Talk:Charles Manson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Charles Manson is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Missing references sought[edit]

Having listed and/or summarized statements that Vincent Bugliosi had made to Curt Gentry in Helter Skelter in the most recent edit of its text, but having had to ask "Where?" these were in the book itself out of personal ignorance of their placements in the said book, sounds a call for other Wikipedians to fill in the said missing references; please use the most recent edition of Helter Skelter as the source for these. Those Wikipedians who can do so are thanked in advance.
Parker Gabriel 06:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parker Gabriel (talkcontribs)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Manson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


Juvenile Center[edit]

says he was sent to a juvenile center in Indianapolis, I think they are referring to his time at Gibault, which is in Terre Haute, Indiana. From there he went to the School for Boys in Plainfield. He did a couple nights in Hamilton Co. jail, which is near Indianapolis but by no means Indy. I don't belive he ever did any youth time in Indianapolis or Marion Co. http://www.indystar.com/story/news/history/retroindy/2014/01/14/charles-manson/4471927/ Not much of an editor but if I can figure out how to change and cite it I will, if not there is the source if it meets the standards for someone else to do it. 184.60.42.123 (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Official site[edit]

I feel that mansondirect.com should be listed as his official site. The one that had been linked, charlesmanson.com, is sensational and anti-Charles Manson, clearly not making it his official site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitzi777 (talkcontribs) 19:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess there is no official site so we shouldn't include anything there. I've removed it. --regentspark (comment) 19:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Clarification: I think the "it" above refers to mansondirect.com (not charlesmanson.com). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, if you look at the website, it is someones personal view on Manson. There is no official site for Charles Manson - he remains in prison. --regentspark (comment) 15:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Official site. Based on facts. Photo should be updated to most recent prison photo release this month. Fishnagles (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: I think the comment above is about charlesmanson.com (not mansondirect.com). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is this an "official" site? Which office? Please explain. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 21:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
It describes itself as an official site. It appears to be run by an organisation called ATWA (Air Trees Water Animals), which appears to be an ecological group that supports Manson. Based on my cursory investigations, there seem to be other people who use or have used the name ATWA, including Manson himself. There is no real indication from this website (as far I can see) that it has been authorised by Manson or that it has any special connection with Manson. Anyone can set up a website.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Clarification: I think the "it" above refers to mansondirect.com (not charlesmanson.com). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. We're unlikely to see an official site from someone in prison anyway. I'll remove it. It was probably added with a promotional intent anyway. --regentspark (comment) 19:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Fishnagles: The site charlesmanson.com is an anti-Manson site that contains very POV content, such as saying (on the subpage https://www.charlesmanson.com/legal.html) "Manson and his followers committed hideous crimes that will likely remain in the annals of crime for eternity". It also says that "Neither Manson himself, nor any of his associates receive financial gain from this site nor have any input on what appears within its pages." This should not be cited on Wikipedia as if it is Charles Mansons' official website. Please stop adding that website to the infobox (or anywhere else in the article where objective non-POV information is needed). There is no consensus to include that. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Convicted mass murderer?[edit]

Lately there has been some edit warring about whether to add "convicted mass murderer" to his definition as a criminal and former cult leader. Those who want to add it point out that he actually was convicted of murder; those who want to remove it point out that he didn't actually kill the people himself. Let's work it out here.

According to our article Mass murder, The FBI defines mass murder as murdering four or more persons during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders. A mass murder typically occurs in a single location where one or more people kill several others. Based on that definition, the five killings at the Tate/Polanski residence were a mass murder. Was Manson one of the murderers? In American jurisprudence, someone who conspires to commit murder is equally guilty of murder even if they don't carry out the actual killing. For example, a person who pays another person to commit the murder is also a murderer under law. Under common (as opposed to legal) usage, possibly not. So we need to discuss whether we should identify him as a "mass murderer" or not. And please discuss here, don't edit-war and revert each other. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @EditorKid, Thenabster126, Meters, and Freshacconci: --MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we should be trying to figure out whether or not Manson was a mass murderer. If reliable sources say he is one, then so should we. Since they do (cf. [1]), we should. --regentspark (comment) 21:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • We follow the sources. And the claim in the edit summaries is not about mass murder, but being a murderer at all -- the editor in question stating Manson didn't physically murder anyone so he's not a murderer. Of course that's incorrect and beside the point: he was convicted of murder, that's what the sources say, so that's what we call him. We don't argue semantics when the sources (and basic legal facts) are very clear. And to be clear, there was no edit warring. Multiple editors reverted one disruptive editor. Reverting bad edits, disruptive edits and plain vandalism is not edit warring. freshacconci (✉) 23:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
This is not an edit war. This is vandalism and POV pushing. Calling that an edit war, and warning us to discus it rather than edit war (after pinging us no less) seems over the top. One editor has been making edits that are against consensus and, at least in my opinion, vandalism. I templated him for vandalism for one of those edits [2] For the last three weeks or so that editor has been attempting to claim that a convicted murderer cannot be called such. Before that the editor in question even attempted to remove the description of Manson as "a criminal" [3] [4]. It's difficult to see this as good faith editing. I see no problem in calling someone convicted of five murders in one event (mass murder according to Mass murder), and who is called a "mass murderer" in reliable sources (http://www.abc10.com/news/nation/history-of-charles-mansons-crimes/382112919 http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-charles-manson-hospitalized-20170103-story.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/charles-manson-ill-family-murders-cult-leader-sharon-tate-hospital-health-parole-a7508476.html and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/04/convicted-mass-killer-charles-manson-seriously-hospital-outside/ for example) a "criminal" and a "convicted mass murderer". Meters (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The reason I called for discussion is that "mass murderer" was never part of the lede in this article, until it was added on August 15 by EditorKid. Since then Thenabster126 removed that wording three times, and two people restored it, but there is no justification for calling the removals "vandalism" and "POV pushing", or calling the remover "disruptive" - as might be the case for someone removing longstanding consensus-based content. The article never contained that wording until three weeks ago, so it had never been discussed and there was not (up until now) any consensus to include it. --MelanieN (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I stand by my description. I have no AGF in an editor who had previously tried to remove the term "criminal" from the article, and is now trying to claim that someone convicted of murder is not a murderer. The editor's edit summaries said nothing about disputing " mass murderer". He or she stated more than once that Manson was simply not a murderer at all. That's POV pushing. One editor added the material and two others restored it after the removal was considered vandalism. If you want to support the removal yourself then do so. If anyone else wants to support the removal I'm happy to consider their opinions too. Otherwise I suggest that we drop this. Meters (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
If this were an article about a typical mass murderer that committed his/her own murders, then starting the article with "convicted mass murderer" (assuming he/she was indeed convicted) would be superfluous. He was convicted of "murder" and therefore is a murderer. Adding "convicted" lets the reader know something is unusual. What is unusual is that this murderer did not actually physically commit the murder's for which he was co-convicted. Not a typical murder conviction, surely. Bugatti35racer (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Life is life[edit]

It's not Charles Manson, it's Adolf Hitler. Am I wrong ? Cheers ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.10.160 (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)