User talk:71.242.203.167

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. For one thing, if you edit without a username, your IP address (71.242.203.167) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! —Animum (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Manson

I just wanted to direct your attention to the note I left on the talk page. I think this article is VERY close to being ready to submit for a good article nomination. Thanks for adding the citations needed that I noted. I will probably submit it for the GA over the weekend unless you think there's something significant that it needs. At worst, it will be turned down, but if that happens, they will note specifics that are needed to bring it up to standard. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know neither of us seemed to have the right flow of words for the section about the White Album. I thought it was awkward to start, and just couldn't seem to word it to be fluid. I agree that it's better off without it. I didn't do a lot of actual copy editing when I worked on the references, unless the language was just a stumbling block. Your addition does clarify the behavior in the courtroom quite a bit. What do you think about adding a sentence wherein Manson holds up the newspaper where Nixon declares him guilty? I don't remember seeing that (I wish I could find my books!!) and it was a fairly high profile action. All in all, everything is looking good. Now we have to monitor it for vandals & inane additions! Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to trivia sections, I find them great entertainment sometimes, and I love a good trivia question. However, since we're looking at taking an article to good, and by extension, featured, status at some point, it won't pass GA or FA muster. I think there is a place for these sections and kind of wish WP would do something about it. I've spent time trying to incorporate trivia material into articles, but it gets to be such a chore, especially since it does need to be referenced. Sometimes, though, I run across a trivia addition that is just so obscure, or only tangentially related, that I take it out. I've been known to add trivia notes, but then I've also been known to look for a better description. There's a real difference, too, between trivia and pop culture incorporation. Manson has become a pop culture phenomenon of his own. Thanks for all your cooperation!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked over your addition to the cultural influences section. I pretty much like them. I added a citation needed tag to one point in the first section, combined a few of the references to ones already condensed. I'm going to move the Guns 'n' Roses material up to the Manson's music section. I think it's more suited to it. Also, I'm going to add an imbedded note telling future editors to avoid adding specific trivia to the article since it's bound to be quite extensive. Look over what I did and let me know what you think. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem with delays, I even sleep sometimes. There's no problem with continuing to edit after a nomination, it's really kind of expected that interested parties make corrections etc. during the process. I like the lead that you put back in. I removed the word "cult" from the lead (but left it at quasi-commune). Cult is on the list of words to avoid because it's difficult to define neutrally. Actually, in reading the article through, the Family commune inspired a cult following later, which is touched on. So to avoid controversy, I took it out. To track the good article process, you just need to monitor it at the Manson talk page and at Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Law and wish us luck!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I imagine by now you see that when the GA nomination went up, it flushed people out of the woodwork to put in their 2 cents worth. Some of it I left, some of it I changed back. This is often what happens when an article gets nominated. Every time I've seen it pop up with new people editing tonight, I've had a shiver before I've gone to look. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out. As a BTW, have you considered registering? It seems to me as if other editors tend to take a more patronizing air with unregistered editors, while registered editors seem to garner more credibility. Just a suggestion. It's annoying, isn't it, to work on something then have others come in and start pressing their own viewpoint when it may mean getting a note on the userpage touting a good or featured article? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's talk a minute about the article. May I ask what has upset you so much over the edits by Bassplyr23? I realize he made some questionable edits, but it seems like you're fairly riled over it. May I suggest, regarding Van Houten's stabbing of Rosemary LaBianca, that we scale that part back, at least until we can find a definitive citation for it? I know that Bugliosi confused the issue in his closing statement, but it occurs to me that he may have misspoken. My tendency is to go with what is in the autopsy report. I've read the autopsy reports of all the victims, though at the moment I can't seem to find where it is that I've read them. Perhaps it could be better worded to say that at least some of them were post-mortem, since the discrepancy is in the book, until we can better source it. The other thing I noticed is that there was no longer a wound count on Frykowski, so I added that in with the Bugliosi reference to it. Take a deep breath and assume good faith! Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by your removal of my edit, that was referenced, regarding Frykowski's wounds:

Frykowski, whose hands had been bound with a towel, freed himself and began struggling with Atkins, who had been guarding him. As he fought his way toward and out the front door, onto the porch, Watson joined in against him. In all, Frykowski was struck over the head with the butt of the gun thirteen times, shot twice and stabbed fifty-one times.

I'm not sure I see how that is misleading in any way. This is included as nearly a direct quote from Bugliosi, the wound accounting from autopsy reports.

For other victims, a final statement regarding wounds is included in the same way.

Re: Folger: 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.

Tate, who pleaded for her own life and that of the child she was carrying, was stabbed to death by Atkins, Watson, or both. She was stabbed 16 times.

Watson stabbed the groaning Sebring seven times.

What I wrote was perfectly acceptable and sourced. Could you explain please?

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. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand my statement about the GA status. I left it on the talk page as a general comment and on Bassplyr23's talk page too. I know that there have been issues in the past, what I'm trying to do is circumvent them from becoming major issues now. I don't know that what is there is going to jeopardize the GA status, I'm only raising the possibility in order to prevent it, if the threat would indeed exist. In no way am I ignoring your contributions to the article, they are legion, and much appreciated. I'm just trying to be a peacemaker here and keep the status quo. I, too, have enjoyed working with you, and I look forward to doing so in the future. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm a dope

I didn't realize that you'd written so extensively to explain things. My aunt is here and I foolishly scrolled down to the bottom and only saw the part about the GA status. I've actually read through a great deal of the back and forth over the last several months before I plunged in on the article, so I'm aware of what's gone on. If you think this is a sockpuppet issue, I am more than willing to request a check, without hesitation. It's quite interesting, the note about Col. Scott, as I just happened to come across his blogspot this afternoon and thought it was quite odd, as the blogspot ID started when, apparently, that user had run afoul of a yahoo group page devoted to Manson. The only other comment was - I wondered if you were JohnBonaccors, I had also looked at your registered page when I first began working on this. In any case, I really didn't mean to imply that you were personally responsible for jeopardizing the GA status, I was, really, trying to keep the peace. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manson page - my edits

Dude:

What ARE you getting so upset about? I merely edited the article to reflect a more encyclopedic style. Some of the sentence construction was, at best, awkward and at worst, nonsensical.

For my part, I will ALWAYS regard Bugliosi, not Watson, as the definitive source on the Manson case. Although Watson was a participant, I think you can agree that his views will always be thought of as suspect and self-serving; I've never read his autobiography or visited his website, nor do I intend to. I resent your implication that I'm climbing aboard the bandwagon just to get credit for participation in a "good article" nominee - I could care less about that. I have never edited ANY article in anything but good faith.

It is YOU who needs not to make this a personal issue. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

BassPlyr23 (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I resent your accusations. I have no idea who this ColScott person is that you're accusing me of being a sockpuppet :of. I am merely trying to edit an article for readability that you, for personal reasons, don't seem to want edited.
BassPlyr23 (talk) 23:24, 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.

BTW - the reason why I didn't touch the article from September until now was a simple one - I didn't have time to sit down with my copy of Helter Skelter and correct the myriad syntactical and implicit/explicit factual errors I found in the article.

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) 23:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

This revision isn't bad. I have one comment, which concerns the use of "manically." That word may be construed as a POV description, unless it's qualified with a "by his account" or "as he described" sort of phrase. What do you think? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem to me with "manically" is from my psych background. A manic person is disorganized and all over the place, not really able to focus or complete a task. Since Watson described it as a mechanical knife/arm how would "frenetically" be? It still alludes to a frenzied action, but more directed and driven. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

By putting words in my mouth ("We shouldn’t believe Watson stabbed Wojciech Frykowski brutally on the lawn; Watson just said that to make money and get out of jail"), you're just proving what I've been saying the whole time - it's YOUR article, and only YOUR version is acceptable to you. 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.

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. 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. 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 any GA reviewer.

Dude - take a deep breath, let the drugs take effect and ask yourself: "Am I really interested in the GA nomination, or am I more interested in seeing MY version of the article as the definitive one?" If it's one, then fine. If it's the other, write a book - but don't get pissed at your editor when he comes back with the same complaints I've been making.

BassPlyr23 (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination/peer review

Win battle, lose war, dude. Are you happy now?

--BassPlyr23 (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

It's not against the rules to request help from other editors at all. I'm not sure what I think about either version. What about "The murders, which resembled the crime for which Bobby Beausoliel was imprisoned, were done to draw suspicion away from him."?? I'll also propose this on the talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I have an opinion one way or another regarding the arrangement of that section. Go ahead and arrange the section in chronological order if you want and we can see how it pans out. I saw your question to Cirt regarding peer reviews. What it is - simply opening the door and asking for comments on the article, how it reads, what improvements might be beneficial, yada yada. It's essentially asking for criticism. Sometimes it brings a lot, but it's usually quite helpful. Oh, by the way, the checkuser request came back that the other person is not a ColScott sockpuppet of any IDs and IPs that they have on file. So, he's someone else. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We are supposed to assume good faith in editing, which I believe the editor was trying to do. When I compare what was changed with what was there, the editor did not falsify the account. While it wasn't worded perfectly, I see no intent to falsify, it was more likely an omission when trying to make it a simpler read. The article has a lot of complex sentences, which can be confusing.

There have been a couple of edits where, actually, I don't agree with the summary you've left. One of those points is regarding the shooting of Crowe. It didn't read to me as if it was saying that shooting Crowe was to start Helter Skelter. It said very plainly "to obtain money for Helter Skelter supplies" in both versions. Which, when I think about it, I have no idea what that means. What are Helter Skelter supplies? I think that's what is confusing in those sentences.

The other issue was where you noted in the summary that you "Clarified mistaken identification of Crowe as Black Panther." You'll have to explain to me how "Although Crowe was not a member of the Black Panthers, Manson expected retaliation from the group" equates to saying Crowe was a member. It says differently specifically. In fact, when I read the Watson chapter, it doesn't say at any time that Manson believed Crowe to be a member, it only says that after the Black Panther's body was found, and some black people came by the ranch, that Manson thought the ones who came to the ranch were Panther spies.

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of Wikipedia, but simply because someone made an error in an edit - and someone, namely me, made a change of which you read differently than I do - does it mean an article is on the way to "Wiki-mush" nor that it will end up that way. Since mine was one of the two edits which you seem to think denigrate the entire article, I find that a bit offensive. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As you may be able to tell from other posts on my page, I spend so much of my time on WP battling one or two other people that I must confess I find it a relief to get a reply to a comment I leave that doesn't call me ignorant and argue moot points well past the end of the problem.

As to your rhetorical questions: In this digital age, our lives are so full of sloppy prose and convoluted language that I doubt the everyday man will ever be same. So yes, we're doomed to battle poor grammar and unclear material. Yes, we probably do have better things to do, but nonetheless, here we are.

I suspect that some of the misunderstandings regarding some of this material may come from some of us knowing the subject matter so well that what is apparent to us may not be apparent to others. This is to what I attribute the errors in the Hinman shooting sentences. Perhaps the editor understood it that way. It's too bad we can't just paste in Manson's words for all of that section, but they wouldn't be much clearer. That's the beauty and the horror of him - he likely didn't tell people specifically to do things, but he manipulated their understanding so they did what he wanted.

I'm not clear about what Manson thought about Crowe and the Panthers. My gut feeling is that he knew they weren't connected, but he believed that the Panthers would act when a black man was shot (maybe because he viewed them all as drug users and dealers). I do have a copy of Bugliosi's book, but it's the first edition, not the 1994 update, so the page numbers are off. I've had a hard time finding things to verify passages, but I don't want to line Bugliosi's pockets any more. I will flip through to find it tomorrow when the light is better. (I have eye problems which make it difficult to see sometimes. At night, I can see the computer screen so much better than the pages of a book).

Thanks for your thoughtful consideration of my points and your apology. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manson, girls - shaved heads

Nowhere in Bugliosi does it state that either Manson, the female defendants or the Family members shaved their heads in direct protest of the verdicts. In fact, Bugliosi 1994, page 439 shows that Manson did not in fact shave his head until a full five weeks into the penalty phase of the trial, stating "I'm the Devil, and the Devil always has a bald head." Atkins, Krenwinkel and Van Houten, as well as the rest of the Family members, did not follow suit until the penalty phase was almost over (Bugliosi 1994, pg. 455).

If you're going to include this information, at least get the facts straight - as you've so often accused me of not doing.

BassPlyr23 22:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I realize that I'm making a presumption here regarding the Family members. If you wish, I'll edit the statement to reflect this.

Thank you at least for giving me credit, considering our dueling over the past couple of weeks. I hope you realize that my only intent was to make the article better.

--BassPlyr23 00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Since we don't know (and Bugliosi doesn't say) exactly when the girls shaved their heads (Bugliosi's wording was "when it was too late to influence the jury"), I've added the word "almost" to your edit (as in "when the verdict was almost ready").

BTW, I just added to the infobox reference to Manson's three known (verifiable) children. The citations regarding the three boys are scattered throughout Bugliosi 1994 - sorry, I don't have my copy in front of me, otherwise I'd add footnotes. If you want, be my guest.

--BassPlyr23 00:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

To field your queries in order:

I didn't answer you for a very simple reason - I went to sleep (I presume from your earlier missives that you're from England - as I type this, it's early morning here in the northeast United States).

I would think that Bugliosi would know exactly when the female defendants shaved their heads, as he was the prosecutor in their trial and saw them every day. In his book, he just didn't tell us. I think that saying that the girls shaved their heads "late in the penalty trial" rather than making a definitive (and unverifiable) statement such as "after the jury went in to deliberate" makes the article more truthful and readable.

The copycat "motive" reads a lot better than the copycat "narrative" or "account". The Family were trying to suggest an alternate "motive" to Helter Skelter. Please leave the word intact.

--BassPlyr23 11:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)