Talk:Charles Manson/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Deletion of Watson statement 2 Grand pronouncement on vandalism 3 Good article nomination? 4 Good Article Nomination 5 Deaths on the lawn 6 Note 7 GA nomination 8 Revision of 21:56, 27 November 2007 9 Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles Manson/archive2 10 My edits from today... 11 Discovery of Shea's body 12 Burgled versus burglarized 13 For the record 14 Tate's demise 15 Shaved heads 16 California Death Penalty 17 Middle name Milles, not Willis 18 Scientology 19 More insidious vandalism 20 "Documentaries" 21 Edits of 24 January 2008 22 "Impend" 23 manson - artist ? 24 Comma and quotation marks 25 Didn't Charles Manson used to live in Charleston, WV? 26 Married or unmarried 27 Burglary, not robbery 28 Swastika on Forehead 29 More victims found? 30 Clothing discovery 31 Revolver 32 Date format 33 Leona 34 Hoyt clip 35 Soil testing 36 Parole 37 New Album - One Mind 38 The Monkees 39 Terry Melcher 40 Addition of section "Atkins report" 41 Manson. The man who killed the 60's. 42 Beatle view

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)

• I agree with Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs)'s comment. I have done some bits of work on the article, minor structural stuff, but I'd rather let someone else do the GA review. But that stability is the hanging point I was thinking of when debating to do the review. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 00:50, 26 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)

• Second - I agree with Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs). However, the GA nom was up for a short while, and the GA nom in and of itself has caused some interesting events, and the article itself has improved markedly since 2005. So I updated the Article History to reflect a "GA fail" - this does not reflect poorly on the article, quite the contrary, it shows people are working on it. I think the next step should be a Peer Review, and I'll start one shortly. Cirt (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Y Done - Started a Peer Review, hopefully to hash out some of these issues with both involved and uninvolved editors. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles Manson/archive2. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 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.

• "Parole hearings": 23 May 2007.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

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. (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)