Jump to content

Talk:Charles Manson/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Deletion of Watson statement

Dear Asc85 -- As you indicate, Tex Watson's autobiographical report that he, not Susan Atkins, stabbed Sharon Tate does not quite belong in the Charles Manson entry; but as I recall, I placed it there -- i.e., in the entry's "Aftermath" section -- because another editor had inserted the same information awkardly and without citation in the entry's account of the Tate murders. Recognizing that the information was likely to be reinserted eventually if I were simply to delete it, I moved it to "Aftermath," where I footnoted it.

I urge you to undo your deletion of the sentence. To put my argument generally: the ordinary rules of composition can not be applied at Wikipedia. The material you have deleted will pop up again; that is, some editor or another will eventually reinsert it, almost certainly awkardly and without citation. The article would be in better condition with the version you removed, the material's questionable relevance notwithstanding.

I could probably think of three or four other bits of information I have inserted in the article for roughly the same reason -- i.e. to prevent their being inserted carelessly by other persons. The article really does not need, for instance, the name of Bobby Beausoleil's girlfriend who spoke with officers of the L.A. Sheriff; but because another editor kept inserting the incorrect name, I placed the correct one there. To restate my point: In an ordinary situation, this would be poor composition; at Wikipedia, it is beneficial.JohnBonaccorsi 04:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear John, I appreciate your EXTREMELY gracious comment to me above. However, I do disagree with you on it's relevance to keep it in. That being said, if you want to re-insert it back in for the reasons you state, I will not have a back-and-forth "war" on this matter. Asc85 14:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your complimentary reply; after reading it, I examined a long footnote I recently added to the article’s sentence about the stabbing of Tate. (I mean the sentence in the section headed “Tate murders.”) Because I recalled that the footnote, which is presently numbered 110, referred to the sentence you removed from “Aftermath,” I knew that, at the least, it should be reworded to reflect the removal; but I discovered that with just slight rewording, it decently replaces what you reasonably removed from the article’s body. In other words, the information is still presented and is still likely to be seen by an editor who will think it should be in the article; but it is arguably no longer disrupting the article.JohnBonaccorsi 21:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Grand pronouncement on vandalism

Yesterday, at the User Talk Page of a Wikipedia administrator, I posted an entry headed “Manson-page vandalism,” in which I recommended that Charles Manson be protected against vandals. As I indicated in the entry, I knew, at that time, virtually nothing about Wikipedia’s anti-vandalism measures; but as I have mentioned in a follow-up entry (i.e., on the same page), I have since encountered Requests for page protection. There, in a quick look, I got the impression that shielding the Manson article might involve, first, a brief period of “semi-protection,” after which “indefinite semi-protection” might be available. Shades of Double Secret Probation.

As I indicated in my first statement to the administrator, I personally am no longer able to keep watch on Charles Manson, which I’ve guarded intermittently for some months; I am also no longer able to take part in Wikipedia exchanges, either on the present discussion page or on my own User Talk Page (where I am about to enter a note to that effect). Before taking my leave, so to say, of Wikipedia, I will say that the encyclopedia’s attitude toward vandalism is, to be blunt, contemptible.

To repeat – I know virtually nothing about Wikipedia’s administration; I don’t know how policies are examined, proposed, or implemented. I can understand that vandalism – which, I gather, is frequently discussed by administrators – is uniquely difficult to thwart; nevertheless, I think the present regime of warnings, temporary blocks, and so on is softheaded and weak. If you will visit 23:11 10 November 2007 of Charles Manson, you will see the sort of foul – not to mention poorly-punctuated – treatment to which the article is periodically subjected. If you will proceed to the User Talk page of 21.217.148.147, you will see that the response to this sort of sociopathy – exercised anonymously upon a worldwide readership of millions – is a polite request that its perpetrator “not introduce incorrect information into articles.” After a statement that the edits “appear to be vandalism,” the response continues: “If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article’s talk page before making them again….”

If you believe the information you added was correct? The information that was added included names that might well be those of real persons and that I will omit as I quote it:

With no where to go he walked his old neighbor hood, and met a little girl named name omitted, daughter of name omitted and siter of name omitted, charles had thought that she was the sluttiest little girl that he had ever seen and he asked her to go down on him. She agreed and started to take off his pants. Charles fucked name omitted in a playground, name omitted screamed for more and he was grlad to give it to her. after he pulled out and she started to give him a blow job. 2 minuetes later, charles nutted in her face.

One wonders about the seriousness of an enterprise whose overseers permit such a feckless response to the sort of behavior represented by the insertion of that passage in this article. To say it again, the whole scheme of polite warnings to, and temporary blockings of, persons who can not be unaware of the vileness of their actions as they vandalize this resource is worthy of contempt. There is no point in addressing oneself reasonably to persons who, by taking advantage of a most-obvious opportunity to impose upon others, have demonstrated that they are unreasonable.

Again – I personally must now say goodbye to Wikipedia. I will not even be able to respond to any responses that might be made to the present comment. The preceding paragraphs are an adieu – a brief statement of my view of a serious problem in the workings of an interesting entity.JohnBonaccorsi 04:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination?

As I've looked over this article the last few days, I think it's nearly ready to be submitted for Good Article nomination. There are a couple fact tags that need citations remaining in the article. I've worked on the references, condensing them with "ref name=" citations to shorten the list without losing the citations. Hopefully, someone with the needed references can supply the last two citations and if no one objects, I am going to submit it in a few days. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone interested please look over this article this evening. I plan to submit it for good article review tonight. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

I've nominated this article for good article consideration as discussed above. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note (I'm not reviewing it, yet...) - this article really needs an expansion on the lead if you want it to be a GA. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 06:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Done.71.242.203.167 (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Deaths on the lawn

BassPlyr23 — I’ll refer to comments you posted at 11:27, 26 November 2007, on my User Talk page. It’s easier to keep the discussion here.

You say that I "put words in your mouth." I didn’t put words in your mouth; I sardonically characterized your position insofar as I could identify one.

You write:

I don't doubt that Watson stabbed Frykowski brutally on the lawn — I've seen the photographs — but my point is that some of the statements you attribute to Watson are at variance with the transcripts of the various trials, which of course are Bugliosi's primary sources.

What photographs have you seen of Watson stabbing Frykowski on the lawn? — And what do you mean by "some of the statements" I attribute to Watson? Please discuss specific subjects.

You write:

Your claims of my making the statements "vague and unintelligible" don’t seem to be supported by any evidence on your part other than a desire to see your own prose in the article.

My claims of your making the statements "vague and unintelligible" were supported by my pointing out that you left the sentences with no indication that Watson stabbed Frykowski and Folger. Kindly address that.

You write:

The word "manically" (or "maniacally" which is what I thought you meant — wouldn’t apply, since Watson was found to be sane in phase 2 of his trial) is clearly POV and would be cited by an GA reviewer.

I didn’t mean "maniacally"; I meant "manically" — which is what I wrote. Consult definition three at the following: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/manically.html

You write:

Your flowery language (i.e. "succumbed to Watson's stabs " rather than the simpler "killed by Watson") is more suitable for a novel than an encyclopedia.

I’m not sure "flowery" is the apt adjective, but the wording was employed for variation. Change it if you like; but avoid stalling the account with repetition — of words or sentence structure.

In your summary of the revision you executed at 11:13, 26 November 2007, you indicated you had addressed "grammar and run-ons." You made no grammatical changes, and you eliminated no run-on. You changed a compound sentence to two sentences and thus simply stalled the account — for no apparent reason other than to present a wound tally. Familiarize yourself with the function of semicolons.71.242.203.167 (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To field some of your queries:

a) Semicolons can be overused. The way they've been used in this article smack of run-on sentences.

b) I believe that the word "manically", aside from being misused, is clearly POV and would cause a GA reviewer to fail the article. Manically, as you define it, means "disorganized" and "all over the place". The murder was clearly organized, if not exactly orderly. "Haphazardly" might have proved a more appropriate adjective.

c) The photographs I refer to are crime scene and autopsy photographs, as you very well knew. Allow me to pay you the compliment of not being a complete idiot.

d) I think it's grossly obvious that both Frykowski and Folger were both stabbed, to the point of overkill. Anyone who's stabbed 28 and 51 times had it done to them big time. I think the fact that they were stabbed would be obvious to any reader, as knives are consistently mentioned - nowhere in the narrative did Charlie Manson suddenly materialize with a shotgun and plug Frykowski and Folger between the eyes. Let's be real here, okay? Stating repeatedly that they were stabbed is as much overkill as what was actually done to them.

BassPlyr23 (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


You continue to write carelessly — both here and in the article. You say "colons" when you mean "semicolons." You say "run-on" when you mean — whatever it is you meant.
Anything can be overused. The use of semicolons in this article doesn’t "smack of run-on sentences." That’s just your evasive response to my having pointed out that you don’t know what a run-on sentence is.
I see you’re now an expert on the use of the word "manically," of whose existence you seem to have just become aware. I’ve not defined it as "disorganized" and "all over the place." On my talk page, another editor suggested those as possible definitions. You read as carelessly as you write.
I’ve not defined "manically" at all. I directed you to MSN’s Encarta dictionary, where "manic" is defined as "overexcited – in a state of unusually high excitement, especially because of tension." (Here's how the links work: You click on them.)
I present again Watson’s own description of the stabbing:

Then I realized that Frykowski had somehow managed to drag himself off the porch and was struggling across the lawn. I ran back to him, and once more the mechanical knife that was my arm drove down, again and again, until my wrist disappeared in the mess.

That’s manic. Haphazard?
Re my question about photographs of Watson stabbing Frykowski: Thanks for taking the bait; I was waiting to see if you’d misunderstand that. My point was that you had said you "don’t doubt that Watson stabbed Frykowski on the lawn" — even though the only source I'd mentioned for it was Watson. (But let me do you a favor. Consult Bugliosi 1994, page 262. Kasabian saw it. You have done nothing but confuse things with your pointless comments about the relative value of sources. Those comments, too, have simply been evasion — of the detailed exposure of the errors you introduced into the article. On that subject, I notice, you remain silent.)

For a simple reason - I don't believe that I've introduced any factual errors into the article - merely corrected horrendously-written prose that would not have escaped an elementary school, let alone my high-school English classes. Climb down from your high horse. Prove that I've added anything factually inaccurate to the article.

How is it "grossly obvious" that Frykowski and Folger were both stabbed by Watson (or that "both were both stabbed," as you put it)? Does the reader already know the story? The two could have been strangled, pummeled — anything. The reader knows, too, that Watson has a gun.
And once again — your response to criticism is to throw it back. I have warned you against repetition, so you immediately try to warn me of the same. I’m not suggesting that it should be "stated repeatedly" that Watson stabbed Folger and Frykowski; I’m saying it should be stated.71.242.203.167 (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nitpicking, nitpicking, nitpicking - you talk a lot, but don't really say anything. Your prose is self-aggrandizing, but never really gets to the point.

You've suggested, implicitly, that what I did was vandalize the article. Fine, you win. Sharon Tate is alive. If it's what you insist on doing, revert the article to the horror that it was before I fixed it - and that's what I did, I FIXED it. This way, you won't have me to blame when you fail the GA review.

BassPlyr23 (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Your errors have been made clear, in the preceding section of the present page. It is you who swaggered in as the article's self-styled savior, just as you did two months ago, when you were stopped, too. You have contributed nothing of value. (PS You shouldn't have put a comma after "self-aggrandizing.")71.242.203.167 (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Note

For all active editors concerned with the article - I'm beginning to become concerned that when reviewers for GA status come in, they are going to see this recent back and forth editing & the lengthy talk page entries as evidence of edit warring & reject the article without due consideration (that's one of the quick-fail criteria). I really would urge everyone involved to discuss this on the talk page before charging in to change it back, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of edit warring. Discussing it is evidence of collaboration, while allowing all editors involved to arrive at consensus on what is going to be included, and obviously, how it's going to be presented. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

I am going to pull the good article nomination for the time being. When I brought up the idea of nominating it, it may have been in need of some fine tuning, but the page had been relatively stable of controversy for a while. Since I've brought this up, there has been an explosion of back and forth reverts, disagreements, and quite honestly, over the last couple of days, conduct bordering on incivility on the talk page. It's disheartening and obviously not being done in the spirit of collaboration, but instead, hostility and positioning. Under Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles, one of the criteria for quick-fail (#4) is "The article has been the subject of recent ongoing edit wars." Under WP:EW: Edit warring is a distinct behavior characterized by a confrontational attitude. Of the last 500 edits on this page, just barely over 200 occurred from October 18th until November 19th. I broached nominating the page on November 21. Since then, in FIVE days, there have been almost 300 edits, most of which are in the midst of extensive arguments over how a sentence is phrased. It will not pass good article review while this is happening. I'd rather it be pulled until this nitpicking - on both parts - dies down. It's not worth the anxiety it's causing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision of 21:56, 27 November 2007

At 13:35, 27 November 2007, I restored a sentence in "Conviction and sentencing" to its original form, which was as follows:

The murders, they explained, had been intended to draw police suspicion away from the imprisoned Bobby Beausoleil, by resembling the crime with which he had been charged.

The revision I undid is this:

The murders, they explained, had been intended to draw police suspicion away from the imprisoned Bobby Beausoleil, by committing a crime which resembled the crime with which he had been charged.

That makes no sense. Murders can not commit a crime.

At 21:56, 27 November 2007, the revision I undid was restored. The edit summary is "Awkward sentence construction."

I will be undoing the revision again.71.242.203.167 (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My proposal for the sentence is: "The murders, which resembled the crime for which Bobby Beausoliel was imprisoned, were done to draw suspicion away from him." It seems simpler and more to the point to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How about:
By resembling the crime with which Bobby Beausoleil had been charged, the killings were to draw suspicion away from him.
71.242.203.167 (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"The killings, which resembled the crime for which Bobby Beausoleil had been jailed, were to draw suspicion away from him." Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I like that. I say go with that.71.242.203.167 (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Then it shall be done. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles Manson/archive2

  • FYI, keep an eye on Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles Manson/archive2. With any luck, you may get some feedback from some other uninvolved editors. At the very least, you will probably get some stylistic advice from a Semi-Automated Peer Review, which I often find to be very helpful in and of itself even if no one else comments at the Peer Review. If you want some more feedback, I suggest posting a notice about the ongoing Peer Review at relevant WikiProjects. If you want me to do this for you in a neutral manner on the WikiProjects' talk page, I'd be glad to, just let me know on my talk page. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC).

My edits from today...

I do hope that the folks who undid my edits from September 18 will approve of the more readable, encyclopedic content of the article as it now stands. I removed some factually untrustworthy statements (Tex Watson, for example, did not whisper to Susan Atkins "I'm the Devil..." - he said it, quite loudly according to Atkins, to Voytek Frykowski, who was not awakened by a kick in the head but by being shaken by either Atkins or Watson, according to their own statemtents), but WHEREVER I edited for readability, I kept the corresponding citations.

This article has irritated me for quite some time, as it read more like a pulp novel than an encyclopedia article. I remember one person in particular getting rather bent out of shape because I edited what he seemed to view as "his" article. I'm an English teacher, and I pride myself on my writing and editing ability. I hope the rest of you approve as well.

BassPlyr23 (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


The sentences re Watson’s “I’m the devil” utterance were as follows:
"I’m the devil, and I’m here to do the devil’s business,” Watson told Polanski’s friend Wojciech Frykowski, who was awakened from his sleep on the living-room couch as Watson whispered to Atkins. This was after he kicked him in the head.
That plainly indicates Watson made the remark to Frykowski, not Atkins. The only possible confusion lies in the wording “who was awakened,” which would arguably be better as “who had been awakened." The description is taken directly from Watson’s autobiography, Ch. 14:
I crept to the front door and let in Sadie. Katie had disappeared for the moment, gone down to Linda at the gate to get her knife, so the two of us slowly moved past a couple of large blue trunks that were standing in the hallway and slipped into the living room beyond. At first it seemed empty, but as we got in farther we could see a large blond man-Voytek Frykowski-asleep on a sofa that faced into the room, away from the door, and was incongruously draped with a large American flag. As we stood over him, I whispered to Sadie to check the rest of the house.
Frykowski stirred at the sound of my voice and mumbled something like: "What time is it?" I kicked him in the head. As he struggled up in confusion, mumbling: "Who are you? What do you want?" I answered, "I'm the devil and I'm here to do the devil's business."
I’ll note, too, that that account does not support your statement that Atkins or Watson woke Frykowski by shaking him; you do not provide a source for that statement.
Kindly stop personalizing the editing process; apart from vandals, those who edit the article act in good faith. If you have a basis for changing something, simply change it.71.242.203.167 (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


Your revision of the sentence about Tex Watson’s passage to the LaBianca bedroom and then back to the living room is inaccurate. The sentence you revised was as follows:
Striking her down with several stabs of the bayonet, Watson returned to the living room and stabbed Leno the balance of a dozen times.
Your revision is this:
After stabbing Mrs. LaBianca several times, Watson returned to the living room and killed Mr. LaBianca, stabbing him a dozen times.
Leno LaBianca suffered a total of twelve stab wounds. (Bugliosi 1994, page 44.) As is indicated in the Wikipedia article, Watson had begun stabbing Leno before he went to the bedroom to attack Rosemary. The full pertinent passage is in Watson’s autobiography, Chapter 15:
As the girls ran to the bedroom on my instructions, I walked back to the sofa with the bayonet and the horror began all over again. I drove the chrome-plated blade down full force. "Don't stab me anymore," he managed to scream, even though the first thrust had been through his throat. "I'm dead, I'm dead . . . ." The shiny bayonet plunged again and again. Once more, as had happened the night before, the room began to explode with color and motion.
In the background, as LaBianca rolled off the sofa onto the floor, I could hear his wife screaming from the bedroom: "What are you doing to my husband?" There were the sounds of some sort of scuffle and I ran in to join the girls. Mrs. LaBianca was in a corner of the room, still hooded with the pillowcase, swinging a large lamp (the wire was wrapped around her head) in an arc that kept the two girls from getting close to her. The bayonet had greater range and I struck out time after time, even after the woman had fallen to the floor.
Katie had run into the living room at some point and now she returned, saying, "He's still alive!"
I went back to the living room and used the bayonet again, over and over.
Accordingly, the Wikipedia article's original phrase – “the balance of a dozen times” – is accurate. Your revision — insofar as it indicates Watson stabbed Leno a dozen times after he had stabbed him a few minutes earlier — forces the reader to conclude Leno was stabbed more than a dozen times; it is thus plainly false.
Your elimination of the phrase that indicated Watson struck Rosemary down is unhelpful. As can be understood via examination of the Watson passage quoted above, the phrase enables the Wikipedia reader to grasp that Watson, having discovered Rosemary holding the girls off, did not leave the bedroom until he had left her on the floor, to be finished off by the girls.
You statement that Watson killed Leno LaBianca — i.e., that Leno was dead by the time Krenwinkel stabbed him — is of questionable accuracy. Yes, in his autobiography’s Chapter 15 — the chapter quoted above — Watson does say that Krenwinkel stabbed “the dead man” with the carving fork; but Watson is not a doctor. The only pertinent passage with which I'm familiar is in Bugliosi 1994, at page 44:
Cause of death [of Leno LaBianca]: Multiple stab wounds. Victim had twelve stab wounds, plus fourteen puncture wounds made by a double-tined fork, for a total of twenty-six separate wounds, any one of six of which could in and of itself have been fatal.
That passage does not permit its reader to say whether Leno LaBianca was dead before Krenwinkel stabbed him with the carving fork. That is why the Wikipedia article carefully indicated Krenwinkel stabbed the "vanquished" Leno LaBianca. That language involves no presumption that Leno was dead when Krenwinkel stabbed him. At the same time, it is consistent with Watson’s sense that LaBianca was dead at that point; it is also consistent with a statement made by Krenwinkel at her 1993 parole hearing:
Leslie and I were trying to tie [Rosemary] up, and I had a knife. I attempted to stab her — and [inaudible], she was struggling, and Leslie went out of the room and got Tex, and he came back in, and we left the room. And on the way out, he told me to do something, um, witchy; and then I went out into the front room and I proceeded to get a fork and stab Mr. LaBianca — who was dead — I assume.
That passage begins at 6:45 of a video clip available at YouTube, under the heading Patricia Krenwinkel ’93 Parole Hearing Part 3. It, too, does not permit us to be certain Leno LaBianca was dead when Krenwinkel stabbed him; at the same time, it is like Watson’s autobiographical account, in that it justifies our concluding LaBianca was, at least, close to dead.
"Vanquished," in short, enables the Wikipedia article to say no more nor less than is justified by everything cited above. Possibly, other passages — say, from trial transcripts or from elsewhere in Bugliosi — justify the conclusion LaBianca was dead when Krenwinkel stabbed him. If you are aware of any such passages, please cite them.71.242.203.167 (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


The final part of my comment directly above was predicated on the belief that you were the editor who had removed "vanquished," but I see now that the word seems to have been removed before you began your editing session. I won't replace it.71.242.203.167 (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


Your revision of the section about the La Bianca murders included the following:
Mrs. LaBianca was stabbed forty-one times; sixteen of her stab wounds were shown to be post-mortem, supporting Van Houten’s later assertion that she believed Mrs. LaBianca to be dead when she stabbed her....
The latter clause is yours and has two problems.
First, there is the question of the number of post-mortem stab wounds. Pertinent material with which I’m familiar includes the following:
Rosemary LaBianca, Katsuyama also testified, had been stabbed forty-one times, sixteen of which wounds, mostly in her back and buttocks, having been made after she had died. (Bugliosi 1994, 341-42.)
"Only thirteen of Rosemary’s forty-one stab wounds were post-mortem. What about the other twenty-eight?" (Bugliosi 1994, 406 (quoting a Bugliosi statement to the jury).)
I’m unaware of any material that enables one to determine whether the correct number of post-mortem wounds is thirteen or sixteen, if either. If you are aware of such material, please cite it.
Next, there is the matter of Van Houten's "assertion that she believed" Mrs. LaBianca to be dead when she stabbed her. A pertinent passage is as follows:
By the time I’d finished my cross-examination on [the murder of Rosemary LaBianca], Leslie had admitted that Rosemary might still have been alive when she stabbed her.... (Bugliosi 1994, 433.)
As you see, that raises a question whether it is fair to leave a Wikipedia reader with the impression that Van Houten "asserted" she believed Rosemary was dead. (If you are aware of material that justifies your wording, please cite it.)
I have revised the clause in accordance with the above. I have also footnoted it, as you hadn’t.71.242.203.167 (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


Re Watson’s struggle with Frykowski, the article included the following:
As [Frykowski] fought his way toward and out the front door, onto the porch, Watson, who joined in against him, struck him over the head with the gun multiple times, stabbed him repeatedly, and shot him twice.
You revised that as follows:
As [Frykowski] fought his way toward and out the front door, onto the porch, Watson, who joined in against him, struck him over the head with the gun multiple times, stabbed him repeatedly, kicked him in the head, and shot him twice.
What is your basis for indicating Watson kicked Frykowski in the head as they struggled out onto the porch? I see no indication of that in Watson’s autobiographical account of the struggle. (Chapter 14 of Will You Die for Me?) I see no indication of it in Atkins’s Tate-murders account, as presented in Bugliosi 1994 (at page 179). I also see no indication of it in Kasabian’s account. (Bugliosi 1994, 261-62.)
Atkins’s account does include a mention that Watson kicked Frykowski’s inert body after it had, at last, settled on the Cielo Drive lawn; but that is obviously something different. At the end of the paragraph in which you inserted that apparently-false information, you entered the following sentence:
In total, Frykowski was shot twice, struck and kicked in the head thirteen times, and stabbed 51 times.
That has several problems. In the first place, it gives the impression that Watson stabbed Frykowski no further after the two of them had struggled through the door. Again, I direct your attention to Watson's autobiography, Chapter 14. Having described the struggle he and Frykowski engaged in as they went out the door, Watson writes that Frykowski "slumped onto the stone porch," "sank down onto the flagstones." After that, he explains that he (Watson) stabbed Folger, who had just been tackled, on the lawn, by Krenwinkel. Next, he writes the following:
Then I realized that Frykowski had somehow managed to drag himself off the porch and was struggling across the lawn. I ran back to him, and once more the mechanical knife that was my arm drove down, again and again, until my wrist disappeared in the mess.
That was made perfectly clear in a sentence you saw fit to delete from the Wikipedia article:
As Frykowski struggled across the lawn, he, too, was dispatched with Watson’s stabs, which — added to ones he’d received from Watson and Atkins earlier — brought his stab wounds to fifty-one.
In short, you have mangled and falsified the narrative.
There is also no warrant for your statement that Frykowski was "struck and kicked in the head thirteen times." Pertinent material is as follows:
[Frykowski] was shot twice, struck over the head thirteen times with a blunt object, and stabbed fifty-one times. (Bugliosi 1994, 32.)
"[After stabbing Folger,] Tex walked over to Frykowski and kicked him in the head." Frykowski was on the front lawn, away from the door. When Tex kicked him, "the body didn’t move very much. I believe it was dead at that time." (Which was not surprising, since Voytek Frykowski had been shot twice, struck over the head thirteen times with a blunt object, and stabbed fifty-one times. (Bugliosi 1994, 180, including quotations from Atkins’s grand-jury testimony.)
As you see, that passage makes it impossible to say whether Watson’s kick constituted a fourteenth blow to Frykowski’s head or was one of the thirteen strikes "with a blunt object." If it implies anything, it is the former. In fact, you appear to have taken a sentence directly from Bugliosi 1994 and falsified it, by adding the words "and kicked."
I’ll mention also that your summary of Frykowski’s wounds had several defects of style. I present again the sentence you appended to the paragraph about Watson and Frykowski's struggle:
In total, Frykowski was shot twice, struck and kicked in the head thirteen times, and stabbed 51 times.
First — there is no point in interrupting the narrative for such a tally; this isn’t a coroner’s report. Second, "shot twice," coming just two sentences after the statement that Watson shot Frykowski twice, is redundant. Lastly, your rendering of "fifty-one" as "51," even though all the other wound tallies — including the other ones you yourself entered — are written out, introduced inconsistency of the sort that regularly mars Wikipedia.71.242.203.167 (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


The article included the following sentence:
Around this time [i.e., as Watson and Frykowski were coming out of the Tate house], Kasabian, drawn up from the driveway by screams, arrived outside the door and, in a vain effort to halt the massacre, lied to Atkins that someone was coming.
You revised it as follows:
Around this time [i.e., as Watson and Frykowski were coming out of the Tate house], Kasabian, drawn up from the driveway by screams, arrived outside the door and, in a vain effort to halt the massacre, told Atkins that someone was coming.
That is, you substituted “told” for “lied to.” Pertinent material is as follows:
"And then Sadie came running out of the house, and I said, 'Sadie, please make it stop! People are coming!' Which wasn’t true, but I wanted to make it stop. And she said, 'It’s too late.'" (Bugliosi 1994, 261.)
By your substitution, you left the Wikipedia reader at least slightly unsure whether Kasabian actually believed persons were coming.71.242.203.167 (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


In the “Tate murders” section, the article included the following sentences:
Inside the house, Folger had escaped from Krenwinkel and fled out a bedroom door to the pool area. Pursued to the front lawn by Krenwinkel, who stabbed and, finally, tackled her, she was finished off by Watson’s knife, her stab wounds totaling twenty-eight.
You revised the latter of those sentences as follows:
Pursued to the front lawn by Krenwinkel, who tackled and, finally, stabbed her, she was finished off by Watson’s knife; Folger had been stabbed 28 times.
That is, you have reversed the order of the events in the pursuit. You have indicated Folger was not stabbed by Krenwinkel until Krenwinkel tackled her.
Pertinent material is as follows:
Turning, Linda saw a dark-haired woman in a white gown running across the lawn; Katie was pursuing her, an upraised knife in her hand. (Bugliosi 1994, 262.)
As you see, that passage in itself does not make it clear whether Krenwinkel had stabbed Folger before she tackled her. (In fact, Kasabian’s account — as presented in Bugliosi 1994 — provides no indication Kasabian stayed on the scene long enough to see Folger go down. [Note inserted November 27: This is probably incorrect. The account in Bugliosi 1994, at page 262, indicates that Kasabian witnessed what was apparently Watson's final attack on Frykowski, on the lawn; Kasabian would seem, therefore, to have been on the scene past the point of Folger's collapse and destruction, which took place before that attack. The account simply gives no indication Kasabian saw Folger go down.71.242.203.167 (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)])
Next, there is this, from Chapter 14 of Watson’s autobiography:
As Frykowski sank down on the flagstones, Sadie yelled that someone was getting away. I looked across the lawn and saw Abigail Folger dashing toward the fence with Katie behind her, knife raised. Blood was already streaking the white nightgown.
That suggests Folger had, in fact, been stabbed by Krenwinkel before Krenwinkel tackled her. We might also note that what appears to have been Folger’s blood was found in and on and outside the pool-area door through which Krenwinkel chased Folger from the house to the lawn:
That Krenwinkel’s print had been found on the inside of the door which led from Sharon Tate’s bedroom outside to the pool area not only proved that Patricia Krenwinkel had been inside the residence, together with other evidence it indicated that she had probably chased Abigail Folger out this door. Blood spots inside the house, on the door itself, and outside the door were determined to be B-MN, Abigail Folger’s type and subtype. (Although Parent and Frykowski also had B-MN, there was no evidence Parent ever entered the Tate residence, while there was evidence that Frykowski had run out the front door.) Therefore finding Krenwinkel’s print here was completely consistent with Linda Kasabian’s testimony that she saw Abigail running from this general direction chased by the knife-wielding Krenwinkel. (Bugliosi 1994, 344.)
Lastly, I direct your attention again to Patricia Krenwinkel’s 1993 parole hearing. An exchange between Krenwinkel and what is apparently the Presiding Board Commissioner is as follows:
Commissioner: And, uh, the uh – one victim Folger ran out of the back door, and she was pursued by you. Is that correct?
Krenwinkel: Yes. That’s true.
Commissioner: And you stabbed her several times?
Krenwinkel: Yes, I did.
Commissioner: Had she made it out to the yard herself?
Krenwinkel: Yes, she did.
Commissioner: And what was she doing?
Krenwinkel: She was running; she was fleeing.
Commissioner: Okay. Was she clothed or --?
Krenwinkel: Yes.
Commissioner: And how did you catch up to her? What happened when you caught up to her?
Krenwinkel: I stabbed her.
Commissioner: In the back?
Krenwinkel: Yes. [Inaudible.]
Commissioner: Did she fall immediately?
Krenwinkel: Yes.
Commissioner: Okay. How many times did you stab her?
Krenwinkel: I have no idea.
Commissioner: More than one time?
Krenwinkel: Yes.
Commissioner: And then, at some point in time, I would assume that she was immobilized. Did she -- she fell down? Was she moving?
Krenwinkel: Um, yes.
Commissioner: [Inaudible.] Was she talking to you or groaning or – what was she doing?
Krenwinkel: She was saying, “Stop.”
Commissioner: Okay – and you continued to stab her?
Krenwinkel: Yes, and I [inaudible] and got Tex.
Commissioner: Was she still alive when you left to get Tex?
Krenwinkel: Yes, she was.
Commissioner: But she wasn’t able to move?
Krenwinkel: Right.
Commissioner: And what happened when you got Tex?
Krenwinkel: He went back to where she was, and he told me to go to the back house.
Commissioner: Okay. And what did he do?
Krenwinkel: He went [inaudible]; and I don’t know as far as what happened then, because I went to the back house.
Commissioner: I see. Okay.
That exchange commences at 1:00 of a YouTube video clip that is headed Patricia Krenwinkel ’93 Parole Hearing Part 2. Combined with the other material I have cited, it leaves little doubt that, once again, you have introduced error into the article.
I notice that, at my User Talk page, you have just left a note in which you hold forth on the relative credibility of Bugliosi and Watson. Spare me. What I have said above makes clear you do not know what is in Bugliosi, Watson, or any of the other sources I have cited.71.242.203.167 (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Awfully defensive for someone who claims to be editing in good faith. As I'd suggested I would do in September, I sat with my copy of "Helter Skelter" at my computer desk and checked every reference that I included. As I said before, I (as well as many others) consider Bugliosi to be the definitive source on this subject, whereas Tex Watson's autobiography should be taken with SEVERAL pounds of salt, as he is probably interested mostly in a) making money (unlikely, considering the public's regard of him) and b) getting out of jail (even less likely).

Your whole phraseology - "bringing her stab wounds to twenty-eight" for example - just doesn't sit well with me as an English teacher. I believe there are better ways of saying the same thing without changing the meaning of the sentence or the paragraph. I'm not in any way arguing with your citation of fact from Bugliosi - there's no need, as we can both refer to the same source. Yet you seem to be nit-picking about my edits - why? I'm not changing meaning, altering fact, or apologizing for the murderers. You seem to have some sort of fixation about retaining the article in the form in which YOU wrote it.

I'm sorry that you can't accept a certain small amount of critique. Spare ME the smart-ass responses, and let's us at least try to work together for the common goal - a well-written, factually accurate article that a researcher would be proud to use as a source.

BassPlyr23 (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You certainly have changed meaning and altered facts, as my notes above make clear. You introduced several errors into the article; and you have not yet identified a single, factual correction that you made. I can believe you're an English teacher — American, no doubt; virtually every sentence you have contributed has been marred by defective syntax and erroneous punctuation, which I have been quietly correcting. Your sole response to criticism is the ill-mannered one of throwing it back — with a duly-capitalized YOU or ME. I have no idea what you think you're saying about Bugliosi and Watson. It is you, not I, who have failed to rely on Bugliosi — as, again, my notes above make clear. It is you, not I, who wrote that Watson killed Leno LaBianca; the only source in which that is indicated is Watson. Unless any further comment you might choose to post will have to do with the factual content of the article, I will not respond to it.71.242.203.167 (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


I have reworded the article’s sentences about the deaths of Folger and Frykowski. Because of the confusion you wrought, the sentences had become vague — unintelligible, in fact. Their surviving words had indicated only that Watson had "finished off" Folger and "dispatched" Frykowski; it was not clear that he had done so by stabbing them. The sentences now state clearly that Watson stabbed both parties. The Frykowski passage makes clear that Watson stabbed Frykowski brutally. That fact is found only in Watson’s autobiography (Chapter 14). [Note inserted 30 November 2007: Actually, Kasabian saw Watson stab Frykowksi "repeatedly in the back" on the lawn, "where he had fallen" after he had "managed to stagger from the bushes next to the porch" (Bugliosi 1994, 262); so the discussion of the relative credibility of the accounts of Bugliosi and Watson is pointless with respect to this. (See "Deaths on the lawn," below.) It is also pointless with respect to the wakening of Wojciech Frykowski by the intruders at the Tate residence. (See "For the record," below.)71.242.203.167 21:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)] Atkins told the grand jury only that she had seen Watson kick Frykowski on the lawn. (Bugliosi 1994, 180.) If I understand the string of words that is your remark above, your position would be as follows:
We shouldn’t believe Watson stabbed Wojciech Frykowski brutally on the lawn; Watson just said that to make money and get out of jail.
If you think you can make an argument for that position, please do so on the present page; otherwise, please refrain from altering the information.71.242.203.167 (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Discovery of Shea's body

I recommend that the passage about the discovery of Shorty Shea’s body be moved. “Aftermath” is like the rest of the article in being organized chronologically, not topically; that makes it much easier on the reader. The discovery took place in 1977, so I recommend the passage be placed after the Ford assassination attempt (1975) and before the passage about the 1980s television interviews.

The passage presently reads:

A longstanding Family mystery — the precise location of Shea's corpse and whether, as had been claimed, he had been dismembered and buried in several places — was resolved in 1977. Contacting the prosecutor in his case, Grogan told him that Shea’s corpse had, indeed, been buried in one piece; he drew a map that pinpointed the location of the body, which was recovered. In 1985, Grogan was paroled; as of 2007, he remains the only person convicted of a Manson-ordered murder to be paroled.

Should it be moved, as I recommend, it should be rearranged:

1977 marked the demise of a longstanding Family mystery — the precise location of the remains of Shorty Shea and whether, as had been claimed, Shea had been dismembered and buried in several places. Contacting the prosecutor in his case, Steve Grogan told him that Shea’s corpse had, indeed, been buried in one piece; he drew a map that pinpointed the location of the body, which was recovered. Among those convicted of Manson-ordered murders, Grogan would become, in 1985, the first to be paroled — and, as of 2007, the only one.

71.242.203.167 (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that for the sake of flow and sequence - the event (Shea's murder), followed by the conviction of the killers, followed by Grogan's resolution of the mystery and the discovery of Shea's body 8 years after the fact - the whole paragraph should remain as is. I have no trouble with the slight changes that you've suggested above regarding the resolution section.
See how easy that was?
--BassPlyr23 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


You’ve made no reply at all. You have said you think the paragraph should remain as it is for the sake of "flow and sequence." That’s the question: In what sequence should the events be presented to ensure the account flows? As I have remarked, "Aftermath" is arranged chronologically. For instance, Fromme’s attempt to assassinate Ford is not combined with her prison escape. The two events are in separate paragraphs, divided by unrelated events that took place in between them. Similarly, the paragraph about Good’s work on the Manson website mentions her release from jail; it is separated by two paragraphs from the details of her conviction.

It is hard on the reader to go back and forth in time. In its present form, the paragraph about Shea goes from 1971 (the year of the murder convictions) to 1977 (the discovery of the body) to 1985 (Grogan’s parole) to 2007 (no other parolees). Right after that, the reader is brought back to the seventies, to the story of the interview with Manson’s mother and then to the Ford assassination attempt.

The account of the Shea convictions is itself hard on the reader; it includes, among other things, the introduction of three new names (Shea, Grogan, and Davis). Once the description of Shea, his murder, and the convictions is complete, the reader should be permitted to relax. The convictions and the discovery of the body were separated by six years. The story of the discovery of the body can be told when it is reached — chronologically. The reader won’t be confused. Just the opposite: Having absorbed the earlier information about Shea, the reader will be in a position to absorb the account of the discovery.71.242.203.167 (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


I’ll restate my view that the passage about the discovery of Shea’s body is misplaced. It would be more-agreeably read were it placed chronologically with the other events of the decades since the trials — to wit:
Ford assassination attempt; Good arrest (1975)
Discovery of Shea’s body (1977)
Television interviews (1981 etc.)
Fromme escape (1987)
Catherine Share statements (1994 etc.)
Website (1996)
Beausoleil interview (1998-99)
Garretson remarks (1999)
Mind of Manson (2007)
71.242.203.167 (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


I am going to move the passage to permit interested editors to decide whether it is, indeed, more effective in the location I recommend for it. Should an editor undo my change, I won’t war over it.71.242.203.167 (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Burgled versus burglarized

At 11:28, 30 November 2007, the verb burglarizing was substituted for burgling in the article’s subsection headed "First offenses." The edit summary reads: "According to Oxford English Dictionary, there is no such word as 'burgling' — substituted correct verb."

The said summary appears to be incorrect. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines burgle as follows: commit burglary in (a building). It defines burglarize (also burglarise) as this: North American term for burgle.

An editor who Googles "burgle burglarize" or "burglarize burgle" will find much discussion of the use of the two words. Apparently, the distinction is largely a matter of different British and American preferences.

I personally have always used burglarize and was, in fact, startled when burgled was first substituted for it in the article. The change seems to go back and forth, maybe because some editors are British and some are American. I personally don’t care which is used, but I urge editors to make sure the usage is consistent. The most-recent change to burgle was effected by me, even though, as I say, I never use the word and was not even familiar with it before I encountered it here. I changed it because the word appears in the article twice; another editor had introduced inconsistency by changing burglarize to burgle in just one case.

The verb’s two appearances are just six sentences apart in the article’s same subsection. As I say, it doesn't matter to me which is used; indeed, it doesn't matter to me if the words go back and forth in the article every five minutes. Inconsistency, on the other hand, is objectionable. The editor who executed the revision at 11:28, 30 November 2007, changed the verb in only one spot and thus reintroduced inconsistency. In a revision executed at 13:39, 30 November 2007, I addressed this.

The two verbs are discussed at pages 79-80 of the 1993 edition of the Columbia Guide to Standard American English. They are also treated at pages 208-09 of the 1994 edition of Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage.71.242.203.167 13:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Postscript: After the article's first appearance of burglarize, I've inserted the following invisible comment:
As of 30 November 2007, the verb "burgle" or "burglarize" appears in the present article twice — here and a few sentences below; should an editor change it in one place, he or she will kindly ensure its two instances match.
After the second appearance, I've inserted this:
As of 30 November 2007, the verb "burgle" or "burglarize" appears in the present article twice — here and a few sentences above; should an editor change it in one place, he or she will kindly ensure its two instances match.
71.242.203.167 15:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR has four guidelines for national variations in spelling.

  • Consistency within articles

Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling and grammar. For example, center and centre are not to be used in the same article.

  • Strong national ties to a topic

An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation.

  • Retaining the existing variety

If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic.

  • Opportunities for commonality

This point covers the use of a common substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft) is favored over national varieties (fixed-wing aeroplanes [British English], and fixed-wing airplanes [American English]).

In consideration of these points, I would support the hidden notes, as well as using the American variation of "burglarized." Wildhartlivie 20:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record

In "My edits from today...," an earlier section of the present page, there was discussion of the moment in which Wojciech Frykowski was wakened by the arrival of the intruders at the Tate residence. The discussion involved quotation from Chapter 14 of Will You Die for Me?, Tex Watson’s autobiography (1978) as told to Ray Hoekstra. For the record — that is, for the benefit of future visitors to the present page — I provide additional pertinent material.

First comes testimony from Susan Atkins’s grand jury appearance, December 5, 1969 (see Bugliosi 1994, page 173 ff.). Atkins has explained that Tex Watson entered the house through a window "to the right" of the front door: "Tex opened up the window, crawled inside, and the next thing I knew he was at the front door opening the door." After examining a photograph, in which she identifies the house, the door, and the window, Atkins participates in the following exchange:

Q. After he went through the window, then he opened the front door, you say?
A. Yes.
Q. Did all of you girls enter at that time?
A. Only two of us entered, one stayed outside.
Q. Who stayed outside?
A. Linda Kasabian.
Q. And you and Patricia Krenwinkel entered the residence?
A. Yes.
Q. And at that time, Tex was already inside the residence, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Shortly thereafter, there is this:

Q. What happened after you and Patricia Krenwinkel joined Tex inside the residence?
A. As I walked in Tex was in front of the couch and there was a man laying [sic] on the couch and his head was — the back of his head was facing me and he was facing the opposite direction. It was — I was standing here and he was lying with his head here and his feet extending that way.
Mr. Bugliosi: Can you hold it for just one second, Susan. — Mr. Foreman, I have here a photograph of a female and male Caucasian. May this photograph be marked Grand Jury Exhibit Number — I believe it is 10 — 11 for identification?
The Foreman: It may be so marked.
Q. by Mr. Bugliosi: Susan, I show you Grand Jury Exhibit Number 11, a photograph of a female and a male Caucasian. — Do you recognize any of the two individuals shown in that photograph?
A. I believe I recognize both of them.
Q. Do you know who they are?
A. I think the woman is Abigail Folger and the man is a man by the name of Frykowski.
Q. The man being on the right in the photograph, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Is this the man that was lying on the couch?
A. By the appearance of his face. I can’t tell by the clothes. He wasn’t wearing these.
Q. By the appearance of his face does this appear to be the man who was lying on the couch when Tex approached the couch?
A. It appears to be, I can’t say for sure.
Q. What happened after Tex approached this man on the couch?
A. The man stretched his arms and woke up. I guess he thought some of his friends were coming from somewhere. He said, “What time is it?”
Q. Did Tex say anything in response to that?
A. Tex jumped in front of him and held a gun in his face and said, “Be quiet. Don’t move or you’re dead.”
Q. Did the man say anything to Tex when Tex said that?
A. He said something like, “Well, who are you and what are you doing here?”
Q. What did Tex say to that, if anything?
A. He said, "I am the devil, and I’m here to do the devil’s business and where is your money."
Q. What happened next?
A. He said, "My money is in the wallet on the desk." And Tex told me to go over and look at the desk. I went over and looked at the desk and I didn't see a wallet and I told Tex I didn't see one.
Q. What happened next?
A. Tex told me to go into the bedrooms — the other rooms, he didn't say bedrooms — go in and see if there was anybody else in the house.

The next piece is from Tex Watson’s testimony at his own trial. Watson has just said that he "walked right in the door" of the house and found "a guy laying [sic] on a couch asleep." (Later in the same stretch of testimony, he will expressly deny slitting a screen.) There is this exchange:

Q. All right. What happened when you got in the house?
A. Then I saw Sadie [Susan Atkins].
Q. Where?
A. She just popped up.
Q. Do you know where she came from?
A. No.
Q. Did you see her before or after you saw the man on the couch?
A. I saw her — did you say before or after I saw the man on the couch?
Q. Yes.
A. I believe I saw her before.
Q. What was she doing, if you know?
A. She went by me and went in the other part of the house. I was in the front room and she started bringing out people out of the rooms.
Q. How many people were in the front room that you went in?
A. There was one man laying [sic] on the couch asleep.
Q. And was he awakened while you were in that room?
A. He awakened when everybody was coming into the room.
Q. Who was coming into the room?
A. A bunch of people walking into the room.
Q. How many? Do you remember?
A. Three or four people were walking into the room.
Q. Was Sadie one of them?
A. Sadie, yes, Sadie was one of them.
Q. Do you remember who else among the girls was in that group, if they were?
A. I didn’t see any other girls yet.
Q. You didn’t see Linda?
A. No, I didn’t see Linda.
Q. Nor did you see Patricia; is that right?
A. She walked in the house as everybody was walking into the room.

Later in the same testimony, Watson expressly denies ever using "the expression 'I am the devil here to do the devil's work.'" He expressly denies saying it at the Tate house.

I present once more — at greater length — the passage that was presented in the earlier discussion. Again — it is from Will You Die for Me?, Chapter 14:

I told Linda to go around to the back of the house and check for open doors or windows. She was back in a few moments, saying that everything was locked. A window that opened into the entry hall, just to the side of the front door, was raised several inches, so — after telling Linda to go back down to the gate and keep watch in case anyone was alerted by the sounds of the shots — I slit the bottom of the screen, removed it, pushed up the window, and climbed through. It was very still inside the house.
I crept to the front door and let in Sadie. Katie [Patricia Krenwinkel] had disappeared for the moment, gone down to Linda at the gate to get her knife, so the two of us slowly moved past a couple of large blue trunks that were standing in the hallway and slipped into the living room beyond. At first it seemed empty, but as we got in farther we could see a large blond man — Voytek Frykowski — asleep on a sofa that faced into the room, away from the door, and was incongruously draped with a large American flag. As we stood over him, I whispered to Sadie to check the rest of the house.
Frykowski stirred at the sound of my voice and mumbled something like: "What time is it?" I kicked him in the head. As he struggled up in confusion, mumbling: "Who are you? What do you want?" I answered, "I'm the devil and I'm here to do the devil's business."
I jerked my head to Sadie and she disappeared down the hall. Frykowski started to say something else but I cut him off: "Another word and you’re dead!" When I asked him where his money was, he nodded toward a desk, but then Katie appeared and Sadie returned from the back of the house, saying there were three others: a man and two women. I told her to get them.
She brought back Abigail Folger first, a dark-haired woman in a long white nightgown. Katie held a knife on her while Sadie went back for the other two.

Chapter 19 of Will You Die for Me? treats Watson's trial and contains the following:

Then I took the stand. Despite some of the truth I’d begun to see through reading the Bible and talking to Chaplain Goffigan, self-preservation won out in court and I admitted only what I felt I had to....

71.242.203.167 20:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Tate's demise

Chapter 14 of Tex Watson’s autobiographical Will You Die for Me? (as told to Ray Hoekstra) contains the following:

[After killing Frykowski,] I stood up and went back inside with Katie. Sadie was sitting next to Sharon on the couch as the pathetic blond woman sobbed, begging us to take her with us and let her have her baby before we killed her. It was the first time I’d realized she was pregnant, and for a moment it almost seemed like a good idea. But then Katie hissed, "Kill her!" and Charlie’s tape whirred, "Kill her!" inside my head and I looked at Sadie. But she just sat there holding Sharon, so I reached out and made the first cut across her cheek. Later, Prosecutor Bugliosi — because of some things Susan-Sadie bragged about in jail in one of her attempts to get attention — was convinced that it was she who killed Sharon Tate, but his suspicion was not true. It was my hand that struck out, over and over, until the cries of "Mother... mother..." stopped. Suddenly it seemed very quiet. It was over.

I am going to add Tate’s last words, as reported by Watson, to the Wikipedia article.71.242.203.167 00:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Shaved heads

On our own talk pages, another editor and I have discussed a passage that appears near the end of the article’s section headed "Conviction and Sentencing." Possibly, the other editor, from whom I have not heard for some hours, is simply unavailable at the moment to continue the discussion; but because I myself must attend to some other things, I have let him or her know I am bringing the matter to the present page.

The passage in question reads as follows:

Midway through the penalty phase, Manson shaved his head and trimmed his beard to a fork; he told the press, "I am the Devil, and the Devil always has a bald head." Belatedly recognizing that their imitations of Manson only proved his domination, the female defendants refrained from shaving their own heads until much later in the penalty trial.


In an earlier version, the passage had one difference, which, as I present that version, I will put in boldface:

Midway through the penalty phase, Manson shaved his head and trimmed his beard to a fork; he told the press, "I am the Devil, and the Devil always has a bald head." Belatedly recognizing that their imitations of Manson only proved his domination, the female defendants refrained from shaving their own heads until the jurors retired to decide the penalties.


My position is that the appropriate version is the latter — i.e., the one that ends with "until the jurors retired to decide the penalties." Pertinent passages in Bugliosi and Gentry’s Helter Skelter are as follows:

From page 439 (1994 edition):

On March 4, Manson trimmed his beard to a neat fork and completely shaved his head, because, he told newsmen, "I am the Devil and the Devil always has a bald head."
Interestingly enough, this time the three female defendants did not follow Manson's example. Nor, when he occasionally acted up in court, did they parrot him, as they had in the guilt trial. Obviously it had got across to them, albeit belatedly, that such antics only proved Manson's domination.


From page 455:

[The jury] left the courtroom at 5:25 P.M. on Friday, March 26, 1971.
. . .
When I received the call [that the jury was ready with its verdict] on Monday afternoon, I knew there could be only one verdict.
. . .
[T]he jury was brought back into the courtroom at 4:24 P.M. on Monday, March 29, with their verdicts.
Manson and the girls had been brought into the courtroom earlier — the three female defendants now, when it was too late to influence the jury, having shaved their heads also — but before the clerk could read the first verdict etc. (Emphasis added)


The trial’s penalty phase began on January 26, 1971, the day after the return of the guilty verdicts. (Bugliosi 1994, 411-17.) In the first half of the penalty phase, the defense presented female witnesses — including the three female defendants — who said the Tate-LaBianca murders had been carried out as "copycat" crimes, to draw suspicion away from Bobby Beausoleil re the Hinman murder. In saying this, the witnesses intended to exonerate Manson: the copycat plan was said to have been the idea of Linda Kasabian, not Manson.

On March 4, as is indicated in the first quotation above, Manson shaved his head; this was after the "copycat" story had been presented. Examination of the second quotation makes clear that the girls did not shave their heads until the jury left to deliberate, on the afternoon of Friday, March 26. The head-shaving took place, in other words, sometime between the jury's departure on Friday afternoon and its return on Monday afternoon.

That is a critical part of the logic of the events. As Bugliosi says: now, when they could no longer influence the jury (i.e., influence the jury against Manson, by appearing to be dominated by him), the girls appeared in the courtroom with shaved heads. The girls didn’t merely wait until "much later in the penalty trial," as the Wikipedia article presently indicates; they waited until they could be sure the jury would not be influenced against Manson by the sight of their imitation of him. They waited, to say it again, until the jury retired to decide the penalties — i.e., until the jury would no longer be seeing them, in the courtroom, during delivery of testimony.

It's possible that Bugliosi, who presumably had no contact with the women between Friday afternoon and Monday afternoon, never learned the specific time at which the heads had been shaved (although it's also possible that, for instance, guards let him know). That doesn't matter. The only thing he and Gentry had to make clear is that the head-shaving took place at some point in the interval — i.e., between the jury’s retiring to decide on Friday afternoon and the jury’s return with the verdicts on Monday afternoon. That is what the Wikipedia article must indicate, too, if the reader is to grasp the logic of the events.

The passage that is being debated occurs after the Wikipedia reader is told of the female witnesses' retailing of the copycat motive and before the paragraph about the reading of the verdicts. In other words, should the passage be revised as I recommend, the overall Wikipedia passage will be as follows:


In the penalty phase, the jurors got a glimpse of the defense Manson had had in mind. Atkins, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten testified that the murders had been conceived as "copycat" versions of the Hinman murder, for which Atkins now took credit. The killings, which resembled the crime for which Bobby Beausoleil had been jailed, were intended to draw suspicion away from him. This plan had supposedly been the work of, and carried out under the guidance of, not Manson, but someone allegedly in love with Beausoleil — Linda Kasabian. The narrative had weak points, including Atkin’s inability to explain why, as she was maintaining, she had written "political piggy" at the Hinman house in the first place.
Midway through the penalty phase, Manson shaved his head and trimmed his beard to a fork; he told the press, "I am the Devil, and the Devil always has a bald head." Belatedly recognizing that their imitations of Manson only proved his domination, the female defendants refrained from shaving their own heads until the jurors retired to decide the penalties.
The effort to exonerate Manson via the copycat motive failed; on 29 March 1971, the jury returned verdicts of death against all four defendants on all counts.


As I say, that makes the logic of the events clear. (Actually, I think the sentence about the copycat narrative's weak points should probably be placed at the head of the final paragraph; but I'd have to see it there to be sure.) The logic will not be clear, on the other hand, if the Wikipedia article retains the passage in its present form — in which the head-shaving is simply said to have taken place "much later in the penalty trial."

If I understand the other editor's position, it is that the above-quoted passages from Bugliosi and Gentry do not enable us to conclude the head-shaving took place after the jury went out. I urge editors who might be interested in the question to examine the passages and decide.

The passage being debated, incidentally, does not represent the Wikipedia article's most-important information; but along with the other details of the defendants' behavior, it does give the reader a sense of the spectacle that was the trial.71.242.203.167 18:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I had said at one point that I don't have the 1994 version of Helter Skelter, but the original 1976 Bantam paperback, so in general, it would be helpful (at least to me) if when posting a passage, the section could also be identified. In this case, the page for me was 617.
There are actually two issues regarding this passage. I'll state my viewpoint on the issue you're debating first, then address my own afterwards. I agree that it makes the sentence clearer in the timeline to identify that the girls shaved their heads following the jury's retirement to deliberate the sentence, as that is what Bugliosi specifically says. What day following that retirement isn't relevant to the timeline, only that it was when it no longer effected the outcome of the penalty determination. Apparently, I no longer have the Sanders book to check for content. So, in this case, I do go with specifying that.
My own issue with the passage regards the statement involving the intent of the girls to delay their own head shavings. It should be clarified in the article that this was Bugliosi's interpretation of the delay, with the importance of the time difference from his viewpoint. In courtroom vernacular, simply stating that "Belatedly recognizing that their imitations of Manson only proved his domination" assumes facts not in evidence and imposes meaning on the time delay that presently is only supported by Buglisoi.
Since we rightly tend to cite many points with references from several sources, this reasoning is one that is only attributed to Bugliosi. While it is likely that this IS the reason for their waiting, it would make the interpretation more credible if other sources verified the reason as well. Lacking that, I propose that it read more alone the lines of:
"The female defendants refrained from shaving their own heads until the jurors retired to decide the penalties, a delay which Bugliosi believed was to lessen the jury's perception that Manson dominated their behavior." Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, in looking back at it, what I wrote in the explanation above may even be a more accurate description in the context of a jury trial. Let me revise my suggestion:
"The female defendants refrained from shaving their own heads until the jurors retired to deliberate the sentences, a delay which Bugliosi believed was to lessen the jury's perception that Manson dominated their behavior." Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


I’m pleased you share my understanding that Bugliosi is saying the girls didn’t shave their heads until the jury had gone out. The Sanders passage, incidentally, is in Chapter 102, entitled "hideous ends hideous — four sentenced to die." In the 2002 edition, it (the passage) is on page 449:

And then on Friday, March 26, 1971, the jury began its deliberations. It had eight months of memories and 31,716 pages of transcript upon which to meditate.
It only took two days. Late in the afternoon on Monday, March 29, word came they were ready. For the jury’s verdict, all four defendants were X-headed and shaved. It was a hideous sight.

On page 168 of the 1977 Logos International edition of Child of Satan, Child of God, Susan Atkins (writing with Bob Slosser) says:

On March 29, with shaved heads and bloody crosses on our foreheads, the four of us were escorted into the courtroom for the verdicts. In each case, the penalty was death.

You’re right that Bugliosi’s interpretation should be identified as such. How about this:

In what the prosecution regarded as belated recognition on their part that imitation of Manson only proved his domination, the female defendants refrained from shaving their heads until the jurors retired to decide the penalties.

71.242.203.167 (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. However, I would urge you to reconsider referring to what the jury was doing in terms that are generally used to define it, such as "determine the sentence," which is specifically what they were doing. "Penalties" implies other types of punishments besides a prison sentence or death sentence, for example sanctions/fines. There is no doubt that the only thing that was being deliberated in that room was whether or not the death penalty would be given.
I removed the phrase "the Family" from the lead paragraph. For some reason, when I was looking at it last night, I didn't see the reference to the Manson Family in the paragraph and thought it odd that the lead mentioned the group that committed murder without naming them. I wrote back about the citations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Addressing your concern, I wrote that the jury "retired to weigh the prosecution's request for the death penalty." I don't think the jury can be said to have been "determining the sentence."71.242.203.167 (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

California Death Penalty

The end of the introduction of the article states that the California Supreme Court eliminated the death penalty in California. This is not the case; the death penalty still exists in California and it is still used (recently, in the Scott Peterson case). Source: http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=history

While for a time, the death penalty was banned, strictly speaking, the death penalty was never permanently banned. I will edit. that part of the article to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raliugar (talk • contribs) 05:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record: The article didn't say there is no death penalty in California. It said the Supreme Court of California eliminated the death penalty in that state. That is correct. Nothing can be "permanently banned," strictly speaking or otherwise. — Anyway, I can see why you thought it important to make clear that the death penalty returned.71.242.203.167 (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that the article didn't originally say there is no death penalty in California currently, but now that this is clarified there won't be any misconceptions. If you think that hair-splitting such as this shouldn't be in the page summary go ahead and say so. Personally, I think it's clearer and slightly more informative this way, and as far as I can tell that's the point. Raliugar (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is clearer and more informative with the change you made. I essentially indicated that when I said I could see why you thought it important to make the revision. You are not splitting hairs, and I'm not either. I've pointed out that your initial statement that the article contained information that is "not the case" was erroneous. In fact, you yourself, in constructing your note, apparently noticed that and, rather than revise your charge of error, sought to explain it with your follow-up about the ban. (I now get the sense that your phrase "strictly speaking" applies to the first half of your follow-up, not the second; but it is positioned so that it might be taken to apply to either. This is a minor point, but I mention it.) Again — I don't object to your revision; I indicated that. I put my own statement on the record — as I indicated — lest visitors to the present page conclude the article contained an error as gross as the one you imputed to it. Should they conclude that, they will think the article not credible.71.242.203.167 (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Middle name Milles, not Willis

At 06:49, 6 December 2007, an editor revised the article with a note that indicated Manson's middle name is Willis, not Milles. This is not correct. The 1994 edition of Bugliosi and Gentry's Helter Skelter contains the following on page 235 (i.e., about midway through the "February 1970" chapter):

I was curious about something. Up until his arrest in Mendocino County on July 28, 1967, [footnote omitted] Charlie had always used his real name, Charles Milles Manson. On that occasion, however, and thereafter, he called himself Charles Willis Manson. Had Manson ever said anything about his name? I asked. Crockett and Poston both told me that they had heard Manson say, very slowly, that his name was "Charles' [sic] Will is Man's Son," meaning that his will was that of the Son of Man.
Although Susan Atkins had emphasized Charlie's surname in talking to [her fellow inmate] Virginia Graham, I hadn't really thought, until now, how powerful that name was. Man Son. It was tailor-made for the Infinite Being role he was now seeking to portray.

Another editor has already removed the erroneous note. At the article's head, where Manson's full name is given, I'll enter an invisible comment, to try to prevent the note's reappearance.71.242.203.167 (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You certainly can put a note, but what was added at the very bottom of the page would more be considered mild vandalism and not truly a good faith effort to edit the page. A note would likely either not be seen, or ignored. That sort of edit pops up on articles many, many times. It's best to just remove it and go on. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Scientology

At 04:46, 11 December 2007, an editor added "Former Scientologists" to the categories listed at the bottom of the article. His or her edit summary reads: "This was missing. Charles Manson was at one point a Scientologist." In the word "Scientologist," a dollar sign ($) stands in place of the initial S.

In the past, the article has, in fact, mentioned Manson’s involvement with Scientology. In "Rise of the Family," the statement that Manson established himself as a guru in Haight-Ashbury is presently followed by this:

He soon had his first group of young followers, most of them female.

Formerly, that sentence was this:

Expounding a philosophy that included at least some of the Scientology he had studied in prison, he soon had his first group of young followers, most of them female.

The phrase about Scientology has been deleted twice, I think, in the article’s history. The first time it was removed, I figured the editor who had excised it simply thought it trivial; the second time, I began to think the deletion was executed by someone concerned about Scientology's reputation (or Manson's).

The 1994 edition of Bugliosi and Gentry’s Helter Skelter contains the following at page 144 (two pages from end of chapter headed "November 22-23, 1969"):

[For a staff evaluation conducted after his July 1961 transfer to the United States Penitentiary at McNeil Island, Washington,] Manson gave as his claimed religion "Scientologist," stating that he "has never settled upon a religious formula for his beliefs and is presently seeking an answer to his question in the new mental health cult known as Scientology."
Scientology, an outgrowth of science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics, was just coming into vogue at this time. Manson’s teacher, i.e., "auditor," was another convict, Lanier Rayner. Manson would later claim that while in prison he achieved Scientology’s highest level, "theta clear." [Footnote omitted]
Although Manson remained interested in Scientology much longer than he did in any other subject except music, it appears that, like the Dale Carnegie course, he stuck with it only as long as his enthusiasm lasted, then dropped it, extracting and retaining a number of terms and phrases ("auditing," "cease to exist," "coming to Now") and some concepts (karma, reincarnation, etc.) which, perhaps fittingly, Scientology had borrowed in the first place.

At pages 163-64 (one page or so from the end of the chapter headed "December 2, 1969"), the passage about the persons whose attention Manson drew in Haight-Ashbury is followed by this:

They were also young, naïve, eager to believe, and, perhaps even more important, belong. There were followers aplenty for any self-styled guru. It didn’t take Manson long to sense this. In the underground milieu into which he’d stumbled, even the fact that he was an ex-convict conferred a certain status. Rapping a line of metaphysical con that borrowed as much from pimping as joint jargon and Scientology, Manson began attracting followers, almost all girls at first, then a few young boys.

I am going to reinsert the twice-deleted phrase, with a footnote of its own.71.242.203.167 (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

More insidious vandalism

At 23:21, 12 December 2007, the following sentence in the article’s section headed "First offenses" was revised:

For the federal crime of taking a stolen car across a state line, Manson was sent to the Washington, D.C., National Training School for Boys.

As revised, the sentence was as follows:

For the federal crime of taking a stolen car across a state line, Manson was sent to the austin texas [sic], National Training School for Boys.

The lack of capitalization of "Austin" and "Texas" were part of the revision, as was the lack of a comma between the two words.

This is insidious vandalism. That is to say, it is deliberate, gratuitous falseness that can easily survive in the text. The response to such should be the immediate and enduring blocking of the IP address from which it has been executed.71.242.203.167 (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, vandalism is going to be part of a collaborative effort such as Wikipedia. Obviously, someone pranking around. There are lots of people who patrol recent changes as well as specific articles and the rule is that such things will be reverted. The effort required to permanently block someone who has committed minor vandalism outweighs the effort to revert it. Nothing is ever permanently gone, and while its frustrating and annoying, it is going to happen, and will be reverted. Quite often, people who do such things are on public computer access systems, or on dynamic IPs, so it also ends up being a futile effort. Don't let it get to you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Documentaries"

At 20:42, 14 December 2007, an editor deleted several items from the article’s section headed "Documentaries." There is no edit summary. Helter Skelter, one of the deleted items, is not a documentary; maybe that’s why it was deleted. I don’t know whether the other deleted items are documentaries; but deleted text identified "Charles Manson Superstar," one of them, as a documentary.

At least one remaining item – Live Freaky! Die Freaky! – is not a documentary. At imdb.com, incidentally, that film's title includes no exclamation points.

For the sake of tidiness, I will delete "by Jim Van Bebber (2003)," a phrase left hanging when "The Manson Family" was deleted.71.242.203.167 (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Since there's no edit summary or rationale for the removal, I see no need to leave it removed. If the documentaries are valid and the entries correct, they should be returned. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


From information at imdb.com, I gather the following about items that were deleted in the revision of 20:42, 14 December 2007:

Charles Manson Superstar: Documentary
Manson Massacre: Not a documentary
Book of Manson: Not a documentary
Manson Family: Not a documentary

From information also at imdb.com, I gather the following about items that survived the revision:

Manson Family Movies: Not a documentary
Live Freaky Die Freaky: Not a documentary (as I’ve already said)
Cold Blood Canyon: Not a documentary

In other words, Manson Family Movies, Live Freaky Die Freaky, and Cold Blood Canyon should be deleted; Charles Manson Superstar should be restored — unless, of course, a Wikipedia article is permitted to list films other than documentaries (in which case, the section should be retitled "Films").71.242.203.167 (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't really have policies against listing films, but my personal opinion is that once we start introducing "based on," semi-fictional and fictional films, the list will get unwieldy very quickly. I think we should just stay with documentaries, whatever they are. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


Acting on your recommendation, I've revised the section, which now lists only documentaries (two — Manson and Charles Manson Superstar). I've added links to the films' entries at imdb.com.71.242.203.167 (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits of 24 January 2008

I have taken the liberty of undoing three edits executed at 12:39, 12:42, and 12:46, 24 January 2008, by Finneganw.

Edit of 12:39:

In the Criminal Infobox at the article’s head, Finneganw changed the charges against Manson from "murder and conspiracy" to "premeditated multiple murder and conspiracy." As can be verified in the opening passage of the decision in Manson’s appeal from his Tate-LaBianca convictions, the charges were, as the infobox originally indicated, murder and conspiracy.

Edit of 12:42:

The article’s opening sentence had read "Charles Manson is a convict who led the 'Manson Family'...." Finneganw changed this to "Charles Manson is a convicted multiple murderer etc." The adjective "convicted" is superfluous; moreover, the revision clashes with the article’s two following sentences, which indicate Manson was found guilty of the Tate-LaBianca murders and of conspiracy to commit them. If Finneganw finds the first sentence unsatisfactory, he is free to change it — but not at the expense of the paragraph’s coherence.

Edit of 12:46:

The opening sentence of the section headed "Encounter with Tate" had indicated that, on March 23, 1969, Manson entered uninvited upon 10050 Cielo Drive. As revised by Finneganw, the sentence indicated that Manson entered the property on that date illegally. That is unfounded.71.242.195.148 (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Impend"

At 22:14, 27 January 2008, an editor removed "impended" from a sentence in which it is the correct verb. The edit summary was as follows:

"have never heard 'impended' used as a verb (not standard English)"

The verb is defined in the 2007 Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English; the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000; and elsewhere. The editor’s statement that he or she has not heard "impended" used as a verb is nonsensical; how else is it used? Charitably interpreted, the assertion that it is "not standard English" means simply that the editor is familiar with the verb only in its usual form, the participle "impending." I would point out that this is the same editor who, at 11:28, 30 November 2007, justified the removal of the verb "burgle" with the falsehood that it does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary.

One minute after removing "impended," the same editor removed a comma he or she deemed "unnecessary." The comma was not without function, but I’ll let that go. I will restore "impended."71.242.195.148 (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

At 00:23, 28 January 2008, the editor addressed this problem via wording that employs the participle. Good compromise.71.242.195.148 (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

manson - artist ?

Does anyone have information regarding his atistic works / skills? I seem to remember to have heard that he is an accomplished painter, and is working from prison. Information about exhibitions, dealers, media? I was trying to google it, and I have found several sites offering alleged manson art and various collectible objects, but none which to my mind seems credible enough to document that we are actually talking about real Manson art...

I believe I saw it once upon a time in a tv documentary many years ago, where there was also an interview with Manson, and they actually showed an art piece, which in my humble opinion seemed very interesting...

Dinofant (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an external link on the main page to some art of his. He's been known to send little artsy pieces to people who have written to him, but that was more in the past than now. There was some backlash from people trying to exhibit and sell Manson Family related art, so it's not as available now. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comma and quotation marks

At 17:03, 17 February 2008, an editor moved a comma to a position outside a quotation mark. I’m speaking of the comma at the end of the phrase "no name Maddox," which appears in the article’s subsection "Childhood." As a result, the phrase’s punctuation is different from that of the article’s other quoted phrases, all of which are punctuated in the American manner, with the comma within the mark. — A bit of Google research has just given me the impression that the British way is to place the comma outside, as the editor has placed it; but I don’t know whether that’s true. Has this subject — the possible difference between Americans and British on this basic punctuation — come up at Wikipedia? Even though I naturally think the article should be punctuated consistently, I haven’t undone the revision; if there are, in fact, different rules, inconsistency would seem bound to return.71.242.195.148 (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation." The MoS also says it isn't a clear case of American vs. British since not all British sources use a differing style and that it's more based on typesetter rules. However, it isn't as clear (at least to me) on how it applies to editor applied (scare quotes) quotation marks. And yes, inconsistency does abound, much as it does with the placement and format of referencing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to the existence of the Manual of Style. Apparently, "no name Maddox" is now the article's only phrase that is punctuated in the manner preferred at Wikipedia.71.242.195.148 (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I’m not yet prepared to let this go. Who writes the Manual of Style? What is its authority, if it has any? On the matter that is the subject of the present discussion, it offers the following:

Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation (this system is referred to as logical quotation).

Is that merely an assertion (by whichever editor wrote that sentence) — or is it a pronouncement of a (Wikipedia) rulemaking body? — And why, incidentally, is the statement about logical quotation not punctuated as a separate sentence, which is what it is? — And who, while we’re on the subject, employs the term logical quotation? Even if we grant, as I'm not sure I do, that punctuation may be described as logical or illogical, it would be nice to have a source for that statement.

Another sentence is this:

Wikipedia uses logical quotation because, as an encyclopedia, it requires high standards of accuracy in the use of source material, and because logical quotation is far less prone to misquotation, ambiguity and the introduction of coding and other errors.

Whoever wrote that might have demonstrated how placement of the comma inside the punctuation mark leads to problems (and, in fact, more problems than the alternative). As it is, the sentence sounds like an attempt to justify a personal preference. Considering that, "as an encyclopedia," Wikipedia is rife with articles whose opening sentences are such a botch of word order that it is often impossible to make sense of them, I'm not convinced it has high standards of anything.71.242.195.148 (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure where the Manual of Style originated. However, there are policies, to which we are supposed to adhere, and then there are style guidelines, which are more consensus driven suggestions. In this case, we are talking about a style guideline. There's no policy that says we must put the period outside of the quotation marks, and in fact, almost every article I work on uses what I'd call the American style of punctuation. The only thing that I personally get picky about is when someone comes along and arbitrarily changes between American and British spelling in an otherwise uncontested article. Usually in those cases, the predominate rule is to adhere to the style of the country in which the subject of the article lived/took place. In looking at the history of the page, the contents there are no more etched in stone than they are on any article page, with the exception that there are more active members who work on that page. My opinion is to leave things as they are on this article and adhere to the American style of punctuation. After all, are we not, and is Manson not, American? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; very clear. My inclination is the same as yours. I really wish the editor who changed the punctuation of "no name Maddox" had left it as it was or had, at least, changed the punctuation of all the phrases (for consistency's sake). I just can't bring myself to undo his or her revision. If that dirty work is to be done, it will have to be done by you, I'm afraid.71.242.195.148 (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll do just that. You and I would constitute consensus over that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Charles Manson used to live in Charleston, WV?

I think he did, I've heard it somewhere, I'm just not sure. If he did, I think it should be noted somewhere in this article. - J-Whitt (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Am not aware of any statement that he lived in Charleston; but according to both Helter Skelter and Manson in His Own Words, that was the location of the service station that his mother and her brother robbed. In reaction to your comment, I've noted that fact in the article, as you may see. I've also indicated that the relatives' home where Manson lived while his mother was in the state penitentiary was in McMechen, West Virginia. (Previously, the article indicated only the state in which the service station and the home were located.) Because both localities have Wikipedia articles of their own, I've included internal links.71.242.195.148 (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Does anyone else have any other information, also? - J-Whitt (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Married or unmarried

At 12:01, 19 February 2008, in the article’s "Childhood" subsection, an editor deleted the indication that Kathleen Maddox was unmarried at the time of Charles Manson’s birth. The edit summary reads: "deleted the word 'unmarried' (incorrect as de facto is indeed a marriage)."

I don’t know what that means. In Bugliosi 1994 (Helter Skelter) at page 136 — i.e., at the beginning of the chapter headed November 22-23, 1969 — is this:

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

On pages 28-29 of the 1988 Evergreen edition of Manson in His Own Words is this:

On November 12, 1934, while living in Cincinnati, Ohio, unwed and only sixteen, my mother gave birth to a bastard son. Hospital records list the child as "no name Maddox." The child — me — was an outlaw from birth. The guy who planted the seed was a young drugstore cowboy who called himself Colonel Scott. He was a transient laborer working on a nearby dam project, and he didn't stick around long enough to even watch the belly rise.

In "Mother Tells Life of Manson as Boy," the 1971 newspaper interview-article linked at what is presently footnote 8 of the Wikipedia article, is this:

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

I am going to reinsert the indication that Kathleen Maddox was unmarried at the time of Charles Manson’s birth. If an editor thinks that is inaccurate, he or she should make an argument to that effect on the present page.71.242.195.148 (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Burglary, not robbery

At 16:32 and 16:33, 1 March 2008, the article’s subsection headed "First offenses" was revised to indicate that Manson robbed — not burglarized — stores and service stations. This is incorrect.

Pertinent passages in Bugliosi and Gentry's Helter Skelter, 1994 edition, are found on pages 137 and 138 (in the chapter headed "November 22-23, 1969"):

[Manson’s mother] didn’t want him, and he ran away again. Burglarizing a grocery store, he stole enough money to rent a room. He then broke into several other stores, stealing, among other things, a bicycle. Caught during a burglary, he was placed in the juvenile center in Indianapolis.
...
In February 1951, Charles Manson and two other sixteen-year-olds escaped [from the Indiana School for Boys] and headed for California. For transportation they stole cars. For support they burglarized gas stations....

Burglary and robbery are not synonyms, as is made clear in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (West Publishing, 1990). In fact, that work's definition of robbery concludes with advice to the reader to compare the definition of burglary. As presented therein, the definitions of the words are as follows:

Robbery: Felonious taking of money, personal property, or any other article of value, in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear. (Page 1329, citing People v. Eddy, 123 Cal.App.2d 826, 268 P.2d 47, 51. Emphasis added.)
Burglary: A person is guilty of burglary if he enters a building or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof, with purpose to commit a crime therein, unless the premises are at the time, open to the public or the actor is licensed or privileged to enter. (Pages 197-98, citing Section 221.1 of the Model Penal Code. Emphasis added.)

I'll note, too, that Bugliosi and Gentry also mention armed robberies committed by Manson in the period between the burglaries referred to in the passages quoted above; thus, there is no reason to think the distinction between burglary and robbery was lost on those authors (as would have been unlikely in the case of Bugliosi, who worked as a prosecutor).

I am going to undo the revisions and leave a hidden note re this.71.242.117.180 (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Swastika on Forehead

Hey doesn anyone know why he has a swastika on his forehead, is he now a neo-nazi, or what? I saw it when he was interviewed behind bars for a documentary they did on him? How long has he had it and for what reason does he have it?Levi Seigel (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The swastika started out as the X on his forehead during the trial. At some point in the 70s, he adapted it to a swastika. The reasons are as many as Charlie has mood swings, although it was probably to garner acceptance when he went on to prison. Charlie doesn't belong to any groups that don't directly benefit Charlie. He's not a Nazi, neo or otherwise. What he is, to use a colloquialism, is more than a little nuts. Sane, crafty, sly, but crazy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

More victims found?

Forensic Experts Find Possible Evidence of More Charlie Manson Murders --87.79.251.32 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Clothing discovery

In the physical-evidence paragraph, with which the "Investigation and arrest" subsection concludes, the sentence about the television crew’s discovery of the killers’ bloody clothing after the publication of the Atkins crime-account is as follows:

Acting on that same newspaper account, a local ABC television crew located and recovered the bloody clothing discarded by the Tate killers.

Previously, the sentence included the word "quickly" – i.e., "quickly located and recovered" the bloody clothing.

The newspaper account was published December 14, 1969. (Bugliosi 1994, page 193, chapter headed "December 14, 1969.") The TV crew apparently located the clothing the very next day. (The discovery is related on pages 197-198, near the beginning of the chapter headed "December 15-25, 1969." It precedes the account of Susan Atkins’s pleading of non-guilty, which account is introduced by the words "On Tuesday, December 16.")

December 14, not incidentally, was a Sunday, which means that December 15, on which the crew seems to have located the clothing, was not only the very-next day but the first work-week day after the newspaper story's publication.

I think the word "quickly" was valuable and should be reinserted.71.242.159.196 (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. "Quickly" will be re-inserted. BassPlyr23 (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Revolver

In the physical-evidence paragraph, with which the "Investigation and arrest" subsection concludes, the gun Tex Watson used at the Tate residence is referred to as "the .22-caliber Buntline revolver." If the model of the gun is to be mentioned, the better phrase might be:

the Hi Standard Longhorn revolver

On page 54 of Helter Skelter (Bugliosi 1994, right at the beginning of the "August 16-30, 1969" chapter), the gun is identified as "the Hi Standard .22 caliber Longhorn revolver." The gun is then said to be "[p]opularly known as the 'Buntline Special.'" On pages 353-54 ("September 11-17, 1970"), there is an indication that, in his trial testimony, Danny DeCarlo referred to the gun as "a Hi Standard .22 caliber Buntline revolver."

Having no real knowledge of the topic, I’m concerned that reference to the gun as a "Buntline" or a "Buntline Special" will incline a gun-savvy reader to think the weapon was manufactured by Colt, not Hi Standard. See Wikipedia's Colt Buntline article (including the article to which it links), as well as "Wyatt Earp’s Buntline Special," a December 1997 article from Guns and Ammo.

As you see, I also recommend omitting the mention of the gun’s caliber, which seems to me an unnecessary detail and comes up interestingly near the Manson article’s end, in the subsection headed "Cultural reverberation."71.242.159.196 (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Postscript: Here are some more Helter Skelter references (from Bugliosi 1994, page 104, "November 17, 1969"):

The detectives asked [Danny DeCarlo] what other hand guns he had seen at Spahn.
A. "Well, there was a .22 Buntline."
...
The detectives had DeCarlo draw the Buntline. It was nearly identical with the photo of the Hi Standard Longhorn model....71.242.159.196 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Post-postscript (page 199, "December 15-25, 1969"):

...Sergeants Calkins and McGann drove over to Van Nuys and picked up the .22 caliber Hi Standard Longhorn revolver.
...
[The Sebring bullet] had been fired from the .22 Longhorn.71.242.159.196 (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


P.P.P.S. In the photograph that appears between pages 340 and 341 of Bugliosi 1994, the gun is referred to as "[t]he nine-shot, .22 caliber Hi Standard Longhorn revolver." Maybe the best phrase for the Wikipedia article would be "the distinctive Hi Standard revolver" or, simply, "the distinctive revolver."71.242.159.196 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"The distinctive Hi Standard revolver" works for me. I'll make the edit myself.

BassPlyr23 (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is all fine with me, I knew it had been called a .22 Buntline, but I know nothing about guns. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Date format

I got "scolded" by some random person for converting the date format about this AMERICAN citizen into the date format that American's are familiar with. I was told to use the backwards British format, and I would like to know why. This is NOT Britipedia, nor is this a British article. Unfortunately this article has been protected against editing by new accounts, so until my account is a little older the dates will have to remain backwards. Oldschoolgod13 (talk) 19:28, March 20, 2008 (CDT)

I don't see any dates which are not wikiformatted, except in the references. Are those the dates you intend to change? (Accessdates should be in ISO 8601 format.) You are correct that a U.S. subject should use U.S. spelling and formatting according to the Manual of Style for national varieties of English. —EncMstr 00:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as those are the ones that I likely got scolded for correcting. I was told to "change my preferences" to see the dates in the correct format. Does that person not realize that the vast majority of people that view Wikipedia do NOT have accounts, and can not "change their prefs" in order to see correct date formats? Oldschoolgod13 (talk) 20:12, March 20, 2008 (CDT)

Not weighing in either way, but I think the article proper does have a few dates in the British format:

  • Next to last paragraph of "Conviction and sentencing": 29 March 1971 and 19 April 1971.
  • Third paragraph of "Aftermath": 16 August 1969.
  • Next to last paragraph of "Aftermath": 5 September 2007.
Interesting. Here's what I get for the paragraph of the first item:
The effort to exonerate Manson via the "copycat" scenario failed; on 1971-03-29, the jury returned verdicts of death against all four defendants on all counts.[91] On 1971-04-19, Judge Older sentenced the four to death.[108]
It appears to be following my date preference correctly. What is your date preference set to, and what do you see? —EncMstr 01:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

With my very-limited knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia, I didn't even know I had a date preference. I just checked mine. It's set at "No preference."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Forgot to mention: I see the dates as I indicated them above: Day-numeral, Month name, Year-numeral. No commas or hyphens.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that "no preference" was an option. I guess it means that it doesn't reformat dates, which explains some odd edits I've noticed over the years. —EncMstr 01:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just took a cursory look at the whole article in the edit window. I think you're right. My no-preference setting is displaying the dates as they are typed in the window — although, interestingly, the wiki-format brackets on month-and-day combinations that are typed in the American style — e.g., "March 23" — appear to be automatically entering a comma after the day-numeral.

I suppose the dates in the article proper should be formatted consistently — but again, I'm not weighing in for either the British or the American format.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've converted the five British-style dates I listed above to American style.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Oldschoolgod13, you weren't scolded by a random person. I was the one who approached you, using an informational template and explained to you about auto-formatting and why what you did was an unnecessary waste of time. It was done because in looking through your IP contribution list, you'd been changing this in articles consistently for a while, sometimes removing the brackets altogether or changing to a format which uses a suffix to an ordinal number (changing 1 June or June 1 to June 1st), which is an incorrect format. You went through this article itself and switched the dates in the body of the article within the brackets, which does nothing to the display for persons who have registered accounts and have set preferences.
You are a random person to me, nothing more, nothing less. AS I said earlier, the vast majority of people who use Wikipedia have ZERO interest in editing or registering an account. The rules (as I read them) state that an article is to follow spelling and date formats that conform to the subject's nation of origin. Changing of preferences or registering of an account should NOT be mandatory to get the information that is sought in the format to which you are accustomed. Oldschoolgod13 (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The above response fairly much sums up why this is a dead issue to me. If wikilinked 12 March vs. March 12 is so confusing to someone, then frankly, you have a huge amount of work ahead of you in fruitlessly spending time switching them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you don't like how certain things are displayed, then, darn it, you're going to have to register an account and set your preferences. Do not come in and state things in terms that imply that the message was from an uninformed person. Meanwhile, the Manual of Style only urges the arbitrary changing of spelling, etc., for articles that have strong national ties, with examples such as United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force and mostly recommends maintaining consistency in the variety of English spelling in a given article. The MoS also says If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety. I also noticed that you did a lot of "spelling corrections" in articles with an international interest, such as Magic: The Gathering. You were approached because eventually, this all becomes an issue, which it hadn't yet been.
So, you're going to tell all of the students that would use Wikipedia for school research to register an account? I HIGHLY doubt that they care enough about Wikipedia to go through the effort. And yes, I DID change things in M:tG, as the game originates and is predominately played in America. We aren't allowed to "Americanize" articles like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, since they originate in Britain, yet have higher readerships here in America. Be consistant. Oldschoolgod13 (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I used them as examples. I won't debate this here. I did think that schools didn't much care for the use of Wikipedia for research. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this article is protected for editing by unregistered persons at this time because of the mounting amount of vandalism from anonymous IPs. That's a sad fact that protecting the page can only diminish. Sorry for your troubles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. Were Oldschoolgod's original changes executed for the sake of consistency? If so — and if the changes did not affect the display for persons who have set preferences — what was the problem? The five British-style dates I just changed were in a sharp minority; they were outnumbered by about thirty American-style dates (not all of which include a year).
And while we're on the subject: What is meant by "access dates," which, as is mentioned above, are supposed to be ISO 8601 format?JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
An "access date" is the date that an URL was last checked. It's a nice thing to have in case the URL goes 404 so it's easier understand why it might have died, to track down a replacement, or find it in an archive. If you use the {{cite web}} template, there is a parameter accessdate which is used, for example, as accessdate = 2008-03-19. You type in the date you checked the URL. —EncMstr 04:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I updated my posting, which hopefully explains the issue as I saw it. When I saw what changes were made while still an anonymous IP, I looked at the contribution history and noted what I outlined above. It is only circumstantial that it was brought up on this article. The problem is that not all cases I ran across were done for consistency, but an American preference, as evidenced in edit summaries, which becomes an issue. The proper response should have been for Oldschoolgod13 to approach me on my talk page about it specifically, as I did him or her, but since that didn't happen, I outlined my rationale here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm — well, I’m sure we’re all pleased this contretemps has eliminated the few non-American dates in the article about this patriot.

Maybe that’s not the right word. Anyway — I’ve found the links to the "auto-formatting" and "cite web" pages helpful. At a glance, most of the webpages that are linked in the article’s footnotes seem to have access dates, which are split just about 50-50 between British and American formats. Just under half of the dates are wikilinked. (Again — these are quick counts.)

I’d guess there is no access date that has been created via the cite web template. The template appears to offer wikilinked and non-wikilinked dates. (I take "wikilinked" to mean "in the form of an internal link to a Wikipedia article.") I don't know when access dates should be wikilinked and when they should not.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Leona

In the subsection headed "Second imprisonment," I have inserted a passage about Manson’s marriage to, and child with, "Leona." I have inserted it only because Leona and the child are, rightly, mentioned in the infobox at the article’s head and because, if you will read "Children," which is item number 44 in Archive 1 (July 2003 – 30 October 2007) of the present talk page, you will see that an editor questioned the existence of Leona and the child.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoyt clip

In adding (to "Aftermath") a paragraph about statements Barbara Hoyt made on a recent episode of Discovery Channel's Most Evil, I included a link to a YouTube clip from the episode. Because the clip presumably infringes Discovery Channel's copyright, the link is probably in violation of Wikipedia policy; but in the absence of, say, a Discovery Channel transcript to link to, there is no other way to source the statements. That's why I went ahead and posted the link; I am hoping that editors who are more Wikipedia-savvy than I am will know what, if anything, should be done about this.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes, Youtube isn't a good source for the reasons you outlined. In the past, when I've come across such situations, I usually try to find the citation from the actual show or episode, most often through the website for the network. I'll see if I can find one for this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As I see you've added. I think that link is sufficient for citation and the youtube can come out. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Have followed your recommendation to remove link. This is a problem that can’t have been unnoticed at Wikipedia heretofore: How does one adequately footnote quotations from television broadcasts?JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There are citation templates that outline how to cite a television episode at WP:Citation_templates which has one specific one, {{cite episode}}, which is outlined in more detail at Template:Cite episode. Note that you don't have to use all the parameters in the template and it can be used either vertically or horizontally. Hope that answers your question. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just used the "Cite episode" template, which has generated a footnote more helpful than the one I'd assembled by myself. Maybe the Discovery Channel itself will eventually post the pertinent transcript or video, which may be linked; but for the time being, this is pretty good. (I cheated a bit, in that I relied on Wikipedia's own Most Evil article for the airdate and the season and episode numbers; but that seems minor.)JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Soil testing

I'm not entirely satisfied with how this paragraph is worded. While I grant that article doesn't say specifically that there will be testing at the Myers Ranch, it also doesn't say specifically that the sheriff was disatisfied with methods used by original investigators, which is a rather broad statement. It actually says that not all of the dogs were handled in an established manner, and that they had asked for further testing in spots where dogs had indicated with consistency that bodies may be present. There was more to the original investigation than just the dogs. Soil testing was ordered for a few spots where dogs gave consistent findings. The article also says that additional testing was continued, and from the way I read it, says that some soil testing had already been conducted. It does, however, say that this was being done prior to any excavation, and not being done rather than excavating. It's more conducive and probably more correct to say that further testing is being pursued to clarify findings from the previous investigation before proceeding. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your comment here. If you'll give me a few minutes, I'll reread the article and respond.71.242.159.196 (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I’ll address your points individually:
1 — It is not clear why the Sheriff spoke of Myers Ranch. The original (AP) report had to do solely with forensic investigation at Barker Ranch. The CNN report’s opening sentence indicates that there will be additional soil tests at "a California ranch" — singular. The next sentence restates the AP report, namely, that indications of human remains had been found at Barker; nothing is said about Myers. As long as the Wikipedia article includes links to both articles, the Wikipedia visitor will be able to make what he or she will of the Sheriff’s mention of Myers; the Wikipedia article should probably avoid it.
2 — Possibly, the Wikipedia article’s statement that the Sheriff was not satisfied with the investigators’ methods is unacceptably broad. The Sheriff indicates only that he was not satisfied with the use of the search dogs, although one wonders whether he thinks the investigators should have employed — or, at least, recommended — the "minimal intrusion" methods he himself has now ordered. At any rate, he does not think the investigators’ conclusion that bodies are likely buried at the ranch is highly-reliable; he has expressly stated that the tests he has ordered will answer the burial question "with a high degree of reliability."
3 — It's hard to say whether the original investigators, including Dostie, have done any additional testing since the AP report. In the CNN report, Dostie refers to two dogs, not just the one that was mentioned by AP; he mentions the Oak Ridge equipment, some of which, as the AP article had indicated, was used the day Dostie used his own dog and some of which was to be used on another day or offsite. Also, the CNN report refers to work the investigators did "earlier this month" (March) — whereas the work reported in the AP article was apparently done in February. It's possible, in other words, that Dostie and the investigators he was working with did follow-up at the ranch after the publication of the AP report; but regardless, the tests ordered by the Sheriff have not yet been conducted. As things stand, the Sheriff has been publicly confronted — via AP — with the original investigators’ recommendation to dig; having examined the results of their investigations — whether or not those investigations include work that had not been done at the time of the AP report — he has concluded that further investigation is warranted. Accordingly, he has ordered the minimally-intrusive tests that, as we have just said, will reliably indicate whether bodies are buried at the ranch.
4 — As reported by CNN, the Sheriff’s statement is careful: Attention to property rights is compelling reason "to be as cautious as possible and use every reasonable testing method available before disturbing the ground with excavation"; the minimally-intrusive tests he has ordered will determine very-reliably whether bodies are buried at the ranch. I see no indication that the Sheriff has ordered excavation. I get the impression he will not order excavation if the tests he has ordered are negative. The word "but" at the head of the CNN article's fourth paragraph is not insignificant.
Your recommendation is valid; how about the following:
Though they recommended digging, CNN reported on March 28 that the Inyo County Sheriff, who questioned the methods they employed with search dogs, had ordered additional tests before any excavation.71.242.159.196 (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think one of the articles mentioned the proximity of the Myers Ranch, and it wouldn't surprise me to hear that they will be investigating further on that property. There was a lot about the first news release that bothered me in how it was executed - such as why Debra Tate was allowed to be there during an official search. In any event, subsequent media questions have led to checking more thoroughly. Your suggested wording is a lot more reflective of the reports as I read them. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A search at Myers Ranch wouldn’t surprise me either. The proximity of Myers was mentioned in the CNN article, presumably to enable the reader to understand the Sheriff’s mention of the place. As for the presence of Debra Tate during the original search: I can’t tell whether the original search was official in any sense, the presence of Dostie notwithstanding. It might simply have been an effort by citizens who had information on which they wanted to act (and that they felt had been ignored). Now, arguably with the help of the Associated Press, they’ve spurred official action; they’ve given the Sheriff cause to act, even if he’s not yet convinced there are bodies buried at Barker. — Anyway — I’ve inserted the revision you more or less approved. You’ll see that, in the sentence about the upcoming test results, I took the liberty of removing the word "expected" — simply because the revision had too many words to begin with.71.242.159.196 (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds quite good to me. It's concise, covers the major points and is thorough. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Parole

It is well understood that Manson has been given life in prison since capital punished was abolished in CA in the seventies. But is there any reason that he is eligible for parole? Shouldn't his sentence been changed simply "life in prison" WITHOUT the eligibility of parole. I think this information is crucial to the article. -silic0nsilence (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that was an option, although I'll defer further information to one of the other editors who are more up to date on his status. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I and others appreciate this. It seems to me that going from death to life without parole seems to make more sense than death to life with chance of parole. Why would CA want to give everyone they were putting to death a chance to return to society? 68.193.84.36 (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Under California law, the change of sentence from death to life imprisonment made Manson eligible to apply for parole after seven years, dated, apparently, either from his conviction or from imposition of his sentence — both of which took place in 1971. This is indicated a page or so from the end of "A Shared Madness," the epilogue of Bugliosi and Gentry's Helter Skelter. In the afterword composed for the book's 1994 edition, it is stated that Manson's first parole hearing took place — on schedule, so to speak — in 1978. (I've just added this information to the article.) Bugliosi and Gentry don't go into the reasoning behind the law. If I had to guess, I would say that the California Supreme Court decision that invalidated the state's death penalty automatically converted already-imposed death sentences to life imprisonment under the terms of whatever life-imprisonment law was then in place -- or had been in place at the time of the commission of the crime.71.242.159.196 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit more info: A footnote (number 45) to the closing sentence of California v. Anderson, the 1972 case that invalidated California’s death penalty, is as follows:

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

I don’t know whether that means the statute that was in place at the time the crime was committed or the statute in place at the time of California v. Anderson. Anyway — I’ve added the information to the article.71.242.159.196 (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

New Album - One Mind

Manson has released a new album called One Mind. It's under a Creative Commons license. I think this is worth mentioning, but I don't know many details (is it a recent recording or is it old material, etc.). Anyone know anything more so we can put it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancelottjones (talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The article's footnote-link to a recordings-list at mansondirect.com indicates that One Mind was released in April 2005 and that it contains music, poetry, and speech that was then new. I've added that information to the sentence about Manson's released recordings.71.242.159.196 (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Belated postscript: Yes, the album was released under a Creative Commons license. The article now notes that fact, which is supported with footnote-links.71.242.115.59 (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Monkees

Is it true that Manson once auditioned for a part in the television series The Monkees ?jeanne (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To me that's doubtful. If you mean for one of the starring roles, then no, it's not possible since the show was cast long before Manson was released from prison. If if was for a bit part, I still doubt it, since the Monkees show ended in early 1968, only a few months after Manson was released from prison. According to searches on Google, this is just another one of those silly urban myths, and in fact, The Monkees article makes mention of the myth. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There is another story I read in Christopher Andersen's biography on Mick Jagger. On page 5, the author states that Manson attended the Stones free concert at Altamont and that Jagger tried to strike up a conversation with Manson. That sounds incredible to me. What do you think?jeanne (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the talk page is for discussing improvements to the Manson article. However, I'll answer your question, since it appears that Andersen hasn't done his homework. If you will check the article on the Altamont Free Concert, you'll see that the Stones concert took place on 6 December 1969. Then if you'll check this article, you'll find that Manson was arrested in October 1969. He hasn't been free since that arrest. In my opinion, this kind of glaring mistake casts doubt on the reliability of Andersen's writing. If, by chance, the information about the Monkees audition was also in Andersen's book, then I'd probably stop reading it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Forgive my faulty memory.I knew the Altamont concert took place on 6 December 1969.It's just that I always had it in my mind that Manson was arrested in early 1970 not October 1969.Had my memory been better I'd have known the book couldn't have been accurate. Anyway,jeanne (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)I cannot imagine Jagger, in the chaos that was Altamont, approaching Charles Manson amongst a crowd of thousands!!

Terry Melcher

I just had another look at the article and I'm confused.It says that Manson met Melcher;then it says that Melcher was meant to come over to hear Manson's recordings but never showed up.Did Melcher ever get the chance to listen to the recordings at a later stage?Manson, in his interview with Geraldo states that he" didn't go to Terry Melcher,Melcher came to "him.So what does that indicate? jeanne (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


The article doesn’t treat the whole of Manson’s involvement with Melcher. Information from various sources is as follows:

Melcher met Manson at Wilson’s house; he met him there twice. (Bugliosi 1994, page 156.) The first time was probably in the summer of 1968. ([http://truthontatelabianca.com//index.php?topic=1699.0 Melcher’s Tate-LaBianca trial testimony.]) On one of the two occasions, Wilson gave Melcher a ride back home to Cielo Drive. Manson came along; he played his guitar and sang in the back seat. Manson and Wilson let Melcher off at the gate. (Bugliosi 1994, pages 156-57.)
After that, Melcher went twice to Spahn Ranch to hear Manson and the girls perform. Melcher was "not enthused" by what he heard. (Bugliosi 1994, page156.)
The first time Melcher went to Spahn Ranch, he went to audition Manson. (Bugliosi 1994, page 185.) This was on May 18, 1969, and was, according to Melcher, at the request or instigation of Melcher’s acquaintance/associate Gregg Jakobson. (Melcher trial testimony.) "[I]t was a Sunday afternoon, and it was a favor to Gregg." (Trial testimony.)
The second time Melcher went to Spahn Ranch, he introduced Manson to a Michael Deasy, who had a mobile recording unit and who Melcher felt might be more interested in recording Manson than he was. (Bugliosi 1994, page 185.) This was "a fews days later," i.e., after the first visit to Spahn. Gregg Jakobson came, too. (Melcher trial testimony.)
Deasy might have gone out to Spahn Ranch a few more times (and possibly even recorded Manson), but Melcher didn’t see Manson after the second visit to the ranch. (Melcher trial testimony.)

To back up:

In early January 1969 — i.e., in between Melcher’s first meeting Manson at Wilson’s house and Melcher’s later visits to Spahn Ranch — the Family began its brief stay at the "Yellow Submarine" (the Canoga Park house, mentioned in the article). (Watkins, Paul, My Life with Charles Manson, Chapter 12.) There, the Family members practiced music for their album to trigger Helter Skelter. (Watkins, Chapter 13)
Before mid-March, while still ensconced at the Yellow Submarine, the Family got the impression Melcher had promised to come to the house to hear their music. (Paul Watkins, who reports this, does not quite make clear how this impression arose.) The group prepared for the visit. They waited all afternoon, but Melcher did not arrive or call. Manson was seething: "That motherf***er’s word isn’t worth a plugged nickel." (Watkins, Chapter 13.)
This supposed non-appearance of Melcher is also mentioned by Tex Watson in Will You Die for Me? Watson was apart from the Family for three months, from December 1968 to March 1969; he seems to have heard about the non-appearance after he returned to the Family. He states that Manson's "version of events" was that Melcher had promised to come. (Will You Die for Me?, Chapter 11) "Once again Terry Melcher had failed Charlie. More than ever, Terry Melcher — in his house at the top of Cielo Drive, with his power and his money — was the focus for the bitterness and sense of betrayal that the Family felt for all those phony Hollywood hippies who kept silencing the truth Charlie had to share." (Watson, Chapter 11.)

Note that Melcher’s supposed non-appearance at Canoga Park — as well as Manson’s March 23, 1969, call at Cielo Drive (mentioned in the article) — take place before Melcher’s eventual visits to Spahn Ranch (in May 1969). Manson's abortive call at Cielo Drive, in other words, does not, in fact, mark the end of his involvement with Melcher.

Also from Bugliosi 1994:

"According to various Family members, Melcher had made numerous promises to Manson, and hadn’t come through on them. Melcher denied this: the first time he went to Spahn, he had given Manson fifty dollars, all the money he had in his pocket, because 'I felt sorry for these people'; but it was for food, not an advance on a recording contract; and he’d made no promises." (Bugliosi, page 185.) He "wasn’t impressed enough" with Manson’s talent to prepare and record him. (Page 185 also.)

In speaking with Susan Atkins at Sybil Brand Institute, Atkins’s dorm-mate Virginia Graham got the impression Manson and his group "were hostile toward Melcher, that he was too interested in money." (Bugliosi 1994, page 87.)

On the other hand:

According to Ed Sanders (in The Family, 2002 edition), Rudi Altobelli, as well as John Philips of The Mamas & The Papas, made statements that indicated Melcher — not just Wilson and Jakobson — spoke enthusiastically of Manson. (Sanders, pages 61-62.)

Sanders places Melcher’s second visit to Spahn Ranch on June 3, 1969 (Sanders, page 135) — i.e., more than a "few days" after the first visit, of May 18. Sanders also quotes Candice Bergen’s autobiography to the effect that Melcher had spoken favorably of what he’d heard of Manson and the girls: he had supposedly spoken of "soft, simple girls; sitting naked around this Christlike guy, all singing sweetly together." Melcher supposedly asked Bergen if she wanted to come to the ranch. (She declined.) Sanders, page 136.

Bergen, as you probably know, was Melcher’s girlfriend, who lived with him at Cielo Drive. According to Sanders, Bergen said, in her autobiography, that, in January 1969, Melcher abruptly — and without explanation — instigated the couple’s move from Cielo Drive to the Malibu home of his mother (Doris Day). (Sanders, page 116.)

I haven't read the Bergen autobiography.71.242.115.59 (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: At the beginning of the article's subsection headed "Crowe shooting; Hinman murder," I've noted Melcher's two visits to Spahn Ranch.71.242.115.59 (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Post-postscript: On page 133 of The Family (2002 edition), Sanders states the following:

People interviewed in the Family claim that [on May 18, during the first visit to Spahn Ranch,] Melcher told Manson he’d have to sign some contracts … with one of Melcher’s publishing companies. But Charlie was very much against signing contracts. Too plastic, man. He just wanted the money.

Melcher’s trial testimony, as linked above, is missing a page on which this subject — of Melcher’s discussion with Manson re contracts — is first addressed. Accordingly, I don’t know how Melcher said the subject of contracts came up. There is the following exchange, between Melcher and Vincent Bugliosi, who is asking the questions:

Q. Now, when you were telling Mr. Manson about the guild or union, and contracts and royalties, were you telling him this in the context that you were personally interested in recording him and there were things that you wanted him to do, or were you giving him general advice?
A. General advice.
Q. You were not telling him these things in the context that you wanted him to do these things for you?
A. No, I told him about--well--
Q. You can answer that yes or no.
A. Well, to do that I will have to get into what I was just about to talk about, and that is the recording trailer.
Q. Yes, I will get into that, Mr. Melcher. I am asking you now, you were not tellling him these things in about guilds and contracts and royalties in the context that you were interested in him and this is what you wanted him to do for you, is that correct?
A. No.
Q. That is not correct?
A. No, I'm sorry--yes, that's correct, I was giving him general advice, yes.

A short while later, after Melcher has described the second Spahn Ranch visit, on which he brought Michael Deasy, there is the following exchange:

Q. After this second audition, which basically was for the benefit of Mr. Deasy, I take it; correct?
A. Solely for the benefit of Mr. Deasy.
Q. After the second audition, did you explain to Mr. Manson the benefits of any association he might have with Mr. Deasy?
A. Yes. I think I explained that the reason for bringing Deasy out there was the fact that he could record him right there and record exactly what was going on, you know.
Q. And did you explain--go ahead--I'm sorry.
A. And record exactly what was going on there at the ranch, instead of going into a studio in Holywood, which involves unions and guilds and a lot of other things, a lot of papers.
Q. You explained to Mr. Manson, the, that Deasy was the only way that Manson could get around the necessity of joining a guild and entering into contracts, et cetera, is that correct?
A. The only way that I knew of, yes.
Q. You told Mr. Manson this?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know if anything materialized between Deasy and Manson thereafter?
A. I think Mike Deasy went to the ranch a few more times, and he may have recorded him, and he may not.
Q. You don't know?
A. I am not sure.
Q. You have never recorded Manson; is that correct?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. And you have never made any film of him?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. After this second occasion that you went to Spahn Ranch, which was a couple of days after May 18th, 1969, did you ever see Mr. Manson thereafter?
A. No.71.242.115.59 (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Post-post-postscript: Sanders reports that a friend of Dennis Wilson’s was at the apartment where Bernard Crowe was shot (July 1, 1969, as mentioned in the article). The friend called Wilson; and the news of the shooting apparently got to Melcher, maybe through Gregg Jakobson. Sanders, who does not provide his source for any of this information, raises the possibility that this caused the final break of any plans Melcher might have had to deal with Manson. (See Sanders 2002, pages 148-49 and page 155.)

After raising that possibility, Sanders states the following (again: without providing his source):

One day Manson asked Jakobson if Terry had a green spyglass set up outside of his beach house in Malibu.
"Yes," Jakobson replied.
"Well, he doesn’t now," chortled Charlie. (Sanders 2002, page 155.)

In Melcher’s trial testimony (again: linked above), there is this:

Q. Were you living in Malibu, Terry, during the summer months of 1969?
A. Yes.
Q. At the same address [that you moved to after you left Cielo Drive]?
A. That's right.
Q. Did you have a telescope at your beach house?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Was it green?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you call it a green spyglass?
A. Well, I called it a green telescope, I guess, or a spyglass.
Q. Where was this green telescope located?
A. I had a deck in front of the house, and it was sitting on the deck. By the front of the house, I mean on the beach side.
Q. The ocean side?
A. Yes.
Q. The beach side of the house?
A. Right.
Q. Did this telescope ever disappear during the summer of 1969?
A. Yes, it did. Sometime in either July or early August. Sometime in July or August.
Q. Either late July 1969 or early August 1969, the telescope disappeared?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How do you place it as late July or early August?
A. Well, I knew that I had it on the 4th of July because I had a party that day, that night, and everyone was using it to watch--there was a sailing regatta, you know. So that is why I know for sure that the telescope was there, you know.
Q. You have never gotten the telescope back?
A. No.

Note that July 4 — a date on which Melcher knew he still had the spyglass — is after the Crowe shooting (July 1, to note it again).

After recounting the supposed spyglass conversation between Manson and Jakobson, Sanders states the following (again providing no source):

Manson began to become infuriated with Melcher. He was welching on his commitments. One day, Manson sent Leslie and another girl to Malibu Canyon to see Melcher. Melcher wouldn’t see them but talked to them through the intercom at the door. "They used to talk about kidnapping him," [Family member] Kitty Lutesinger remembered. (Sanders 2002, page 155.)

In Melcher’s trial testimony, there is this:

Q [from defense attorney Paul Fitzgerald, who is cross-examining]. Were you aware of girl friends of Mr. Manson that lived near you on the beach?
A. No, were there?

Note that Sanders doesn’t say the girls lived near Melcher.

On page 133 of The Family, Sanders suggests, subtly, that, in testifying, Melcher was not entirely forthcoming about his level of involvement with, or interest in, Manson. He mentions the Fifty Dollars that Melcher gave Manson on the day of the first visit to Spahn Ranch (mentioned, too, in Bugliosi 1994, at page 185, as noted above.) Quoting Melcher less than completely, he writes the following:

"I hope it wasn’t construed as an advance on a recording," Melcher later testified at the Manson trial where he tried to assert he never ran around with the Family.

As linked above, the transcript of the testimony is actually as follows:

Q [from Vincent Bugliosi]. Did you give Mr. Manson any money that day, May 18, 1969?
A. Yes.
Q. How much did you give him?
A. Everything I had in my pocket, I think about fifty bucks. That was like, you know, they seemed to need it, you know.
Q. When you say they, you are referring to Mr. Manson and the group there at Spahn Ranch?
A. Yeah, I assume, or I hope it was not construed as an advance on a recording or something like that.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Manson that day that you were willing to record him commercially?
A. No.

Lastly, I’ll mention this, also from Melcher’s testimony:

Q [from Paul Fitzgerald, defense attorney]. Do you recall the last time you saw Charlie Manson?
A. Yeah, just a few days--
Q. Aside from today.
A. Yeah, just a few days after May 18th.
Q. And what was that, do you recall?
A. I was at the ranch again. I came back with this other fellow, Deasy, I mentioned, within two or three days I think.
Q. And the last time you saw Mr. Manson were your relations with him pleasant and cordial?
A. Yeah, I hope so. I was bringing someone over to help him out or help him get recorded. I think he did record him as a matter of fact, I'm not sure.71.242.115.59 (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Addition of section "Atkins report"

A section discussing the contrasts between Watson and Atkins accounts of the Tate murders was added and I expressed my concern about the focus of it to the author here. Discussion of it occurred above and response here and afterwards, I am removing that section that doesn't seem to quite fit into the voice of the article. I'm making note of this here if there are any questions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Manson. The man who killed the 60's.

This art is my copyright. Created by Mark Hanau for Apex Pictures/AIP Films. Aimulti (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good, however, it doesn't serve to contribute anything to this article. It's a conceptual art piece and as such is a POV unsupported statement. It has no mention in the article nor relevance to what it purports to illustrate. It really doesn't belong in the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Beatle view

At 13:29, 10 May 2008, a sentence in the article’s "Helter Skelter" subsection was revised to indicate that Manson was obsessed with the Beatles. Before the revision, the sentence had indicated he was "all but obsessed" with the group. The revision's summary was as follows:

It’s not true that Manson was "all but obsessed" with the Beatles. He WAS [sic] obsessed with them.

Capitalization of the word was is not research. Pertinent information is as follows:

According to former inmates at McNeil, Manson’s interest in the Beatles was almost an obsession. It didn’t necessarily follow that he was a fan. There was more than a little jealousy in his reaction. He told numerous people that, given the chance, he could be much bigger than the Beatles. One person he told this to was Alvin Karpis, lone survivor of the Ma Barker gang. (Bugliosi and Gentry, Helter Skelter, 1994, page 145.)
Alvin Karpis of the Barker Gang remembers it: "He was constantly telling people he could come on like the Beatles, if he got the chance. Kept asking me to fix him up with with high-power men like Frankie Carbo and Dave Beck; anyone who could book him into the big time when he got out." (Sanders, The Family, 2002, page 11. Sanders does not give the quotation’s source, which I’ll guess is a Karpis biography I vaguely remember seeing. I don’t think the quote is in Karpis’s book On the Rock, whose 1980 edition I've given a look.)
In December of 1967 the Beatles released their album Magical Mystery Tour and their corresponding movie, based on a psychedelic bus tour through the English countryside late in the Summer of Love. The Beatles to the rescue. This seems to be the first Beatles album from which Manson drew philosophical guidance. The whole black bus trip came to be called "The Magical Mystery Tour." They were into such a trip of mystic transformation that the Family evidently believed that there was an archetypal core personality in each human that could be discovered through acid-zap, mind-moil, role-playing, bunch-punching, magic, blasting-the-past and commune-ism. This was the Magical Mystery Tour. (Sanders, The Family, 2002, page 27.)
From the beginning, Charlie believed the Beatles’ music carried an important message — to us. He said their album The Magical Mystery Tour expressed the essence of his own philosophy. Basically, Charlie’s trip was to program us all to submit: to give up our egos, which, in a spiritual sense, is a lofty aspiration. As rebels within a materialistic, decadent culture, we could dig it. We were ripe for it. I know I was. (Watkins and Soledad, My Life with Charles Manson, 1979, Chapter 4)
From the day I joined the Family, Charlie referred to the Beatles as "the soul," and later even called them part of "the hole in the infinite." Certainly the group had affected (and directed to some extent) the early Family philosophy; their album Magical Mystery Tour set the tempo of our entire trip during the early days: the idea that life is what you make it; that you’re free to be what you are, so long as you submit to the forces inside you: "turn off your mind, relax and float downstream." (Watkins and Soledad, My Life with Charles Manson, 1979, Chapter 12. "Turn off your mind, relax, and float downstream" is, incidentally, from "Tomorrow Never Knows," which is on Revolver, not Magical Mystery Tour.)

Those quotations support a statement that Manson was "all but obsessed" with the group. I don’t think it can safely be said they indicate he was actually obsessed, whatever that might mean. If any other editor has other information or reacts differently to the above, maybe he or she will comment here. In the meantime, I am going to undo the revision.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


Postscript:

Just remembered another source, the 1989 Paul Watkins interview on Larry King Live, guest-hosted by Maureen Reagan. Watkins speaks with a man who calls into the show:

Caller: I was wondering if you could tell me how obsessed was this man with the Beatles and did the release of the Beatles’ White Album have anything to do with the way this man was thinking at the time?
Reagan: Okay. Paul, did you hear the question?
Watkins: Yes, I did, Maureen, thank you. Yes, that’s -- He was very obsessed with the Beatles. At that one point when the all-white album came out, it seemed like the whole scene started to escalate into Helter Skelter and the pigs who had to be killed off….

The change from "all but obsessed" to "obsessed" is legitimate, especially since the editor who made the revision also broadened the text, making it more than a reference merely to Manson’s reaction to the Beatles at the time of their first American appearance. I’m going to leave the revision but add a footnote-link to a transcript of the Larry King Live appearance.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Swastika Tattoo

I think someone should post some information on Manson's swastika tattoo, such as where he got it, when he got it, and why he got it. Noitanod (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The swastika was just an adaptation of the X he put in his forehead during the trial and it's actually backwards. It's not an important facet in the life of this man, and it certainly isn't relevant to his infamy. Essentially, running down his tattoo history is trivia and well beyond the focus of this article. I'm firmly against exploring this in the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I completely disagree. The image of Manson with the swastika on his forehead is iconic. It is in fact the single thing that would enable many, if not most, people to recognize Manson in a photo. Noitanod is right: a few lines on the topic is entirely appropriate for an encylopedia article. Furthermore, the original 'X' on his forehead is certainly notable as part of the trial proceedings and is rightly already included in the article. 82.36.240.97 (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It's hardly what leads people to recognize Manson in a photo. Actually, in most photos, his forehead is covered by hair. Since he's been in prison since October 1969, it's obvious he got it in prison. If you actually have information about why he got it, then by all means, post it here and it can be determined whether this is important or if it is trivia. To my knowledge, there isn't information out there about why he did it, or that he's ever discussed it. To determine when he got it would require original research, and that's not allowable. A tattoo on a convicted murderer isn't, in my opinion, relevant to a discussion of what makes him notable and as far as I'm concerned, it's trivia. But if you have that info, enlighten us. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I cannot think of a single other famous individual who has a swastika tatooed on their forehead. Therefore, I actually don't see how you can argue that it does not help people recognize him. I'm just a casual reader here because of the recent news items. The only reason I ended up on the discussion page was because I was interested to read about the 'X' mark and why he did it and then surprised when there was no mention of the famous tatoo. If he had some random little picture tatooed on his arm, yes that's trivial. I'm not saying it warrants a discussion, I'm just saying it's notable and should be mentioned. I would also be amazed if no interviewer had ever asked him about it. 82.36.240.97 (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It's notable and should be mentioned. No more than 1 sentence, IMO. Tempshill (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
He claimed in an interview to have carved it on his forehead as a protest against the prison regime and / or society in general (he constantly speaks in generalisations and metaphors), because "world war 2 never ended" and "San Quentin" was "a concentration camp" IIRC. I will try and source these quotes in his Youtube interviews and add a bit to the article about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.254.215 (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here, at a site called murderauction.com, is a page auctioning supposed Manson correspondence including "Charlie’s thorough and heartfelt reply to an inquiry from a college student asking why he chose to have a swastika symbol forever branded on his brow." The auction is scheduled from July 12 to July 19, 2008, but no date is indicated for the correspondence itself. I have no way of evaluating the item’s authenticity. The webpage offers the following transcription:

This Swastika to me is four of them (4 L’s) ... a wheel, a sun circle, a teepee pole — a symbol for complete all, forever: Dad, chief, knowing peace, friendship, truth, wisdom. I was in a cell with a man whose name was "walks on top". He was a big man in a lot of ways and he had it (the Swastika) on his head and the cell was an all Indian cell and they always asked any others to leave, but when I went in they never kicked me out. I think it was because I had been in all my life and never ratted or lied and the truth knows itself in a lot of ways ... so when I was going to court and a lot of killing was going on, I marked all my heads. Not my heads like mimes, but ones who were in the same sweet Air, Trees, Water and Animals as my life. It’s for sweat lodges — San Quentin sweat lodge is L #1 — Folsom sweat is L# 2 — C.M.F.(Vacaville) # 3 L — and now here (Corcoran) is the fourth wheel that spirit brought down from death row. I was impressed by the 6000 Germans who were hung because they wouldn’t sign the papers ... I haven’t either. Soul, you know the eyes are your windows ... what you see is in your knowledge — a lot comes and goes but you are forever — it’s a symbol of the people who have never been beaten. They have lost but never has it ever been beaten because you can’t beat what’s right. Right just goes on, on another level. I guess the sun symbol — the Buddha used it like two Swastikas ... two of them as one. Hindus use it, the Indians and it’s been used by just about everyone — people put it on Hitler but Hitler put himself on it — I think in Japan it’s 500 — when I picked it up, it was with me at the bottom, broken and unwanted. So I took it from the last cell at the bottom. I believe it’s a symbol of honor. When I was going to juvenile court in the 1940’s, World War II ended and they were putting men on trial for about 3 years and hanging all kinds of men from Germany and Japan and they were saying they were crooks and war was a crime and I was just coming into being a person — my soul was moved to do things — I set the school on fire and I was in a war from places in my mind that I did not understand, then I woke up. A holy war never stops, a people can be wiped up but the truth can’t be stopped — stopped for the personalities or egos, or face play, but to the soul it’s just another blink of the eye in the struggle to be right. It’s not easy to find out what right is — all the wrong keeps it hidden and they teach lies so that even your own thoughts are not always as they once were ... in forever, so back to forever in Swastika. C. Manson
P.S. I believe The Germans and the Japanese were trying to fix the earth and do right and were destroyed just like the Americans. It’s a hard line to walk to be truthful, because all the lies and confusion are always trying to destroy any right, because they feel like that’s gonna make them right — it’s a struggle. C. Manson

I’ve seen an internet statement that Manson’s swastika is a scar, not a tattoo; I don’t know whether that’s true. Worth mentioning is that, in forecasting Helter Skelter, Manson invoked, among other things, the Book of Revelation's Chapter 9, Verse 4:

And it was commanded [that the locusts] should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

See Bugliosi and Gentry, Helter Skelter, 1994, page 239.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: I’ve encountered no source that indicates when Manson acquired the swastika — or whether he still has it. From YouTube clips, I’ve concluded he had it — or at least some version of it — at least as early as the Tom Snyder interview, which supposedly dates to 1981. (That’s the year presently given in the article, but there’s no source for it.)

The swastika is also in clips of what appear to be Manson’s 1986, 1992, and 1997 parole hearings. Because I don’t know much about Wikipedia’s rule against "original research," I can’t say whether the rule would be violated by a paragraph such as the following:

At least as early as his 1981 interview with Tom Snyder, Manson sported a swastika, carved or tattooed on his forehead, where the X carved during his trial was positioned. The mark is also visible at his 1986, 1992, and 1997 parole hearings; it was included in South Park’s cartoon of him.

Such a paragraph could be placed in a subsection headed "Swastika tattoo," at the end of "Manson and Culture" (i.e., at the article's close). Comments above suggest to me that, for many persons, the swastika tattoo is synonymous with Manson; I would not be surprised to learn that many persons come to the article specifically for information about it. The article should mention it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

I'm reviewing the article for GA, and I can tell at 91k it is entirely too long. The usual guide to split an article is 50k, but I can understand that this subject is extraordinarily notorious and may justify 70k. I suggest splitting the article, condensing or just removing some of the information. I know this may be painful to do as it appears to be very well-researched. I'll give a more thorough review soon. --Moni3 (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that "Tate-LaBianca" redirects here. I suggest creating an article for the murders, and shifting the majority of information about them there. Within this article, they can be summarized in one or two paragraphs and a main article designation. Another article titled "Charles Manson in popular culture" could also be warranted. --Moni3 (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

While I think we could work on some condensation of the material included, we've been extraordinarily careful in containing the two small sections to only that which involves the use of his music and image and how Manson impacted culture in general. I think that spinning those small sections into another article would invite rampant trivia additions which wouldn't benefit anything. What we have in those two sections is what would essentially represent a summarization that would remain here anyway. Thoughts? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me just say that the analogy I'm about to give I could never in a million years image making. I am the principal author of the article on To Kill a Mockingbird, that went to FAC at 73k, and people commented that it was too long. It has spawned a characters article, a film article, a popular culture article, and one on Atticus Finch. There's no way I could possibly keep up with all the whatnot people add to its satellite articles. There's only so much you can do. Splitting it was an idea to keep you from having to delete. TKAM was once 91k, and I went through and cut and moved and cut and deleted and cut, and every last instance of it was almost physically painful.
What you might want to do is copy the Manson article to a sandbox, cut what you don't think is necessary (and often that's where helpful peer reviewers can assist), to illustrate what made Manson into who he is. Then read the article in the sandbox for clarity and comprehensiveness. I hesitate to suggest you include more information, but perhaps strong words from Tate's surviving family members (who attended all of his parole hearings, as well as those of his conspirators), the LaBianca's children, and recently repentant Krenwinkle and van Houten would assist in quashing the zealous who would be lured into adding trivia. --Moni3 (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have copied this to a page in my user space to work on, but it is going to take time to do credit to the article and JohnBonaccorsi's fine research work. Hopefully the GA review can be put on hold in anticipation of this. Might I ask what an acceptable size would be? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The guidelines state that 50k is where splitting should be considered, but I think 70k is a better guideline for this article. Since some rewriting has to be done, let me find out if a hold is enough or that inherently makes the article unstable. How long are you anticipating the rewrite will take? --Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
With my schedule, I think a week. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the nod to my research — but I see no point in summarizing the article so that somebody somewhere will deem it one of Wikipedia’s Good Articles. Do we get a gold star? I have seen the article reposted in toto at several internet spots. The other day, for instance, I encountered it under the heading "The Full Background on Charles Manson"; elsewhere, I’ve seen it broken down into a timeline. Manson summaries are all over the internet and are generally inaccurate and unintelligible, as Wikipedia’s article was about a year ago. There is no dearth of web-references to Manson’s time "in and out of reform schools" or his "courtroom antics" or whatever. In its present form, the Wikipedia article is without any of that; it consolidates information from many primary sources and presents the entire story, from Manson’s birth to his years since the murders, clearly and chronologically. As for the many wonderful Wikipedia articles that will be spawned if the article is reduced in size: I’ve seen some of what’s written at Wikipedia’s other Manson-related pieces — the Family-member biographies, for instance. They are rife with inaccuracies. I recommend that the GA nomination be withdrawn and abandoned and that we be pleased that persons who come to Wikipedia for information on the subject will get plenty of it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And with that, I give up and am removing the article from my watchlist. Withdraw it, it is obviously not my article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I fulfilled your request, Wildhartlivie, but I don't know why it was necessary. There are awful articles all over Wikipedia about very important topics, and editors work at them to make sure they are both comprehensive and encyclopedic; that is to say, an accurate and engaging summary. I've chosen Everglades as one. It was an astounding 3 paragraphs when I started, and it will be 6 full articles when I'm finished. And articles are posted on mirror sites pretty regularly, regardless of quality. I still find the To Kill a Mockingbird article posted places in the state it was in before I started improving it. So, there it is... --Moni3 (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to repost this here, so that it is clear why I am stepping away from this. I asked that the GA nomination be withdrawn because this is the second time I've attempted to take it to GA only to be met with problems in doing so. The first time, in November, was done when the article was fairly stable and as soon as I nominated it, two editors embarked on what was close to being an edit war over relatively trivial wording issues. This time, with JohnBonaccorsi stating very clearly he was opposed to trimming or revising the article in any way, I realize that any attempts to edit it down will result in the same. It's a really good article, it's well researched, but it would fail on its own merit once I started cutting the bulk down because he would come along and object. It's not worth the headache to me to go through this again. It's also obvious to me that there is a bit of an ownership issue with it, but not on my part. I've put lots of hours in on the article too, but I give up. I can't take the stress. Thanks for your attempt to help, Moni3. John, I don't know what you think Wikipedia goals are, but crafting articles to an ultimate featured article status is the primary one. The suggestions that were made for this GAN were suggestions. The same size guidelines could be met by condensation of some of the more rampant wordiness into simpler prose and crafting it more toward Manson and less of the family, since it is primarily a Manson article. On my workpage of the article, I cut 5kb out by simply removing the incessant internal notes. It's obvious the effort that I have put into the article has no meaning, so I'll leave you to "your" article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie —

1 — I object to your characterization of the edit war I had with BassPlyr23 — whose name, I've since learned, is Mike. Although the conflict extended to matters of wording — trivial or otherwise — its focus was the facts of the Tate and LaBianca killings. A quick search through the internet will confirm that those facts are routinely misstated, even by prestigious news sources; I ensured they were stated properly in the Wikipedia article. Anyone interested in the details should consult the archives of this talk page to see the great amount of source material I transcribed to support individual statements of fact.
2 — I should think Wikipedia's primary goal is to avoid being just one more of the internet's innumerable repositories of info-junk, although I can't say that the Manson article, as I encountered it a year or so ago, was evidence of that. I recall seeing some sort of Wikipedia "purpose statement" that indicated that Wikipedia is intended to present articles that link the world's information sources; the Manson article presently has, I'd guess, nearly two-hundred-fifty footnotes, several of which include carefully-presented links to primary sources. Inasmuch as all but a very-small handful of those have been contributed by me, I'm going to argue that I've demonstrated an adequate understanding of Wikipedia's goals.
3 — Is the article too long? To me, it certainly seems that it is; I was not at all surprised that its length was the first thing that drew attention when you nominated it for Good Article. In originally reworking the article, I succeeded in limiting it to 50k. When other editors began adding to it, I devoted myself simply to ensuring that the information they were contributing was accurate and well-referenced — which, considering that they generally offered no footnotes at all, was a bit of a chore. (Wearyingly enough, that effort — including my careful assembling of source information in support of statements of fact — continues, as may be seen by anyone who will consult "Beatle view," on the present talk-page.)
4 — The work you undertook at the time of the article’s first GA nomination, a few months ago, was primarily reference-reorganization. Much of it was footnote-reformatting via those "name=Watson12" codes that allow multiple references to one source to be consolidated as a single note. Throughout your effort, I instantly assisted you with additional information and footnotes you needed; I don’t recall that you then made snide comments about "ownership issues."
5 — As I say, I recognize that the article is long. I also recognize that summarizing is not as easy as some persons seem to think it is. I notice that Moni3, the editor with whom you and I have been having the present exchange about the GA nomination, has made some summary statements of fact. She has said that Tate’s surviving family members have "attended all of [Manson’s] parole hearings, as well as those of his conspirators." Really? Which surviving family members? Which parole hearings? Let’s not worry about that; we’re summarizing. And, gee, I seem to recall encountering, somewhere on the internet, a statement to the effect that one of Tate’s family members — mayber her now-dead mother — remarked that it was some time before she decided she should attend the parole hearings of the parties other than Manson. Should I check that out? Why? We're summarizing (i.e., being "encyclopedic," don'cha know). My concern with such — what's the word? — trivial things is an obvious indication that I don’t know Wikipedia's goals.
6 — The article is presently an accurate statement of fact. If I may be blunt, I’m no longer sure the footnotes are entirely accurate. I vaguely recall that recently, in examining some element of the article, I noticed that one of the footnotes you had reformatted with the "name=whatever" code was somehow mismatched with the statement it supposedly supported. In other words, the Bugliosi pages that were indicated in the footnote had nothing to do with the statement to which they were attached.
7 — Yes, I’m aware that the "suggestions that were made for this GAN were suggestions." Suggestions generally are. Similarly, my recommendation that the GA nomination be abandoned was — a recommendation. I have not stopped you from doing anything. I notice that Moni3 — who, I gather, is like you in understanding Wikipedia’s goals — has suggested that, in redoing the article, you include "strong words" from Tate’s surviving family members, as well as from the "LaBianca’s [sic] children" and "recently-repentant" [?] "Krenwinkle" [sic] and Van Houten. This, we are told, might "quash" something or other. If you knew Wikipedia's goals, you would have been outraged by that statement, which reveals an inclination to turn the article into a mass of trite tendentiousness of the sort that is the basis of most of Wikipedia’s gripping talk-page chatter.
8 — "Manson Family" redirects to the Manson article; I think it is very helpful that the article treats the whole subject.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, John, you've just proven my points. Anything I have done on the page has been summarized as trivial, inaccurate and definitely not appreciated. And to set the record straight, there was one issue of an error I made, which was to have typed "watkins" rather than "watson." I spent three days painstakingly going through the Bugliosi footnotes, individually, to condense them. You misrepresent my efforts, which have also extended to wording and organization, and cast doubt on the entire veracity of the article due to my presence. The fact is, John, you do have ownership issues with this article and have made that very clear in your response. I most assuredly could go ahead with changes, but I have seen what occurs each and every time someone makes a small change or addition to the page. You invariably come in and challenge or rewrite it. For example, the change this weekend, where an editor removed the words "all but" from the phrase "Manson was all but obsessed." Regardless that you backtracked on your objection, it still was immediately changed. As I said, I'm leaving you to your article, feel free to remove my vast sea of errors. I recall reading a note from the other editor which concerned not trying to win a Pulitzer Prize. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You will notice that, in "backtracking" on my objection, I assembled information that supported the revision; then I fashioned an appropriate footnote — as the editor who made the revision should have. I invariably challenge or rewrite what is careless or false.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Postscript: And, in fact, I did not "immediately change" the revision. I didn't change it at all. After objecting to it on the present page, I was careful to do a bit more research, which resulted in the footnote by which I graciously supported another editor's unsupported change. In short: you're a liar.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
1. Okay, you didn't change it, but you immediately objected to it. 2. I would strongly advise you to tone back your comments and remove the personal attack. It's your article, John, you've managed to accomplish that. You wrote it. You are the only one who knows anything about Manson, Wikipedia and writing an article for it. Have at it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know anything about Manson at all; a year or so ago, I would have been hard-put to name his co-defendants. That's why, unlike most of the article's other contributors, I've had to turn to research. It's helped in a way.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my statement that the article seems too long to me. I point out, too, that, as far as I can tell, an article's byte-count includes its footnotes, not just the text proper. Accordingly, the greater the care that editors take in sourcing statements, the more quickly those editors push an article toward the 50k guideline-limit. That is a Wikipedia defect I noticed early on. Presently, the Manson article has hardly a clause that is not footnoted; two or more footnotes in support of any one statement are not unusual.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Byte-count test

At Wikipedia’s “Sandbox” – a childishly-named page at which, to my unwarranted astonishment, I was quickly interfered with by vandals and by persons whose motivation I do not know – I attempted to determine how many of the article’s bytes are represented by footnotes. Before I was forced to give up, I got to the end of the subsection headed "Crowe shooting; Hinman murder." That’s a bit more than a third of the way through the article. I was working quickly and, as I say, suffered interference; but my results were these:

Article’s size up to "Crowe" subsection: 34,566 bytes
Footnotes up to "Crowe" subsection: 7,686 bytes

That’s more than a fifth of the article – about 22 percent -- in the form of footnotes. The percentage might well go up in the article’s remainder, which includes several footnotes with links that include long newspaper headlines and the like.

In running this experiment, I discovered that the article doesn’t contain a footnote for nearly every clause, as I stated above; but I still wouldn’t be surprised if 22 percent is well above the pertinent average.

The article’s overall count was 94,215 bytes, of which 22 percent would be 20,916. That puts the non-footnote byte-count at 73299, although, as I say, the count could well be lower than that.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Astonishing numbers

I have just taken a look at Wikipedia's article on The Beatles. I chose it more or less at random, simply as a subject that is connected to Manson and that is about equal in, let us say, general prominence to him. The article is 84,761 bytes. It has 119 individually-numbered footnotes, some of which are multiples, by which I mean the type that represent several individual notes that share a "name=[whatever]" code. Naturally, it's hard to count such things by eye as one scrolls down through a list of them; but the total number of footnotes appears to be about 132.

Earlier in this discussion, I estimated that the Manson article has "nearly two-hundred-fifty" footnotes. I was a little bit off. Would anyone care to know the actual number?

The Manson article has 183 individually-numbered footnotes; but of course, many of those, too, are multiples. Again — it's hard to scroll through the list and count them; but the total number of footnotes appears to be:

386

I'm going to spell that out: Three hundred eighty-six.

On the basis of all of those numbers, plus the information I gained from the "Sandbox" test I ran on the Manson byte-count, I'm going to guess that, in terms of text proper, the Beatles article and the Manson article are about the same size. In fact, the Beatles article might be a bit longer. At the same time, the Manson article is sourced about three times as densely, so to speak. Large parts of the Beatles article appear to have no footnotes at all; and in fact, one of its sections is headed by a "needs citations" tag.

And do you know what? Well — I really don't know how Wikipedia works; but if I understand the lists on this page, The Beatles is a Good Article.

In the light of all of that, the suggestion that the Manson article must now be revamped — summarized — to win the coveted Good Article laurel is, to put it mildly, insupportable.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Article size

The pertinent WP policy regarding this issue is here and says "Specifically, for stylistic purposes, readable prose excludes: External links, Further reading, References, Footnotes, See also, and similar sections; Table of contents, tables, list-like sections, and similar content; and markup, interwiki links, URLs and similar formatting. To quickly estimate readable prose size, click on the printable version of the page, select all, copy, paste into an edit window, delete remaining items not counted in readable prose, and hit preview to see the page size warning." The number of references and space taken up by that isn't considered. It also gives instructions on how to check the count excluding references, external links and similar sections. AndToToToo (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If I've tallied it correctly, the article's readable prose is 57 KB.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I got 59. Just for curiosity's sake, I checked The Beatles article the same way and it was 55kb. A large amount of the additional space usage for that article is being taken up by photos, references, templates and books. The other mentioned article, To Kill a Mockingbird comes in at 50 kb. AndToToToo (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
In tallying the readable prose, I
(1) copied the page's printable version into an edit window
(2) eliminated everything except the text proper (from "Charles Milles Manson (born November 12, 1934) is..." to the last word of the last subsection ("Documentaries"))
(3) went through the text and deleted each of what must have been approximately three-hundred eighty-six bracketed footnote numbers (e.g., "[1]").
Did you take that last step? I see now, by the way, that I should also have eliminated the hidden notes, of which there are quite a few.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
By coincidence, I've just seen that another editor says that the hidden notes amount to 5 KB. If that's true, and if my tally is right, the readable prose is 52 KB.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I just checked: The hidden notes are not part of the printable version, so I'm back to 57 KB. As far as I know, the only things I didn't eliminate are the little "[edit]" brackets. It might happen that elimination of them would take the count below whatever dividing line the software uses between 56 and 57 KB; but basically, unless I've made a mistake, that's the range.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure how article size would be considered in comparing the print page method vs. simply opening the page to find the kb count. In the print method, hidden notes won't effect the article size, since they aren't included in the print text, in the same way that the text for a reference doesn't show. I don't think the 2 kb variance between your count and mine is significant enough to matter. However, 386 reference markers would use a little over 2100 keystrokes, which amounts to approximately 2 kb, so that would account for it. My response would be that some minor rewording would bring the byte count down without sacrificing content, although I honestly am only offering that as an observation. AndToToToo (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has given me a suggestion that the article be broken up into smaller articles. I've responded that (a) that might be a good idea, (b) I'd been thinking similarly, and (c) maybe the article can be broken up even a bit more than he has suggested. Because I haven't yet heard back from him, I won't get into details; he might prefer to bring the suggestion to this page himself.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Postscript: I've let the other editor know that, though I'd planned to say nothing about his suggestion until I would hear from him, I decided to remark on it after I read the helpful suggestion above about rewording the article to reduce the article's size. I've let him know exactly what I said and have told him that I posted the remark simply to relieve the tension on this page.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to go with Wildhartlive- the article is a hodgepodge of poor writing and useless detail- not very encyclopedic at all.TuppenceABag (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
That does not represent in any way what I said about the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Revamp

The other editor has suggested I proceed with the article's breakup, as he and I have discussed it. He had recommended a three-part division:

1 — Charles Manson
2 — Manson Family
3 — Tate-LaBianca Murders

I suggested a possible fourth article:

4 — Trial of Charles Manson

I personally am prepared to proceed with such a breakup, although I would require several days — maybe even two weeks or more — to source and craft introductory material and the like. ("The trial of Charles Manson and three of his female followers for the murder of actress Sharon Tate and others was the longest and most-expensive trial in California history up to its time" — or whatever the facts are.) Additionally, I'd have to acquaint or reacquaint myself with some of the procedures for creating new pages etc.

Naturally, editors interested in proceeding similarly might be able to move more quickly than I can. Similarly, there might be editors opposed to such a move. Members of either group might want to post comments here.

I'm going to start preparing such a breakup. I won't execute any part of it without posting a notice of my intent to do so. If I decide against proceeding — because, say, I discover I don't have the energy for it — I'll also post a notice.

As the other editor pointed out, the current article is unwieldy. As he also remarked, a separate article for the murders is warranted by Manson's limited direct participation in the crimes; the physical events, so to speak, that are related in the murder accounts largely involve only Manson's followers. I had mentioned to the editor that such an article would also allow us to treat some differences in the murder accounts, differences I'd already addressed in "Atkins report," a rightly-short-lived subsection of the current article. (See "Addition of section 'Atkins report,'" on the present page.) I observed that, in preparing that subsection and making it part of the Wikipedia record, I was anticipating, to an extent, the breakup that I now think is a good idea.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well — I'm out of gas. As I've just told the editor who suggested the revamp, I won't be working on the article any longer. I wished that same editor good luck with any revamp he himself might undertake; I wish good luck to any other editor who might work on the article, too.
I remarked to the other editor that, of course, the primary sources don't always agree. Bugliosi and Gentry, for example, say Manson's request to go to San Francisco was made the same day he got out of Terminal Island; Manson in His Own Words says it was made the next day. Even so, I think the article has the facts pretty solidly in place; it's a good basis, I think, for any summary or revamp. Again: Good luck, everyone.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
And in closing: [1]JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles Milles Manson

Is Charles Milles Manson the name used on official documents? He was born Charles Milles Maddox, and I understood that when he took his stepfather's name he changed his name to Charles Willis Manson.  Randall Bart   Talk  00:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his legal name is Charles Milles Manson. He was born with the surname of Maddox, but was changed to Manson sometime later. His birth certificate uses the surname of Maddox, with the named father as William Manson. He gave the middle name of Willis after an arrest in Mendicino County, California in 1967, although that wasn't a legal name change. He used the name Willis to fit into his schema, saying "Charles' Will is Man's Son" - meaning his will was as the son of man. It was part of his spiel. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I happen to have addressed the question of Manson's last name here. I've not seen it addressed anywhere else. Re "Willis" -- here's information I posted on this talk page back in September 2007:

From Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders -- 25th Anniversary Edition; Vincent Bugliosi with Curt Gentry; W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1994. ISBN 0-393-08700-X. Page 235:
I [Vincent Bugliosi] was curious about something. Up until his arrest in Mendocino County on July 28, 1967 [more than two years before the Tate-LaBianca murders], Charlie had always used his real name, Charles Milles Manson. On that occasion, however, and thereafter, he called himself Charles Willis Manson. Had Manson ever said anything about his name? I asked. Crockett and Poston both told me that they had heard Manson say, very slowly, that his name was "Charles' [sic] Will is Man's Son," meaning that his will was that of the Son of Man.
Although Susan Atkins had emphasized Charlie's surname in talking to Virginia Graham, I hadn't really thought, until now, how powerful that name was. Man Son. It was tailor-made for the Infinite Being role he was now seeking to portray.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
We must not forget the song by Ozzy Osbourne titled "Bloodbath in Paradise", which gave accounts of Charles Manson's different philosophies and his prediction of "Helter Skelter". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.157.78.113 (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

One Mind

Should we incorporate the music that he has put out since he has been in prison? Notably the songs, collectively Albumized as "One Mind." These were released under a creative commons license and can be downloaded at: http://www.limewire.org/zlatin/digg.html

I only include the link to add veracity to the existence of the music.

Centrisian (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's already in there, under the Manson and culture section in Recordings. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

NWA?

He is mentioned in "Natural Born Killa" and "Straight Outta Compton"... Why isn't this included in the article?--J.C. (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you'll notice, there is no listing of songs that mention Manson in passing, and in general, lists like that are considered trivia, which isn't encouraged or encyclopedic. Manson's own music is more relevant to his article, and is well enough recorded or covered that it needs no extraneous fill-in. There really isn't a place in the article for a one liner mention of the phrase "So f**k Charles Manson" or "with a crime record like Charles Manson" in a song that is otherwise not about Manson. It would take two articles of just one liners to cover when Manson's name gets dropped. The media section is specifically about the films and TV shows about Charles Manson and the Family. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Family

Charles Manson claims that "The Family" was part of his band name. There is a lot of implicit use of the term "The Family" without qualification in the article. I'm not a Manson sympathizer, I just want this article to be as clean as possible. We need substantiation or qualification when using the term "The Family". At the moment it violates wiki:OR, and further it probably violates Wiki:WEASEL and Wiki:NPOV. We need a clean article here. Antivert (talk)

I've just taken a quick look at the items on which you've placed "fact" tags. Just give me a few mintues, and I'll try to address them one by one. I don't think your objections are well-founded.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all — you do not document your statement that Manson claims "The Family" was part of his "band name." I recall reading a transcript of a radio interview in which Sandra Good suggested the Family members spontaneously called themselves "The Family Jams" when they were making the recordings that were released on the album of that name -- something like that. I think I've also seen a similar statement from Manson, somewhere. Regardless, the term the "Manson Family" is introduced, in the Wikipedia article's first sentence, in quotation marks, to signal that it is a bit of a convention. In fact, I have a vague memory that, at one point, the wording was: "what came to be known as the 'Manson Family'" -- but some dutiful Wikipedia editor removed that. Farther down in the article, in the passage about the desert arrests, the phrase "the Manson Family" is again presented in quotation marks, in a context that suggests the term was a coinage by persons who are not identified.

In the radio interview I've already mentioned, Sandra Good, I think, also says that the members of the informal group didn't call themselves "the Manson Family." I don't recall whether she says they never referred to themselves as "the Family"; but I am pretty sure that the "Case Study" that appears as the article's footnote 3 and that was basically written before the group's arrest (and that, as I've just discovered, is no longer a live link) indicates the group's members referred to themselves as, at least, "a family."

I am pretty sure you will also find that Tex Watson employs the conventional term -- the Manson Family -- throughout his autobiography, which is linked at several points in the article; and as I recall, Paul Watkins does the same, in his own autobiography. I would have to look through the Susan Atkins autobiography to see whether she has anything to say about the appropriateness of the term; but in a quick look through the edition footnoted in the article, I see, on page 166, the following:

It was assumed by everyone, especially Bugliosi, that the Manson Family had done Hughes in.

Maybe in that same radio interview to which I've already referred twice, Good said, I think, something to the effect that the term was a coinage of journalists -- a facile label. On the other hand, I think I saw a television appearance in which she referred to the incarcerated Manson followers -- or is that "followers"? -- as "the Manson people."

To say it again: The term is a bit of a convention and is presented as such. Maybe the article should employ the wording I've mentioned: "what came to be known as 'the Manson Family.'"JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


In the section headed "Rise of the Family," you have placed a "fact" tag on the following:

After moving in with [Mary Brunner], [Manson] overcame her resistance to his bringing other women in to live with them.

The footnote for that appears at the end of the very next sentence:

Before long, they were sharing Brunner's residence with eighteen other women.

The two statements — for which a single footnote is provided — are based on Bugliosi and Gentry's Helter Skelter, specifically a passage on the 1994 edition's page 163:

"So one thing led to another," DeCarlo resumed. "He [Manson] moved in with her [Brunner]. Then he comes across this other girl. 'No, there will be no other girls moving in with me!' Mary says. She flatly refused to consider the idea. After the girl had moved in, two more came along. And Mary says, 'I'll accept one other girl but never three!' Four, five, all the way up to eighteen. This was in Frisco. Mary was the first."

Not incidentally, the article's same section also indicates that an alternative account (The Family by Ed Sanders) has no mention of the eighteen women.

If you think the footnote should be in place twice — once for each sentence — please enter it that way. Otherwise, you are obliged, I think, to remove the "fact" tag.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw the preceding statement. As far as I know, Bugliosi and Gentry do not vouch for the accuracy of DeCarlo's statement. They simply present it. In the quasi-autobiographical Manson in His Own Words, there's a mention of a girl named Darlene, I think, whom, Manson brought to Brunner's apartment — not sure for how long. I don't know whether any other girls are mentioned. Maybe the Wikipedia sentence should read as follows:
After moving in with her, according to a second-hand account, he overcame her resistance to his bringing other women in to live with them.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It appears I was overzealous with the fact tags! I've removed the extraneous ones with comments as for why they were removed.

I agree that your wording would definitely help the article, John. Since you came up with it, I think you should make the changes. :) Antivert (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC).

In the article's introduction, you have tagged the following:

Manson is associated with "Helter Skelter," the term he took from the Beatles song of that name and construed as an apocalyptic race war that the murders were intended to precipitate.

You have tagged that sentence twice — once re "apocalyptic race war" and once re "intended to precipitate." Though the sentence is not footnoted in the introduction, its claims are footnoted in the article's "Helter Skelter" subsection and elsewhere. Again, I think you will find that the Watson and Watkins autobiographies support the statement that Manson construed "Helter Skelter" as an apocalyptic race war; so does the trial testimony of Watkins. All of these are footnoted — often with links — in the article. A few years ago, in a sort of indie magazine whose name escapes me, the statement was also supported in an interview with a woman whom, in his autobiography, Watkins referred to as, I think, "Juanita Wildebush." (In the introduction of the said interview, she was introduced as "Juanita," in quotation marks; and although I don't think there was any reference to the name Watkins had used for her, the events she recounted made clear who she was.) I don't think there's any need to add the interview with that woman to the footnotes (although I might be able to locate it); but at one point, she and the interviewer have an exchange that, as I recall, went something like this:

Interviewer: And all of that stuff — listening to the records for clues — all of that really happened?
Juanita: All of that really happened.

Re the triggering of Helter Skelter as the motive: Watson, in his autobiography, cites it as one of, I think, three motives — along with the obtaining of money for the Family and the copy-catting of the Hinman murder. In her autobiography — and in, I think, a parole hearing — Atkins cites the copycatting as the motive known to her; but I don't think she denies the Helter Skelter possibility. In addition, as the Wikipedia article makes clear, there are indications that the Hinman murder itself had a Helter Skelter motive, a fact about which Atkins was, if nothing else, confused in her testimony during the trial's penalty phase. As footnoted in the article, Bugliosi argued to the jury that Helter Skelter was the primary motive. In his autobiography, Watson faults Bugliosi for dismissing the copycat motive; but to repeat: Watson includes Helter Skelter among the motives.

This is a subject that could be a long article in itself. There are Kasabian and Van Houten interviews in which Helter Skelter is indicated as the motive. (Kasabian on A&E's Biography: "We -- we, we just -- we were so locked in like -- it's just like [pantomimes repeated, two-handed, downward stabbing] 'Okay, okay, this must be d- -- this' -- I mean you just become more in, in -- more like -- a robot -- like somehow, this must bring it." Van Houten in a 1977 interview with Barbara Walters: "That -- you know, that's what he said, that -- that next summer there would be this big revolution and that the chosen people would live in a hole in the middle of the desert; and then after the crimes, we went out and looked for the hole.") On the other hand, there is Manson's gainsaying, including a 1992 parole-hearing statement: "[A]s far as lining up someone for some kind of helter skelter trip, you know, that's the District Attorney's motive. That's the only thing he could find for a motive to throw up on top of all that confusion he had. There was no such thing in my mind as helter skelter." There are probably statements by Good and maybe by others.

Not all of the preceding is included in the article or its footnotes. As I say — the subject could be an article in itself. If you think a word such as "allegedly" should be placed in the introduction's sentence and maybe at some other points in the article, maybe you should examine the "Helter Skelter" subsection (and some other sections) and then state your specific views here.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Addendum re "The Family Jams": I said I recall a Manson statement similar to Good's statement about the name "The Family Jams." As I have said, I think Good suggested the name was a spontaneous creation of Family members at the time — possibly after Manson's arrest — of the recording of the numbers that appeared on the album with that name. (I vaguely recall that the transcript of Good's interview appears at charliemanson.com, but I'm not going to check for it.) Manson's statement, as I recall it, was something to the effect that he and the Family members who came to recording studios with him (pre-arrest, obviously) called themselves that. I wouldn't say that this group, which I'm not sure had a consistent membership and which seems simply to have been made up of Family members — i.e., of persons with whom he was living quasi-communally ("quasi" in that they were not entirely self-supporting) — qualifies as his "band"; but as I've indicated above, that is, anyway, not the main point.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Addendum: There is also one point at which Bugliosi and Gentry seem to indicate that, in the pre-trial period, jailed Beausoleil referred to Manson and the others — including himself — as "the Family" in writing. From page 219 of the 1994 edition:
Though Beausoleil agreed that "the whole thing balances on whether the Family stays together in their heads & doesn't break up & start testifying against itself," he decided, "I'm going to keep my present lawyer."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Further info: The magazine with the "Juanita" interview was Tin House, issue #31. (Can't determine the publication date right now; but somewhere, I got the impression it's just a few years old.) An excerpt is here, at the magazine’s website. A transcription is a June 5, 2008, entry at a blog called "Official Tate-LaBianca Murders Blog." The exchange re "Helter Skelter" is as follows (with "WM" meaning Win McCormack, the interviewer):

WM: Manson also talked a lot about race wars, didn't he? Wasn't that the foundation of his "Helter Skelter" ideology and ultimately what led the Family to murder?
J: What was going to happen in this backward world to make it right was that the black man, who had been oppressed for years, was going to become the superior race, and the blacks would rule the world. "Helter Skelter" was Charlie's plan for and name for their uprising and also, it turned out, apparently, for the murders which he hoped would provoke that. [EDITOR'S NOTE: Manson hoped that the murders would be thought to have been committed by blacks, bringing even further oppression down on them, in turn provoking them to rise up.] The reason we had to find a place in the desert was we had to have a place to run and hide, because as whites we were going to be killed or enslaved unless we were smart enough to find a place to live until - until it all balanced out. Eventually, the black man would ask Charlie and the Family to take over, because he wouldn't be able to rule on his own.
We didn't call it "Helter Skelter" until the Beatles record came down, and then it was, "Aha, look at that - our prophets." It's only in the last two years that I've even been able to tolerate listening to The White Album.
WM: Was that really going on, what Helter Skelter describes as the mental preparation and buildup for the murders - playing the songs "Helter Skelter," "Piggies," "Revolution 9," and "Blackbird" from the album over and over? The line in "Blackbird" that goes, "All your life, you have only waited for this moment to arise," which supposedly referred to the rising up of the blacks?
J: All of that was going on.

On our other subject: You’ll see that Juanita provides evidence that Manson and others were calling themselves "The Family Jams" when she first met them, in September 1968, although it's not clear whether the "band" was simply the hitchhikers she picked up or everyone at Spahn Ranch:

WIN McCORMACK: So, Susan Atkins was the first Manson Family member you met, when you picked her and two male companions up hitchhiking in Northern California. What was she like?
JUANITA: I knew her as Sadie Marie Glutz. Sadie was a kid, a twenty-something-year-old kid. I have lots of really fond memories of her. It destroys me when I think about what happened to her, because she tried real hard to do the right thing. Sort of screwed up all along the line in her choices. Sadie was in the passenger's seat, and the guys were in the back. I remember her talking about their musical group. That was their story. They were all members of a band, and their band's name was the Family Jams.

She also says that, when she got to Spahn Ranch:

Charlie got a guitar out and everybody started singing. It was just wonderful fun, but it was very clear that nobody had any talent.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Antivert — I saw your response above and have changed the opening sentence and the sentence re the women in Brunner's place. While I was making those changes, it occurred to me to add the word "putatively" to the intro's statement re Helter Skelter as the murder motive. I added that and then removed the fact tag and dispute tag. Of course, you may always reinsert those if you think they still apply. See what you think.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

John - Good work there. I've got no problems with the wording now, thanks for your input! Antivert (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

Thanks, Antivert; you're welcome. I'm glad you're satisfied.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of "eponymous"

Revision of the article’s opening sentence to indicate Manson founded "the eponymous 'Family'" has been carried out — and reverted — on five separate occasions: October 17, 2008; October 14, 2008; August 6, 2008; October 10, 2007; and October 3, 2007.

In a talk-page exchange of early October 2007, the revision was the subject of the following objection:

The reader coming to the subject for the first time can have no idea what is meant by "the eponymous 'family.'"
...
That wording is faulty. "Family" is not itself eponymous. The reader familiar with the subject — i.e., familiar with the term "Manson Family" — will know what [is being said]; the reader unfamiliar with the subject will be mystified.

That criticism remains accurate. "Eponymous" is meaningless as a modifier of "Family."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


Postscript: In his edit summary of October 17, 2008, the editor who made the revisions wrote as follows: "Please look up the word 'eponymous'; it fits."

The problem does not have to do with the definition of eponymous; it has to do with the use of it. The sentence in which the editor is employing it makes no sense. Proper use of the word would be, for instance, the following (which is not necessarily factual):

By the end of 1968, the Tate and LaBianca murders were known to be associated with a sort of commune the press was calling "the Manson Family"; within months, the group’s eponymous leader was an object of international fascination.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I back these points. Despite what the editor would want the sentence to say, it is not saying that. I will paste the note I left for the editor in question who has been changing this wording:
It is absolutely bad faith for you edit a page and leave an edit summary such as "Please get your facts straight; read "Helter Skelter." Please look up the word "eponymous"; it fits." Absolutely unacceptable. There have been three extremely well educated persons involved in working on this article. All of us have read Helter Skelter, as well as several other books on Manson. The issue with your change has nothing to do with the definition of the word eponymous. It has to do with the way your wording skews the perspective of the development of the Manson Family. You make it sound as if Manson went to San Francisco and said to himself "I'm going to now establish my cult and I'm going to name it after myself." That isn't how it happened at all. It happened, as discussed later in the article, more haphazardly and casually. In fact, read the entire article. It also covers how it became known as the Manson Family. That had nothing to do with Manson in particular. Finally, no matter how right you think you are, you completely ignored the previous edit summary which noted that the way this article has developed, and the wording of things, including the name of the group, has been discussed to death and consensus has been determined on how things are worded in the article. It is a violation of policy to blindly change things against consensus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Eponym tells us that "An eponym is the name of a person, whether real or fictitious, which has (or is thought to have) given rise to the name of a particular place, tribe, era, discovery, or other item. An eponymous person is the person referred to by the eponym. In contemporary English, the term eponymous is often used to mean self-titled, as in "Metallica's eponymous 'black album'". The word eponym is often used for the thing titled".
So, while "eponym" originally referred solely to a title named after someone, it can now also refer to the person after whom the thing was named. Likewise, "eponymous" can refer both to the thing and the person. However, it's normally used in relation to things that have been formally named, such as Harvard University. I'd deprecate its use in relation to the Manson family on that basis alone. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I wasn't saying that eponymous could not be applied to the thing titled. One might say, to use another example that is not necessarily factual:

Manson himself denied he was the leader of the "Manson Family"; but the more vociferously the members of the eponymous group echoed the denial, the more they invalidated it.

In the disputed sentence, "eponymous 'Family'" is unintelligible. Because there has been no previous mention of the Manson Family, the reader can have no idea how the Family was eponymous.

The two other objections, expressed immediately above, are also to be considered, though I am not familiar enough with the use of the word to second the statement that it is ordinarily used for things that have been formally named.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: Now that I think about it, I see the previous editor’s point about the Family’s not being formally named. Because "Manson Family" arose rather as an expedient — i.e., merely to allow the group to be referred to in some way — it is almost semantically circular to characterize either Manson or the group as "eponymous." — So, yes — three objections.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And that would be defined as a consensus not to use the wording. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


08 (UTC== Bisexual? ==

I've removed the Category:Bisexual musicians and Category:Bisexual people from the article. At least one of those was added by Palming (talk · contribs) during a bout of apparent vandalism back in April, and was never challenged. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions his sexual involvement with females, and mentions the fact he raped a boy, but fails to mention any of the other sexual assaults he committed against both males and females. It is stated on one of the archives that rape is about power, not sex. In fact, rape is about power and sex; it is both combined. There are many other ways to (ab)use power, and ways of having sex that don't involve rape. The reason rapists rape is because it is simultaneously sex and abuse of power. A rapist's orientation determines whether his victims are all male, all female or are of both genders. Manson is bisexual. The only reason to (try to) suppress such information, which has been proven to be true, is to deny the public their right to find out that there are bisexual rapists who rape people of both genders. Werdnawerdna (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop inserting your POV regarding sexual identity categorization into articles. Your rationales are both naive and erroneous. Rape is far more complex than "I want power, I like men, I rape men." Further, it is not an issue of trying to suppress information on this, or any other article. It is an issue of reliably sourcing your assertions. You can't simply apply your yardstick of "is he or isn't he?" and pronounce the personal sexual identity of any individual in the absence of specific statements or writings by that person to confirm it. Please read WP:BLP. In prison or not, Manson is a living person and this article must adhere to that. In addition, please cite your sources here that support that Manson "committed other sexual assaults against both males and females." You also cannot base your categorizations on an incident that occurred while he was incarcerated. Prison/detention sexuality and rape has a whole other dimension involved. It isn't that simple. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that, since Wikipedia will not allow this article to be edited, it is failing to live up to its name. Manson is, actually, not bisexual, but assexual. would know this because I have friends who have substantiated this with Manson himself. --75.69.3.212 (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't true that Wikipedia won't allow the article to be edited. It is protected from editing by IP/anonymous editors because of its history with extreme vandalism. You can't edit it because you aren't using an established username. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Error in Article.

The death of Steven Parent occured as the following: He was stabbed first, a defensive wound, then shot. They had not yet climbed the gate and gone onto the Tate property, but were still on the drive when he pulled up. They ran up behind him, opened the car door, stabbed him once, then shot him several times. I'm not too sure about how to go about editing the article or anything, but if you look it up, its clear that there was a defensive stab wound, then several gunshot wounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imisscallie (talk • contribs) 17:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect in every particular, including, arguably, the description of Parent's defensive knife wound, which was a slash wound, not a stab wound. In a few mintues, I will provide detailed source information.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Here, as promised, is the information. The several passages quoted below are from the 1994 25th Anniversary Edition of Bugliosi and Gentry's Helter Skelter, as well as from Tex Watson's autobiography (as told to Ray Hoekstra), Will You Die for Me?

First — to clarify the layout of the murder scene: 10050 Cielo Drive, where the Tate murders took place, was behind a gate at the top of a hill — a cul-de-sac — along which were other houses, including 10070 and 10090. Immediately behind that gate was 10050’s driveway and parking area, beyond which, at an angle, were its structures. The car containing Steven Parent’s body was discovered on that driveway — i.e., behind the gate, on the grounds of 10050 itself:

Cielo Drive is a narrow street that abruptly winds upward from Benedict Canyon Road. One of its cul-de-sacs, easily missed though directly opposite Bella Drive, comes to a dead end at the high gate of 10050. Looking through the gate, you could see neither the main residence nor the guest house some distance beyond it, but you could see, toward the end of the paved parking area, a corner of the garage and, a little farther on, a split-rail fence which, though it was only August, was strung with Christmas-tree lights. — Helter Skelter, page 3.


[Winifred] Chapman was the housekeeper at 10050 Cielo Drive, and [on the morning of August 9, 1969,] she was upset because, thanks to L.A.’s terrible bus service, she was going to be late to work. Luck seemed with her, however; just as she was about to look for a taxi, she saw a man she had once worked with, and he gave her a ride almost to the gate.
She noticed the [cut telephone] wire [that was hanging over the gate] immediately, and it worried her.
In front and to the left of the gate, not hidden but not conspicuous either, was a metal pole on the top of which was the gate-control mechanism. When the button was pushed, the gate swung open. There was a similar mechanism inside the grounds, both being positioned so a driver could reach the button without having to get out of the car.
Because of the wire, Mrs. Chapman thought the electricity might be off, but when she pushed the button, the gate swung open. Taking the Times out of the mailbox, she walked hurriedly onto the property, noticing an unfamiliar automobile in the driveway, a white Rambler, parked at an odd angle. — Helter Skelter, page 5.


Screaming, [Mrs. Chapman, who had just discovered blood in the main house and a body on its front lawn,] turned and ran back through the house, leaving the same way she had come in [i.e., through the back door] but, on running down the driveway, changing her course so as to reach the gate-control button. In so doing, she passed on the opposite side of the white Rambler, seeing for the first time that there was a body inside the car too.
Once outside the gate, she ran down the hill to the first house, 10070, ringing the bell and pounding on the door. When the [residents] didn’t answer, she ran to the next house, 10090....
Fifteen-year-old Jim Asin was outside.... While [he and his father] were trying to calm the hysterical Mrs. Chapman, Jim dialed the police emergency number....
While waiting for the police, the father and son walked as far as the gate. The white Rambler was some thirty feet inside the property, too far away to make out anything inside it.... — Helter Skelter, pages 5-6.


Getting a rifle from his squad car, [Los Angeles police officer Jerry Joe] DeRosa [, who had arrived in response to Asin’s telephone calls,] had Mrs. Chapman show him how to open the gate. Walking cautiously up the driveway to the Rambler, he looked in the open window. There was a body inside, in the driver’s seat but slumped toward the passenger side. Male, Caucasian, reddish hair, plaid shirt, blue denim pants, both shirt and pants drenched with blood. He appeared to be young, probably in his teens. — Helter Skelter, page 7.

To be continued.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


Second — Parent did have a defensive knife wound, which in presenting the results of the autopsy, Bugliosi and Gentry describe as a slash wound (although later in the book, they do refer to it as a stab wound, resulting from a slash):

[Autopsy showed that Steven Parent, the boy found dead in the white Rambler,] had one defensive slash wound, and had been shot four times. — Helter Skelter, page 33.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


Third: Contrary to your assertion, the intruders had definitely climbed the gate before they encountered Parent. They encountered him behind the gate, on the driveway of 10050, as he was coming toward the gate, to leave the property. This is made clear in every account — that of Atkins, that of Kasabian, and that of Watson.

The following is Bugliosi and Gentry’s report of the Atkins grand-jury testimony. It must be read with some care, because the authors are not careful in using the phrases "up the driveway" and "down the driveway." In speaking of the (Parent) car’s approach, toward the intruders, from the direction of the house, they first use the phrase "up the driveway"; but in then describing Watson’s pushing the car back toward the spot whence it had been coming, they again use that phrase — "back up the driveway." After that, as they describe the intruders’ continuing past the corpse-laden car, toward the house, they say the intruders "went on down the driveway, past the garage, to the house."

Here is the passage:

[Watson and the others] got lost on the way [to 10050 Cielo Drive]. However, Tex finally recognized the turnoff and they drove to the top of the hill. Tex got out, climbed the telephone pole, and, using the wire cutters, severed the wires. ... When Tex returned to the car, they drove back down the hill, parked at the bottom, then, bringing along their extra clothing, walked back up. They didn’t enter the grounds through the gate "because we thought there might be an alarm system or electricity." To the right of the gate was a steep, brushy incline. The fence wasn’t as high here. Susan threw over her clothing bundle, then went over herself, her knife in her teeth. The others followed.
They were stowing their clothing in the bushes when Susan saw the headlights of a car. It was coming up the driveway in the direction of the gate. "Tex told us girls to lie down and be still and not make a sound. He went out of sight ... I heard him say 'Halt.'" Susan also heard another voice, male, say "Please don’t hurt me, I won’t say anything." "And I heard a gunshot and I heard another gunshot and another one and another one." Four shots, then Tex reached inside and turned off the lights; then they pushed the car away from the gate, back up the driveway.
I showed Susan a photo of the Rambler. "It looked similar to it, yes." I then showed her the police photograph of Steven Parent inside the vehicle.
[Answer:] "That is the thing I saw in the car."
...
They went on down the driveway, past the garage, to the house. — Helter Skelter, pages 176-77


Here is Bugliosi’s report of Kasabian’s account:

As we drove up Cielo Drive in the sheriff’s van, Linda showed me where Tex had turned, in front of the gate at 10050, then parked, next to the telephone pole. He had then taken a pair of large, red-handled wire cutters from the back seat and shinnied up the pole. From where she was sitting, Linda couldn’t see Tex cutting the wires, but she saw and heard the wires fall.
...
When Tex returned to the car, they drove to a spot near the bottom of the hill and parked. The four then took the weapons and extra clothing and stealthily walked back up to the gate.
...
Linda pointed to the spot, to the right of the gate, where they had climbed the embankment and scaled the fence. As they were descending the other side, a pair of headlights suddenly appeared in the driveway. "Lay down and be quiet," Tex ordered. He then jumped up and ran to the automobile, which had stopped near the gate-control mechanism. Linda heard a man’s voice saying, "Please don’t hurt me! I won’t say anything!" She then saw Tex put the gun in the open window on the driver’s side and heard four shots. She also saw the man slump over in the seat.
(Something here puzzled me [Vincent Bugliosi], and still does. In addition to the gunshot wounds, Steven Parent had a defensive stab wound that ran from the palm across the wrist of his left hand. It severed the tendons as well as the band of his wristwatch. Obviously, Parent had raised his left hand, the hand closest to the open window, in an effort to protect himself, the force of the blow being sufficient to hurl his watch into the back seat. It therefore appeared that Tex must have approached the car with a knife in one hand, a gun in the other, and that he first slashed at Parent, then shot him. Yet neither Susan nor Linda saw Tex with a knife at this point, nor did either recall the stabbing.)
Linda saw Tex reach in the car and turn off the lights and ignition. He then pushed the car some distance up the driveway, telling the others to follow him. – Helter Skelter, pages 260-61


The following, which is Watson’s autobiographical account, must also be read with care, because Watson first refers to the hill — the cul-de-sac — as "the private drive" and then "the driveway." That is not the 10050 driveway, which he also calls "the driveway." Any confusion as to the distinction is dispelled when, after recounting the killing of Parent, he says he "pushed the car part of the way back up the driveway where it would be less visible from the private road."

The passage:

When I pulled up to the big gate at the end of the private drive, directly under a power pole, I told the girls we'd all have to be truly one, truly together to do what we had to do. I climbed onto the hood of the car and shinnied up the pole, cutting the telephone line with the bolt cutters one of the girls had handed me through the window. For some reason I had no uncertainty about which wires were which — it was as though Charlie's instructions were tape-recorded in my mind and being played back, step by step, as I needed them. After the wires had fallen, I backed the car down the driveway to the street below and parked. We gathered up our clothes and weapons and quietly slipped back up the driveway. I carried the white rope over my shoulder. When we reached the gate I peered in — you couldn't see the main house from there, only a corner of the garage (a yellow bug light was burning, so I was assured I hadn't cut any power lines by mistake) and a split-rail fence along the edge of the lawn that had colored Christmas lights glowing on it, even though it was the middle of summer.
There was a steep, brushy embankment coming down to the right side of the fence, so we tossed the extra clothes over the gate and climbed up the slope, dropping to the other side. On my first try, the speed I'd sniffed before we left threw my balance off and I ended up tumbling down to the pavement.
We had barely gotten over the gate when there was the sound of a car, and headlights loomed at the top of the driveway, heading toward us. I told the girls to get into the bushes, lie down, and be quiet. The driver of the car had to stop and roll down his window to push the button for the automatic gate, and as he did so I stepped forward out of the shadows, gun in right hand, knife in left, commanding him to halt. A terrified teenage boy looked up at me, his glasses flashing. He was Steven Parent. Much later I would learn he had been visiting a groundskeeper — William Garretson — who lived in a guest cottage behind the main house and pool, a cottage we never discovered in the rampage that followed. (It would actually be some time before I learned the names of our victims. That night and the night after, they were so many impersonal blobs to be dealt with as Charlie had instructed. To make what follows as clear as possible, however, the victims' names will be used.)
As I lunged forward the boy cried out: "Please . . . please, don't hurt me. I'm your friend . . . . I won't tell." I shot him four times and at some point struck out with the knife, slashing at the left arm he raised to shield his face. After he had slumped back across the seat I reached in the window, cutting the motor and lights before I pushed the car part of the way back up the driveway where it would be less visible from the private road.
Hissing for the girls to follow me, I started up the driveway and rounded the turn to the house. A neatly clipped lawn stretched from the porch to the edge of the terraced hillside that overlooked the shimmering lights of the whole west side of the L.A. basin. There was no sign that anyone inside had been roused by the shots. — Will You Die for Me? Chapter 14.

As you can see, the preceding passages don't just make clear that the intruders had gone over the gate before the encounter with Parent. They also make clear that Watson went toward the approaching car and that the whole of his involvement with Parent and the car's interior was through the car window. There is nothing to support your statement that the intruders approached the car from behind and that the door was then opened. Indeed, the door was never opened at all.

I would also point out that the passages do not support your statement that Parent was stabbed first and then shot. Bugliosi and Gentry expressly state that Atkins and Kasabian don't mention the use of the knife; and even Watson, in recounting his shooting of Parent, says simply that "at some point" he (Watson) "struck out with the knife, slashing at the left arm." In other words, he himself can't even remember when he used the knife.

Presently, the article does not mention Parent's knife wound or, for that matter, the number of times Parent was shot. At the moment, I won't offer an opinion whether it should; but the errors you have charged it with do not exist.

For the record — here's an additional remark on the 10050 layout. It's of value in clarifying that 10050's "driveway" was behind the gate:

[In late 1968,] Charlie decided I should go to Terry Melcher and see if he would be willing to help bail Gregg out, even if he wouldn't do anything for us. I don't think Charlie was as much concerned about Gregg as he was still hanging on to the hope that somehow Jakobson would be able to do something for him professionally. At the time it didn't occur to me to ask him why he was sending me to Melcher. I just did what I was told. The next morning I hitchhiked into Beverly Hills and went to 10050 Cielo Drive for the second time. I pushed the gate button as I'd seen Dean do and wandered up to the back door. The driveway was fairly long and I took it slowly, listening to see if anybody was up yet. Ten months later, on that same driveway, I would kill a human being for the first time in my life.... — Will You Die for Me? Chapter 9.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


Postscript: According to Wikipedia, 10050 Cielo Drive was built, evidently around 1944, for French actress Michele Morgan. At various internet spots — e.g., cielodrive.com — you will find photos that confirm the layout described above. As seems never to have been remarked, the property was laid out dangerously. So that the occupants could look out from the hillside terrace on which the estate was poised, the main house was positioned with its back, so to speak, toward the entrance – i.e., the gate. In fact, it was worse than that. Because the house lay around the bend of the hillside (at nearly a right angle to the driveway), and because its back was almost right up against the hill (with the garage positioned as an obstruction, in addition to the hill, between the house and the driveway), the house seems to have afforded no view of the entry at all. Anyone coming onto the property through the gate was, in effect, sneaking up on the occupants — and, in rounding the bend, was soon beyond the view of outsiders. It's among the few places where someone could be murdered unseen right on his or her front lawn, because the "front" lawn was at the rear.

In a very-brief clip I've seen of the 2004 Helter Skelter television movie, the property seems to have been presented with a much-more-conventional layout; and if, in fact, that is how the filmmakers presented it, then they failed to communicate precisely what made the place a risk. It invited trouble — which, after a quarter of a century, arrived.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Post-postscript: One guesses that the property’s layout played a part in the distress of photographer Shahrokh Hatami, who was bothered to see Manson on the grounds in March 1969, when Manson saw Tate. According to Bugliosi and Gentry, who describe the events on pages 229-31 of Helter Skelter, Hatami was apparently inside the house, with Tate, when he "looked out the window and noticed a man [Manson] walking into the yard." This appears to indicate that Hatami was looking out one of the house’s "front" windows and saw Manson coming laterally — i.e., across the front of the house — along the front lawn. By that time, Manson had not only come through the gate but had walked all the way up the property’s driveway, across its parking area, and around its garage, to walk across the front lawn. He had been on the grounds, in other words, for a distance that, in an urban neighborhood, might be half a block; but he could not be seen by the house’s occupants until he was almost at the front door. In fact, if he had wanted to sneak up to the front door, he could simply have stayed closer to the house’s front wall than he probably was. Persons coming to the door were always approaching it laterally — i.e., "blindsiding" the occupants.
The same seems to have been true of persons who, instead of advancing all the way to the front lawn, turned between the garage and the main house, to move along the house’s rear and then in through the back door, to the kitchen — as Winifred Chapman did on the morning of August 9, 1969, and as Tex Watson did in 1968, as recounted in the above-quoted passage from his autobiography’s Chapter 9. Every entry onto the grounds was, in effect, a covert entry, as Manson, no doubt, noticed.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


Major Overhaul: Passive to active voice

Guys, this article is absolutely taxing to read. Let's take the following sentence as an example: Charles Manson Jr., Manson's son by Rosalie, was born while Manson was in prison.

Charles Manson Jr. is the subject, but he's not the one doing anything, Rosalie is. I changed it accordingly: Rosalie gave birth to their son, Charles Manson Jr., while Manson was in prison.

The whole article is written in this awkward manner. As a reader, I have to keep lots of little bits and phrases in my mind and then parse them all together at the end of the sentence. Using a more active voice, it is much easier to to visualize and understand the concepts being communicated. I did several edits to the First Imprisonment section, but i got discouraged when i skimmed the article and realized the entire text was written in such a manner. If you're looking for ways to improve this article, spend a few minutes on each section and move it from the passive to active voice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evillawngnome (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

this article is written poorly. I didn't know anything about Charles Manson, I read the article and I still don't know anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.47.51 (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Tattoo?

Doesn't Manson have a swastika tattooed on his forehead? Isn't this worth mentioning? --MosheA (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed before here and it seems that the main problem with this is being able to source it. You can only discuss what you can provide references to cover. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Charles Manson does indeed have a tattoo and can be seen on many television documentaries, including A&E Biography segments on Youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accessvirus (talk • contribs) 18:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No one said he didn't have a tattoo/scar, but to use it as article content requires sourcing about it, and that hasn't been findable. The article talks about the X in the forehead placed during the trial. That can be sourced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Discography

I have compiled a partial discography of Manson's works. (They are actually quite massive.) I would have put them on the main article, but at usual, Wikipedia has decided that the info there is complete, and that, of course, nothing new ever happens.

The Summer of Hate (The '67 Sessions) Released: 2007

Live at San Quentin Released: 2006

The Psychedelic Soul of Charles Manson Released: 2004

A Taste of Freedom Released: 2001

Way of the Wolf Released: 1999

I'm On Fire (Single) Released: 1997

Commemoration Released: 1995

Manson Speaks Released: 1995

Son Of Man Released: 1994

Poor Old Prisoner Boy Released: 1989

Saints Are Hell On Earth (Cassette) Released: 1988

LIE: The Love and Terror Cult Released: 1970

Family Jams Released: 1969

Please note that the songs on "Family Jams" are performed by members of the "Manson family," not Manson himself. Also, in answer to previous questions about where "Family" came from in this sense, that would be this album, recorded long before the trials.

--75.69.3.212 (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As noted in your above comment, the article is allowed to be edited by established editors who have registered usernames. The article is protected from editing by anonymous accounts because of its history of vandalism. I'd note that any extensive changes to the article should be broached here before they are made because of the current thoroughness of citations/referencing and interested editors would appreciate a chance to discuss changes like this. Any addition should come with proper, reliable sources. Finally, if you'd look, in the section Charles Manson#Manson and culture, there is a link to a separate article covering Manson's recordings. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:32, 19 December 20)

"Annoy/ed"

I've been informed that a lot of work went into this article, and I salute the editors. That said, I stumbled across this article, thought I saw some things that were not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and made some (minor, I thought) changes.

The main source used is a biography that is intended to read as a sensationalist, true serial murder story with literary techniques used in novels. I'm not arguing its validity as a source, but I don't think that descriptors such as "tearfully" and "groaning" and "finished him off" have any place in an encyclopedia. If they really belong there, then I don't know why they're not in quotes. I'm also a bit concerned with the subheadings "slaughter" and "killings," though I admit I don't have a better alternative right now.

In the Aftermath section, the original wording was this: Manson, who suspected that Shea helped set up the raid, had apparently believed Shea was trying to get Spahn to run the Family off the ranch. Manson was annoyed, too, that the white Shea had married a black woman; and there was the possibility that Shea knew about the Tate/LaBianca killings.

These statements are found in a paragraph discussing, appropriately, the aftermath of the murders, and look to me like speculation about Manson's motivations. The word "annoyed" strikes me as singularly inappropriate when discussing a man's feelings about a biracial marriage when it might be tied to his reasons for murder.

Therefore, I changed it to this: Manson, who suspected that Shea helped set up the raid, had apparently believed Shea was trying to get Spahn to run the Family off the ranch. Manson may have also been offended that the white Shea had married a black woman; and there was the possibility that Shea knew about the Tate/LaBianca killings.

Input is welcome. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

From "The Family," p. 271: Another "sin" of Shea in the crazed eyes of the Family was that he had married a black dancer whom evidently Shorty had met in Las Vegas. The Family was upset because his wife's black friends started coming around.
p. 272: However much he wanted the M-ites off the ranch, the murder was really triggered because Shorty knew something about the Tate-LaBianca killings.
I didn't find the word "annoy" or a variant with a Google Book search of either text. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 15:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Manson/Archive_2&oldid=1136605709"