Talk:Helter Skelter (Manson scenario)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Beatles record refered to in this article is listed as The White Album, however, the actual title of the record is The Beatles the "white album" is just a nickname resulting from the record's packaging.

Contents 1 Point well-taken 2 Links 3 Intent to undo 4 Revision of 04:51, 7 March 2008 5 Too much detail

[edit] Point well-taken

The nickname should not have been used without explanation. In the article's lead section and in the Timeline, I've inserted parenthetical indication of the album's formal name.JohnBonaccorsi 23:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

The Wikipedia copyright policy says: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). The tatelabianca blog states that it is carrying the contents of the book is copyright, and not of the blog author or owner. It is, of course, highly unlikely that the blog will ever be sued, but per our policy we may not link to that external site unless and until it can demonstrate that the content is carried by permission of the rights holder. The introduction rather seems to state the opposite, being rather an apologia for not having permission. Removing the link to the blog does not impact on the article since the citations are to the book itself and their validity is independent of the ability to link to content of the book. Many citations to print sources can't link to the source online, this is not a problem as long as sufficient detail is provided for independent verification. In that respect, page numbers would be useful. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intent to undo

I am reluctantly going to undo the series of edits by 24.5.15.124. At first, I simply undid his/her worst error, the alteration of the verb "pored" to "poured" in a context in which the former was correct; but now I am going to undo his/her elimination of bracketed substitutions that were necessary to make quoted passages accurate or intelligible. (To put it bluntly: he/she seems to have no knowledge of the function of brackets in quoted passages.) When I do so, I will also be undoing his/her heading changes, whose importance, for better or worse, is not great. In other words, I'm going to execute a mass-undo rather than attempt to undo the de-bracketing instance by instance.JohnBonaccorsi 23:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision of 04:51, 7 March 2008

At 04:51, 7 March 2008, the article’s opening sentence was revised as follows:

The murders perpetrated by Charles Manson and members of his Family were inspired in part by Manson’s interpretation of Helter Skelter, as describing an apocalyptic war that would arise from tension over racial relations between blacks and whites.

Previously, the sentence was this:

The murders perpetrated by Charles Manson and members of his Family were inspired in part by Manson’s prediction of Helter Skelter, an apocalyptic war he believed would arise from tension over racial relations between blacks and whites.

The revision is unclear and misconceived. What is meant by "Manson’s interpretation of Helter Skelter," the phrase the revision employs to introduce the subject of the article? Does it mean Manson’s interpretation of the everyday word helter-skelter? It can’t mean that. It apparently means Manson’s interpretation of the Beatles' song "Helter Skelter" — or, arguably, of the term helter skelter as used in the song; but neither the song nor the term (as used in the song) is the article's subject, although both certainly have to do with the subject. The subject, as is indicated at the head of the article and as is clear throughout it, is "Charles Manson’s prophesied war" — the war that he predicted and that he took to be the subject of that song and, in fact, several other Beatles songs.

I am going to undo the revision.71.242.167.173 (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too much detail

Encyclopedia articles are supposed to summarize. This article should not list and explain every Beatles song connected to this fantasy. It's way too much detail. Tempshill (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The comment above is wiki-junk — internet junk, I should say. What? The Beatles weren’t actually trying to communicate with Charles Manson through their records? Thanks for alerting us; the rest of us were taking that suggestion seriously. What you disdainfully refer to as "this fantasy" happens to be the subject of the article — and happens to have been at the heart of what is arguably the most-notorious murder in history. At countless places on the internet, it is summarized — inaccurately and unintelligibly.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: I apologize for my harshness and my snideness. I do think the article is fine as it is.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Post-postscript: Although the revision-history page indicates the article's byte-count is 65,381 kilobytes, the "readable prose," which I have just tallied by the method recommended here, is forty-three (43) kilobytes. The tally was made as follows:

1 — I transferred the article's "printable" version to an edit window.

2 — I eliminated everything except the text proper (i.e., from the article's opening sentence to the final word of its current final section ("Addendum")). By "everything," I mean the footnotes; the external links; the footnote brackets (e.g., "[1]"); the "[edit]" brackets; and the "Manson Family" template, category-links, and general Wikipedia information at the article's end.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)