Talk:Charles Manson/Archive 6

Childhood

In view of Charles Manson's skin color, obviously if Colonel Scott was his biological father, he cannot possibly have been black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.234.245 (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Simply not true. That jus' ign'ant. Look at Rashida Jones. If Scott himself were part white, especially white enough to pass, his offspring could easily look white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.213.142.170 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you never seen photographs in which the black ancestry of Rashida Jones is evident, however faintly? I think I've seen some--even this one:http://www.nndb.com/people/355/000110025/ 98.114.58.242 (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2015

Please edit the quote within the excerpt below (which is presented as a direct quote from a 1951 document) so it reflects the actual language of used. The original document used the term "colored" instead of "African American." It's extremely misleading as is. If you insist on keeping "African American" please place it within brackets to indicate the edit. Nobody used that term at the time. The original document can easily be found online. Thanks.

These include the first two sentences of his family background section, which read: "Father: unknown. He is alleged to have been an African American cook by the name of Scott, with whom Charles's mother had been promiscuous at the time of pregnancy."

Sbgleason (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done The source material does indeed use the term "colored", and not "African American". We are bound to our sources, and when using quotes we must stick to the source material. Doc talk 06:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Criminal and Musician?

Crime is his "profession'? Presuming music is his other vocation? Crime is now a calling, in the USA, something you write on a census form under "Occupation"? 118.211.195.218 (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Reverberation:

Here is an example of hypocrisy and calumny all in one: "Within months of the Tate–LaBianca arrests, Manson was embraced by underground newspapers of the 1960s counterculture." So, when the liks of Time Magazine or National Review feature Charles Manson on their covers or in their pages it's "reporting," but when so-called "counterculture" (i.e., any journal that opposes or defies the conservative ideologies, styles, and rituals of the likes of Time or National Review) do the same, it's an "embrace by underground newspapers." Yeah. As I stated, this is a classic case of hypocrisy (double standards) and calumny (the transparent slander of an entire multi-hued Left-leaning cultural revolution). CHANGE this offending and offensive passage, as it neither meets the baseline of academic standards nor wiki's supposed ideological "neutrality." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:D132:F00:214:51FF:FEE6:3765 (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

As the person who wrote the sentence that has offended you, I would say it is quite-possibly false. As far as I am aware, the only underground newspaper that possibly embraced Manson was Tuesday's Child, which, apparently, proclaimed him "Man of the Year" on the cover of one issue and featured an image of him on a cross on the cover of the next one. Not having read those issues, I can't say whether whatever was said about Manson in them can be said to have constituted an "embrace" of him.

The ancient Rolling Stone cover story, which is in the footnotes to the Wikipedia "embrace" sentence, has never been said to have embraced Manson, as far as I know; and having read it, I personally wouldn't say it represented an embrace of him, even if, as its author has said, the original idea—the pre-research idea—was "Free Manson."

In short, the Wikipedia sentence should be deleted or revised. — John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia98.114.58.242 (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Done In accordance with the preceding discussion, I revised the sentence in question to read: "In 1970, Manson was embraced by the underground newspaper Tuesday's Child and was the subject of a Rolling Stone cover story, 'Charles Manson: The Incredible Story of the Most Dangerous Man Alive.'" I also added fresh references for both assertions. Kent Krupa (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I’ve just taken a half-look at the 1970 Rolling Stone story, for which you, I believe, provided the article's footnote-link ( http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/charles-manson-the-incredible-story-of-the-most-dangerous-man-alive-19700625 ). It contains the following:

The underground press in general has assumed kind of a paranoid-schizo attitude toward Manson, undoubtedly hypersensitive to the relentless gloating of the cops who, after a five-year search, finally found a longhaired devil you could love to hate.

Starting in mid-January, the Los Angeles Free Press banner headlined Manson stories for three weeks in a row: "Manson Can Go Free!" "M.D. On Manson's Sex Life!" "Manson Interview! Exclusive Exclusive!"

The interview, by the way, ran for two more weeks, consisted mainly of attorney/author Michael Hannon talking to himself. Later, the Free Press began a weekly column by Manson written from jail.

About the same time, a rival underground paper, Tuesday's Child, ran Manson's picture across the entire front page with the headline "MAN OF THE YEAR: CHARLES MANSON." In case you missed the point, in their next issue they covered the front page with a cartoon of Manson on the cross. The plaque nailed above his head read simply "HIPPIE."

When the Manson record was released, both papers agreed to run free ads for it, but the chain of Free Press bookstores, owned by Free Press publisher Art Kunkin, refused to sell it, arguing it was an attempt to make profit of tragedy.

Of course, not all the stories in the Free Press and Tuesday's Child were pro-Manson. Some were very lukewarm, others were simply anti-cop. The question that seemed to split underground editorial minds more than any other was simply: Is Manson a hippie or isn't he?

That suggests that Felton and Dalton, the writers of the Rolling Stone article, thought there was something of an embrace of Manson by those two underground papers (Tuesday’s Child and the Los Angeles Free Press). Maybe the original Wikipedia sentence wasn't way off-target, in other words; but still, I think it's good you've revised it.98.114.58.242 (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

IP 98.114.58.242, thanks for your comment. I have again revised the text in question, which now reads: "Beginning in January 1970, Manson was embraced by the underground newspapers Los Angeles Free Press and Tuesday's Child, with the latter proclaiming him 'Man of the Year.' In June 1970, he was the subject of a Rolling Stone cover story, 'Charles Manson: The Incredible Story of the Most Dangerous Man Alive.'" Kent Krupa (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I like the way you've assembled that paragraph. It's a smooth read and has the good footnote-links.98.114.58.242 (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I would add some of this commentary to the article, as an example of the paranoid lefty delusional mindset of which Manson was only an extreme example. It might help people understand how anyone could come close to sympathising with this.

As I recall, the 'Berkley Tribe' was enthusiastic about Manson, as was an indie paper in San Diego whose name escapes me. Some research should show there was more support for Manson amongst such people than the OP will admit - or like. 2.31.38.227 (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Tate Death

I have seen reports that Sharon Tate's death certificate runs to several pages, but only the first page is available for viewing. Apparently something grotesque was done involving her unborn child, is there any confirmation of this? It could be a research point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.38.227 (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)