Jump to content

Talk:Charles Manson/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8


Childhood

In view of Charles Manson's skin color, obviously if Colonel Scott was his biological father, he cannot possibly have been black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.234.245 (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Simply not true. That jus' ign'ant. Look at Rashida Jones. If Scott himself were part white, especially white enough to pass, his offspring could easily look white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.213.142.170 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Have you never seen photographs in which the black ancestry of Rashida Jones is evident, however faintly? I think I've seen some--even this one:http://www.nndb.com/people/355/000110025/ 98.114.58.242 (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2015

Please edit the quote within the excerpt below (which is presented as a direct quote from a 1951 document) so it reflects the actual language of used. The original document used the term "colored" instead of "African American." It's extremely misleading as is. If you insist on keeping "African American" please place it within brackets to indicate the edit. Nobody used that term at the time. The original document can easily be found online. Thanks.

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


Sbgleason (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done The source material does indeed use the term "colored", and not "African American". We are bound to our sources, and when using quotes we must stick to the source material. Doc talk 06:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Criminal and Musician?

Crime is his "profession'? Presuming music is his other vocation? Crime is now a calling, in the USA, something you write on a census form under "Occupation"? 118.211.195.218 (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


Cultural Reverberation:

Here is an example of hypocrisy and calumny all in one: "Within months of the Tate–LaBianca arrests, Manson was embraced by underground newspapers of the 1960s counterculture." So, when the liks of Time Magazine or National Review feature Charles Manson on their covers or in their pages it's "reporting," but when so-called "counterculture" (i.e., any journal that opposes or defies the conservative ideologies, styles, and rituals of the likes of Time or National Review) do the same, it's an "embrace by underground newspapers." Yeah. As I stated, this is a classic case of hypocrisy (double standards) and calumny (the transparent slander of an entire multi-hued Left-leaning cultural revolution). CHANGE this offending and offensive passage, as it neither meets the baseline of academic standards nor wiki's supposed ideological "neutrality." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:D132:F00:214:51FF:FEE6:3765 (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

As the person who wrote the sentence that has offended you, I would say it is quite-possibly false. As far as I am aware, the only underground newspaper that possibly embraced Manson was Tuesday's Child, which, apparently, proclaimed him "Man of the Year" on the cover of one issue and featured an image of him on a cross on the cover of the next one. Not having read those issues, I can't say whether whatever was said about Manson in them can be said to have constituted an "embrace" of him.
The ancient Rolling Stone cover story, which is in the footnotes to the Wikipedia "embrace" sentence, has never been said to have embraced Manson, as far as I know; and having read it, I personally wouldn't say it represented an embrace of him, even if, as its author has said, the original idea—the pre-research idea—was "Free Manson."
In short, the Wikipedia sentence should be deleted or revised. — John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia98.114.58.242 (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Done In accordance with the preceding discussion, I revised the sentence in question to read: "In 1970, Manson was embraced by the underground newspaper Tuesday's Child and was the subject of a Rolling Stone cover story, 'Charles Manson: The Incredible Story of the Most Dangerous Man Alive.'" I also added fresh references for both assertions. Kent Krupa (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I’ve just taken a half-look at the 1970 Rolling Stone story, for which you, I believe, provided the article's footnote-link ( http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/charles-manson-the-incredible-story-of-the-most-dangerous-man-alive-19700625 ). It contains the following:
The underground press in general has assumed kind of a paranoid-schizo attitude toward Manson, undoubtedly hypersensitive to the relentless gloating of the cops who, after a five-year search, finally found a longhaired devil you could love to hate.
Starting in mid-January, the Los Angeles Free Press banner headlined Manson stories for three weeks in a row: "Manson Can Go Free!" "M.D. On Manson's Sex Life!" "Manson Interview! Exclusive Exclusive!"
The interview, by the way, ran for two more weeks, consisted mainly of attorney/author Michael Hannon talking to himself. Later, the Free Press began a weekly column by Manson written from jail.
About the same time, a rival underground paper, Tuesday's Child, ran Manson's picture across the entire front page with the headline "MAN OF THE YEAR: CHARLES MANSON." In case you missed the point, in their next issue they covered the front page with a cartoon of Manson on the cross. The plaque nailed above his head read simply "HIPPIE."
When the Manson record was released, both papers agreed to run free ads for it, but the chain of Free Press bookstores, owned by Free Press publisher Art Kunkin, refused to sell it, arguing it was an attempt to make profit of tragedy.
Of course, not all the stories in the Free Press and Tuesday's Child were pro-Manson. Some were very lukewarm, others were simply anti-cop. The question that seemed to split underground editorial minds more than any other was simply: Is Manson a hippie or isn't he?
That suggests that Felton and Dalton, the writers of the Rolling Stone article, thought there was something of an embrace of Manson by those two underground papers (Tuesday’s Child and the Los Angeles Free Press). Maybe the original Wikipedia sentence wasn't way off-target, in other words; but still, I think it's good you've revised it.98.114.58.242 (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
IP 98.114.58.242, thanks for your comment. I have again revised the text in question, which now reads: "Beginning in January 1970, Manson was embraced by the underground newspapers Los Angeles Free Press and Tuesday's Child, with the latter proclaiming him 'Man of the Year.' In June 1970, he was the subject of a Rolling Stone cover story, 'Charles Manson: The Incredible Story of the Most Dangerous Man Alive.'" Kent Krupa (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I like the way you've assembled that paragraph. It's a smooth read and has the good footnote-links.98.114.58.242 (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I would add some of this commentary to the article, as an example of the paranoid lefty delusional mindset of which Manson was only an extreme example. It might help people understand how anyone could come close to sympathising with this.

As I recall, the 'Berkley Tribe' was enthusiastic about Manson, as was an indie paper in San Diego whose name escapes me. Some research should show there was more support for Manson amongst such people than the OP will admit - or like. 2.31.38.227 (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Tate Death

I have seen reports that Sharon Tate's death certificate runs to several pages, but only the first page is available for viewing. Apparently something grotesque was done involving her unborn child, is there any confirmation of this? It could be a research point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.38.227 (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Style

The article presents a dense collection of facts, sometimes going into minute detail. I think it would be more readable and informative if it gave an overview of what had happened.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Bernardine Dohrn etc

The reference to Bernardine Dohrn, taken from a newspaper article from 1981, seems primarily designed to blacken her name. According to her husband, Bill Ayers, the attributed comment was taken out of context and misconstrued.

Similarly, the article refers to Tuesday's Child (newspaper), a newspaper that was only published for six months.

These references seem primarily designed to discredit the New Left/counterculture/hippie movement rather than actually shed any light on the topic. Did the Weather Underground support the murder of rich, white civilians? No, they didn't. Did most supporters of the peace movement support Charles Manson? No, they didn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Charles Manson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Drumming

It's a minor point, I know, but the article mentions he was a drummer and yet drums are not included on the list of instruments. If this were a very minor thing (in the way that some musicians can play Harmonica, but it's not their main instrument) I could understand. Manson was, however, a founding member of the Beach Boys as a drummer, and that seems more significant, in the current article, than his vocal or guitar work. I'm sure I am missing something, I'm new here so I'm quite happy to let more experienced editors correct me if I'm wrong. I can't edit the article anyway so I thought I would suggest this, if someone wanted to make the edit. No problem if not. Sorry if I've done something wrong here. Still getting to grips with everything. --ClydeGhost (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

A long time ago, the article said simply that Manson had a chance relationship with "Beach Boy Dennis Wilson," as is correct. At some point, someone modified that, quite unnecessarily, so that, as you have seen, there is a confusing reference to Dennis Wilson's having been the drummer in, and a founding member of, the Beach Boys. I say confusing because--as someone noted here at the time--the wording can give the impression that Manson, not Wilson, was the Beach Boys figure. As is so often the case at Wikipedia, nobody bothered to correct it; and now as we see, you--and probably many other Wikipedia visitors--have gained the erroneous impression that Manson was a Beach Boy. He was not.96.245.226.49 (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

X then swastika

Hey y'all, did any of you notice that the first time Charles Manson marked his forehead it was the shape of an X before it became a swastika? X is the symbol of Christ, while the swastika can be considered a symbol of pagan religions (simply other religions) like the religions of India, most notably Hindu and Hindu dogma. Storm Machinine (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Storm Machinine, he (Manson) carved an X onto his forehead to show that he was crossed (or, X'd) out of society. He said himself in filmed interviews shortly after his trial started. Mikepellerintalk 00:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Death?

Just read a news article that he has been found dead in his cell. http://theracketreport.com/charles-manson-found-dead-at-age-80/ Oddly ive seen other articles that claim this happened earlier this year around may. --Nzoomed (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

He's not dead. His death will be reported in every mainstream source when it occurs. The site you linked to is clearly intended to be a humorous fake news site.[1] Doc talk 21:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistent citation style

This article should be cleaned up with {{ref=harv}} and {{sfn|||}} templates.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Psychiatric diagnosis

I'm curious if there is any info on what kind of psychiatric diagnosis's Manson has been given. I'm assuming he has been treated extensively throughout his time in prison. I think it would make a very good addition to the article if someone knows. He is a very notable pathological subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea whatsoever. But my guess is that he would never allow himself to be "treated". Most especially by the government (i.e., the prison staff). Right? I am sure he doesn't think there is anything wrong with him. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Split off Tate murders?

At the recent AfD discussions about Abigail Folger, Jay Sebring, Steven Parent and Wojciech Frykowski, it was suggested that the Tate murders should be split off from this article into a separate article Tate murders. I agree. Those particular five murders were so notorious, and have been written about in such detail, that they overwhelm this article, even though they don't contain all the information they should - for example, there should be a little more information about each victim. The Abigail Folger article was redirected to this page per the AfD closure, but even though the recommendation was to "merge", no merging of any of the information about her was done. This article is just too bloated, there isn't room for it. If there is support for a new article, I am willing to create it, with help and input from other editors here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As one of the people who originally suggested it, I support the idea. Unlike most of the victims, the event itself seems notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The event has received WP:PERSISTENT coverage as well, therefore it can be spun out as a separate article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree. The Tate murders received huge media coverage BEFORE the LAPD even considered Manson and his gang as the suspects. The murders also involve NUMEROUS people: Sharon Tate, Abigail Folger, Wojciech Frykowski, Jay Sebring, Steven Parent, Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, Linda Kasabian... all of whom arguably play a bigger role in the event than Manson himself. Yet the main article on the murders are on his page? Manson's article is already very long, like you suggested above, this section overwhelms his article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.205.98 (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Split the ~1967–71 criminal and judicial activities by the Manson Family, not just the Tate murders. This article should focus more on Manson's person. As it is right now, it focuses on a group, and is overwhelmingly long and intricate.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I concur. The crimes should be separate from this bio which should be just on him not the family. This page reads like a book. All crimes he was charged with should be covered under the murders subject.
WP:SIZESPLIT says ">100 kB – Almost certainly should be divided".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:SIZESPLIT is the policy for splitting pages that are too large. This proposal is based on content.110.175.158.17 (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

His name is hardly even mentioned AT ALL in the "Family Crimes" sub-section on this page. It probably shouldn't even be on his page at all, but linked to another separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloud212 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think all the text located between "Manson Family" and "Trials" should be moved to Manson Family and replaced with a two or three-paragraph summary of the Family, crimes, and conviction. Some sections under "Aftermath" should be moved as well, but others ought to stay, like "Interviews" and some statements in "Later events".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like the best option.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I am in agreement with this. A murder that involves numerous other people actually committing the murderous act on numerous other victims in multiple murder incidents does not belong all under the article for one guy, even if he masterminded it. Manson Family needs its own article. People coming to this page to check for material specifically on the life or doings of Charles Manson are likely to be overwhelmed by this gigantic thing. I know I was and I've read several books on him and the Family. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears that there is a general concensus for splitting the Tate murders. I will move the content but won't seamlessly at this time. I not the wikipedia isn't perfect, and this may take some time to smooth over.110.175.158.17 (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 16 external links on Charles Manson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charles Manson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Charles Manson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

After 14 years the page 2violent.com has gone offline; the new site is charlesmanson.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.255.133 (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Charles Manson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 external links on Charles Manson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional Manson family victium?

Case of Jane Doe # 59

− In November 16, 1969 the body of a unknown female murder victium was found Mulholand Drive, Los Angeles; the victium had been stabbed 150 times.

− In April 2016 the identity of the victium was determined-she was identified as Reet Jurvetson of Montreal Canada.

− It is speculated she was a "Manson family" victium. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.169.142 (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Daily Mail accessed April 27, 2016

Musician?

There has recently been some disagreement over whether to include the "musical artist infobox" in this article, with the complaint that it isn't "sourced". Not sourced? The text has a whole section about his musical career, supported by 16 references. If he isn't in some sense a musician, why do we have an article called Charles Manson discography? The music infobox has been restored and I hope it stays. However, I do agree that describing him as a "criminal and musician" is overkill; that's not what he is known for or why he has an article at Wikipedia. IMO the lead sentence should say "criminal", period, as it does now. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems the disagreements are about two slightly separate issues: the “criminal and musician” description in the lead, and the musician infobox. The “and musician” edit is the one criticized as unsourced [2], [3]. I challenged the musician infobox [4], not as unsourced, but as an insignificant aspect of the topic (not important enough to include so much detail in the main infobox, anyway). I think the section in the body with 16 references that you mentioned is sufficient, and that it would give undue weight to mention it in either the lead or the infobox. So, I don’t like either edit, but I see there are 800+ watchers of the article, and I’m satisfied that I’ve had a fair say. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for misreading your objection. It seems we are agreed not to include "and musician" - whether because it is "unsourced" or simply because it's not what he is notable for. Waiting for more input about the infobox. --MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree with "criminal and musician". I'm not sure about the infobox.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes...sorry...I said unsourced about the claim of him being a musician when I meant he was not notable for it. My bad. Smalltrouting myself now. As for the infobox....I think it shouldn't be included, still on notability grounds. Lectonar (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Manson seen in Masta Ace lyrics

http://lyrics.wikia.com/wiki/Masta_Ace:Slaughtahouse 

Mess around with the black charles manson

Jidanni (talk) 05:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

No. Doc talk 06:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Split proposal

There was more or less a consensus that Manson Family should be its own article, along with the promise that this would be carried out, but nobody has done it yet. I think the citation style on the article needs to be sorted out first (replacing {{Rp}} with {{sfn}} and {{harv}}).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Manson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Summary of Manson Family

I've attempted to do a summary of the Manson Family crimes, using sources from other Wikipedia pages. I cribbed a decent amount from other articles, but tried to shorten things without leaving out anything important. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so I welcome feedback from those more experienced! this name is also in use 22:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I actually just wrote about this on your talk page, but this is better. I know you were trying in good faith to include a "summary" of the Family information, but 35,000 bytes is Too Much Information by a factor of at least 10. There's a reason why this was spun off into its own article; don't bring it all back. I suggest you prune it by about 80%. I'll help, if you want. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I've given it another shot. I expect it's still too long in places (especially the investigation/trial portion). I think Manson carving an "x" in his forehead is significant enough to leave in, as his attacking the judge during trial. Obviously things like the verdict too, but beyond that I'm not sure. Any thoughts would be welcome. this name is also in use 22:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Protection

This article is a perennial target for vandals. It has been under PC protection for the past several years, but PC has often been insufficient, with semi-protection needed multiple times. I added semi-protection last week, and as soon as it expired, vandalism resumed. The main rationale for using PC instead of semi is to allow constructive contributions by new editors, but looking back through recent history, I don't see anything constructive from new editors - just inappropriate edits which then have to be reverted by someone. The log of all the various protections that have been imposed is almost as long as the article. I have concluded that this article is not well served by short-term or PC protection. I am going to convert it to indefinite semi-protection. --MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably a good move. This topic has been beaten to death over the past four decades - until he dies, I don't see any new information forthcoming, anyway. Nobody in prison is going to confess to the other unsolved missing persons associated with the "Family" - so, it is really just a waiting game.50.111.2.50 (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Supposed death

I don't know if Empire News is RS: but this is what they're reporting. freshacconci talk to me 19:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. Dated three days ago. Nonsense. freshacconci talk to me 19:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Missing references sought

Having listed and/or summarized statements that Vincent Bugliosi had made to Curt Gentry in Helter Skelter in the most recent edit of its text, but having had to ask "Where?" these were in the book itself out of personal ignorance of their placements in the said book, sounds a call for other Wikipedians to fill in the said missing references; please use the most recent edition of Helter Skelter as the source for these. Those Wikipedians who can do so are thanked in advance.
Parker Gabriel 06:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parker Gabriel (talk • contribs)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Manson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Juvenile Center

says he was sent to a juvenile center in Indianapolis, I think they are referring to his time at Gibault, which is in Terre Haute, Indiana. From there he went to the School for Boys in Plainfield. He did a couple nights in Hamilton Co. jail, which is near Indianapolis but by no means Indy. I don't belive he ever did any youth time in Indianapolis or Marion Co. http://www.indystar.com/story/news/history/retroindy/2014/01/14/charles-manson/4471927/ Not much of an editor but if I can figure out how to change and cite it I will, if not there is the source if it meets the standards for someone else to do it. 184.60.42.123 (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Official site

I feel that mansondirect.com should be listed as his official site. The one that had been linked, charlesmanson.com, is sensational and anti-Charles Manson, clearly not making it his official site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitzi777 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess there is no official site so we shouldn't include anything there. I've removed it. --regentspark (comment) 19:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Clarification: I think the "it" above refers to mansondirect.com (not charlesmanson.com). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, if you look at the website, it is someones personal view on Manson. There is no official site for Charles Manson - he remains in prison. --regentspark (comment) 15:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Official site. Based on facts. Photo should be updated to most recent prison photo release this month. Fishnagles (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: I think the comment above is about charlesmanson.com (not mansondirect.com). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is this an "official" site? Which office? Please explain. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 21:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
It describes itself as an official site. It appears to be run by an organisation called ATWA (Air Trees Water Animals), which appears to be an ecological group that supports Manson. Based on my cursory investigations, there seem to be other people who use or have used the name ATWA, including Manson himself. There is no real indication from this website (as far I can see) that it has been authorised by Manson or that it has any special connection with Manson. Anyone can set up a website.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Clarification: I think the "it" above refers to mansondirect.com (not charlesmanson.com). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. We're unlikely to see an official site from someone in prison anyway. I'll remove it. It was probably added with a promotional intent anyway. --regentspark (comment) 19:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Fishnagles: The site charlesmanson.com is an anti-Manson site that contains very POV content, such as saying (on the subpage https://www.charlesmanson.com/legal.html) "Manson and his followers committed hideous crimes that will likely remain in the annals of crime for eternity". It also says that "Neither Manson himself, nor any of his associates receive financial gain from this site nor have any input on what appears within its pages." This should not be cited on Wikipedia as if it is Charles Mansons' official website. Please stop adding that website to the infobox (or anywhere else in the article where objective non-POV information is needed). There is no consensus to include that. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Convicted mass murderer?

Lately there has been some edit warring about whether to add "convicted mass murderer" to his definition as a criminal and former cult leader. Those who want to add it point out that he actually was convicted of murder; those who want to remove it point out that he didn't actually kill the people himself. Let's work it out here.

According to our article Mass murder, The FBI defines mass murder as murdering four or more persons during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders. A mass murder typically occurs in a single location where one or more people kill several others. Based on that definition, the five killings at the Tate/Polanski residence were a mass murder. Was Manson one of the murderers? In American jurisprudence, someone who conspires to commit murder is equally guilty of murder even if they don't carry out the actual killing. For example, a person who pays another person to commit the murder is also a murderer under law. Under common (as opposed to legal) usage, possibly not. So we need to discuss whether we should identify him as a "mass murderer" or not. And please discuss here, don't edit-war and revert each other. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @EditorKid, Thenabster126, Meters, and Freshacconci: --MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we should be trying to figure out whether or not Manson was a mass murderer. If reliable sources say he is one, then so should we. Since they do (cf. [5]), we should. --regentspark (comment) 21:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • We follow the sources. And the claim in the edit summaries is not about mass murder, but being a murderer at all -- the editor in question stating Manson didn't physically murder anyone so he's not a murderer. Of course that's incorrect and beside the point: he was convicted of murder, that's what the sources say, so that's what we call him. We don't argue semantics when the sources (and basic legal facts) are very clear. And to be clear, there was no edit warring. Multiple editors reverted one disruptive editor. Reverting bad edits, disruptive edits and plain vandalism is not edit warring. freshacconci (✉) 23:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
This is not an edit war. This is vandalism and POV pushing. Calling that an edit war, and warning us to discus it rather than edit war (after pinging us no less) seems over the top. One editor has been making edits that are against consensus and, at least in my opinion, vandalism. I templated him for vandalism for one of those edits [6] For the last three weeks or so that editor has been attempting to claim that a convicted murderer cannot be called such. Before that the editor in question even attempted to remove the description of Manson as "a criminal" [7] [8]. It's difficult to see this as good faith editing. I see no problem in calling someone convicted of five murders in one event (mass murder according to Mass murder), and who is called a "mass murderer" in reliable sources (http://www.abc10.com/news/nation/history-of-charles-mansons-crimes/382112919 http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-charles-manson-hospitalized-20170103-story.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/charles-manson-ill-family-murders-cult-leader-sharon-tate-hospital-health-parole-a7508476.html and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/04/convicted-mass-killer-charles-manson-seriously-hospital-outside/ for example) a "criminal" and a "convicted mass murderer". Meters (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The reason I called for discussion is that "mass murderer" was never part of the lede in this article, until it was added on August 15 by EditorKid. Since then Thenabster126 removed that wording three times, and two people restored it, but there is no justification for calling the removals "vandalism" and "POV pushing", or calling the remover "disruptive" - as might be the case for someone removing longstanding consensus-based content. The article never contained that wording until three weeks ago, so it had never been discussed and there was not (up until now) any consensus to include it. --MelanieN (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I stand by my description. I have no AGF in an editor who had previously tried to remove the term "criminal" from the article, and is now trying to claim that someone convicted of murder is not a murderer. The editor's edit summaries said nothing about disputing " mass murderer". He or she stated more than once that Manson was simply not a murderer at all. That's POV pushing. One editor added the material and two others restored it after the removal was considered vandalism. If you want to support the removal yourself then do so. If anyone else wants to support the removal I'm happy to consider their opinions too. Otherwise I suggest that we drop this. Meters (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
If this were an article about a typical mass murderer that committed his/her own murders, then starting the article with "convicted mass murderer" (assuming he/she was indeed convicted) would be superfluous. He was convicted of "murder" and therefore is a murderer. Adding "convicted" lets the reader know something is unusual. What is unusual is that this murderer did not actually physically commit the murder's for which he was co-convicted. Not a typical murder conviction, surely. Bugatti35racer (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Life is life

It's not Charles Manson, it's Adolf Hitler. Am I wrong ? Cheers ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.10.160 (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Manson/Archive_6&oldid=1138481094"