Talk:Charles Manson

Reason for murders?

tl;dr, what was the reason to murder Tate and the others? 85.1.197.187 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the article. It tells you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New Picture

I don't know why the image that is being used is, but there are more "up-to-date" images that could be used (and should be used). The latest image taken last week should be used, and as he is in a Federal facility one imagines it is free to use. Proxy User (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I agree that at long as he's alive the latest picture should be used in the main infobox, but it seems odd that the rest of the article is completely devoid of photographs. Should older photographs be included below near discussion of older events? DavidRF (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The latest photo was published in the newspapers, etc.... what? yesterday? We can't take an image published in newspapers, etc. and use it. Fair-use images can't be used in infoboxes, it needs to be a free use image. That is also why there are not images throughout the article. The majority of them are copyrighted and the ones that were available were removed because "they don't add better understanding" to the article. Image policies have stymied the addition of photos or their retention. If you find free-use images of Manson that are relevant to a section, then sure, let us know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The source of the image is the State of California, not some newspaper photog. It has EXACTLY the same copyright conditions as the other mug shots (and the one you reverted to) produced and released to the public by the State of California. They are - the both of them - mug shots released under exactly the same conditions. Using the older image serves no purpose at all. Proxy User (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally know nothing of Wikipedia's rules on the use of photographs; but if both photographs may be used, can't they both be presented in the article? The old photograph is from the (post-Tate-LaBianca) Spahn Ranch raid of August 16, 1969, I think. It had a caption like "Booking photo." Maybe the infobox at the article's head could include that picture, with a clearer caption (e.g., "Manson booking photograph, Spahn Ranch raid, August 16, 1969"). The recently-released photo could be presented in the article's "Parole hearings" subsection, where it could be captioned, "Manson, March 2009, Corcoran State Prison." That way, the article would be — what's the word? — informative.71.242.171.202 (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think while both should be included, the Info Box image should represent the most up-to-date image of the article subject. Proxy User (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That might be a good idea, too. I really don't know Wikipedia's usual approach. If the current photo is in the infobox, then the 1969 booking photo could be placed alongside the Spahn raid info, in the article's "Investigation" subsection. Whichever the approach, captions like those I've suggested above would be helpful. These are simply my recommendations; I personally won't be making any changes. Maybe editor Wildhartlivie, who does a good job of keeping the article under control, will want to chime in here.71.242.171.202 (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've brought the issue of copyright up here: WP:Media_copyright_questions#Copyright_Status_of_Mug_Shots_Released_to_the_Press, and the consensus, such that it, is is that fair use is established for such images as mug shots released to the press. Also:

Fair-use images can't be used in infoboxes, it needs to be a free use image.

Says who? -//-Proxy User (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so everybody knows, I reinserted Manson's mugshot at the top and moved his recent picture to the "Recent developments" section, complete with a source. More people are going to recognize Manson from the late 1960's than his aging self today when they first see this article. Thanks!Jgera5 (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Images taken by a prison for identification purposes aren't technically the same thing as a mugshot. The mugshot taken at the time of Manson's arrest in 1969 has been released to the public domain. Any copy of the recently released photo has to fall under fair-use, not public domain, as one upload of it was claimed (not yours, Proxy User). The license on that was claimed to be a work of the US government, which in fact it was not. Corcoran isn't a US federal prison. Fair use is not supposed to be included in infoboxes. The older image of Manson that's been used for a long time is released into the public domain and is free use. Who says is US copyright law and Wikipedia and is posted routinely in infoboxes with no images. Fair use has to be given a rationale regarding each specific use. One reason that would be possibly acceptable is if the image is of historical significance. I think the original booking photo of Manson from the time of the murders would qualify as having historical significance even if it were fair use, but not the recent update photo, which is meaningless in context of the focus of the article. Fair use might qualify to be used in the later sections of the article covering later years and remaining in the public focus, but not in the infobox. No one is blowing smoke about this, it is fact. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you said 100%, which is why I moved the recent image further down in the article and put the old image back up. Jgera5 (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe Manson's head is shaved in that photo, I don't think he is completely bald. Stubble along the hairline is visible. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, the issue has been discussed over at the Media Copyright Questions page where the opinion is that the image is fine. Now, the other point: Fair-use images can't be used in infoboxes, it needs to be a free use image. Again, where do you get this? The comments at Media Copyright Questions don't support it. I'm not saying it isn't so, I'm asking you to support your claim, or at least supply some rational for it, since it doesn't make any sense to me, I don't see the connection. Indeed, I suspect you're telling me this as a way to keep the most current Manson pick out of the Info Box, which is where it should be. The fact is, the Infobox picture should be the most recent available, and the latest image available has no copyright issues, I don't understand why it's an issue to you, this business of Fair-use images can't be used in infoboxes, it needs to be a free use image is clearly nonsense. Proxy User (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there is no need for your attitude. There is also no need for your bad faith assertions. I'm not in the least interested in what you suspect, but I will say that I'll be quite happy to dig up the various pages where this infobox point has been made, but it will take me a bit of time because I'm currently in the middle of something else and searching for discussion takes time. I've also read the comments at WP:ICHD and there absolutely is no need for you to be pissy in your comments. I note the one example given as why a fair-use image might be acceptable is for something for which a free equivalent would not be possible - non-free logos and non-free cover art. I'd also like for you to show me "the fact" that says the infobox should have the most recent image available. It's an issue to me because I've repeatedly seen images deleted because they are fair-use vs. free-use or removed from the infobox because of the same reason. It's an issue to me because I've been involved in editing this page for the last two years and have been part of the group of editors who brought the article to the quality it is right now. So, perhaps, the question is why are you being so vehement about it? I'd also point out to you that at present, there is currently no consensus for the infobox to contain even a new free-use image instead of the older one, which the way Manson looks to most readers of the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There are various talk page and other discussions about the use of a non-free image used for identification of an article subject, including, but not limited to: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 40#Non-free images used in biography articles and WP:NONFREE, as well as instructions in multiple infobox instructiosn including [1] and [2]. The fundamental requirements for the use of a non-free image are covered fairly well in the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline#Necessary components, which basically say that in order to give a rationale for non-free images include:

• Is the image a photograph for the main subject of the article?
• Is the image being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic?
• To what degree is the image replaceable by a free content image?
• If ... the image is a photograph, the [fair-use] image is more easily replaced, even if Wikipedians may lack the resources to create a replacement.

In essence, if you are going to try to rationalize using a fair-use image in place of a free-use image, it has to meet the guidelines and not be replaceable by a free-use image which reasonably serves as a means of identification of the subject. It doesn't matter that obtaining a recent free-use image is nearly impossible (because, for example a person is in prison and isn't allowed general visitors), if a free-use is available, you will not get a fair-use image past criteria for deletion based on policy. I don't think it can be any clearer than that. The recent Manson image is a fair-use image, the old arrest mugshot is not.

Another issue in this is copyright, which is a broader concept that it appears and basically falls under the definition of copyright in terms of use here. WP:GID#Copyright concerns says: Any work created in the United States since 1978 is automatically copyrighted unless it has been explicitly placed in the public domain. Again, that policy cites the use of replaceable free content, which the image from 1971 is considered and why it is acceptable for use well before the new photo.

That begs another question, which is the actual use of an image in the infobox, which is for identification of the article subject. I'm not thinking that an image of Charles Manson from 2009 is going to be more readily identifiable for him than the one that depicts him as the person the entire world recognizes as Charles Manson. If you want more links to check, please let me know. There are 13,700 links that I found that address this issue to one degree or another. It isn't about what I want the infobox to have, it's about what my experience in working with biographies has taught me about this specific issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you talking about this as I am looking at the same issue on other pages.I am glad to see the recent pic of manson here ..I saw a recent program about him on tv. and I recognised him from this recent picture immediatly. I would not have had any idea what he looked like before the tv program as the crime was so long ago!The wonders of sensationalistic reporting at the time had left me with the impression that he had physically murdered a lot of people in awful ways and then I discovered he did'nt actually murder anyone but encouraged others to do it! I am of the opinion that if the page is a biography of a living person then the image that most reflects his looks now would be preferable but if the page is only about the crime then the life history is not required and the picture of him when he commited the crime would be more reflective .... so is it a biography of a living person or a page about a crime that happened in ...1971? and the info box is for a criminal but I would think it should be for a person and then details of the major things in his life laid out in the lede and expanded on later in the page! (Off2riorob (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

It happened in 1969. He was more complicit in the murders than just encouraging it, he was convicted of conspiracy to commit the crimes and through his position of power in the Family group, was as much responsible for it happening as if he did fire a gun or wield a knife. It's both, a biography of a person, who became a criminal and he is only notable in the context of the crime and the events surrounding and leading up to it, and the effect that this individual had on society around him during and after the event. The infobox is for a criminal because without the crimes, he wouldn't have notability to have an article. In fact, any criminal is also a person, so generally, what happens is the infobox that most reflects the reason why the person is notable is the one that is used. There really isn't an infobox for crime for people outside of criminal. People who have an article as the result of being a victim of a crime might have a WP Crime template on the talk page. Any biography should be as complete as possible, and in this case, there is a lot of material out there to provide a full biography, which isn't the case in all articles. All of it is relevant - the life before the crime, the crime itself and how it came to occur, and what might have happened afterward - to the criminal and the world around him in the context of the person. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you for explaining(Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

No problem. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes no sense

At 16:32, 28 March 2009, sentences in the article’s opening paragraph were changed. Before the revision, the sentences were these:

He was found guilty of conspiracy to commit the Tate/LaBianca murders, which members of the group carried out at his instruction. Through the joint-responsibility rule of conspiracy, he was convicted of the murders themselves.

As revised, the sentences are these:

He was found guilty of conspiracy to commit the Tate/LaBianca murders, carried out by members of the group at his instruction. His guilt hinged on the joint-responsibility theory of conspiracy, which makes all co-conspirators guilty of all crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The change to the first sentence is fine. It is a minor change in wording. The change to the second sentence renders the paragraph incoherent. There is no longer any indication that Manson was found guilty of murder. The first sentence, as revised, states he was found guilty of conspiracy. The second sentence says "his guilt hinged on the joint-responsibility theory of conspiracy." Huh? His conviction for conspiracy is not what hinged on the joint-responsibility theory of conspiracy. Saying that is like saying that his conviction for conspiracy hinged on itself. What hinged on the joint-responsibility theory was his murder conviction — which is no longer mentioned in the paragraph. If the explanation of the joint-responsiblity rule is thought to be worth keeping — as it well may be — the second sentence should be something like this:

He was found guilty of the murders themselves through the joint-responsibility rule, which makes all co-conspirators guilty of all crimes committed in furtherance of their conspiracy.

I personally will not be making the change.71.242.171.202 (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have changed it had I been home to have seen the change. There are those who truly believe Manson shouldn't be in prison because he didn't wield the knife or pull the trigger! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I figured you weren't home. I've come to know how quickly you act on these things.71.242.171.202 (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm predictable!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the word is reliable.71.242.171.202 (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I will accept reliable. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Manson image i might wanna put up

• Manson during an interview in 1981
  Manson during an interview in 1981

like it RandomGuy666 (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)RandomGuy666

Um, what image? Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WTF

Can anyone explain what the hell happened here? Manson was in the middle of a question or something when he just starts spouting jibberish. Jedibob5 (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What? You don't speak Charlie? That's what he does. Whether it's because he truly is mad, or prefers appearing to be mad, it works for him. Personally, I think he behaves that way because he thinks that what we expect. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying pulled crap like this all of the time? This guy is really f*cked up... Jedibob5 (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying Charlie acted like this quite often. Whether it was an act to avoid being honest and or was real is anyone's guess. As I said, I think this is his act. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Neil Young: American Masters

On Neil Young's American Masters show on PBS tonight, he mentioned Charlie Manson, how he know him, and how he was a 'song spewer.' Apparently Neil suggested him to Reprise as "out of control", and he detested the rejection he faced.