Talk:Charles Manson

Template:RFCbio

"Annoy/ed"

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

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

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

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

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

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

From "The Family," p. 271: Another "sin" of Shea in the crazed eyes of the Family was that he had married a black dancer whom evidently Shorty had met in Las Vegas. The Family was upset because his wife's black friends started coming around.

p. 272: However much he wanted the M-ites off the ranch, the murder was really triggered because Shorty knew something about the Tate-LaBianca killings.

I didn't find the word "annoy" or a variant with a Google Book search of either text. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 15:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Other Edits

I’m not sure all of your changes are for the better. In a few places, you seem to have introduced error or to have eliminated something helpful.

Original sentence:

Pleading guilty in September 1959 to a charge of attempting to cash a forged U.S. Treasury check, [Manson] received a 10-year suspended sentence and probation after a young woman with an arrest record for prostitution tearfully told the court she and Manson were in love and would marry if Manson were freed.

You eliminated the word "tearfully." The source (Helter Skelter 1994, page 143) is as follows:

Leona also appeared and made a tearful plea in Manson’s behalf. They were deeply in love, she told the judge, and would marry if Manson were freed.

Presumably, this reflects the record of the court proceeding. "Tearful" and "tearfully" are not sensational. They are accurate and enhance the reader’s understanding of the personalities involved.

I’m also not sure why you say the statement smacks of plagiarism, though I know little about that subject. I think the statement originally bore a footnote that specified the Helter Skelter page from which it was drawn. My guess would be that that is enough support for a close paraphrase.

See plagiarism. Using the same words, even in a shorter sentence, without quotation marks, seems to fit the definition to me. If it reflects the court record, can that be cited? Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I address this point below, after your response to my postscript.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Original sentence:

After Folger was taken momentarily back to her bedroom for her purse, out of which she gave the intruders $70, Watson stabbed the groaning Sebring seven times.

You removed the word "groaning." Again – this is not sensational. The source (Watson’s autobiography, Chapter 14) is this:

Sebring [who had been shot and who had slumped, still alive, onto the rug] was breathing hard, groaning, and in the sudden silence I didn’t know what else to do – I went over to him and stabbed him until I thought he was dead.

The groaning is the motivation for the stabbing.

I'm concerned about plagiarism, and the use of that descriptor doesn't strike me as encyclopedic. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't see the plagiarism possibility, even by the standard you've mentioned above. The original sentence had the virtue of combining Watson's statement about the groaning with Bugliosi and Gentry's autopsy info that Sebring's stab wounds totaled seven. Being thus a synthesis of information, from separate sources, it is almost the opposite of plagiarism. Regardless — the groaning as the motivation for the stabbing of Sebring is important. Without it, the stabbing is gratuitous, incomprehensible. Maybe you can come up with a slightly-longer wording, which you will find encyclopedic.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Similarly – original sentence:

As Frykowski struggled across the lawn, Watson finished him off as well; the victim had been stabbed fifty-one times during the assault.

You changed "finished him off" to "killed." "Finished him off" is not sensational; I’m not even sure it’s indecorous. Regardless, Frykowski had already been stabbed (repeatedly – maybe by two persons), bludgeoned (repeatedly), and shot (twice). By some wording or other, the sentence should make clear that Watson had to stab him several more times to finish him off.

In my opinion, "finished him off" is disrespectful to the victim and unencyclopedic. The information about being stabbed, bludgeoned, and shot is already present, and therefore I don't think this phrase is required. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes — the information about the initial stabbing, bludgeoning, and shooting is already present; that's my point. "Killed" is slightly off, because Watson and (it seems) Atkins had already begun killing Frykowski in the living room and the front doorway. On the lawn, Watson completed killing Frykowski. I personally don't find "finished him off" disrespectful of Frykowski, but maybe you can come up with a substitute.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Original sentence:

When the group established itself in vigil on the sidewalk, each hard-core member wore a sheathed hunting knife that, being in plain view, was being carried legally. Each was identifiable by the X on his or her forehead.

You eliminated "hard-core." That changes the meaning. Evidently, some of the Family members who were on the sidewalk did not have the knives. Bugliosi and Gentry, in Helter Skelter, apply the adjective "hard-core" to those who did. I won’t bother tracking down the statements unless you ask me to, but I’m pretty sure Watson and Watkins, in their autobiographies, also distinguish "core" members of the Family from the larger group, whose membership varied. Maybe "core" would be better than "hard-core," but some distinction should be made.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case, we are agreed, though I think some rewording is required. I was under the impression that there were no unmarked members in the group, and that the "hard-core" adjective was therefore fluff. If that's the term in the book, I'd still like quotation marks. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll add the quotation marks.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: Bugliosi and Gentry's report of Leona's "tearful" plea is in their description of a proceeding that took place years before the murders and with which Bugliosi had nothing to do. That is why I say that "tearful" presumably reflects a court's record (i.e., one examined by Bugliosi after he was assigned to the murder case) and that the use of it in the Wikipedia article is not plagiarism.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's in the court record or not. I know that most of the words of the original sentence were used, which I believe constitutes plagiarism. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes — naturally, neither of us knows whether it's in a court record. My point was that (1) it apparently reflects some sort of record and (2) it is valuable. I've provided you the source sentence and its page number. Equipped with those, you should be able to eliminate your plagiarism concerns, either by rewording the sentence or using quotation marks. I would be pleased if you will do so.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Postscript: I just noticed that another editor has addressed your concern by placing "tearfully" in quotation marks. Maybe you'll find that satisfactory.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems I'm overruled by the other editors on this article, partly because I've been here for less than four months. I didn't think that was an indicator of whether or not ideas or concerns were valid, but alright. I wasn't intending to insult or accuse anyone, so my apologies to anyone upset.

Regarding my concerns about plagiarism, it was hammered into me when I considered being an English major that simply shortening a sentence and moving some of the words around was not sufficient, even if the words were cited. Quotes are also required in professional writing. Perhaps the rules on wiki are different, and if so I'd appreciate a friendly point in that direction. Again, I do not mean insult, nor am I assuming any deliberate bad edits.

At any rate, my arguments have been refuted, so I'm moving on. Best wishes. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's still kinda bugging me, so to explain why I want to show a comparison.

From the source, per an earlier editor: Leona also appeared and made a tearful plea in Manson’s behalf. They were deeply in love, she told the judge, and would marry if Manson were freed.

Original phrasing in article: Pleading guilty in September 1959 to a charge of attempting to cash a forged U.S. Treasury check, [Manson] received a 10-year suspended sentence and probation after a young woman with an arrest record for prostitution tearfully told the court she and Manson were in love and would marry if Manson were freed.

I do not currently own a copy of the source. If past/future readers (still) don't understand my concern, so be it. Again, I'm not making any further edits. I wish only goodwill. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't your length of time being here that was a concern to me, FangedFaerie, it was mostly the use of the word "plagiarism". It's considered a fairly serious charge, even if that wasn't your intention. There is so much subtext in some of the content on the page, for example, the use of the word "groaning", which establishes why Watson stabbed someone who was essentially dying. I also think there's a difference between plagiarizing a source, which implies that it is a conscious effort to pass off someone else's work as your own original research, and what we try to do here. I come across a lot of content here that is so explicitly plagiarized - the Sharon Gless article I worked a bit on tonight had content that was just blatantly copy & pasted, section titles and all, from somewhere else and no improvements were made to it - that I see a qualitative difference in trying to produce an article that is comprehensive, well-sourced and accurately presented that might use some similar phrasings as the source with citations and just trying to pass something off, especially when we aren't allowed to use original research. A stray word might creep in, but that's more properly addressed with correction and not removal. In the case of the word "tearful", the effort is to convey that what Leona did in court was play a role, although we can't, in the absence of explicit source material that says so, say "Leona pulled off a masterful performance." My sole comment elsewhere about how long you'd been here was more about how you might approach something after a few more months here. Like it or not, after we've spent a considerable amount of time on a given article, most of us become invested in its integrity, so if something seems to challenge that, we speak up. JohnBonaccorsi generally can address these kinds of concerns a lot more eloquently than I can, thus I wanted to allow him to respond to your concerns without it becoming contentious. If I seemed so, I apologize. Meanwhile, if something needs clarified, then by all means, speak up. I think a lot of citations were forced onto the article to help support what a) is common knowledge about the Manson family and b) what challenges common knowledge. In that spirit, while the Bugliosi book is one of the major sources on the page, an effort was made to incorporate outside verification of what "the Bug" said with what others said. And John was very instrumental in forming some of that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making a formal accusation of plagiarism, though I understand better why you're offended by it. I have gone over more of the text and compared it to the Google Books copy of Helter Skelter and added more quotation marks. Since the viewing of the book is limited and I don't have a physical copy, I only changed two of them.

I'm tired. I don't want to fight. I've looked over the archives of the talk page here and am dismayed by the conflict that required this page be semi-protected. I had enough of that at Sarah Palin's page, so I'm moving on to less contentious material.

Please believe that I only wanted to help. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 08:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is fighting (anymore, at least). It seems like we've made our opinions and viewpoints known and things are good. Curiously enough, the article is semi-protected because of blatant vandalism, not so much conflict over content. At some point, the conflict has dissipated. The vandalism, however has not. It takes a bit for an article to be semi-protected for 6 months, and I see that will expire next month. It goes from hours to a day, to 3 days, to a week, etc. It will take all of a couple days for protection to be necessary again when it expires. In any case, thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

After a good night's sleep I thought I'd tackle just the ref's some more. I am officially frustrated, and seriously, really, I mean it this time, I quit. The article seems to be mostly Helter Skelter paraphrased, with a sprinkling of Manson in His Own Words, and the ref list needs a lot of help but I'm not up for it. I'm still concerned that the tone of the book has leaked into the article, but not enough to keep up this headache. Best wishes. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 15:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Other edits (Part 2)

FangedFaerie –

1 - I haven’t overruled you. I have presented questions about some of your revisions. I rejected, for instance, your statement that the use of "tearful" was sensational. You were free to respond. I also left it to you to decide whether the sentence in which it appeared was plagiarism and should be adjusted.

I did respond. Quite frankly, I feel like the two of you are ganging up on me. I adjusted it, and you both seem very upset about that.

Please be careful about what you say. I don't think I have expressed any reaction at all to the revision you made to the "tearful" passage after I presented my remarks about it. I told you I thought "tearful" was not sensational, and I asked you to address your plagiarism concerns. You addressed them, and I don't think I've said anything since.

A general comment: Wildhartlivie and I are not a team. She makes her comments; I make mine. If I think I should post a comment on her talk page, I do. In the present case, the only thing I've said to her — in response to a comment she posted on my page — is that it's good she steered this discussion to the talk page. I don't think I've contributed to any of the exchanges you've had with her.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

2 – As far as I recall, disputes that have taken place on this talk page had nothing at all to do with the article’s semi-protection. The article suffered constant, often-wholesale vandalism, frequently of the sort that is a symptom of psychopathology.

My mistake, and my apologies.

Thank you.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

3 – The story about the juvenile Manson’s being sold for a pitcher of beer may be deleted from the article for all I care. As I recall, it was here when I first visited the article (although it was unintelligible, inasmuch as it didn’t mention Manson’s retrieval by his uncle). I left it because it seemed like something that was reasonably of importance to someone. Your revision of it is possibly inaccurate. When I first worked on the passage, I, too, began the sentence with "According to Manson." When I took another look at Manson in His Own Words, I decided that that might be not true. In the introduction of that book, Nuel Emmons, who crafted it, mentions that he visited Manson’s relatives for some childhood information, even though he presented all of it in first person — i.e., as if it were information from Manson himself. The passage about the pitcher of beer starts with "One of Mom’s relatives delighted in telling the story." It’s possible, in other words, that the story is one that Emmons heard from one of Manson’s relatives, not from Manson himself. I think it best to avoid wording that suggests the contrary.

Why on earth would any reasonable person believe the biographer would refer to Manson's mother as "one of Mom's relatives"? The book is written often in first person, as his account. Regardless, the pitcher story is a story, and has no outside verification. I think a "claims" or "alledges" or "according to" should be in there. But that's just my opinion.

I didn't suggest Emmons referred to Manson's mother as "one of Manson's relatives." I said it's possible the story about Manson's mother's supposed deed came to Emmons from "one of Manson's relatives" -- i.e., from someone other than Manson's mother.

The statement in the introduction of Manson in His Own Words is this:

I pieced [Manson's] childhood together with help from many sources. In addition to what he told me, which contained many gaps, I journeyed across the United States to where he was born and the places he spent the first sixteen years of his life. In Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky I talked to those who could fill in gaps and verify what Manson said. When there was new information, I would return to Manson and repeat what I had been told, to hear his words and sense his feelings about it.

What I have recorded here as a continuous chronological narrative is therefore actually the result of a long process of discussion and re-examination of the events, checking and cross-checking of details, and re-organization of the frequent, frustrating leaps of Manson's conversation. Nevertheless, it represents Manson's recollections of his life and his attitudes toward it as accurately, consistently, and coherently as humanly possible.

The passage about the pitcher of beer is this:

One of Mom's relatives delighted in telling the story of how my mother once sold me for a pitcher of beer.

That sounds as if the story might be something Emmons first heard from one of Manson's relatives — an uncle or a cousin or whatever — although Manson might have confirmed that he himself had heard it, either from his mother or someone else. My point is simply that it's not entirely clear that Manson himself is the person who has handed the story down. If the story is to be in the article, it probably should be introduced by something like "allegedly," as you say. I'm simply saying that we should avoid saying that Manson is the person who alleged it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

4 - I see that, in a few places, you have tried to "fix refs." I applaud you. If you will review the past talk-page arguments that dismay you, you will see that they had, in part, to do with that very thing. I personally dislike Wikipedia’s "name=[whatever]" mechanism for supposedly simplifying repeated citation. It can very easily confuse things. As I stated in one of those earlier arguments, I do not vouch for any of the citations at this point. There was a point at which, in essence, not a single one of the article’s footnotes was one of those "name=[whatever]" things. At that point, I was pretty sure the citations were accurate. Now, I don't know.

Me neither.

5 – To put it bluntly: Because of your unwillingness to back off from your unfounded statement that the use of "groaning" in the Sebring passage was sensational, you have made a mess of the attack on Sebring. You have managed the almost-impossible feat of defaming Tex Watson. There is no indication now that the stabbing was intended to silence the groaning Sebring (which is all you had to write). It now seems as if Watson stabbed Sebring for no other reason than that the gunshot was not fatal.

Fine, revert it to groaning and put "groaning" in quotes. I wasn't trying to "make a mess of" anything, I was trying to make the article sound more professional and less like the true crime almost-novels it's based upon. I was attempting to address your objection that "killed" was too vague. This edit seems to have further upset you, which was not my intent. I'm not a puppy to be kicked into submission, however.

Maybe I'm misreading your statement, but I think you've just combined discussion of two separate points. My remark about "killed" — which I said was inaccurate, not vague — had to do with the Frykowski murder, not the Sebring murder. At any rate, I won't be revising the passage. I've given up on it.

I'll mention, incidentally, that — your comments about being overruled, ganged up on, and kicked-puppywise notwithstanding — I have not undone a single one of your revisions. The only change I've made because of your changes is one you requested: the addition of quotation marks to "hard-core."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

6 – Thanks to you and — to dredge up old wounds — an editor who was involved in the ancient arguments that you found dismaying in the talk-page archives, the death of Frykowski is now unintelligible. It is impossible for the reader to figure out that Watson finished Frykowski off — or, if you prefer Victoriana to Mortal Kombat, ended his life — by stabbing him.

Well, "finished him off" has nothing to do with stabbing, either, so on that one you've totally lost me. It bothers me because it's not neutral, professional phrasing.

You're right: "finished him off" has nothing to do with the stabbing. When the earlier editor removed the statement that Watson's final attack on Frykowski was a multiple stabbing, the damage to the statement was essentially complete. "Finished him off," which, upon my prodding, the editor followed with the clause about the fifty-one stab wounds, at least gave the reader some faint idea that the finish might have taken the form of a stabbing. Those last fumes of coherence vanished, I thought, when you changed "finished him off" to "ended his life." That was my only point.

I'll mention that the American Heritage Dictionary offers "destroy, kill" as a definition of "finish."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the stabbing information. You'll probably think that section is too unwieldy at this point. Feel free to make further edits. None of us wp:own this article. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 20:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the stabbing information — but to be honest, I haven't even looked at it. I've given up on this passage, too.

Re the fact that nobody owns the article: That's right. The amount of work that someone puts into it doesn't matter either — so I decline the salute you offered at the beginning of your initial comment on this page. To say it again: I have not undone a single one of your revisions, and I have not participated in your emotional exchanges with Wildhartlivie (although I thought both of you made valid points). Even when I said that I "let you" determine the plagiarism question re "tearful," I was speaking about the exchange between you and me only — i.e., I was pointing out that I didn't extend discussion of the plagiarism question.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

7 – In the section about the Tate murders, you have inserted the sub-heading "Murders" before the section about the attack on the house’s four occupants. That is quite unfair to Steven Parent, who was murdered in the driveway — i.e., before the intruders reached the house. That is one of the reasons I used the word "Slaughter," which you found unencyclopedic and which some editor deleted as unencyclopedic after you objected to it on the talk page.

Wow. So "slaughter" is fair to Steven Parent, then?

"Slaughter" is not quite fair to him either. That's one of the reasons I've not argued for its reinsertion (as maybe you noticed in the comment I posted on Wildhartlivie's talk page and that you have pasted immediately below). "Slaughter" is a tad better than "Murders," in that it groups the non-Parent murders as a sort of single manic episode, distinct from the driveway killing (which would seem to have been intended in part to destroy a witness to the intruders' presence). In other words, "Slaughter" is, at least, arguably fair to Parent. "Murders" is completely objectionable.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a heading in response to this comment from Wildhartlivie's talk page.

Can you come up with a substitute for the heading "Slaughter," which, as you know, another editor has removed? If I come up with one, I'll put it there. I recall you and I both thought a heading was helpful there.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I knew you weren't addressing me, but I thought it was "helpful." Now I'm being attacked for it. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 20:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

8 - Editor Wildhartlivie gets emotional, if I may say, in defending the article, but if you will focus on the substance of her comments, as, for instance, you did with respect to "annoyed," you will find her a valuable workmate, I think.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, as I did above: the word "annoy/ed" was found in neither of the citations. I have edited the article to reflect what I did find in one of them. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 20:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And I repeat: You are confusing the exchanges between you and me with the exchanges between you and Wildhartlivie. I don't think I've commented at all about the "annoyed" question, except to say, as I just did, above, that, with respect to it, you focused on the question, not the emotion with which it was discussed.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, guys, but it isn't my view that there was a highly emotional exchange over edits as much as there was taking exception to the question of plagiarism by what is a relatively new editor. That was about as negative as anything could be taken and if it was taken that way, I have already apologized. Yes, I do sometimes become emotional but this wasn't particularly one of those times. In fact, to allow it to be discussed as dispassionately as possible, I've deferred to JohnBonaccorsi. No one has ganged up on you, but I did say that there are editors here who have strong and definitive opinions on the article. It is certainly difficult to tell at times what the "tone" of a typed statement might be, so if "in the summary [I] seemed upset", it was in response to edit summary wording such as "Smacks of POV and plagiarism" and "Annoyed," really?" The first edit summary response I made was "pls AGF and consider quotes were needed & not call things plagiarism" and I quickly tried to de-escalate the situation by asking it be brought here. I want to thank JohnBonaccorsi for his kind words about me.

Whether or not Bugliosi's book can be dismissed as "true crime almost-novels" is a bit of an opinion, but it is the primary source out there on this topic. (And in my opinion, is not nearly in the same class as say... Ann Rule true crime novels.) As I have said, efforts were made to assimilate various sources and the article isn't wholly based on it, although I suppose at some point in time in the more distant past, it was mostly from it and possibly, then, plagiarized from it. It has changed greatly from that time.

Regarding the word "annoyed", in one version of the events, Paul Watkins (I'm fairly certain) described it precisely in that way, along with more details about Manson's racist views on blacks. By the way, I'm certain "annoyed" is more professional than "pissed off". The marriage was the catalyst for Manson's distrust and growing vehement dislike for Shea. His suspicions about Shea knowing about the Family involvement in the murders and trying to get rid of the group from the property is what led to Shea's death. While the concern stated was that using the phrase "Manson was annoyed" lended a speculative tone, my view is that saying "Manson may have also been offended" is even more so. My caution was, and still is, trying to keep a speculative tone from the passage, while still having content that reflects the situation as it was.

As was discussed on John's talk page, the section heading is a matter of finding the right word or phrase to indicate the transition from entering the property and killing the witness to the point at which the event became wholesale slaughter. Perhaps "slaughter" isn't the right word, but "murders" is misleading and does ignore Steven Parent to a point. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe we'll all agree that "annoyed" is more professional than "pissed off" (although now that you mention it...).JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is "pissed off" coming from? I haven't used that term. Check the current version, please. That's what I get for not reading carefully. Still, I don't think "annoyed" works well. Mosquitoes annoy me. I don't think it's a good synonym for "pissed off" or the actual content of the source.

As for the rest, I got my back up when Wildhartlivie seemed to be miffed about a "relatively new editor" bringing up the question of plagiarism. Then JohnBonaccorsi, without actually reverting my edits, objected to almost all of them here with comments like "for all I care," "dredge up old wounds," and most of your point #5 above. So yes, I did feel ganged up on. I apologize for being too defensive, but it's not the first time someone has pointed out my newness as a method of dismissing me, and it 'pisses me off.'

All that aside, I reiterate that I was not trying to make accusations. As you both know, the edit summary line doesn't leave much room for comments. I've already stated my concerns about the tone of some of the descriptors used. When I said one of them "smacked of" POV and plagiarism, it wasn't an accusation so much as that's the impression I got when I read the passage.

I've seen on other pages how much editors have to tiptoe in a BLP. Manson was undeniably a lifelong criminal and involved in mass killings, but that doesn't mean we have to give in to arguably colorful or inflammatory language.

Full disclaimer: I have not read the main sources in full. I checked the text in this article against the text in the Google Books versions of two of them, and a glance at the reviews posted on the cover I vaguely recall "chilling" being used to advertise. The text itself definitely falls into the true crime category. That doesn't make it a bad book. Again, I don't think it's a bad source. My only concern has been that some of that tone has come into this encyclopedia, and I think a dry approach would be better.

Anyway, I've made all the edits I'm comfortable making now. I put up the RfC in the hopes that a good conversation will be generated. If my edits are changed to the better of the article, very well. My intent was to help it, not to step on anyone's toes. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 05:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the above was me. Diff. computer in the house. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 05:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)