Talk:Marilyn Manson

Sources

• Marilyn Manson and the Politics of Being a Huge Troll

Manson’s second marriage

He married Lindsay Usich in the spring of 2020, in a private ceremony. She later confirmed it with a picture she took of him wearing his wedding band. MansonGirl15 (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

early life

Marilyn Manson confessed that he had Polish-German roots thanks to his father's family and the same you can read in his book: The Long Hard Road Out Of Hell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.7.80 (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

I believe, as the story is developing, the inclusion of the allegations of abuse in the lede are currently WP:UNDUE for now. I held back from reverting Sdkb's edit in favour of generating discussion. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

CaffeinAddict, thanks for starting discussion. To elaborate a bit on my edit summary, the general pattern I've observed at other pages of men accused of sexual misconduct is that, when the allegations are severe and well-substantiated, they almost always end up in the person's lead, whereas when they're less severe or less well substantiated, the result is more variable. In this case, there are tons of substantiating factors: multiple women coming forward, a long history of them talking about their experience anonymously or disclosing to friends, statements from Manson himself, etc. And the allegations are of severe psychological and sexual abuse, not just sexist remarks or uncomfortable shoulder touching. I don't want to WP:CRYSTALBALL anything, but it seems all but certain that this will affect his reputation in a way lasting enough to warrant mention in the lead. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with leaving it out of the lead—for now. The story is still on-going. Wikipedia is not an active news source, we're here to summary style describe long-term events. I'm also concerned about the tabloid-ish tone of the "Abuse allegations" section. Per WP:BLP, we need to be very careful about how we describe on-going issues. Despite protestations by above user, these claims are not "substantiated". Suggest everyone source facts without any editorializing. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The allegations do not go into detail on the severity of the abuse, with only one anecdotal corroboration from the former employee. This could range from "bad relationship" to sexual, physical, mental abuse etc. My proposal would be to keep the section in personal life, adding updates as it develops, before deciding whether the mention in the lede is warranted which is supposed to be a summary of the artist's life and major life events. I would point to Johnny Depp as an example of having an extensive section on his relationship with Amber Heard, none of which mentions the abuse allegations in the lede. Also a story which shifted in tone, severity and fault over the course of it's news cycle. Homeostasis07 is 100% correct - wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with all this. Suggest Sdkb self-revert until consensus is reached here for inclusion in the lead. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and made at WP:BOLD edit and removed the information from the lede, it was being added to and bloating. We should really be following the WP:BLP rules when it comes to the information in the article. It cannot be WP:Libel. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

CaffeinAddict, I think this is the right decision for the minute. If there is sustained coverage for Manson's physical and sexual abuse charges, and it leads to him being disgraced in a manner akin to Gary Glitter, that would be the time to put it in the lead. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we can't do it at this time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

[EDIT: Please note that the comment that I wrote this in reference to has since been removed by the editor who left it] Isn't this comment against BLP and should be speedily deleted? It's making baseless claims and twisting the truth to try to make Evan Rachel Wood (as if she were the only person making these allegations) look bad. She has not made false allegations against Bryant, Bryant's accuser has never stated that he didn't rape her. Wood's also saying that her C-PTSD is the result, directly, of Manson's abuse. The article on C-PTSD clearly states a symptom is "variations in consciousness, such as amnesia or improved recall for traumatic events", not impaired memory in the sense that people would falsely recall events that didn't happen. No idea what this person above thinks depersonalization means and how that makes Wood's claims "dubious" (but I'm going to bet top dollar they don't actually know what it means). Also, I would like to point out that Wood does in fact discuss her symptoms in her two testimonies, and they fall more on the side of improved recall, constant re-living of the events and extreme fear. In summary, this comment makes grossly false and libelous claims about a living person in the interest of trying to argue for Manson.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I'm sorry @TrueHeartSusie3: but I have to ask that you take a step back from editing any article pertaining to abuse allegations regarding "pop culture" figures, at least until you fully digest WP:BLP. After reading what you wrote here, I believe you are editing this article – and others – to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which isn't ideal in these sorts of controversial areas. Our duty as experienced Wikipedia editors willing to maintain articles in times of upheaval must be to adhere to BLP at all costs, and remove the crazy – from both sides – as soon as possible. This story first broke on February 1, during which time commentary has moved from "Marilyn Manson is an abuser" to "Marilyn Manson is a Satanic cannibal white supremacist human trafficking paedophile". I don't know about you, but I have absolutely no desire to be named as a defendant in a defamation lawsuit when all this MeToo-meets-Pizzagate stuff hits the fan, which it inevitably will. Until the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department finalized report is released, there really is no reason for anyone to edit this section of the article. I could have written a lot more here in response to your various edit summaries and comments made about me elsewhere, but I think this should suffice. I hope you keep well, and find more productive areas to spend your time. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Homeostasis07, this is quite a statement considering the types of changes you've been making to the Evan Rachel Wood article (e.g. the Kobe Bryant addition, worded in a misleading way and then edit warring when another editor pointed this out; your insistence on editing Wood's statements and adding scare quotes simply because you insisted that you know better – please also see your edit summaries, they have been quite aggressive rather than constructive). Here, I'm simply pointing out that the comment made by an IP above is in no way constructive and is against BLP rules, and as such, should be deleted speedily. Given that ordinary editors should never delete other people's messages on talk pages, I cannot do so myself, but hoped that by commenting perhaps another editor with admin rights would. Why you feel the need to attack me personally and make baseless assumptions about what I think about this case tells volumes about you. If you have an issue with me personally (as it seems you do), please leave a message on my talk page and we can discuss. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

You made your own, arguably libelous interpretations based on information in the article, and made false, potentially libelous claims about a living person. Now you are also misrepresenting what I have said in another discussion. As for Heard/Depp, you're free to join the discussion on those articles' talk pages (or the gender bias discussion, for that matter). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I have never claimed to "know better". I have always included sources for my edits. On the other hand, you made this comment, which was entirely inappropriate, especially since I'd already included a reference (The Independent, I believe), which said Manson and Wood met for the first time in the autumn of 2006, when Wood was 19 and while he was married to Dita Von Teese. Then you seemed to use your edit summary as justification for linking child grooming to both this and Evan Rachel Wood's article. I intentionally waited 24 hours for you to remove this linkage, but you didn't. This is absolutely not the kind of behaviour expected of experienced Wikipedians when articles like this experience a massive amount of traffic.

You do realise Wikipedia has been sued several dozen times for libel? Regarding Bryant, what I added to Wood's article was a reference to the fact that he was never convicted of rape, which, despite your arguing over semantics, is accurate. You made mention of the low conviction count for these types of allegations in your "Countering systemic bias" thread. These sorts of comments were, as well, entirely inappropriate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for one to propagate personal beliefs. All I can really do at this point is direct you to the DS notice SlimVirgin posted to Evan Rachel Wood's talk page: this is not a gender issue. I hope you take this to heart, and step back from this kind of activity. Kind regards, Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: Kobe Bryant, you added this, containing the erroneous claim that Bryant was never charged. When another editor corrected the error, you reacted to it with "Semantics". Regardless of what you think about Bryant and the case, it's quite clear that never being charged and charges being dropped are not the same thing. Especially as in this case they were dropped because the alleged victim refused to testify (i.e. to go to trial) and therefore it was settled out of court. Regardless of whether this controversy should be added to the Wood article, it's interesting that you chose just this time to add it, and to word it specifically that way, and then react in that way when your error was pointed out to you.

Once that was corrected, you begin editing the part about Wood filing a police report on Lindsay Usich, changing what Wood stated (see here what the source says), here. Sure, we can state she was intoxicated, but Wood isn't just stating that, but that she was given drugs and alcohol, which has a very different connotation. The way you worded it makes it seem as if Wood is just pissed off that her party pics are leaked online, when in fact what she was saying is that they are not simply that. You also added scare quotes to "underage", and gave a year for the party, although the source nor Wood's tweet do not date it, other than saying she was underage (it is unclear if she means underage as in sexual consent or drinking). In your next edit, you again claim to know when this party took place. When the scare quotes are taken off, you add them again and also delete any mention that they were taken when Wood was in Manson's presence (you're correct that it isn't stated that it was at a party thrown by him, but the entire point of Wood's tweet is that she was with Manson during this time and was manipulated to wearing this get up). When I point this out by asking you not to add your POV to the article, you do not accept this (and here seem to think it's a personal insult rather than a comment on your actions), instead delete the entire word underage (though it's the one Evan Rachel Wood highlights in her tweet), and then apparently the fact that they started dating when she was 18 should be enough to negate a statement from Wood herself, where she doesn't say they were yet in a relationship. This is what I mean when I say you claim to know better than sources or Wood.

As for the edit summary you lifted up, I'd like to point out that someone who leaves edit summaries like this should not be the one to point fingers. My comment was in reference both to your claims of knowing the timeline of Wood's association with Manson better than her (as exemplified above), and to the edits made by IPs like this.

As for the grooming link, could you show me where I have added this? Apart from Wood's statement, where she indeed does state she was groomed, I don't recall adding any material related to grooming? I actually even went through my edits to these articles trying to find this, but did not spot this?

I have never added any material to either of these articles that did not come from reputable sources. I am well aware of BLP criteria, but of course at times make mistakes, which help me learn more about editing when corrected. You are claiming that I make libelous claims, but it is not clear what these are? As for gender bias, you are choosing to cherry-pick parts of what I wrote and misrepresent it — in the process making it even clearer that these are issues that definitely need more discussion. What I'm calling for is discussion and additional codes of conduct/MoS guidelines on these issues given how tricky they are in many respects, and that controversial articles perhaps need more monitoring due to this pattern of editors and fly-bys frequently breaking BLP criteria. As always in WP, you are welcome to take part in the discussion where it was started. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Wow. Where does one even begin with a soapbox like this? Other than to, of course, categorically deny these claims. The mental gynmastics on display here are quite astonishing. There's a modicum of truth to a couple of points, but everything has been so twisted and distorted beyond the actual events that it's impossible to know where to begin responding. Which I genuinely believe was the objective, so kudos. The only thing I'd like to respond to is your point regarding Kobe Bryant: I made a mistake saying that Bryant was never charged with rape. That was a typo, for which I apologize. What I meant to write was he was never convicted of rape, which is true. We can argue on why this was, but that would not be helpful. You alluded to the difference between the two yourself here. And for the record, a section on Wood's Bryant controversy was included on her article quite some time ago, but was removed for no particular reason.

And please be aware that there's so much I'd love to spill my guts about right now, but there is god knows how many people reading this, so I can't. Maybe we could e-mail, but I doubt that would even make a difference in the long run. Let's just say, did you notice how Wood removed the scan of the police report she filed against Lindsay Usich from her Instagram? This is why Wikipedia BLP articles need to be as neutral as possible: things change, even from the perspective of the accuser. It's all pretty damn interesting, when you delve into it—no way in hell I'm posting links to it all, though. Hope you keep well, and kind regards. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

"Let's just say, did you notice how Wood removed the scan of the police report she filed against Lindsay Usich from her Instagram?" This is exactly the kind of speculation that I have little interest in, and which has no space in Wikipedia. [Edit: Lolcow most certainly falls into this category as well (please see the edit Homeostasis07 made to his original response for this to make sense). These Reddit/4Chan/Lolcow 'detectives' demonstrate the worst of the internet, i.e. "idiocy loves company"] However, I do agree that this discussion is going nowhere, and that it is in both of our interests to let it go for now. You are welcome to discuss this or related issues on my talk page anytime. For the record, I'm happy with the current versions of both Evan Rachel Wood's and Marilyn Manson's articles. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I've only now just read this response. I'll point out first that I too have no interest in continuing this discussion. But for posterity, I'd also like to point out that my Lolcow comment above was in reference to Wood taking a screenshot of a Lolcow discussion between two purported Marilyn Manson "fans" to the LAPD, and later posting on Instagram as evidence that Marilyn Manson's wife Lindsay Usich was "conspiring" to release "underage" photos of Wood wearing a "Nazi uniform". So, no, I'm not a "Lolcow detective". Woosh. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

TV Show appearance

Starred on Season 3 Episodes 1 and 4 of American Gods on Starz. Nrd0527 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

Remove this man from the world wide web please. NotAbuser (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done We don't delete people just because we don't like them. That's why Jimmy Savile is not a redlink. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Ambiguity

At § Abuse allegations, it says: "[...] they were investigating allegations of domestic violence against Manson." This is ambiguous, because of the 'violence against Manson' bit. I suggest changing "against" to "involving". (Or otherwise rewriting the sentence, however you see fit, to get rid of the ambiguity.) --143.176.30.65 (talk) 08:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Good call. I think I cleared that up. Look good to you? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

“Smells Like Children” is NOT in the discography. Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2021

2600:100E:B009:D70B:DC05:65D8:560A:37BF (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Smells like Children is not in the discography

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2021

Esmé Bianco has sued Marilyn Manson. Can the details at this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56951794 web page be added to the article. 2A00:23C6:3B82:8500:20F8:D8CC:ADCE:2D8F (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2021

Since many people are confused of his gender, I think that we should note it under his date of birth, my only suggestion. SandboxThrowaway123214 (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm not sure what you mean by "under his date of birth". Reading the first two sentences in the article seems to give his gender, plus it's implied by the name Brian. Also, if you're talking about the infobox, note that it doesn't support a field for that. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 23:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Abuse allegations in the lead redux

In the section above, the consensus seemed to be to wait on the question of whether or not to add the allegations to the lead. In the months since then, the headlines have very much continued (recent example from Rolling Stone: "Fourth Accuser Sues Marilyn Manson for Rape, Human Trafficking, Unlawful Imprisonment"), and there are zero signs that Manson will just skate by this, or indeed that his reputation will ever recover. I assert that mentioning the allegations is at this point unquestionably due. If others agree, someone more familiar with the story should try out some wordings and we should discuss refinements as needed. If others still disagree, I will be inclined to start an RfC to assess the broader community's consensus on this matter. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, at least a brief sentence at the end of the lead is probably due now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I also agree that it's WP:DUE for the lead. Some1 (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Some1, thanks for the ping; I had forgotten about this. I'll consider three of us here, with plenty of time elapsed, enough of a consensus to go ahead and restore the mention. I wish it hadn't taken this long (this feels to me like a pretty major WP:DEADLINEISNOW failure), but I'm glad we're belatedly addressing it. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The point of this is? Your contention that "there are zero signs that Manson will just skate by this, or indeed that his reputation will ever recover" is your own conjecture, and blatantly UNDUE. Plus, using this brief and uninvolved discussion to add loaded text like "In 2021, multiple women accused Manson of psychologically and sexually abusing them.", without giving any WP:DUEWEIGHT to the counterargument and the gathering multitude of evidence to the contrary is telling. I'm reverting your edit. I suggest you either wait for genuine consensus, or initiate the RfC—if this is your attitude to editing controversial topics such as this – read WP:BLP – collaboratively. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It has been a little more than a month and a half, and only four editors have commented so far. I think starting an RfC (on these two changes: abuse allegations in the lead and the title of the section) is a good idea. Some1 (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a bad idea to start one RfC on two separate questions; that just muddles things. I've opened the RfC on the lead question below. As for your attempt to rename the "Abuse allegations" section "Controversy", I'm reverting back to the status quo, as I think that's a deleterious edit that introduces vagueness rather than being direct as we ought to be. Some !voters from below are likely to see this discussion and can weigh in on the section name, but please do not change the status quo again unless there is consensus for it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the section title back, Sdkb; changing 'Abuse allegations' to 'Controversy' seems like whitewashing to me. Some1 (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC (allegations in lead)

Survey (allegations in lead)

Should the lead section of this article mention the allegations of sexual abuse against Manson? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. There was initially some question over whether or not the allegations would stick enough to become a significant part of Manson's reputation, but a few months out, it is very clear that they have (see sources like [1] or just read the section in the article). We have a fully due section on the allegations in the body, and per WP:LEAD, that section ought to be concisely summarized with a sentence or so in the lead. This is the same thing we do for plenty of other biographies in similar circumstances. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, the allegations against Manson are very WP:DUE [2]; and the lead should summarize the body of the article. Some1 (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• A tempered yes from me, provided it's done in a WP:NEUTRAL way, which the original edit failed to do on any level. I'd also appreciate genuine consensus on this matter, since both of these users above have been edit warring and WP:TAGTEAMING this article over the past 48 hours. I've tried to assume good faith on the part of these two users, but considering the comments on Evan Rachel Wood's Instagram account these past two weeks about "weaponizing" Wikipedia, much like she did on Instagram, I can't help but have genuine suspicions as to why this RfC is taking place right now. So, yeah... would appreciate all uninvolved commentary before any further changes are made to this article. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  I was not aware until you just brought it up that Wood has mentioned anything about this, but I'd be interested to see the link to that just so we can be on the lookout for any issues. Regarding uninvolved, your userpage has multiple stars for Manson albums, so you seem by far the most invested in the topic of anyone here so far. Please remember that two editors who agree with each other and disagree with you isn't automatically tag-teaming. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  More to the point, the original edit was In 2021, multiple women accused Manson of psychologically and sexually abusing them. If you have neutrality concerns about that, now would be a good time to raise them so that others can comment. It seems to me like a pretty straightforward description of the situation; including Manson's denial in the short mention in the lead would not be appropriate per WP:MANDY. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

MANDY is not a WP:POLICY, but an essay written by a random user which has not been vetted or approved for use by the wider community. An essay that completely misinterprets WP:FALSEBALANCE, by the way. False Balance refers to "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories [which] should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." False Balance – ie, giving 'the world is flat' conspiracy theories equal precedence alongside genuine evidence to the contrary – does not apply here. These remain allegations only, are not proven, no convictions or admission, developments clearly ongoing, etc.

What does apply however is WP:BLPBALANCE, an actual policy which says "Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." and "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Any reasonable editor could conclude both sentences refer to the lead once any proposed addition is properly sourced in the body.

And my fandom – or former fandom – has nothing to do with my interest in doing what's best for the project. You can point to some stars on my userpage, but they are not representative of the entirety of my 15 years of activity on this site. I've either created or substantially improved around 500 articles over those years, and only 20, maybe 25 of those relate to Marilyn Manson. You bringing those stars up in such a dismissive and derogatory manner speaks volumes. I've said what I want to say: balance is clearly necessary and important. That's the only point I ever wanted to bring up here. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I would remind Sdkb of WP:AGF, just because an editor has worked on works by a subject it is does not mean the editor is unable to apply the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines when it comes to the said subject, even if negative.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh - you cherry-picked "weaponizing" from the Variety article and then replaced Instagram with Wikipedia? Wood has not yet granted any interviews about her allegations. But for now, she is weaponizing Instagram to great effect to keep them front of mind. She has used the platform to damningly recontextualize articles written about Manson in which he expressed violent thoughts toward her — and it was just seen as part of his shock-rocker schtick. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

No. That isn't what I said above at all. Run before you can walk much? You've clearly read what you wanted to read, voted below, then edit warred at the section of the article currently in discussion. This is exactly the kind of WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour I was calling out before. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. They're certainly significant and I can think of many other cases where major controversies involving living people made it to the intro. FelipeFritschF (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. This isn't just a case of one person, this is multiple people accusing Manson of genuine sexual assault. This should be in the lead. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 06:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  But we do not know the long-term impact these allegations will have on his career yet, i.e. WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  That was a plausible argument when it was discussed in February. It's really not now. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  Whether a single person or multiple persons, we still do not know what, and if, to what extent, these allegations will have on his long-term career. Thus should be excluded in the lead per WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:RECENTISM, etc.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. It should be in the lead as it is being done for other biographies. Sea Ane (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  Just because it something is being done in one article, it does not mean it is correct to do the same in another (see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• No - they are unfounded allegations and do not belong in the lead, and in my opinion, also don't belong anywhere in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Absolutely not like this. If the allegations have had a long-lasting impact on Manson's legacy or career, then that's what should be explained in the lead, rather than a passing mention of tabloid drama that may or may not stick. See the lead of John Kricfalusi for an ideal reference point. It hasn't even been a year since these accusations became publicized. We're way too soon on this. ili (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• No (at least not yet). Considering these allegations only started late last year, and have continued with some more allegations this year it is impossible to determine what the long-term impact this will be on his career. At the moment, it seems like recentism, until we can determine the legal verdict/long-term impact on his career. For all we know, these could blow over, or they could have a detrimental impact but we simply do not know at this point. "Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events" (WP:BLPSTYLE, policy), and I believe they are too recent for inclusion right now. Also I think this is also relevant to mention here: "The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." (WP:BLPBALANCE, policy). Moreover, we are not in a rush, we are not a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWS).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  Our policies/guidelines absolutely do not mean that we have to wait for a legal verdict before covering allegations of sexual abuse (especially highly credible ones). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  Oversimplifying my argument to just requiring a "a legal verdict". That is only one part of my argument. It is more to do with how much these allegations will impact his career in the long-term. The legal verdicts, assuming anything is arrived, will likely help us in guiding what his long-term impact will be. But we simply do not know yet. For example, say Manson's allegations still linger over the next 10 years with no progress with what happens in courts. If say throughout this 10 year period it has a significant long-term impact on his career per RSs, even if nothing legal verdict is concluded one way or the other, it will obviously be worthy to note in the lead. But we simply do not know what impact (if any) or the scale of said impact this will have on his career in the long-term, yet. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  His record label dropped him. So did his talent agency. So did his long-time manager. His TV appearances were cancelled. Seven months after that, it's not like he's returning to normal—rather, he's facing criminal penalties. Even if he avoids jail, I really don't see how you can look at those facts and still wonder whether or not this is going to be worthy of mention in a lead-sized summary of his life. We will never know with 100% absolute certainty whether any given thing is going to impact someone long-term, but we don't wait years before adding every development in someone's life to their article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  Abuse allegations are clearly an emotive topic in 2021. But Wikipedians need to check their emotions at the door before editing any article related to the subject. This is not a social media site or venue for editors to propagate their own particular opinion of a subject. Editors must always adhere to the 5 PILLARS. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with adhering to the five pillars. With this in mind, including allegations of sexual abuse is appropriate in this article as it a significant event and has been widely reported by reliable sources. Jurisdicta (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  As far as we know, Manson could already have a new record deal, a new manager, and a new talent agency. He could drop a new album tomorrow. And would anyone be surprised if his career went on as normal? I don't know much about Manson, but if the answer is even "well, maybe it wouldn't be that surprising", then we're definitely too soon. ili (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yes I am aware of these things happening. For brevity, all the things he has been dropped/cancelled from (like his being from dropped from a record label, talent agency, manager, and his mainstream TV appearances were cancelled, etc) I will refer as his 'shutdown'. But right now in this moment in time, we simply do not know how long this 'shutdown' will last. For all we know he could be cleared of everything and he could resume back to 'normal', i.e. 'shutdown' lifted. Obviously, if this 'shutdown' continues for say the next 5 years, i.e. demonstrating long-term impact on his career per RSs then it is of course worth noting in the lead. Seven months after that, ..., see this is the core problem with your argument, this thinking is too much in the short-term in this case leading to WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE weight in covering the subject.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  You guys have hit the nail on the head here. Everyone knows exactly what happened between Chris Brown and Rihanna in 2009. As of 2019, he's still releasing music and getting platinum sales awards. That entire situation has one single sentence in his current lead. But cue some edit warring there. I see the template I added to the top of this talk page on August 22 was nominated for deletion just two hours later by the same editor who initiated this RfC, who by the way also added an inaccurate "nutshell" description to the MANDY essay, which they went on to cite during this RfC. This is tendentious editing on a level I've never seen before.

  Regarding any long-time impact these short-term events may have had, I agree that it's impossible to say at this point. Social media posts from people associated with the band have been circulating since 2017 – long before these allegations surfaced – that We Are Chaos would be their last album anyway. But if they were to release another album, could they not sign up with a different label or tour promoter? It should be noted that only the US record label "dropped" the band. No mention of – or comment from – Concord Music Group, their international label. Plus, the long-time manager is a co-defendant in one of the civil suits – the one that's on the verge of being thrown out of court – so who knows what will happen there in the long-run. And only one TV appearance was "cancelled". He still appeared in the other one. There has been no update regarding any criminal investigation since February—just four civil lawsuits looking for money. Read into all that how you will. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  You certainly make valid points and other things I had not considered. Though I will ask, most of your comments seem to suggest to oppose including it in the lead whilst your !vote is a "tempered" yes, how so? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously so IMO. They're a major part of his notability at this point. Loki (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  And what about a future point, per previously linked RECENTISM? Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, and absolutely like this, neutrally stating that he was accused by four more than a dozen women. Manson is a public figure, the accusations were and are widely covered in the news, and were believable enough for his record company, manager, and talent company to drop him immediately. He doesn't even deny what happened, he just says it was "consensual with like-minded partners". The partners disagree. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Correction: Per USA Today, more than a dozen women accused Manson. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Not sure what you mean by he doesn't deny what happened, per BBC News [3] Manson, real name Brian Warner, has now filed to dismiss the case, saying he denies "each and every" allegation..  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (allegations in lead)

@Homeostasis07: Please assume good-faith editing instead of accusing another editor, who edited the article for the first time, of edit-warring. As I explained when reverting your revert, the RfC is about the lead, not the body, and the content was sourced from a reliable source that was already in the same section but whose content (paragraph just above Manson's photograph) had apparently been overlooked. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: Answering your question above: I'm referring to the quote from a Manson Instagram post, as cited by CNN, in the second paragraph of [Marilyn_Manson#Abuse_allegations]. these recent claims ... are horrible distortions of reality. My intimate relationships have always been entirely consensual with like-minded partners. His lawyers also wrote that they were stories to turn what were consensual friendships and relationships with Warner from more than a decade ago, into twisted tales that bear no resemblance to reality. To me that does not sound like denial of the violence, merely of it being non-consensual but that's my opinion which I haven't added to the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I genuinely want to AGF, but that's pretty difficult when a user has just misinterpreted several statements to suit their own opinion. It should be clear to any neutral reader of your quoted fragments that even those are denials of the allegations. But here's a lawyer saying the claims are "untrue". Is that categorical enough verbage? Also, please self-revert the article back to where it was. None of the content you're adding was ever "overlooked"... perhaps only by you. All your edit does is repeat information included later in those paragraphs. Read: "Following Wood's allegations, several other women made various allegations against Manson on Instagram." and "In the months that followed, four women filed civil lawsuits against the vocalist...". The section's content before your edits was in chronological order, and isn't long enough to merit this repeating of information or for a summarizing statement. Your edit simply doesn't add anything to the article that wasn't already there. I don't really want to make a big stink about this, so am providing you with an opportunity to sort this out amongst ourselves before I take this further. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The text was POV, taking Manson’s side (implying that, starting in September 2020, the women concocted a story, and then went public to destroy him). What I gathered from the cited sources is that Wood going public in 2016 (without naming Manson) on social media and elsewhere led to other women going public and eventually to them meeting in September 2020. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x I think that is a bit of a stretch. Manson (and his team) empahsised the claim that according to him his relationships were consensual ("My intimate relationships have always been entirely consensual with like-minded partners"). But to jump from there to say Manson did deny not violence only that the violence was consensual (masochism ?) seems a bit far. I know you did not add it do the article (as that would ORish), but as argument for including allegations in the lead is weak IMO. In regards to the remainder of your arguments, I would refer to other comments I have made above, how has this affected his long-term career and how is this not UNDUE, RECENTISM.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Abuse (domestic or otherwise, whether it involves sex or not) is about power. I have the power, you’re powerless, so you do as I say. Sounds as though Manson had a type, e.g. Bianco: long-time fan, model and actor with Hollywood aspirations, in need of work visa, unsure about a lot of things. There are also a number of witnesses. The info is reliably sourced, and whether or not the allegations will have a long-term effect on his career is WP:CRYSTAL and shouldn't be our concern. Whether or not the allegations belong in the lead is for the consensus to decide. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Genuinely nasty misinterpretation of sources and WP:SYNTH to bolster your own completely UNDUE spiel about domestic violence. All you've done here is confirmed your own POV, prove that you're not paying close enough attention to this article's content or the content of the links you're referencing, the case in general, or that you've even read the 'Abuse allegations' section the whole way through. WP:Competence is required to edit Wikipedia, especially when it comes to controversial subjects. It's obvious to me that you shouldn't be anywhere near controversial subjects at this time. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)