the 1951 escape from the Indiana School for Boys. Without any dates, the reader has no reference point for when these offenses happened. Whomever wrote this section and has the references handy needs to do some clean up here. As it is, the section is worthless for encyclopedic purposes. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 23:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's stick facts about edits and leave personalities and speculation about behavior out as it does nothing to work toward making this article better. If you have something to offer about the edits themselves, please do so, but also be certain to do so without the uncivil and unneccessary editorial. If you object to what you see as "Weasel phrases", that's understandable. The rest of the commentary, however, is really unneccessary and inappropriate. As far as dates for this section - dates are one of the things that makes encyclopedias encyclopedic (not to mention that it's just good writing technique when providing facts). If there are any dates to be applied here from the references listed (or even a date spread), they need to be added. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 23:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't only addressing LaVidaLoca, I was also addressing you. Please stop commenting on me and attempting to analyze why I am saying what I am saying and why I edited what I did. Article talk pages are for discussing edits, not other editors. Yes, I do believe the dates should be included - this is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias include dates. Not including dates or time frames is confusing for a reader unfamiliar with the subject at hand. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 00:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It was my mistake that I stated you used rollback. For that error, I apologize. Regardless, it's not good faith nor appropriate editing behavior to completely revert an entire section that was edited in good faith based on a few edits you see as disputable. I will continue to "improve" this article because it could stand improving. Furthermore, I am just as important to Wikipedia as anyone else here. It is not the right of *anyone* to keep others from editing an article unless they are being disruptive and/or vandalizing. And even in those types of cases, it is up to administrators to block someone from editing, not other editors. If you think my edits were vandalism or disruptive to Wikipedia, please feel free to report me to AN/I. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 00:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
No one is editorializing on you personally and are factually talking about edits you've made. Your comments about what you think I or Wildhartlivie believe, no one has said and to claim so is a defacto personal comment. Please desist from making personal comments. Listen to your own advice. In fact, at least three other editors disagree with the changes you have made and that has been expanded upon here and in edit summaries. It is obvious that you have a different perception of what comprises "bad" grammar and syntax, but at least three other editors have spoken in favor of it, and that does make a consensus agaisnt your opinion. You are in fact, making changes with which at least one editor with an English composition post-graduate degree disagrees and disputes. LaVidaLoca ( talk) 01:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
<sigh> There simply is no discussion here, only bad faith accusations. I refuse to discuss this with you if you are going to continue asserting you personally are being discussed. Please stop making this personal. What has been said here is that at least three different editors do not see your edits as "improvements". LaVidaLoca ( talk) 02:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Nice. We don't agree with your edits and out comes the "I'm going to a noticeboard to make this an AN/I or whatever else I can think up to do". Give it a rest. You're the one who continues to maintain there are personal attacks here. Very nice. How many articles have you done this on? Two, three, four? It happens every time you arrive at an article and try to force your viewpoint on it. No, your edits don't "improve" the article. Not in any way. LaVidaLoca ( talk) 03:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It's an unfortunate effect that asking people to stay on-topic so often moves the discussion one step further off-topic. (It takes two, but most people step into dyads once there's a possibility for one, so you can't really assign blame. (If that made no sense, ignore it.)) There certainly are ad hominem remarks going both ways in this section, and I see less discussion of edits than would be ideal. The solution to that problem is simply to discuss the edits.
They're much easier to discuss one at a time. SRQ, is there a particular edit you'd like to discuss first, of the ones you made? Maybe the one in the section below, that JohnB is talking about? - GTBacchus( talk) 03:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
At 00:47, 14 January, the article's "Childhood" subsection included this:
At 00:56, that was changed to the following:
In addition to its prolixity and the comma carelessly left near the end of its first sentence, the revision has two sense problems:
The verb-change from "had been named" to "was named" is also, arguably, a bit of a problem — because it gives the impression the identification of William Manson as the boy's father, on the certificate, came after the wedding of Kathleen Maddox and William Manson. Because we don't know the wedding date of those two, "is named" is probably best.
I am going to restore the original wording. Before the words "Certificate of Live Birth," I will place the words "the boy's." I will use "is named" instead of "had been named" or "was named." JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 02:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
SkagitRiverQueen — I clearly indicated your revision's problems — problems that amounted to more than "a few things out of place." Had you demonstrated, on this talk page, a willingness to respond simply, politely, and in detail to such a statement of problems, I would have awaited a response from you; instead, I simply changed what you had written. More importantly, I didn't "completely revert" what you had done. If you will look at what I placed in the article, you will see that it reflects some of the changes you made. If you have a response to the criticism I offered above, please post it here. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 03:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I have just noticed that, at 23:06, 13 January, editor SkagitRiverQueen entered, on this talk page, a post headed "Childhood section," in which she described and explained the changes she had made to the article's section on Manson's childhood. It was five minutes later, at 23:11, that SkagitRiverQueen posted "First offenses," which I regarded as belligerent. When I read "First offenses," I had not seen the post headed "Childhood section." I thought that, after a three-day block related to her revisions of the article's childhood material, SkagitRiverQueen had simply returned to change that material again, without explanation, and had then gone on simply to disparage the article's "First offenses" material. That is why my response to her "First offenses" post included my criticism of her "Childhood" edits — criticism I would otherwise have positioned in her post called "Childhood section." In short: had I seen SkagitRiverQueen's "Childhood section" post, I would probably have thought her at least a little bit less belligerent — and would probably have responded to "First offenses" more temperately.
GTBacchus — I appreciate your mild tone; but I will say that I don't think "Learn some basic English" is inappropriately directed to an editor who repeatedly blathers about (unspecified) "syntax," "grammar," and other problems, while frequently creating typos, ungrammatical constructions, and other such problems for other editors to clean up in the article. If other editors are not to be burdened with such cleaning up, such an editor needs to be brought up short. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 04:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
We really don't need to talk about which statement made by whom (that's right, "whom" ;)) was more or less appropriate or helpful than which other statement, though. The way to go is forward, with discussion of edits. If anyone needs to seek sanctions against anyone else, that's not for this talk page, and I'm happy to entertain conversations elsewhere, if that seems like that will help. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
And lest I myself be accused of being unspecific:
I could probably come up with a few others — but I think my point is made. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk)
GTBacchus — I guess you and I just posted comments at about the same time. You're right about bringing someone up short. Maybe it's a judgment call. Anyway — let's hope things work out. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 05:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've just looked over the edits made today, and I've got some observations, which I hope you don't mind my sharing. Here are the edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Since I began typing this, there's been a fourteenth (reverting 11), and another talk page section has started, but I've gotta post this before I grow old.
Ok, SkagitRiverQueen, check it out: This is what I recommend. You've got a lot of ideas for edits that you believe will improve the article. That's awesome; thank you for wanting to make it better. If you implement them as many at a time as you did in edits 1, 2 and 4, you're very, very likely to end up at 1 + 2 + 4 = 7. Reverted all the way; no net gain. (Funny how that worked out, huh?)
Now, I wouldn't have made edit 5. It was going to be pointless; the first revert in a situation that you know to be tense pretty much always is. That's why I play 0RR. Once B and R have happened, it's time for D. A second R leads to a third one so much of the time, and they add nothing to the history but worry lines.
What I'd do after the first revert is to isolate one small change that's part of your rewrite, re-make just that one change, and comment on the talk page about it. Then don't do any editing until a conversation happens. That means a conversation has to happen, and it's got to somehow stay on topic.
That last bit, about staying on-topic, is directed to everyone here to whom it applies — you know who you are. Each editor in good standing, which includes every one of us here, is welcome to work on any article. There are no topic bans affecting this situation. If you want to get a topic ban, you're welcome to seek one, but only ArbCom gives those out, and they won't talk to you until after an RfC or two and couple dozen AN/I threads have gone down. Nobody's going to block anyone from this article anytime soon (unless someone freaks out and starts deleting everything or something), so you have to work together.
So... SkagitRiverQueen, I'd love to see your reply to JohnBonaccorsi's comments about your edit. B and R have happened, so we have to D. Let's just hash it out. I am addressing the additional issues you bring up above, but I'm going to do part of that somewhere else on the wiki, that I think will be more appropriate. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The Tom Snyder interview has now been removed in total which I think maybe mistaken. I personally liked that information. Can it be returned in full like it was before all the activity of the night? John I think you originally put it in and removed the little bit that was left last night. Would you mind putting it back into the article? I think it actually adds to the articles interest plus it breaks the referencing up a little so that the article isn't being referenced from just a couple of citations. Of course this is my POV about it but do any of the other editors here have an opinion about this? Thanks for your thoughts and of course for reading, :) -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The childhood section has been rewritten. Previously, it did not flow well, nor was the verbiage and syntax used well placed. William Manson was named on Manson's Certificate of Live Birth - this information has been included in the section. A new paragraph for the details of the bastardy suit has been created - as it was previously, that information was lumped together with everything else. Because of that information's importance, it has been placed in its own paragraph. A couple of redirects were appropriately added. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 23:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, it's clear that there's significant work underway around here, good for ya'll, but I just dont care enough to read the talk and see what's happening. So the point I'm going to make has likely been made before, maybe even recently. Nontheless, I'll risk it, because this article suffers from having a vast amount of material only indirectly related to Manson himself, such as the actions of Atkins and Watson, et al. Question: why does something so significant as the Family not have its own article? This would be a very linkable article, and would make both it and this article more coherent, and comprehensible. Check the current article size, btw, 108k is a lot of text. In fact, the Family itself is interesting enough that there should probably be a separate Tate/LaBianca Murders article. Imho.
I strongly suggest that most of the material on the family and the murders should be split into a separate article on The Manson Family, and I can't understand why it hasn't been. But I don't actually care, so, as always and ever, do what thou wilt shall be the hole in the law... Eaglizard ( talk) 09:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)(fixt Eaglizard ( talk))
I made many helpful changes to this article but I see now that other editors have reverted nearly all of them. I must say, I find that disappointing and bit insulting as well. Therefore, I won't be making any others. I am Zeus, king of the gods ( talk) 14:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry to see the large changes done to the article without even a peep on the talk page. There were other editors who disagreed with these changes in the past. I for one will not continue here at this time since what is discussed is ignored. Good luck with the article. I've had this on my watchlist for a long time, I may remove it soon but will watch it for a little bit longer to see if discussions that are productive are initiated. Thanks and happy editing, -- CrohnieGal Talk 18:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been watching this page for long but I have been considering providing more information on it. In my opinion there should be more information about the abuse Manson endured as a child not because I think it should be viewed as an excuse but because it will help people understand how troubled children turn into troubled and violent adults. I also disagree with some of the changes although I think it is accurate mostly. I'm not sure how important the suggestion about his father being black is. It is in Bugliosi's book but there clearly isn't anything to back it up including his skin color. I doubt if this is true and doubt if it should be a high priority; however there should be more about extensive reports of abuse not only to Manson but many other killers. This is backed up by many reliable sources and it isn't being explained to the public well enough. I trust your intentions are sincere and if so and the sincere people abandon articles then the less sincere people will take over. Not that I think the recent work is insincere just that I think some of the priorities should be considered more carefully. Zacherystaylor ( talk) 19:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed however I don’t think we’re in danger of providing undue weight on this. There is a lot of research indicating how important this is although it doesn’t all refer to Manson. I am only considering adding what does relate directly to Manson on this article. This will be based on two sources already cited here, Neumon Emmons and Bugliosi. Good day
Zacherystaylor (
talk)
20:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Because of a series of edits executed from 17:11 to 17:53, 16 January, by editor SkagitRiverQueen, the article includes the following paragraphs:
Those paragraphs have several defects:
I will be correcting these problems. Because there are so many of them — and because the time I can give to the Wikipedia article is quite limited — I have had to compose the present notes hastily. I'm not even going to give them a close check for typos and such. What time I have I will give to the correction of the article.
If an editor disagrees with the criticisms above, he or she will please respond to them here. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 20:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's my take on your criticisms of the recent edits:
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.
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.
Not unneccessary at all. His name wasn't legally anything until it was recorded by the county registrar. "Tendentious or obfuscatory"? Sorry, but...LOL.
Either/or. Whatever.
Not. Big difference between original birth certificate issued by hospital in those days and the Certificate of Live Birth recorded by the county registrar.
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.
Okay.
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.
Okay.
Okay.
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". ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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". ;-)
"Pointless"? LOL! Now your youth and lack of knowledge in Americana is showing. Go ahead, look up Boys Town.
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.
I agree. So why was it already in there? I didn't put the parenthesis in.
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.
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.
There really aren't that many of them. And don't forget, Wikipedia is meant to be a work in progress, there's no deadline here. Relax, John - let's work on this together and cooperatively. It *is* possible, you know... -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 02:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It isn't your length of time being here that was a concern to me, FangedFaerie, it was mostly the use of the word "plagiarism". It's considered a fairly serious charge, even if that wasn't your intention. There is so much subtext in some of the content on the page, for example, the use of the word "groaning", which establishes why Watson stabbed someone who was essentially dying. I also think there's a difference between plagiarizing a source, which implies that it is a conscious effort to pass off someone else's work as your own original research, and what we try to do here. I come across a lot of content here that is so explicitly plagiarized - the Sharon Gless article I worked a bit on tonight had content that was just blatantly copy & pasted, section titles and all, from somewhere else and no improvements were made to it - that I see a qualitative difference in trying to produce an article that is comprehensive, well-sourced and accurately presented that might use some similar phrasings as the source with citations and just trying to pass something off, especially when we aren't allowed to use original research. A stray word might creep in, but that's more properly addressed with correction and not removal. In the case of the word "tearful", the effort is to convey that what Leona did in court was play a role, although we can't, in the absence of explicit source material that says so, say "Leona pulled off a masterful performance." My sole comment elsewhere about how long you'd been here was more about how you might approach something after a few more months here. Like it or not, after we've spent a considerable amount of time on a given article, most of us become invested in its integrity, so if something seems to challenge that, we speak up. JohnBonaccorsi generally can address these kinds of concerns a lot more eloquently than I can, thus I wanted to allow him to respond to your concerns without it becoming contentious. If I seemed so, I apologize. Meanwhile, if something needs clarified, then by all means, speak up. I think a lot of citations were forced onto the article to help support what a) is common knowledge about the Manson family and b) what challenges common knowledge. In that spirit, while the Bugliosi book is one of the major sources on the page, an effort was made to incorporate outside verification of what "the Bug" said with what others said. And John was very instrumental in forming some of that. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 07:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
FangedFaerie –
1 - I haven’t overruled you. I have presented questions about some of your revisions. I rejected, for instance, your statement that the use of "tearful" was sensational. You were free to respond. I also left it to you to decide whether the sentence in which it appeared was plagiarism and should be adjusted.
2 – As far as I recall, disputes that have taken place on this talk page had nothing at all to do with the article’s semi-protection. The article suffered constant, often-wholesale vandalism, frequently of the sort that is a symptom of psychopathology.
3 – The story about the juvenile Manson’s being sold for a pitcher of beer may be deleted from the article for all I care. As I recall, it was here when I first visited the article (although it was unintelligible, inasmuch as it didn’t mention Manson’s retrieval by his uncle). I left it because it seemed like something that was reasonably of importance to someone. Your revision of it is possibly inaccurate. When I first worked on the passage, I, too, began the sentence with "According to Manson." When I took another look at Manson in His Own Words, I decided that that might be not true. In the introduction of that book, Nuel Emmons, who crafted it, mentions that he visited Manson’s relatives for some childhood information, even though he presented all of it in first person — i.e., as if it were information from Manson himself. The passage about the pitcher of beer starts with "One of Mom’s relatives delighted in telling the story." It’s possible, in other words, that the story is one that Emmons heard from one of Manson’s relatives, not from Manson himself. I think it best to avoid wording that suggests the contrary.
4 - I see that, in a few places, you have tried to "fix refs." I applaud you. If you will review the past talk-page arguments that dismay you, you will see that they had, in part, to do with that very thing. I personally dislike Wikipedia’s "name=[whatever]" mechanism for supposedly simplifying repeated citation. It can very easily confuse things. As I stated in one of those earlier arguments, I do not vouch for any of the citations at this point. There was a point at which, in essence, not a single one of the article’s footnotes was one of those "name=[whatever]" things. At that point, I was pretty sure the citations were accurate. Now, I don't know.
5 – To put it bluntly: Because of your unwillingness to back off from your unfounded statement that the use of "groaning" in the Sebring passage was sensational, you have made a mess of the attack on Sebring. You have managed the almost-impossible feat of defaming Tex Watson. There is no indication now that the stabbing was intended to silence the groaning Sebring (which is all you had to write). It now seems as if Watson stabbed Sebring for no other reason than that the gunshot was not fatal.
6 – Thanks to you and — to dredge up old wounds — an editor who was involved in the ancient arguments that you found dismaying in the talk-page archives, the death of Frykowski is now unintelligible. It is impossible for the reader to figure out that Watson finished Frykowski off — or, if you prefer Victoriana to Mortal Kombat, ended his life — by stabbing him.
7 – In the section about the Tate murders, you have inserted the sub-heading "Murders" before the section about the attack on the house’s four occupants. That is quite unfair to Steven Parent, who was murdered in the driveway — i.e., before the intruders reached the house. That is one of the reasons I used the word "Slaughter," which you found unencyclopedic and which some editor deleted as unencyclopedic after you objected to it on the talk page.
8 - Editor Wildhartlivie gets emotional, if I may say, in defending the article, but if you will focus on the substance of her comments, as, for instance, you did with respect to "annoyed," you will find her a valuable workmate, I think.
JohnBonaccorsi (
talk)
18:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, guys, but it isn't my view that there was a highly emotional exchange over edits as much as there was taking exception to the question of plagiarism by what is a relatively new editor. That was about as negative as anything could be taken and if it was taken that way, I have already apologized. Yes, I do sometimes become emotional but this wasn't particularly one of those times. In fact, to allow it to be discussed as dispassionately as possible, I've deferred to JohnBonaccorsi. No one has ganged up on you, but I did say that there are editors here who have strong and definitive opinions on the article. It is certainly difficult to tell at times what the "tone" of a typed statement might be, so if "in the summary [I] seemed upset", it was in response to edit summary wording such as "Smacks of POV and plagiarism" and "Annoyed," really?" The first edit summary response I made was "pls AGF and consider quotes were needed & not call things plagiarism" and I quickly tried to de-escalate the situation by asking it be brought here. I want to thank JohnBonaccorsi for his kind words about me.
Whether or not Bugliosi's book can be dismissed as "true crime almost-novels" is a bit of an opinion, but it is the primary source out there on this topic. (And in my opinion, is not nearly in the same class as say... Ann Rule true crime novels.) As I have said, efforts were made to assimilate various sources and the article isn't wholly based on it, although I suppose at some point in time in the more distant past, it was mostly from it and possibly, then, plagiarized from it. It has changed greatly from that time.
Regarding the word "annoyed", in one version of the events, Paul Watkins (I'm fairly certain) described it precisely in that way, along with more details about Manson's racist views on blacks. By the way, I'm certain "annoyed" is more professional than "pissed off". The marriage was the catalyst for Manson's distrust and growing vehement dislike for Shea. His suspicions about Shea knowing about the Family involvement in the murders and trying to get rid of the group from the property is what led to Shea's death. While the concern stated was that using the phrase "Manson was annoyed" lended a speculative tone, my view is that saying "Manson may have also been offended" is even more so. My caution was, and still is, trying to keep a speculative tone from the passage, while still having content that reflects the situation as it was.
As was discussed on John's talk page, the section heading is a matter of finding the right word or phrase to indicate the transition from entering the property and killing the witness to the point at which the event became wholesale slaughter. Perhaps "slaughter" isn't the right word, but "murders" is misleading and does ignore Steven Parent to a point. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 00:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This was included in the article because it is a notable misconception/urban myth that was raised as an early discussion. It is notable because it has been a point of question re: Manson for many years and is/was also covered in the Monkees article. I would suggest that if anyone have an issue with the inclusion, which was sourced, then broach it here for discussion, as its inclusion was agreeable to the regular editors on this page. This article does not contain a preponderance of trivia as do so many articles on Wikipedia, efforts have been made to curtail that. Thank you. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 03:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of the article’s subsection headed "Investigation" is this:
That information comes from page 33 of the 1994 edition of Bugliosi and Gentry’s Helter Skelter. The book expressly says that the Sheriff’s men -- named Guenther and Whiteley -- told the LAPD men that Beausoleil "had been living at Spahn’s Ranch, an old movie ranch near the Los Angeles suburb of Chatsworth, with a bunch of other hippies. It was an odd group, their leader, a guy named Charlie, apparently having convinced them that he was Jesus Christ."
That makes no sense. If, on August 10, the Sheriff’s men were already aware of a connection among Beausoleil, Manson, and Spahn Ranch, why did they (apparently) give no attention to the subsequent raid that other Sheriff’s officers carried out at Spahn, on August 16. Indeed, Bugliosi and Gentry later appear to contradict themselves. A footnote on their page 104 (in the chapter headed "November 17, 1969") is as follows:
In other words, Bugliosi and Gentry have just denied what they said earlier, namely, that the Sheriff's men were on to the Manson connection months before the desert raid.
To restate this: It’s not impossible that the Hinman investigators would have learned about the connection among Hinman, Beausoleil, and Manson by August 10 (the day they visited the Tate investigators). In the more than a week that they'd been on the Hinman case, they could have learned about it from, say, one of Hinman’s family members, who might have heard Hinman speak of Manson and Beausoleil; but if indeed the investigators knew about the connection by August 10 and were already passing the information along to LAPD, why – to ask it a second time – did they apparently pay no attention to the August 16 raid on Spahn? And why do Bugliosi and Gentry say, in the footnote just quoted, that the Sheriff’s men were not led to the Manson connection until they talked to Beausoleil’s girlfriend (Lutesinger) after the (first) desert raid on the Family -- in October?
Maybe I’m missing something –- but I think Bugliosi and Gentry have fumbled here. In The Family, Ed Sanders presents a coherent sequence of events:
Sanders goes on to explain that, in speaking with Lutesinger's mother, the Sheriff’s men learned that Kitty had run away from home (not for the first time) the night before. He says the Sheriff’s men did not know that, at that moment, Lutesinger was in jail. (He seems to mean she was arrested in the raid on Spahn.) He says that Lutesinger’s mother then filed runaway papers on Kitty and that the Sheriff’s men arranged to have the local police station contact them if Kitty showed up. (Page 268 of The Family.)
Finally, Sanders explains that, on October 11, after the first desert raid, Lutesinger, telephoning from the desert, spoke with her mother, who told her that the Sheriff’s men had been looking for her (months earlier) in connection with the Hinman murder. He says Lutesinger’s mother then explained all of this (on the phone) to a California Highway Patrolman out there in the desert and that the patrolman then called the Sheriff’s office in L.A. "This," Sanders says, "is evidently the first time that Deputy Guenther had learned of the connection between Beausoleil and the Spahn Ranch." (Page 294, emphasis added.) Sanders says Guenther and Whiteley then spent a day researching Spahn Ranch, Manson, and the August 16 raid before they drove out to Inyo County, on October 12, to speak with Lutesinger.
Without doing original research –- i.e., without speaking with, for instance, Bugliosi –- it’s impossible to make sense of this. As I say, it seems Bugliosi and Gentry fumbled –- but maybe I’m missing something. Because original research is out of the question, I suggest the Wikipedia passage be reduced to this:
In other words, I think the sentence about the Sheriff's men mentioning a "Charlie" should be removed entirely. The paragraph should probably also be given an additional closing footnote: "Sanders 2002, 243-44."
I’m not planning to make the change myself, but maybe another editor will want to make it. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 07:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
as a voracious reader of "underground papers" from all along the west coast, but mostly Seattle, (HELIX) followed by Vancouver BC (GEORGIA STRAIGHT) Portland OR(WILLAMETTE BRIDGE) and SanFrancisco (BERKELEY BARB)during the late 1960's I recall no such glorification of Manson and his followers; The reactions was more like one of a detached "How could this happen?" to "This must be a National Security Agency/CIA or even local LA police operation set up to make the Left and Counterculture look bad. At that time the police, but especailly the LA Police were considered to be the worst in terms of severely mistreating anyone who looked counterculture-or who where politically involved; They were as close to Nazi stormtroopers as you could get You might be stopped for not having "regulation windshield wipers" ticketed, and hauled off to jail, or being beaten/ severely harassed for having a peace symbol or STOP THE WAR bumperstrip on your car. Police were commonly call "pigs" in that era; If anything, I recall a certain amount of horror that caused some people to "drop back in" to the establishment-or move to the country for its serenity and safety-which became the next big counterculture movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seashellz222 ( talk • contribs) 05:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
We need to compile a list of all pop references to Manson. There are plenty but only a few (South Park being one of the few) are in the article. TheNad 19:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Having first read the article and then the discussion I would like to suggest "slaughter" be replaced with "massacre".
"Slaughter" is the technical term for the killing of animals, which given the content of the article is innaccurate and has unfortunate ties to the word "piggy".
"Massacre" is the usual term for any killing of a large group of people. Admittedly the numbers involved might be considered to fall below that level, but it does (at least in my Collins dictionary) emphasise that it was people that were killed.
Seeing the depth of the controversy on this page about this issue I thought it wisest not to make the change myself and leave it to those who have worked on the article for so much longer to decide. 92.237.4.111 ( talk) 10:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
What is his numer please edit this and add it to the page if yu know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.165.254 ( talk) 20:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Charles Manson has had, for many years, a swastika on his forehead right between his eyebrows.
How did it get there? Is it a tattoo or a 'carving', as I've heard people say? Why is it there? How long has it been there?
I came to this page to find this information, it seems very strange that such a unique aspect of the guy's face is completely absent from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodeosmurf ( talk • contribs) 18:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
tl;dr, what was the reason to murder Tate and the others? 85.1.197.187 ( talk) 19:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why the image that is being used is, but there are more "up-to-date" images that could be used (and should be used). The latest image taken last week should be used, and as he is in a Federal facility one imagines it is free to use. Proxy User ( talk) 17:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I've brought the issue of copyright up here: WP:Media_copyright_questions#Copyright_Status_of_Mug_Shots_Released_to_the_Press, and the consensus, such that it, is is that fair use is established for such images as mug shots released to the press. Also:
Says who? -//- Proxy User ( talk) 04:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Images taken by a prison for identification purposes aren't technically the same thing as a mugshot. The mugshot taken at the time of Manson's arrest in 1969 has been released to the public domain. Any copy of the recently released photo has to fall under fair-use, not public domain, as one upload of it was claimed (not yours, Proxy User). The license on that was claimed to be a work of the US government, which in fact it was not. Corcoran isn't a US federal prison. Fair use is not supposed to be included in infoboxes. The older image of Manson that's been used for a long time is released into the public domain and is free use. Who says is US copyright law and Wikipedia and is posted routinely in infoboxes with no images. Fair use has to be given a rationale regarding each specific use. One reason that would be possibly acceptable is if the image is of historical significance. I think the original booking photo of Manson from the time of the murders would qualify as having historical significance even if it were fair use, but not the recent update photo, which is meaningless in context of the focus of the article. Fair use might qualify to be used in the later sections of the article covering later years and remaining in the public focus, but not in the infobox. No one is blowing smoke about this, it is fact. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
There are various talk page and other discussions about the use of a non-free image used for identification of an article subject, including, but not limited to: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 40#Non-free images used in biography articles and WP:NONFREE, as well as instructions in multiple infobox instructiosn including [3] and [4]. The fundamental requirements for the use of a non-free image are covered fairly well in the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline#Necessary components, which basically say that in order to give a rationale for non-free images include:
In essence, if you are going to try to rationalize using a fair-use image in place of a free-use image, it has to meet the guidelines and not be replaceable by a free-use image which reasonably serves as a means of identification of the subject. It doesn't matter that obtaining a recent free-use image is nearly impossible (because, for example a person is in prison and isn't allowed general visitors), if a free-use is available, you will not get a fair-use image past criteria for deletion based on policy. I don't think it can be any clearer than that. The recent Manson image is a fair-use image, the old arrest mugshot is not.
Another issue in this is copyright, which is a broader concept that it appears and basically falls under the definition of copyright in terms of use here. WP:GID#Copyright concerns says: Any work created in the United States since 1978 is automatically copyrighted unless it has been explicitly placed in the public domain. Again, that policy cites the use of replaceable free content, which the image from 1971 is considered and why it is acceptable for use well before the new photo.
That begs another question, which is the actual use of an image in the infobox, which is for identification of the article subject. I'm not thinking that an image of Charles Manson from 2009 is going to be more readily identifiable for him than the one that depicts him as the person the entire world recognizes as Charles Manson. If you want more links to check, please let me know. There are 13,700 links that I found that address this issue to one degree or another. It isn't about what I want the infobox to have, it's about what my experience in working with biographies has taught me about this specific issue. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 10:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thank you for explaining( Off2riorob ( talk) 13:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
At 16:32, 28 March 2009, sentences in the article’s opening paragraph were changed. Before the revision, the sentences were these:
As revised, the sentences are these:
The change to the first sentence is fine. It is a minor change in wording. The change to the second sentence renders the paragraph incoherent. There is no longer any indication that Manson was found guilty of murder. The first sentence, as revised, states he was found guilty of conspiracy. The second sentence says "his guilt hinged on the joint-responsibility theory of conspiracy." Huh? His conviction for conspiracy is not what hinged on the joint-responsibility theory of conspiracy. Saying that is like saying that his conviction for conspiracy hinged on itself. What hinged on the joint-responsibility theory was his murder conviction — which is no longer mentioned in the paragraph. If the explanation of the joint-responsiblity rule is thought to be worth keeping — as it well may be — the second sentence should be something like this:
I personally will not be making the change. 71.242.171.202 ( talk) 18:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
like it RandomGuy666 ( talk) 01:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)RandomGuy666
On Neil Young's American Masters show on PBS tonight, he mentioned Charlie Manson, how he know him, and how he was a 'song spewer.' Apparently Neil suggested him to Reprise as "out of control", and he detested the rejection he faced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.86.115 ( talk) 04:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Another pop culture reference to Charles Manson and his "Family" is found in the song American Pie by the artist Don Mclean. The opening line to the fourth verse of the song says: "Helter Skelter in a summer swelter..." This is quite possibly a reference to Manson's plan for a new world order which he called "Helter Skelter" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jestabr1 ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
At 18:02, 5 July 2009, I added a footnote to the article. The footnote included a link to an apparent transcript of Terry Melcher's testimony in the trial of Manson, Atkins, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten. The link was this:
About three hours later (at 20:49), an editor named Crohnie deleted the link and provided the following, very-reasonable summary of his or her action:
As I say, that was a reasonable objection to the link. In fact, I had thought someone might delete the link for that reason.
The Melcher transcript is, indeed, posted at a sort of blog — a "forum," I suppose — which is called "Truth on Tate-LaBianca." The homepage is here:
I think I first encountered that forum — and looked through its transcripts of the testimony of Melcher and of Terry Jakobson — more than a year ago — maybe two or more years ago. I might have been led to it via a link at a blog called "Official Tate-LaBianca Murders Blog" — but I don't really remember. In looking through the transcripts at that time, I had to ask myself the question that Crohnie's edit summary addresses: Are these valid? Are they, in other words, accurate transcripts of the trial testimony?
That certainly is the question. Consideration of it is aided, I think, by examination of the following linked items (which are among the numerous links that are presently part of the Wikipedia article):
This sort of analysis could be applied to several other of the links that are presently part of the Wikipedia article. As you see, I have simply given some indication of the bases on which I personally regard these links as valid (for Wikipedia). If there is any Wikipedia policy that bears on the validity of such "unofficial" transcripts and the like, another editor will kindly present it here, in response to my present remarks.
As for the link in question — namely, the Melcher-testimony transcript at "Truth on Tate-LaBianca": After Wikipedia editor Crohnie deleted the link to the Melcher transcript, I e-mailed "Cats," who runs "Truth on Tate-LaBianca." For the record: I do not know the identity of Cats. As far as I know, I have never met her. I contacted her simply by using the e-mail address that is posted at that forum. As far as I know, I've not communicated with her on any other occasion.
In an exchange of e-mails, Cats has informed me of the following:
Cats understands the problem that is presented, for Wikipedia purposes, by the Melcher transcript — which, as I say, is unscanned. She understands that the validity of the transcript is reasonably questioned. (She has emphasized this.) Although I have not asked her to go through the labor of scanning the Melcher testimony, I have asked her whether she would be interested in posting the following at the top of the Melcher-testimony transcript:
Cats — who would like to see the link to the Melcher testimony preserved at Wikipedia's "Charles Manson" article — has said she will do that as soon as she can. Any editor who follows the links, above, to the scanned DeCarlo and Flynn testimony will see (1) that each official volume's cover indicates the page numbers that the volume includes and (2) that each index identifies the number of the specific page on which the testimony of a particular witness commences. A scan of the pertinent cover and index page, in short, will help to validate the Melcher transcript that the once-scannerless Cats transcribed by hand.
I have told Cats that I am posting the present message, to see whether other Wikipedia editors think the posting of the scanned cover and index page at "Truth on Tate-LaBianca" will be enough to validate the link to the Melcher-testimony transcript. If so, the link can be reinstated as soon as Cats posts the scans.
Note: Cats has also informed me that the Susan Atkins grand-jury testimony — which, as I've indicated, is posted at mansonfamilytoday.info — is her transcript, which was first posted at "Truth on Tate-LaBianca." She has, in fact, shown me the e-mail in which the man who runs mansonfamilytoday.info requested permission to use her transcript.
Second note: Whenever I have said that a transcript — at any website — has been prepared "carefully," I have not necessarily meant "wholly without typographical errors." JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 06:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes it does all make sense. We are working on another site that would be home to said documents in question and other documents pertaining to the TLB and post TLB eras. I shall have the scans of the documents on this site as well. My question being, and no disrespect meant here at all, is that there are other assorted links on this page, which are treanscribed copies of testimony which seem to pass muster and be linked to. Why are certain transcriptions allowed and others have to be scans?
As stated by John, the original transcription of the Atkins Grand Jury is mine (beared out by the previously mentioned email), linked to a different site and this is an accepted link. Why is this accepted and not a document that would have to be scanned as well?
I am just trying to understand the rules that apply so that I may follow them. And as soon as the new site with only the documents in a non-forum layout is started and with the correct documentation, I shall post the link so that it can be seen and reviewed.
Thank you all for your time and input. -- Catscradle77 ( talk) 21:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Catscradle77
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Please change: Born as no name Maddox[7][8][9] Manson was born to unmarried, 16-year-old Kathleen Maddox in Cincinnati General Hospital, in Cincinnati, Ohio; no more than three weeks after his birth, he was Charles Milles Maddox.[7][10][11]
To:
Born to 16-year-old Kathleen Maddox in Cincinnati General Hospital, in Cincinnati, Ohio. There is some uncertanty over the details of his birth name, with rumours of recent years that he was originally named no name Maddox, but copies of what is believed to be his birth certificate have surfaced showing that it did originally read Charles Milles Maddox.
with a reference to http://www.mansondirect.com/birthcert.html
Hufggfg ( talk) 11:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Adding to what editor Wildhartlivie has just said, I’ll mention that, at what is presently footnote 9, the Wikipedia article includes a link (that was working up until about an hour ago) to a reproduction of a newspaper article whose headline is "Mother Tells Life of Manson as Boy." This appears to be the Los Angeles Times article that Bugliosi and Gentry mention on page 419 of the 1994 edition of Helter Skelter. (For those of you with other editions: This is about three pages into the chapter headed "January 26 - March 17, 1971.") As reproduced at the link, the article does not say Los Angeles Times and does not bear a date; but it does say "Times" and does include, within its text, a reference to Manson’s guilty verdict on "Monday" — i.e., Monday, January 25, 1971.
The article, which is basically an interview with Manson’s mother, includes this:
I have trouble making sense of that.
The newspaper article says "the birth certificate" said "No Name Moddox" — sic: "Moddox," with an "o," not Maddox, with an "a." This is odd — because Kathleen Maddox’s name is incorrectly listed as "Moddox" on the birth certificate that is dated December 3 — three weeks after the baby’s birth; but that is the certificate on which the baby’s name is given as "Charles Milles Maddox" (or maybe Charles Milles Moddox – with an "o" – the typeface being hard to read). Was Kathleen's name mistyped or misrecorded on two different birth certificates — the one that said "No Name" and the one that said "Charles Milles"? Or was the reporter confused? Or did the Times coincidentally make the same mistake that was made on the certificate of December 3?
And what birth certificate is the newspaper reporter referring to here? The article gives us the impression that Mrs. Manson is telling the reporter that the baby was originally called "No Name" — but the reporter says that this is on "the birth certificate." What birth certificate? Has the reporter seen it? Again: Does it happen to have the same misspelling — Moddox — that appears on the birth certificate of December 3? (As editor Wildhartlivie has pointed out, above, the Wikipedia article does not say that "No Name" appeared on a birth certificate.)
The newspaper article says that "a few weeks later" — meaning a few weeks after the baby’s birth? — Mrs. Manson "had the birth certificate changed to Charles Milles Manson."
She did? The birth certificate of December 3 suggests that "a few weeks" after the baby's birth, the name was changed to Charles Milles Maddox (or Moddox) — not Manson. Is there any birth certificate that says Charles Milles Manson?
The real question, in other words, doesn’t seem to be whether Manson was originally called "No Name Maddox." That seems — let's say — probable. The real question is: Is Manson’s last name Manson?
When — if ever — did Charles Manson acquire the last name of Manson? Is there any birth certificate with that name on it? If there is no such birth certificate — or legal filing of a change of name — can the boy have legally acquired the last name Manson simply if, say, his mother started calling him that? Considering that this confusion involved more than one state — Kentucky and Ohio, at least — I suppose there's also a question which state's law applies.
I’ve never seen this question raised (except, frankly, by me — here). Is Charles Manson’s name Charles Manson?
To repeat: I personally can’t quite figure out the newspaper account I’ve quoted above. In reading it, the main thing I wonder is this: Was Manson’s mother under pressure from her own mother to name somebody as the baby’s father. In the original record — whatever it was — where the baby was called "No Name" — was a father identified? Again — the newspaper article says this:
Why did William Manson propose marriage? One possibility, I suppose, is that he loved Kathleen Maddox and saw that she was pregnant by a man, Colonel Scott, who didn’t want to marry her — but we are not told that Colonel Scott didn’t want to marry her. In fact, we are told that, later, he did have an interest in marrying Kathleen.
The article says that William Manson "said he would try to accept the child, ... but it didn’t work out. [Kathleen] left Manson, returned to her mother in Ashland and began divorce proceedings."
The article continues:
The mother informed Scott of the birth? Had he not known Kathleen was pregnant? I don’t understand this. And what was he furious about?
A possibility that comes to mind is that Kathleen Maddox falsely gave William Manson the impression that the baby had to be his (i.e., that she’d had sexual intercourse with nobody but him) — but that, until her mother showed up and, maybe, gave her a prodding, she was hesitant to identify him falsely as the father on a legal document, i.e., the birth certificate. If that's what happened, William Manson might have left Kathleen upon somehow discovering that the child was not his.
Obviously, all of that is conjecture. I'm not saying that Kathleen Maddox lied to William Manson and falsified a birth certificate and then lied about the whole thing again, three-and-a-half decades later, to a newspaper reporter. I have no way of knowing — and I'm not trying to defame her. I’m just trying to make sense of a newspaper account that does not seem to me to be very clear. Again: The birth certificate of December 3 gives the baby’s name as Charles Milles Maddox (or Moddox) and identifies the father as William Manson.
I wonder whether anyone ever tried to track down William Manson, to get his side of the story. I don’t think I’ve come across a statement of any kind from him.
Again — the real question seems to be, not whether Charles Manson was once legally known as "No Name" – but whether Manson is his legal name.
It seems odd to me that that question has never been addressed. If Bugliosi and Gentry had any doubts whether Manson’s last name was actually Manson, they didn’t voice them — not expressly anyway. On pages 136 and 137 ("November 22-23, 1969") of the 1994 edition of Helter Skelter, they say these three things:
So — the boy was "Charles Milles Manson" by April 19, 1937. What legal standing did that name have? I wouldn’t be surprised if Bugliosi and Gentry were wondering that, too — even though they don’t raise the question.
I'm sure there are persons that would think all of the above not terribly important; but I personally find it interesting that "Charles Manson" — one of the most notorious names in history — might not even be the actual name of the person who is called by it.
PS The incorrect birth date of November 11, which appears in the Times article, is addressed by Bugliosi and Gentry in a footnote to their mention of the correct date (November 12):
Hmm. I hadn't realized the paternity blood-tests mentioned in old movies were basically for "disproving"; but come to think of it, I suppose that that's about the only thing they could be used for. Well, anyway — that's really what I was getting at. I was wondering whether William Manson had had intercourse with Kathleen and had been led to believe, by her, that nobody else had. After he and she got married, he might somehow have learned he wasn't necessarily the only one who'd been involved with her; and then he might have insisted on a blood test that revealed he couldn't be the father he'd assumed he was. At that point, he might have taken off. If Kathleen herself had not been sure which of the two men — Colonel Scott or William — was the father (and if she had selected William as the easier target), the blood test that eliminated William would, in turn, have been ammo for pursuing the judgment against Colonel Scott. Well, I'd better say it again: I'm conjecturing in a way that is maybe unfair to Kathleen Maddox.
Not sure why I keep returning to these questions that are probably now far from illuminable. It's just a strange story — when you consider how everything played out. It doesn't seem to have left Charles Manson's mind either. From his 1992 parole hearing:
At his 1997 parole hearing, he gives his name as follows: Charles Milles Scott Manson.
I should have given you the whole Bugliosi and Gentry quote re the judgment against Scott. He seems to have come through with little, if any, cash: "Though it was an 'agreed judgment,' Colonel Scott apparently didn't honor it, for as late as 1940 Kathleen was attempting to file an attachment on his wages. Most accounts state that Colonel Scott died in 1954; though this has never been officially verified, Manson himself apparently believed it." JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 04:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
So — Wikipedia gets some respect. From paragraph two of an August 11 Manson-fortieth-anniversary article in The Daily Telegraph (UK):
Emphasis added. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 15:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Was it founded by Charles Manson? Is it worth mentioning in article? 148.81.137.4 ( talk) 16:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone explain what the hell happened here? Manson was in the middle of a question or something when he just starts spouting jibberish. Jedibob5 ( talk) 21:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
No, he's not 'crazy'. If you would watch the full interview, or if you read anything about Charles manson, you would know he is mocking the inteviewer. --
79.64.234.155 (
talk)
00:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed two categories from the article, which were returned. Those categories are Eco-terrorism and Radical environmentalism. I understand the rationale that might make someone think these categories belong on this article, but factually, Manson was not involved in eco-terrorism or radical environmentalism. He talked around ATWA, but the website/mini-movement surrounding it was Sandra Good and George Stimson, not Manson. That is a bit like adding murder categories to Good or Fromme's articles because people they were associated with committed murder. What others have done with the concept of ATWA is something else, but beyond that, we don't add categories to articles when the content of the article does not support them. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 22:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I have heard at various times that Charles Manson was a boy scout, even that he earned the Eagle Scout award at one point. Any truth to those stories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.59.87 ( talk • contribs)
Sorry to be pedantic, but the noun "burglar" comes from the verb "to burgle", therefore the word you mean is "burgled". There is no such word as "burglarize" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.51.213 ( talk) 20:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) The first reference says quite clearly "but you may use whichever you prefer". That book is not what I would call a definitive source. The two sources to MacMillan dictionary, which are in fact the same source, are for the words "burglarize" and "burgle". "This is the American English definition of burgle: to burglarize a building." The American English definition. It does not state in any way that the word "burgle" is a British-use word. The Wiktionary entries state that "burgle" is British but it gives no supporting references. I do not see on Wiktionary any support for U.S. vs. British and we do not self-reference to other Wikimedia sites. This does not support your contention. I have looked at the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, Dictionary.com, thefreedictionary.com, and none of them designate "burgle" as a British word vs. burglarize as American. This is not something covered by WP:ENGVAR. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
A book that explores the legalese use isn't pertinent here - and the reference in that book addresses something in 1978. None of these sources supports the WP:ENGVAR argument you're using. None of these state that there is proper grammatical acceptance of one use over another in the way that is covered by WP:ENGVAR, which covers the use of proper spelling/grammar uses in British vs. American words. Whether it is 30 times as often or 50 times as often, that it is used in the United States is the definitive argument. Since it is, it is properly used in this article. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 03:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
don't know how to communicate with wikipedia. figured i'd try here. do people think it would be relevant to mention an observation i made: his name manson, like peterson and johnson and so on, is a combined phrase. peterson was once called son of peter and johnson, son of john. so manson would be son of man, which might have contributed to his thinking of himself as the second coming of christ ( Jperkins69 ( talk) 02:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC))
wow. i was wondering if it had ever been brought up before. that's why i wiki'd it. that's cool to know. not to worried if it's not worthy of being in the article but it's cool that Bugliosi thought of it. i figured, surely, it had been addressed somewhere by now. thanks john.
Small suggested addition - amongst performers who have taken their names from the Manson Family could be added Kasabian.( Available light ( talk) 09:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC))
There is a section which states "Of those convicted of Manson-ordered murders, Grogan would become, in 1985, the first—and, as of 2009[update], the only—to be paroled.[143]"
Should be added that Lynette is out as well...possibly in the section that discusses her time in jail and crimes, since she wasn't directly convicted of the manson-ordered murders... Might also mention that Susan has now passed away due to terminal brain cancer.
And there are a few people out there claiming to be his children. I was hoping to find out more about them on here, maybe that should be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.140.118 ( talk) 00:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Should be added that there is another putative child of Manson's, whom he has communicated with and acknowledged, in the press of 11/26/09 (Sun, Daily Mail, etc.)and this seems to be reliable.
Pythoness Mar (
talk)
19:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
At 18:18, 30 October 2009, editor BassPlyr23 noted (in the article) that the recent official photograph of the imprisoned Manson revealed Manson's forehead swastika still in place. I personally do think that that was worth adding to the article — because comments on this talk page have suggested that many persons come to Wikipedia precisely to find out about the swastika. My fellow editors, we know we've had no real luck determining when the swastika first went onto Manson's forehead — or what, if anything, it means to Manson. Even so, I think it's time we tried to put some light on the subject. At 21:01 and 21:10, 30 October, I made two revisions to try to do that. In the first revision, I noted that the swastika was apparent at least as early as the Snyder interview. I don't have a written source for that: I've simply watched the video.
In the second revision, I eliminated the article's passing indication that Manson's trial X was "later changed into a swastika." That left the reader with the impression that the X became a swastika before the trial's conclusion. That might not be true — and, in fact, as far as I know, it isn't true. I replaced that with a statement that the X "eventually" became a swastika — and I directed the reader to the article's "Remaining in view" section, where I'd remarked on the Snyder interview.
I supported the Snyder statement with a YouTube link to a clip of the Snyder interview. Wildhartlivie: I know you're going to be bothered by that — because of the copyright question. If you think the link should be eliminated, eliminate it. My own view is that the link is provided simply to document what is now part of history: Manson had the swastika by the time of the Snyder interview. That would seem to be "fair use." If the clip of the Snyder interview shouldn't be at YouTube in the first place — well, that's the concern of whoever holds the Snyder copyright. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 21:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I reverted an addition to the early life section regarding content in the Bugliosi book about the racial heritage of Manson's named father, Col Scott. Later research disproved this much earlier evidence/supposition, although assembling the support from acceptable sources has been a bit difficult. See the mentions here on charliemanson.com and the passage in Helter Skelter is here on pages 617-618. Darwin Scott was definitely white and was definitely Col Scott's brother. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 08:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, correct? Judging someone visually does not put the finally word on nor in any way officially verifies their racial background, in my opinion that is perhaps the biggest lesson in US race relations to date.Darwin was not Manson's father and there are no cites or information above that disprove my cites from one of the most official Manson history texts which is Helter Skelter. What you've provided is a photo of Scott's brother and passage from Helter Skelter stating that Darwin Scott was murdered. There is no other proof I've yet seen to discount an official institutional record which Bugliosi cites in which non-white ancestry was mentioned several times. Just because Darwin looks white to the "majority" does not mean there is no non-white ancestry, especially in the southern united states. As you may already know, in parts of the South, one 32nd and even less black ancestry is still considered legally African American or 'colored' as many older birth records state. At one point in I believe ten states it was one drop. Verified information like this usually only becomes "hearsay" or "disproved" when the person is an icon to white supremacists (as Manson is) or when the "public thinks he looks white", but public opinion is not the basis for inclusion or exclusion as you know, verifiable information is. Its important information because Bugliosi stated that he still wonders if it were true and that it did not matter ultimately if there was ancestry or not but that if Manson believed there was. And that it could have created inner turmoil, self loathing and disgust about blacks which he obviously has displayed. No one has yet to produce Colonel Scott's birth certificate (just as J. Edgar Hoover's birth records have mysteriously vanished) or a photo either. Even if they do, this information was committed to SEVERAL institutional records and is not hearsay. It's clearly verified via Bugliosi. Please leave it the article. It is "new" information to many people out there who have not followed the Manson saga as closely as you or I. Thanks. Catherine Huebscher ( talk) 12:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Please don't play the race card via your niece, it makes no sense.
"Including supposition included in 60 year old case notes is not confirmation and I dare say, based on my actual experience in analyzing such historical case notes, that they often were full of conjecture and gossip..."
That is your experience and your opinion, not Bugliosi's and is conjecture in and of itself. How has it EVER been disproved that the case notes are incorrect? Where and when?
"There are no longer such distinctions, nor the need for it."
Perhaps and hopefully for those doing the new DNA testing ala Skip Gates, but we are talking about Manson who was a virulent racist who hated and feared blacks so why leave it out of the article if it is referenced? You wrote Darwin Scott was "definitely white" and based Col Scott's ancestry on an article almost as old as the Manson case files themselves. So much is lost in translation when one debates via the web, so sincerely no condescending was intended. I am a bit surprised you would have a quote from Manson, a sexist and racist killer on your user page to welcome people (which is of course your right) and not at least have included Bugliosi's provocative passages about Manson possibly being part black for speculation, as John Bonaccorsi and I have. Seeing as every other well known public figure, especially multi-racial people, have their ancestry divulged and sifted through. Why not Manson if it is properly referenced? Catherine Huebscher ( talk) 22:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there are lots of "illegitimate" manson kids running around, but.... Should Matthew Roberts be mentioned as a child? It seems as if he's the son of Manson and has the story/mother to back the claim up (plus the looks). ( Charlesblack ( talk) 23:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
This article is very poorly written. It's filled with improperly used quotation marks, awkward wording, sentences written in the passive voice and others that start with lengthy dependent clauses.
For reasons I don't fully understand, another editor removed the copy edit tag and removed several edits I made that were clearly supported by citations. I have replaced the tag. Please don't remove it until there is a consensus. I am Zeus, king of the gods ( talk) 16:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Two editors have recently removed an interal link I created in the info box that leads to a 2009 pic of Manson displayed in the subsection titled "Recent developments", located several paragraphs down in the article. It reads as follows:
Click here for an image of Manson at age 74, taken in early 2009.
The link is right under Manson's 1969 pic displayed in the info box.
California prison officials released the 2009 pic which was subsequently placed on the CNN website. The first editor, user:John, removed it because he found it "a bit yuck," whatever that means. The second editor, user:McSly, removed it because he believed the information was dubious and unsourced. This of course isn't true. The reference to the CNN story is currently citation number 174 ( http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/19/california.manson.photo/index.html). It's been there some time, long before these two editors removed my internal link.
I have replaced the link twice now. Please keep it there. I am Zeus, king of the gods ( talk) 22:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Why are there citation needed tags in the lead section of this article? There is no need for citations in the lead when the content is covered in the main body of the article. And for the record, there is no precedent for including a link to a photograph contained in the same article. That is completely unnecessary and redundant to the image itself being in the article. It is messy in appearance. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 06:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
This link keeps being added but I see no reason for it. If the readers are interested in Manson they will see the updated photo later in the article. There is no reason to link to the new photo under the old photo. It doesn't make any sense plus it looks horrible and unencyclopedic. -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
At 08:25, 6 January, an editor changed the intro's wording to indicate that Manson's death sentence had been "commuted" to life in prison. The verb the editor replaced was "reduced."
"Reduced" is better, I think. In the first place, it's the verb Bugliosi and Gentry use in the epilogue of Helter Skelter:
More importantly, Manson's death sentence was eliminated by action of a court, not the governor of California. Maybe any criminal-penalty reduction — whether it be the act of a court or an executive — may properly be called a commutation, but I think the Wikipedia article should stick with "reduced," to be sure.
Another point to keep in mind is that it's not clear that Manson's penalty was really "changed." The California Supreme Court decided that the death penalty Manson and many others had been given was not in accord with the California Constitution. The court said, in a way, that Manson's death penalty was a nullity ab initio (i.e., from the beginning); so again, "commutation" might not be the right word.
At the moment, I won't revert the edit. I'll wait to see whether any comments are posted here. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 16:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
What else has been added in the last month or so that needs to be discussed here? Wildhartlivie ( talk) 21:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I see the copy-edit tag has had the effect I feared it would: the article is now undergoing all sorts of improvement — if you take my meaning. Adios. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 05:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I must withdraw my snide comment. I now realize that several of the edits that prompted me to make it were very good. I apologize to the editors whom I insulted. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 10:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
For a long time — maybe two-and-a-half years — the article's "Childhood" subsection contained the following:
"He," of course, is Manson.
I am pretty sure I myself wrote that sentence, when I saw that Manson's Certificate of Live Birth was dated December 3, 1934 — exactly three weeks after his birth. Although the certificate could not clarify the entire history of the naming of Manson, it made clear that no more than three weeks after his birth, he was Charles Milles Maddox.
Within the past week or two, after a copy-edit tag was posted on the article, I began simplifying several of the article's sentences, including that one. In fact, I changed that sentence only a day or so ago, at 03:57, 7 January. I changed it to this:
As you see, that doesn't merely "simplify" the sentence: it changes the sense of it. The phrase "within weeks" suggests that Manson didn't receive the name until at least a week had passed — but we really don't know when he received the name. We know only what I originally wrote: no more than three weeks after his birth, he was Charles Milles Maddox.
Because a heated discussion about Manson's birth record has taken place on the present talk page, in the section headed "Faulty revisions," I am going to restore the sentence's original form. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 22:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
SkagitRiverQueen –
Manson's Certificate of Live Birth reading "Charles Milles Maddox" is linked in the footnotes of the Wikipedia article and is dated December 3, 1934 — exactly three weeks after his date of birth. The Wikipedia article used to include, as well, a link to a 1971 L.A. Times piece that was, in part, an interview with Manson's mother. That link is now dead, but the piece included this:
All of that goes against your revision of 03:11, 8 January 2010. If you have documentation that supports your revision, please present it — and footnote it. The footnote that presently supports your revision is the one that has long been in place, the one, as I say, that shows a certificate dated December 3.
Doc9871 —
There was no grammatical problem with the sentence of mine that you changed. Your rewording didn’t correct anything: it changed the sentence's sense. As revised by you, the sentence indicates that, while he was at McNeil Island, Manson claimed to have become interested in his psychology. That’s incorrect. The original and correct sense of the sentence — as I wrote it — is that Manson has claimed that, while he was at McNeil Island, he became interested in his psychology.
I am going to put the article back the way it was.
JohnBonaccorsi (
talk)
04:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
SkagitRiverQueen —
You are now arguing — and editing — in bad faith.
If it doesn't matter when the certificate was dated, then why did your revision of 04:34, 8 January, state this:
Even if the point you made above were to be granted — I mean your point that the Certificate of Live Birth is the only official record (as I am unable to say) — it would justify, at most, a revision like the following:
As for your other revisions — you wrote:
It's not clear how Maddox got from Ashland to Cincinnati. The L.A. Times article I've already cited says "[h]er mother sent her with her sister to Cincinnati, to have the baby away from [her native] Ashland[, Kentucky]." In a Manson in His Own Words passage that I myself have placed in the article, there is something about Maddox's having run away — but it's not clear. All of this information is very hard to pin down, which is why the passages you altered had been carefully worded.
You also wrote:
Again — the sources make it difficult to say anything certain about this. In Manson in His Own Words, there is this:
In the L.A. Times article, on the other hand, Kathleen Maddox said something about Colonel Scott's having shown an interest in Charles — having shown as much of an interest in Charles as he did in "his own" children — something like that. That article, as I've said, is no longer online; thus I can't provide the quote.
In sum — and to repeat: The details of these topics are hard to pin down — and as far as I know, these statements of yours can not be supported. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 05:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Regardless of any dispute you have, you have violated WP:3RR with your return of this content to which other editors have clearly objected. Stop changing this back. It is incorrect and misquotes sources. LaVidaLoca ( talk) 18:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
What's up with the "First offenses" section? There are no dates given other than the 1951 escape from the Indiana School for Boys. Without any dates, the reader has no reference point for when these offenses happened. Whomever wrote this section and has the references handy needs to do some clean up here. As it is, the section is worthless for encyclopedic purposes. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 23:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's stick facts about edits and leave personalities and speculation about behavior out as it does nothing to work toward making this article better. If you have something to offer about the edits themselves, please do so, but also be certain to do so without the uncivil and unneccessary editorial. If you object to what you see as "Weasel phrases", that's understandable. The rest of the commentary, however, is really unneccessary and inappropriate. As far as dates for this section - dates are one of the things that makes encyclopedias encyclopedic (not to mention that it's just good writing technique when providing facts). If there are any dates to be applied here from the references listed (or even a date spread), they need to be added. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 23:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't only addressing LaVidaLoca, I was also addressing you. Please stop commenting on me and attempting to analyze why I am saying what I am saying and why I edited what I did. Article talk pages are for discussing edits, not other editors. Yes, I do believe the dates should be included - this is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias include dates. Not including dates or time frames is confusing for a reader unfamiliar with the subject at hand. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 00:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It was my mistake that I stated you used rollback. For that error, I apologize. Regardless, it's not good faith nor appropriate editing behavior to completely revert an entire section that was edited in good faith based on a few edits you see as disputable. I will continue to "improve" this article because it could stand improving. Furthermore, I am just as important to Wikipedia as anyone else here. It is not the right of *anyone* to keep others from editing an article unless they are being disruptive and/or vandalizing. And even in those types of cases, it is up to administrators to block someone from editing, not other editors. If you think my edits were vandalism or disruptive to Wikipedia, please feel free to report me to AN/I. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 00:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
No one is editorializing on you personally and are factually talking about edits you've made. Your comments about what you think I or Wildhartlivie believe, no one has said and to claim so is a defacto personal comment. Please desist from making personal comments. Listen to your own advice. In fact, at least three other editors disagree with the changes you have made and that has been expanded upon here and in edit summaries. It is obvious that you have a different perception of what comprises "bad" grammar and syntax, but at least three other editors have spoken in favor of it, and that does make a consensus agaisnt your opinion. You are in fact, making changes with which at least one editor with an English composition post-graduate degree disagrees and disputes. LaVidaLoca ( talk) 01:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
<sigh> There simply is no discussion here, only bad faith accusations. I refuse to discuss this with you if you are going to continue asserting you personally are being discussed. Please stop making this personal. What has been said here is that at least three different editors do not see your edits as "improvements". LaVidaLoca ( talk) 02:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Nice. We don't agree with your edits and out comes the "I'm going to a noticeboard to make this an AN/I or whatever else I can think up to do". Give it a rest. You're the one who continues to maintain there are personal attacks here. Very nice. How many articles have you done this on? Two, three, four? It happens every time you arrive at an article and try to force your viewpoint on it. No, your edits don't "improve" the article. Not in any way. LaVidaLoca ( talk) 03:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It's an unfortunate effect that asking people to stay on-topic so often moves the discussion one step further off-topic. (It takes two, but most people step into dyads once there's a possibility for one, so you can't really assign blame. (If that made no sense, ignore it.)) There certainly are ad hominem remarks going both ways in this section, and I see less discussion of edits than would be ideal. The solution to that problem is simply to discuss the edits.
They're much easier to discuss one at a time. SRQ, is there a particular edit you'd like to discuss first, of the ones you made? Maybe the one in the section below, that JohnB is talking about? - GTBacchus( talk) 03:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
At 00:47, 14 January, the article's "Childhood" subsection included this:
At 00:56, that was changed to the following:
In addition to its prolixity and the comma carelessly left near the end of its first sentence, the revision has two sense problems:
The verb-change from "had been named" to "was named" is also, arguably, a bit of a problem — because it gives the impression the identification of William Manson as the boy's father, on the certificate, came after the wedding of Kathleen Maddox and William Manson. Because we don't know the wedding date of those two, "is named" is probably best.
I am going to restore the original wording. Before the words "Certificate of Live Birth," I will place the words "the boy's." I will use "is named" instead of "had been named" or "was named." JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 02:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
SkagitRiverQueen — I clearly indicated your revision's problems — problems that amounted to more than "a few things out of place." Had you demonstrated, on this talk page, a willingness to respond simply, politely, and in detail to such a statement of problems, I would have awaited a response from you; instead, I simply changed what you had written. More importantly, I didn't "completely revert" what you had done. If you will look at what I placed in the article, you will see that it reflects some of the changes you made. If you have a response to the criticism I offered above, please post it here. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 03:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I have just noticed that, at 23:06, 13 January, editor SkagitRiverQueen entered, on this talk page, a post headed "Childhood section," in which she described and explained the changes she had made to the article's section on Manson's childhood. It was five minutes later, at 23:11, that SkagitRiverQueen posted "First offenses," which I regarded as belligerent. When I read "First offenses," I had not seen the post headed "Childhood section." I thought that, after a three-day block related to her revisions of the article's childhood material, SkagitRiverQueen had simply returned to change that material again, without explanation, and had then gone on simply to disparage the article's "First offenses" material. That is why my response to her "First offenses" post included my criticism of her "Childhood" edits — criticism I would otherwise have positioned in her post called "Childhood section." In short: had I seen SkagitRiverQueen's "Childhood section" post, I would probably have thought her at least a little bit less belligerent — and would probably have responded to "First offenses" more temperately.
GTBacchus — I appreciate your mild tone; but I will say that I don't think "Learn some basic English" is inappropriately directed to an editor who repeatedly blathers about (unspecified) "syntax," "grammar," and other problems, while frequently creating typos, ungrammatical constructions, and other such problems for other editors to clean up in the article. If other editors are not to be burdened with such cleaning up, such an editor needs to be brought up short. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 04:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
We really don't need to talk about which statement made by whom (that's right, "whom" ;)) was more or less appropriate or helpful than which other statement, though. The way to go is forward, with discussion of edits. If anyone needs to seek sanctions against anyone else, that's not for this talk page, and I'm happy to entertain conversations elsewhere, if that seems like that will help. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
And lest I myself be accused of being unspecific:
I could probably come up with a few others — but I think my point is made. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk)
GTBacchus — I guess you and I just posted comments at about the same time. You're right about bringing someone up short. Maybe it's a judgment call. Anyway — let's hope things work out. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 05:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've just looked over the edits made today, and I've got some observations, which I hope you don't mind my sharing. Here are the edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Since I began typing this, there's been a fourteenth (reverting 11), and another talk page section has started, but I've gotta post this before I grow old.
Ok, SkagitRiverQueen, check it out: This is what I recommend. You've got a lot of ideas for edits that you believe will improve the article. That's awesome; thank you for wanting to make it better. If you implement them as many at a time as you did in edits 1, 2 and 4, you're very, very likely to end up at 1 + 2 + 4 = 7. Reverted all the way; no net gain. (Funny how that worked out, huh?)
Now, I wouldn't have made edit 5. It was going to be pointless; the first revert in a situation that you know to be tense pretty much always is. That's why I play 0RR. Once B and R have happened, it's time for D. A second R leads to a third one so much of the time, and they add nothing to the history but worry lines.
What I'd do after the first revert is to isolate one small change that's part of your rewrite, re-make just that one change, and comment on the talk page about it. Then don't do any editing until a conversation happens. That means a conversation has to happen, and it's got to somehow stay on topic.
That last bit, about staying on-topic, is directed to everyone here to whom it applies — you know who you are. Each editor in good standing, which includes every one of us here, is welcome to work on any article. There are no topic bans affecting this situation. If you want to get a topic ban, you're welcome to seek one, but only ArbCom gives those out, and they won't talk to you until after an RfC or two and couple dozen AN/I threads have gone down. Nobody's going to block anyone from this article anytime soon (unless someone freaks out and starts deleting everything or something), so you have to work together.
So... SkagitRiverQueen, I'd love to see your reply to JohnBonaccorsi's comments about your edit. B and R have happened, so we have to D. Let's just hash it out. I am addressing the additional issues you bring up above, but I'm going to do part of that somewhere else on the wiki, that I think will be more appropriate. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The Tom Snyder interview has now been removed in total which I think maybe mistaken. I personally liked that information. Can it be returned in full like it was before all the activity of the night? John I think you originally put it in and removed the little bit that was left last night. Would you mind putting it back into the article? I think it actually adds to the articles interest plus it breaks the referencing up a little so that the article isn't being referenced from just a couple of citations. Of course this is my POV about it but do any of the other editors here have an opinion about this? Thanks for your thoughts and of course for reading, :) -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The childhood section has been rewritten. Previously, it did not flow well, nor was the verbiage and syntax used well placed. William Manson was named on Manson's Certificate of Live Birth - this information has been included in the section. A new paragraph for the details of the bastardy suit has been created - as it was previously, that information was lumped together with everything else. Because of that information's importance, it has been placed in its own paragraph. A couple of redirects were appropriately added. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 23:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, it's clear that there's significant work underway around here, good for ya'll, but I just dont care enough to read the talk and see what's happening. So the point I'm going to make has likely been made before, maybe even recently. Nontheless, I'll risk it, because this article suffers from having a vast amount of material only indirectly related to Manson himself, such as the actions of Atkins and Watson, et al. Question: why does something so significant as the Family not have its own article? This would be a very linkable article, and would make both it and this article more coherent, and comprehensible. Check the current article size, btw, 108k is a lot of text. In fact, the Family itself is interesting enough that there should probably be a separate Tate/LaBianca Murders article. Imho.
I strongly suggest that most of the material on the family and the murders should be split into a separate article on The Manson Family, and I can't understand why it hasn't been. But I don't actually care, so, as always and ever, do what thou wilt shall be the hole in the law... Eaglizard ( talk) 09:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)(fixt Eaglizard ( talk))
I made many helpful changes to this article but I see now that other editors have reverted nearly all of them. I must say, I find that disappointing and bit insulting as well. Therefore, I won't be making any others. I am Zeus, king of the gods ( talk) 14:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry to see the large changes done to the article without even a peep on the talk page. There were other editors who disagreed with these changes in the past. I for one will not continue here at this time since what is discussed is ignored. Good luck with the article. I've had this on my watchlist for a long time, I may remove it soon but will watch it for a little bit longer to see if discussions that are productive are initiated. Thanks and happy editing, -- CrohnieGal Talk 18:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been watching this page for long but I have been considering providing more information on it. In my opinion there should be more information about the abuse Manson endured as a child not because I think it should be viewed as an excuse but because it will help people understand how troubled children turn into troubled and violent adults. I also disagree with some of the changes although I think it is accurate mostly. I'm not sure how important the suggestion about his father being black is. It is in Bugliosi's book but there clearly isn't anything to back it up including his skin color. I doubt if this is true and doubt if it should be a high priority; however there should be more about extensive reports of abuse not only to Manson but many other killers. This is backed up by many reliable sources and it isn't being explained to the public well enough. I trust your intentions are sincere and if so and the sincere people abandon articles then the less sincere people will take over. Not that I think the recent work is insincere just that I think some of the priorities should be considered more carefully. Zacherystaylor ( talk) 19:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed however I don’t think we’re in danger of providing undue weight on this. There is a lot of research indicating how important this is although it doesn’t all refer to Manson. I am only considering adding what does relate directly to Manson on this article. This will be based on two sources already cited here, Neumon Emmons and Bugliosi. Good day
Zacherystaylor (
talk)
20:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Because of a series of edits executed from 17:11 to 17:53, 16 January, by editor SkagitRiverQueen, the article includes the following paragraphs:
Those paragraphs have several defects:
I will be correcting these problems. Because there are so many of them — and because the time I can give to the Wikipedia article is quite limited — I have had to compose the present notes hastily. I'm not even going to give them a close check for typos and such. What time I have I will give to the correction of the article.
If an editor disagrees with the criticisms above, he or she will please respond to them here. JohnBonaccorsi ( talk) 20:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's my take on your criticisms of the recent edits:
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.
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.
Not unneccessary at all. His name wasn't legally anything until it was recorded by the county registrar. "Tendentious or obfuscatory"? Sorry, but...LOL.
Either/or. Whatever.
Not. Big difference between original birth certificate issued by hospital in those days and the Certificate of Live Birth recorded by the county registrar.
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.
Okay.
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.
Okay.
Okay.
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". ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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". ;-)
"Pointless"? LOL! Now your youth and lack of knowledge in Americana is showing. Go ahead, look up Boys Town.
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.
I agree. So why was it already in there? I didn't put the parenthesis in.
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.
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.
There really aren't that many of them. And don't forget, Wikipedia is meant to be a work in progress, there's no deadline here. Relax, John - let's work on this together and cooperatively. It *is* possible, you know... -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 02:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)