Talk:Charles Manson

Should be removed

A long paragraph about Nikolas Schreck and his documentary Charles Manson Superstar has been added to the article's subsection headed "Remaining in View." All but the first sentence of it should be removed.

The paragraph is POV ("considered one of the most authoritative and comprehensive documentaries on the subject").

It is irrelevant (full of verbiage about Schreck's conclusions).

It is erroneous and confuses the article (claims that the prosecution argued that Manson thought Terry Melcher was living at the Tate house on the murder night — even thought the Wikipedia article points out earlier, in the subsection headed "Encounter with Tate," that Manson had been told by Rudi Altobelli that Melcher no longer lived there).

It blathers about the "admitted" copycat motive (re helping Beausoleil) as if this has not been mentioned anywhere else in the article, even though it's been dealt with thoroughly (and brought into doubt) in the footnoted section about the trial.

The whole paragraph is precisely the sort of internet junk that Wikipedia should be trying not to be.108.52.30.154 (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

PS From prosecution's closing argument (which is linked at article's end):

... when Charles Manson sent his robots out on a mission of murder, since the only qualifications the victims had to have was that they be white and members of the establishment, obviously, it made immense sense to Charles Manson, so he may just as well select a residence that he was familiar with, particularly one where he had been treated rather shabbily and whose former occupant, Terry Melcher, had rejected him.

Emphasis added.108.52.30.154 (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed you're still using this tactic after all this time. If you will not pursue the extremely simple avenue to getting unblocked: what the heck are you still doing here? I cannot comprehend your motivation for commenting, admitting who you are, and making no effort to actually improve the article because of whatever "greater reason" you have. It's stupid. And it's old. Doc talk 11:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Also - this absurd and pointless edit makes me want to see you blocked, either as a sock of an indefinitely blocked editor or a disruptive impersonator. What exactly is your problem? Do speak up... Doc talk 11:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Doc — There was nothing absurd or pointless about my comment you linked at the Carlin talk page. It was an effort to change the article from fanboy slop.

I object to your use of the word tactic — and I object to your indignation. A long time ago, I posted on a Wikipedia page a statement I considered necessary. An administrator deemed it a legal threat and said I was blocked if I were not to withdraw it. I thought it inappropriate to withdraw it. That's not a problem. That's action. I might just as well ask you why you think Wikipedia should be permitted to operate as it does, with no real means of addressing possible libel of persons who edit under their actual names.

As your own statement immediately above makes clear, this is not the first time you have posted an objection to a talk-page statement that I have posted in good faith in an attempt to improve this article. If you think the criticism I have stated above (re the Schreck material) is a good one, you should act on it. I'm not disrupting anything. My course of action is not enigmatic: I'm choosing to ignore a block I think is unfounded. I'm making serious contributions to the discussion of this article. I'll be frank and say you seem more interested in playing Wikipedia social leader than in acting on my suggestions. The Schreck material I've discussed above mars the article. It is, as I have pointed out, junk. You're more interested in cutting me off than in simply acting to remove it. You, I think, are the one who has a problem. I am pretty sure that just about any interaction you and I personally have had on a Wikipedia talk page has been proper.108.52.30.154 (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

PS Doc — I can't give this matter any more attention. Should you choose to post a response to my remarks above, I won't see it. I looked in on the article and saw the Schreck material, which struck me as something from a Manson fanpage. I've made clear why I think it should be struck from the article. — John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia, PA, USA108.52.30.154 (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not interested in "cutting you off" - you are. If you want good faith: retract your ridiculous legal threat and come back aboard. Otherwise, you are not a legitimate editor here by the rules established long before you or I joined here. Smarten up, please. Doc talk 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 3 November 2011

"part of 'the hole in the infinite" under Helter Skelter should be "part of 'the whole in the infinite"

Withoutsin (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I had a look at the sentence you mentioned and noticed it's in quotes, and referenced to a certain book see here. I couldn't find a copy of the book anywhere, but would like to understand your reasoning for the change. Could you please explain? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Google says it's "the hole" and not "the whole". 4.4 million vs 1 result. --uKER (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a transcription of Chapter 12 of My Life with Charles Manson (by Manson Family member Paul Watkins, with Guillermo Soledad): http://tatelabianca.blogspot.com/2006/06/my-life-with-charles-manson-chapter_30.html The transcript, which could, of course, have been mistyped, says "hole"; and that's my memory of the text, which I borrowed from a library a few years ago. Somewhere else — in the same book, I think — the phrase is completed in a sentence that goes something like this: "Charlie said the Beatles were a hole in the infinite, which love poured through." I emphasize: I'm paraphrasing, from memory — but that suggests that hole, not whole, is the correct word.108.36.209.26 (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

PS Here's the passage whose sentence I paraphrased, immediately above, from memory. It's from page 64, Chapter 5, of the Watkins-Soledad book (My Life with Charles Manson, Bantam Books, 1979. ISBN 0-553-12788-8). Manson is speaking:

"The idea is to kill off the programs society has stuck us with…to deprogram ourselves…to get rid of the past shit…to submit to the love and come to Now. That's why we sing and make love together and see our fears for what they are…steps to a higher consciousness. It's like the man on the cross, dig. He just loved. He just submitted to his love and all his body carried was love; there were no programs inside him. He was clear, just a hole in the infinite that love poured out of."

Charlie would often refer to himself as a "hole in the infinite"; the implications were obvious, and I remembered Snake's comment the first day I came to Spahn's: "Charlie is Jesus Christ."

See also the following, from the book's Chapter 3:

We drove up Topanga Canyon Boulevard, past Devonshire to Santa Susana Pass, then up to the Chatsworth foothills. The girls talked about Charlie and the family, how mellow their life was there, how deeply they all felt Charlie's love. "Charlie," Brenda intoned, "is just a hole in the infinite through which love is funneled." It all sounded pretty hokey to me, and I didn't pay much attention, until Snake flashed a beatific smile and said simply, "Charlie is Jesus Christ."

They both giggled. I let it slide, thinking it some sort of inside joke.108.36.209.26 (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Reported Facts

This article states that Charles Manson's birth date is November 12, 1934 but he himself has spoken and said that his birth date is November 11, 1934 - which is Veteran's Day.

As many people know, date reporting is Vital (it is known as a Vital Record). I request that the True facts be represented, and that no altering of true fact be allowed. Please correct the discrepancy of Charles Manson's reported birth date. 107.3.77.47 (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.77.47 (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

107.3.77.47 (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the birth certificate (which is linked in the article's footnote 10): http://www.mansondirect.com/birthcert.html

The discrepancy is addressed in Bugliosi and Gentry's Helter Skelter:

As with almost everything else written about Manson's early years, even his date of birth is usually given erroneously, although for an understandable reason. Unable to remember her child's birthday, the mother changed it to November 11, which was Armistice Day and an easier date to remember.

That's a footnote to the fourth paragraph of the book's chapter headed "November 22-23, 1969" (page 136 of the 1994 25th Anniversary Edition).108.36.209.26 (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

homosexual rape

Apparantly he was convicted for homosexual rape as well. http://library.thinkquest.org/C007102/Murderers/manson.htm Shouldn't that be in the article.--41.151.14.6 (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, unless there's a much better source. See WP:RS. That source is not reliable by WP standards. Cheers :> Doc talk 04:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The article reports it. See the first paragraph of the subsection headed "First imprisonment."108.36.209.26 (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So... if it's already in the article then I'm not sure what you're asking should be in the article. Doc talk 06:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor who pointed out that the article reports it is not the editor who asked about it.108.36.209.26 (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Very true - I got confused :) Perhaps they will respond, and perhaps not. Cheers! Doc talk 09:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Really interesting entety with clear philosophy

I was just wondering, have you guys looked in to any of hes interviews also, like this one here with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZFKRtwCLog Daniels  ? There is a lot of new white rabbits one could fallow and research further. I feel like something important is missing from this article, cant understand what. And what about hes birth date, was it really on 12 or is it on 11 as he told? Why lie about it, besides numerology and other upcoming events in this numeric world ?

Waffa 02:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waffa (talk • contribs)

Edit request on 27 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The Manson website, ATWA.com, was discontinued in 2001. [The following information should be added.] ATWA, which is an acronym for "All The Way Alive," now operates a website out of Berkely, California, and it was last updated in October 2009. The website contains quotes and philosophy from Manson, Sandra Good, and Lynette Fromme, and focuses on environmental issues.

Website address: http://www.allthewayalive.com/One_World_Order/one.html Beadbop (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Beadbop (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot add that without an independent reliable source.  Chzz  ►  07:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

pathology?

could use more info on what psychiatrists think of him, what mental illnesses he had/has.