Talk:Charles Manson

Children

I'm sure there are lots of "illegitimate" manson kids running around, but.... Should Matthew Roberts be mentioned as a child? It seems as if he's the son of Manson and has the story/mother to back the claim up (plus the looks). (Charlesblack (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

State of this article

This article is very poorly written. It's filled with improperly used quotation marks, awkward wording, sentences written in the passive voice and others that start with lengthy dependent clauses.

For reasons I don't fully understand, another editor removed the copy edit tag and removed several edits I made that were clearly supported by citations. I have replaced the tag. Please don't remove it until there is a consensus. I am Zeus, king of the gods (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am the editor who removed the copy-edit tag — and then revised several awkwardly-worded sentences in the article's first section ("Early life"). Please state which of your "clearly supported" edits I removed. As I recall, I removed a caption in which you had falsely indicated — without any supposed support — that the photograph at the article's head was taken on Manson's conviction date. I also reverted the opening sentence, in which you had introduced the unnecessary adjective murderous — misspelled. The article's current opening paragraph, as revised by you, indicates that the Tate-LaBianca murders took place on August 8 and 9, 1969, though Rosemary and Leno LaBianca did not arrive at their home, where they were murdered, until after 1:00 am on August 10. (See the opening paragraphs of the chapter headed "Sunday, August 10, 1969," near the head of Bugliosi and Gentry's Helter Skelter.) You have turned a once-coherent introduction into wiki-junk. Who, for instance, are "the Polanskis," who are now mentioned without any prior reference to them in the second paragraph's opening sentence? I could raise several other questions.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To mention another of your improvements: The introduction formerly stated that Manson "was found guilty of conspiracy to commit the Tate-LaBianca murders, carried out by members of [the Manson Family] at his instruction. He was convicted of the murders themselves through the joint-responsibility rule, which makes each member of a conspiracy guilty of crimes his fellow conspirators commit in furtherance of the conspiracy's object." As revised by you — at 20:48, 20:59, and 23:10, 1 January 2010 — the article now meaninglessly states the following:

Manson was found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder through the joint-responsibility law, which makes each member of a conspiracy guilty of crimes his fellow conspirators commit in furtherance of the conspiracy's object.

Huh? He wasn't found guilty of conspiracy through the joint-responsibility rule (not "law"). He was found guilty of conspiracy via evidence that he ordered and orchestrated the murders. Through the joint-responsibility rule — which is part of the law of conspiracy — he was convicted, in turn, of the murders themselves, in which he had not participated. In short, the article's introduction — as revised by you — now contains no statement that Manson was convicted of the Tate-LaBianca murders. To the extent that your sentence is intelligible, it indicates, inanely, that Manson was convicted of conspiracy through the law of conspiracy.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

From prosecutor Bugliosi's summation — for your edification:

Although the evidence at this trial shows that Charles Manson was the leader of the conspiracy to commit these murders, there is no evidence that he actually personally killed any of the seven victims in this case. However, the joint responsibility rule of conspiracy makes him guilty of all seven murders.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever your issues with this particular editor are, JohnBonaccorsi, the tag should remain and needs to be there. Your (at least recent) edit history seems to focus "unduly" on this article, and, as I'm sure you're aware, no editor can truly "own" an article as theirs alone. Please don't remove tags that encourage other editors from improving articles. Thank you! Doc9871 (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Kindly limit yourself to comments about the article's contents — as I have limited my own comments above.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm telling you not to remove tags; and yes, you're right, maybe I diverged from the article's contents in my comment. However, I can comment anywhere I want at any time, on any WP page, and no one has to "kindly" or otherwise tell me about this policy... Doc9871 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that you're free to remark here personally and unfavorably on my particular interests at Wikipedia, I'd say you're probably mistaken — and probably in violation of Wikipedia policy; so be grateful I've asked you kindly.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite used to this rationale, for sure <eyeroll>. I did not directly accuse you of any impropriety, so I don't think it's fair to continue along that line. I admitted that I may have gotten off the subject, meaning I wasn't trying to insult you as an editor. I'm sorry for any statement I made that may have been construed as a personal attack against you, and I assure you that my interests lie with improving WP and not scrutinizing particular editors. Now, are we going to move onwards and upwards? Doc9871 (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My statement stands — and I have little interest in your eyeroll. As for moving onwards and upwards — you'll find, if you'll consult the article's edit history, that I was in the process of doing that when I was forced to deal with your distraction. I'm still waiting for you to make a specific comment about the article's contents. I note, for instance, that you have not remarked on any of the points I raised above. Your "interest in improving WP" apparently does not extend to that.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Forced to deal with your distraction". Choice words. Is this how you view my contribution to this WP article here? A "distraction"? 'Nuff said... Doc9871 (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Inasmuch as my first comment to you had to do with your remark about my personal interests at Wikipedia, it's obvious what I meant by "distraction" — so spare me your victim's pose. I won't be exchanging any more remarks with you unless you make specific points about the article's contents.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, just trust me on this one, I am no victim! I have no interest arguing with those who won't benefit from it, either (not you specifically, just people in general). This should make for some really fun "play dates" in the future, no? (not you specifically, just people in general) I'll comb through this article at my convenience... (not this article specifically, just articles in general). Good night! (not this particular night, just nights in general) ;P Doc9871 (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, for what it's worth - you are doing a good job of copyediting the article - just not a good job of dealing with other editors who have an interest here... Doc9871 (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of internal link for 2009 image of Manson

Two editors have recently removed an interal link I created in the info box that leads to a 2009 pic of Manson displayed in the subsection titled "Recent developments", located several paragraphs down in the article. It reads as follows:

Click here for an image of Manson at age 74, taken in early 2009.

The link is right under Manson's 1969 pic displayed in the info box.

California prison officials released the 2009 pic which was subsequently placed on the CNN website. The first editor, user:John, removed it because he found it "a bit yuck," whatever that means. The second editor, user:McSly, removed it because he believed the information was dubious and unsourced. This of course isn't true. The reference to the CNN story is currently citation number 174 (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/19/california.manson.photo/index.html). It's been there some time, long before these two editors removed my internal link.

I have replaced the link twice now. Please keep it there. I am Zeus, king of the gods (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I put in the image it links to, and I was shocked that Manson at 74 wasn't already in the article. Mug shots are perfectly acceptable on WP, esp. of convicted criminals (where there is no WP:UNDUE). No reason to keep deleting Zeus' contribution to the article... Doc9871 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the link must be changed from Charles Manson#Recent Developments to Charles Manson#Recent developments (notice capitalization), otherwise it won't work with Opera. 80.59.28.253 (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly acceptable to me! Zeus? Doc9871 (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Cite tags in lead

Why are there citation needed tags in the lead section of this article? There is no need for citations in the lead when the content is covered in the main body of the article. And for the record, there is no precedent for including a link to a photograph contained in the same article. That is completely unnecessary and redundant to the image itself being in the article. It is messy in appearance. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Heehee! The citation tags are needed in the article intro because: the intro really sucks powerfully, being extraordinarily too long, and mentioning Guns 'n' Roses, among other reasons. I agree with the reversion of the image link, in hindsight, esp. as there is no precedent for it. There wasn't an image of Manson at 74 here before that, and I suspect Zeus got excited that there finally was one, at long last... Doc9871 (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says the lead should summarize the entire article and should be 3 or 4 paragraphs long, depending on the size of the article. That would be why the Beatles was mentioned, since a substantial part of the article addresses Manson's influence on pop culture (not as trivia, but real influence. I don't especially think the lead sucked at all. It was one of the things that wasn't faulted when the article started its FA review. No one faulted how it was summarized, only the length of the article, for which we withdrew it. And looking back, I don't see a mention of Guns 'n' Roses in the lead before so much controversy started (here), or before the number of inane paragraphs were added to the lead. I see no good reason for this article to have been expanded by nearly 7000kb of text. Where it wasn't clear that the article supported the lead contents, there were cites. But I'm seeing citation tags where the article clearly supports the lead content. I think some editors have been overly-harsh about this article, which multiple editors wanted to submit it for good or featured article status. It distresses me greatly to see how it is being ripped apart. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead should be "no more than four paragraphs long"; and that's really being generous. "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited." If you don't think my challenge is notable, how about any truly unreasonable editor further down the line, who has every WP right to challenge it? Don't listen to me - throw caution to the wind. When you get the "nutbags" complaining, don't say I didn't tell you so, because they have every right to complain... Doc9871 (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you'll find very few featured articles, which are the standard to which all articles should aspire, that have less than four paragraphs in the lead. I don't know who it was that added 7000kb of content to this article, but I know it wasn't myself or John Bonaccorsi. The lead most certainly did conform to verifiability until it was massively attacked in December and the lead made into about 7 paragraphs. I'm questioning why all of this happened. I'm seeing a lot of unnecessary content and unnecessary expansion from what it was here. I suggest all of that be undone and it taken back to where it was before the wordiness gods got ahold of it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to say there were eight intro paragraphs when you entered that... Hell, clean house! I thought this intro was the very backbone of the recent edits... Doc9871 (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's what John has been trying to work on, but I suspect his heart isn't in it. The intro from early on was quite good and covered important aspects of the article without sounding amateur-hour. What happened to it in the meanwhile is mostly where I see your complaints lay (and where mine lay as well). This happens to be one of those articles where new editors like to charge right in and make unhelpful edits. Going back to where it was is a good thing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree - just wiped out one part of the"new" intro. Let's continue, please :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, the intro's reference to Guns N' Roses and Marilyn Manson was inserted a long time ago, to replace "several musicians" — or some such phrase that an editor had disparaged as vague. ("Weasel words," I think he said, in Wikipedia shorthand.) I personally have had no part in the intro's very-recent changes, all of which, as I indicated in "State of this article" above, were, to my mind, junk. I'm glad to see editor Wildhartlivie has restored the intro in its previous form.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I recall the "what musicians" question. The Guns 'n' Roses recording of Manson's work stirred up the pot quite a bit. One of the additions to the lead included a paragraph that discussed Paul McCartney's comments about the song Helter Skelter and the fact that it mentions a slide and doesn't mention apocalyptic race wars. Well, duh. Totally unrelated content to the article. Manson had nothing to do with the slide mentioned. Plus it was sourced to references that wouldn't pass WP:RS muster. Just sayin'. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to the new photo of Manson

This link keeps being added but I see no reason for it. If the readers are interested in Manson they will see the updated photo later in the article. There is no reason to link to the new photo under the old photo. It doesn't make any sense plus it looks horrible and unencyclopedic. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

May two photographs be placed at the article's head? For some time, it seems, there has been much editorial concern whether the introductory image of Manson will be recent or vintage. Why not both? Manson 1969, Manson 2009.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As I noted in the edit summary when I removed the link, there is no precedent for using a redirect link to another photo in the article. It's redundant and totally unnecessary. As for two images in the infobox area, there really isn't a way to link it and it is available on the page. Articles don't have two photos unless they are about two people. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Commutation?

At 08:25, 6 January, an editor changed the intro's wording to indicate that Manson's death sentence had been "commuted" to life in prison. The verb the editor replaced was "reduced."

"Reduced" is better, I think. In the first place, it's the verb Bugliosi and Gentry use in the epilogue of Helter Skelter:

The sentences of the 107 persons awaiting execution in California were automatically reduced to life imprisonment.

More importantly, Manson's death sentence was eliminated by action of a court, not the governor of California. Maybe any criminal-penalty reduction — whether it be the act of a court or an executive — may properly be called a commutation, but I think the Wikipedia article should stick with "reduced," to be sure.

Another point to keep in mind is that it's not clear that Manson's penalty was really "changed." The California Supreme Court decided that the death penalty Manson and many others had been given was not in accord with the California Constitution. The court said, in a way, that Manson's death penalty was a nullity ab initio (i.e., from the beginning); so again, "commutation" might not be the right word.

At the moment, I won't revert the edit. I'll wait to see whether any comments are posted here.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Who was it that reduced the sentence? According to the article on commutation of sentence, commutations of state charges are handled by the governor's office. If the California governor ordered the reduction in state death sentences, then the use of the term is correct. I think who instituted the life sentence is key here, although grammatically, the sentence sounds good, if it fits. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the reduction was handled entirely by courts — which might be why Bugliosi and Gentry used the verb "reduced," not "commuted." You'll recall that the California Supreme Court decision that neutralized the death penalty included the following (which is already part of the Wikipedia article):

[A]ny prisoner now under a sentence of death ... may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the superior court inviting that court to modify its judgment to provide for the appropriate alternative punishment of life imprisonment or life imprisonment without possibility of parole specified by statute for the crime for which he was sentenced to death.

That, as I've said, is one reason why I think "reduced" is the safer — and thus better — choice.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What else?

What else has been added in the last month or so that needs to be discussed here? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes for discussion

• In the Childhood section, wording has been changed from "According to Manson, his mother, alleged to be an alcoholic, once sold him for a pitcher of beer to a childless waitress, from whom his uncle retrieved him some days later" to a flat statement: "Manson's mother was a heavy drinker. According to a family member, she once sold her son for a pitcher of beer to a childless waitress, from whom his uncle retrieved him some days later." Does the source support a flat declaration of alcoholism/heavy drinking and does the source support the story being told by "a family member and not Manson?
• What is the rationale for changing "He would one day characterize her physical embrace of him on the day she returned from prison as his sole happy childhood memory." to the poor grammar of "Manson himself later characterized.."?
• Why was the content about Beausoleil's arrest moved to the Tate murder section? This is disjointed content.
• There is a lot of breaking up of sentences, which effectively takes some of the content out of being sourced. How does the editor justify removing content from sourcing? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In just about each of those cases, Wildhartlivie, both the revision and the original were written by me — so if I've damaged the work of an editor, that editor is I. I was merely trying to simplify the sentences, in response to the copy-edit tag; but with respect to each revision, I weighed the question you have raised. My attempted answers:

1. The sources probably do support a characterization of Manson's mother as a heavy drinker — but the word "allegedly" might be a good addition to the sentence. In the Manson-bio section of Helter Sketler, Bugliosi and Gentry quote a family member who says Kathleen Maddox "ran around a lot, drank, got in trouble." Manson in His Own Words says she "drank a lot." I don't recall what Maddox herself said in the 1971 newspaper interview that, at the moment, I can't find again on the internet. She might simply have said that, as she came into her young womanhood, she "got a little wild." Anyway — "allegedly" certainly won't hurt. As for the "pitcher of beer" story: that should definitely be attributed to a family member, not Manson himself. It's in Manson in His Own Words: "One of Mom's relatives delighted in telling the story of how my mother once sold me for a pitcher of beer." Etc. In that book's intro, Nuel Emmons says he spoke with Manson's family members to check certain things, even though he eventually cast the book as an account rendered by Manson himself. It's quite possible Manson simply told Emmons that a family member used to tell the story; but on the other hand, Emmons maybe got it from the family member directly. In a sense, it doesn't matter — because Emmons says, in the intro, that he was careful to check everything he heard with Manson himself. Accordingly, the book really is, in a way, "Manson in his own words" — but because we can't be sure Manson himself remembered the beer-pitcher event — or had even heard about it before Emmons spoke with relatives (of Manson) — I think it best to say it was reported by a family member.
2. I changed "would one day characterize" to "later characterized" just because it sounded simpler, less pathos-laden; but both wordings are mine. I'm not sure the new form is grammatically defective — but if you'd like to go back to the original, please do.
3. I would ask you to think again about the proper placement of the Beausoleil-arrest sentence. I think it really does work better as the intro to the Tate-murders section. The Hinman-murder section wraps up neatly without it — and then, in the section about the Tate murders, we see the arrest triggering Manson's thought that "now is the time for Helter Skelter." I won't fight you on it — but as I say, you might want to think about it.
4. Here's what I've already posted on your personal talk page: In each of my acts of sentence-simplification, I took some care, I think, to preserve citations — or, at least, a single citation that would cover an entire paragraph; but I might have made some errors. Maybe you should look through the article and let me know anything specific that bothers you. If a citation needs to be reinstated, I'll help you find it, in Helter Skelter or whatever.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The horror

I see the copy-edit tag has had the effect I feared it would: the article is now undergoing all sorts of improvement — if you take my meaning. Adios.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the community effort of improvement what Wikipedia is about? -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It sure is.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that this is the second article upon which you have never worked in the past that I am actively working on that you suddenly took an interest. Your edits have removed key statements that were placed in order to support the use of categories. What was it that drew your attention to the efforts being made on this article, upon which you have never edited before, which is the same case as on Black Dahlia? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I must withdraw my snide comment. I now realize that several of the edits that prompted me to make it were very good. I apologize to the editors whom I insulted.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I was "insulted", I was actually kind of amused by the inappropriateness of the statement. That being said, I'm glad you have retracted the statement as it is true - the edits were quite good and did improve the article. There were a number of run-ons that comprised an entire paragraph (not good form at all). There are also a number of statements in this article which are good to include, however, their placement seems "disjointed". There has to be a way to include them in the article without having them sticking out like a sore-thumb and not really relating to the text surrounding them. I'll be back later this afternoon to work on this some more. Have a good day, John. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record: There were several long, awkward sentences — constructions in which too much information had been packed. I don't think there were any run-ons. A good day to you, too.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Faulty revisions

SkagitRiverQueen –

Manson's Certificate of Live Birth reading "Charles Milles Maddox" is linked in the footnotes of the Wikipedia article and is dated December 3, 1934 — exactly three weeks after his date of birth. The Wikipedia article used to include, as well, a link to a 1971 L.A. Times piece that was, in part, an interview with Manson's mother. That link is now dead, but the piece included this:

The baby was born November 11 [sic], 1934, and was listed on the birth certificate as "No Name Maddox," after his mother's maiden name. But that was not out of indifference, Mrs. Manson says, but because she was awaiting the arrival of her own mother in Cincinnati.

"I figured I'd already hurt her pretty bad, so I wanted to let her name the baby, you see. So she named him after my father." A few weeks later she had the birth certificate changed to Charles Milles Manson [sic].

All of that goes against your revision of 03:11, 8 January 2010. If you have documentation that supports your revision, please present it — and footnote it. The footnote that presently supports your revision is the one that has long been in place, the one, as I say, that shows a certificate dated December 3.

Doc9871 —

There was no grammatical problem with the sentence of mine that you changed. Your rewording didn’t correct anything: it changed the sentence's sense. As revised by you, the sentence indicates that, while he was at McNeil Island, Manson claimed to have become interested in his psychology. That’s incorrect. The original and correct sense of the sentence — as I wrote it — is that Manson has claimed that, while he was at McNeil Island, he became interested in his psychology.

I am going to put the article back the way it was.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted, "At McNeil Island, he himself has claimed, (my emphasis) Manson became interested in "understanding and knowing [his] own mind." I don't know if you wrote that, but that edit, as it was, was certainly incorrect. Sometimes an edit will show up on a page's history credited to another editor, usually the last edit on the list. I always assume good faith, and I wouldn't have reverted your very last edit (as it is correct), so I guess there was a misunderstanding? Doc9871 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote that. It's not incorrect. It says that Manson has claimed that he became interested in his pscyhology while he was at McNeil Island. That's true.

Your revision was this:

At McNeil Island, Manson has claimed that he became interested in "understanding and knowing [his] own mind."

I now realize that your revision makes no sense at all. It suggests Manson is presently residing at McNeil Island.

Anyway — I restored my sentence and then reworded it, to eliminate what you found awkward.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The "awkward" part was the "he himself has claimed", which is why I emphasized it in my last comment. Maybe my solution after deleting that part wasn't the best, but you took care of that, for sure. Jeez, just trying to help ;> Doc9871 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I doesn't matter when it was dated. It is a Certificate of Live Birth and a COLB is the *original* birth certificate. He may have been registered in the hospital records as "No Name Maddox" but the COLB is the offical record - period. Further, I'm going to ask you to step back a moment, John, and think about whether or not the rationale of reverting an entire section that was edited well *should* be reverted just because you disagree with one thing. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That isn't the issue. The issue is what the first record called him. I agree with JohnBonaccorsi's revert to the former version. I do not think your edits were helpful, accurate or improved. You have reverted this three times. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen —

You are now arguing — and editing — in bad faith.

If it doesn't matter when the certificate was dated, then why did your revision of 04:34, 8 January, state this:

A popular belief amongst Manson researchers is that he was not given a first name for at least two weeks following his birth, with his birth certificate reading "No Name Maddox." An official copy of Manson's live-birth certificate has surfaced, however, verfying he was never known as "No Name" Maddox, but was named "Charles" within days of his birth.

Even if the point you made above were to be granted — I mean your point that the Certificate of Live Birth is the only official record (as I am unable to say) — it would justify, at most, a revision like the following:

... was first dubbed "no name Maddox." His Certificate of Live Birth, which is the official record, is not dated until three weeks after his birth. It reads "Charles Milles Maddox."

As for your other revisions — you wrote:

It is believed that Maddox had arrived in Cincinnati at that time after running away from her home in Ashland, Kentucky

It's not clear how Maddox got from Ashland to Cincinnati. The L.A. Times article I've already cited says "[h]er mother sent her with her sister to Cincinnati, to have the baby away from [her native] Ashland[, Kentucky]." In a Manson in His Own Words passage that I myself have placed in the article, there is something about Maddox's having run away — but it's not clear. All of this information is very hard to pin down, which is why the passages you altered had been carefully worded.

You also wrote:

It is surmised by Manson researchers that Manson never really knew his biological father.

Again — the sources make it difficult to say anything certain about this. In Manson in His Own Words, there is this:

[Colonel Scott] didn't stick around long enough to even watch [Kathleen Maddox's] belly rise. Father, my ass! I saw the man once or twice, so I'm told, but don't remember his face.

In the L.A. Times article, on the other hand, Kathleen Maddox said something about Colonel Scott's having shown an interest in Charles — having shown as much of an interest in Charles as he did in "his own" children — something like that. That article, as I've said, is no longer online; thus I can't provide the quote.

In sum — and to repeat: The details of these topics are hard to pin down — and as far as I know, these statements of yours can not be supported.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning for what I wrote and what I changed later? It's called making edits, realizing the edits were not completely correct, researching further and correcting that which is incorrect. You might want to take a look at the following article WP:DEADLINE to better understand that editing Wikipedia takes time, involves lots of changes, and that it's all an okay thing. Look, how about we work on editing this article together, rather than against one another, okay? There's no reason that can't happen, is there? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not working against you — and if you'll permit me to say, I'm not interested in working with you. I don't have to read WP:DEADLINE — whatever that is — to understand that editing Wikipedia takes time and involves lots of changes. If you doubt that, consult the history of my work at this encyclopedia. It's not "all an okay thing" if by "all" you mean a rash of careless revisions. If I notice that any Wikipedia editor revises the article faultily, I'll try to correct the problem.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And before you hasten to suggest that I'm being un-Wikipedia-ish by disparaging "working with" you — consider how much trouble I took to prepare the detailed response to which you have just obnoxiously responded by intimating that I'm working against you. If there's any Wikipedian with, say, three or four functioning neurons, maybe he or she will agree that the preparation of such a careful response qualifies as "working with" an editor. I can assure you it "took time" and "involved lots of changes."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you aren't interesting in harmonious editing - that's too bad; so be it. But don't forget that anyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia - including the articles you choose to work on and take a lot of time doing just that. As it says when you hit that "save page" button - "If you do not want your writing to be edited...then do not submit it here". Have a good evening. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again — you try to shift the ground of the discussion. It is you who passively-aggressively undermined harmonious editing, with your response above. You continue to undermine it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who responds to someone who's trying to work things out with them in one breath with, "I'm not working against you" and then immediately follows it up with, "I'm not interested in working with you" is behaving passive-aggressively. The, when given a friendly suggestion to look at a related thought in a Wikipedia article answers with, "I don't have to read WP:DEADLINE..." you show yourself to be just plain aggressive. I'm not trying to shift the ground of anything - I've tried to be polite, to offer an olive branch, and offer to work together with you. The only person I see undermining anything in this conversation is you, sir. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

SRQ - please note how John and I resolved our very brief edit conflict above on this article (almost instantaneously compared to the drawn-out "misunderstandings"). This is how to work together effectively, as we will continue to do... Doc9871 (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't presume you have the right or permission to patronize me. This isn't the first time you've done it - I'd appreciate it if you'd stop. Anyone who says to another editor, "I'm not interested in working with you" is clearly not interested in resolving anything with me, regardless of how things worked out between you and that same editor. I tried, he's not interested. It's really quite obvious and simple. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

SRQ - I'm just trying to help you work better with other editors, not "patronize" you. That's all, seriously... Doc9871 (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Even you have noted above on a different day that John has problems dealing with other editors in this article. Even without that comment from you, it's obvious John doesn't like working with other editors on this article in general - I'm not the first. I'm not one to give phony, disingenuous compliments and back-slaps in order to get a difficult editor to like me. One doesn't have to make friends to edit alongside and cooperatively with other editors - I'm not here to make friends, just edit articles. If he doesn't like my edits, that's too bad. Unfortunately, he reverted a lot of good edits in the section I worked on tonight - all because of one statement. That's just plain stupid and disruptive and non-productive. At the moment, there are several areas in this article that really, really stink - and the truth is, John is the one who mucked much of it up. There's way too many disjointed statements, run-on sentences, hideous syntax and grammar, unencylopedic prose, and a lot of flowery speech that shows the editor writing it all has been trying too hard. None of this bodes well for an online reference and the honest truth is that it all needs to be redone. I tried - it was reverted for no reason other than a knee-jerk reactive response (from John) and a personal vendetta (not John - another editor). Instead of telling me how successful you are in working better with other editors, you might want to pass that sage wisdom onto those who really need to hear it. Because, seriously, the only thing one needs to do in Wikipedia to get along with others is work cooperatively. But...thanks, anyway. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You CANNOT launch into a tirade against any editor and expect to not be censured! You MUST focus on WP and the edits themselves, and never focus on editors, as you repeatedly do! I can't help you any more, I'm afraid... Doc9871 (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly why you called me a "whiner" on your talk page the other day - because you "focus [only] on WP and the edits themselves", right? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

For posterity's sake - I was speaking to another editor on my talk page, and I called "someone" a whiner. I never mentioned your name directly, nor did I EVER insinuate that I am infallible, or that I haven't ever been guilty of focusing on editors myself. In fact, I prefaced my suggestions to you about abstaining from attacking other editors by admitting my own culpability, on more than one occasion; I would be an fool not to, as it's all there on record anyway. There is already strong evidence of WP:HOUNDING of Wilhartlivie and her "gang" here, as well as WP:OUTING and consistent gross incivility. When you return from your block, please refrain from attacking other editors and engaging in edit warring. Doc9871 (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Regardless of any dispute you have, you have violated WP:3RR with your return of this content to which other editors have clearly objected. Stop changing this back. It is incorrect and misquotes sources. LaVidaLoca (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting myself

For a long time — maybe two-and-a-half years — the article's "Childhood" subsection contained the following:

No more than three weeks after his birth, he was Charles Milles Maddox.

"He," of course, is Manson.

I am pretty sure I myself wrote that sentence, when I saw that Manson's Certificate of Live Birth was dated December 3, 1934 — exactly three weeks after his birth. Although the certificate could not clarify the entire history of the naming of Manson, it made clear that no more than three weeks after his birth, he was Charles Milles Maddox.

Within the past week or two, after a copy-edit tag was posted on the article, I began simplifying several of the article's sentences, including that one. In fact, I changed that sentence only a day or so ago, at 03:57, 7 January. I changed it to this:

Within weeks, he was Charles Milles Maddox.

As you see, that doesn't merely "simplify" the sentence: it changes the sense of it. The phrase "within weeks" suggests that Manson didn't receive the name until at least a week had passed — but we really don't know when he received the name. We know only what I originally wrote: no more than three weeks after his birth, he was Charles Milles Maddox.

Because a heated discussion about Manson's birth record has taken place on the present talk page, in the section headed "Faulty revisions," I am going to restore the sentence's original form.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I support your change back and also support the revert of content by you, me and LaVidaLoca to the early childhood portion of the article. The rewrite misused content from the sources and suggested conclusions not supported by the sources. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well said.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Childhood section

The childhood section has been rewritten. Previously, it did not flow well, nor was the verbiage and syntax used well placed. William Manson was named on Manson's Certificate of Live Birth - this information has been included in the section. A new paragraph for the details of the bastardy suit has been created - as it was previously, that information was lumped together with everything else. Because of that information's importance, it has been placed in its own paragraph. A couple of redirects were appropriately added. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

First offenses

What's up with the "First offenses" section? There are no dates given other than the 1951 escape from the Indiana School for Boys. Without any dates, the reader has no reference point for when these offenses happened. Whomever wrote this section and has the references handy needs to do some clean up here. As it is, the section is worthless for encyclopedic purposes. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Whomever" wrote this section? Learn some basic English. After a three-day block, you have obviously returned to this article belligerently, determined to get your way on something or other. Your revision of 22:59, 13 January, is yet another misrepresentation of the history of the naming of Manson. By stating that "it is believed" that Manson was briefly known as "No Name Maddox," you cast doubt upon a fact that is supported by the 1971 L.A. Times article-cum-interview to which I have already referred (in "Faulty revisions," on the present page). Similarly, your reference to unnamed "Manson researchers" who have "surmised" that Manson might not really have known his father is meaningless and goes against the sources' information (also cited in "Faulty revisions"). Lastly, the material you changed had no "syntax problems." You seem to have no idea what syntax is. I will be undoing your revision, though I will reinstate the information that William Manson is named as the boy's father on the Certificate of Live Birth.

As for the subsection headed "First offenses": Bugliosi and Gentry's Helter Skelter, which is the source of its information, does not provide the dates you would like to see — but that doesn't matter. The subsection is a continuation of the preceding subsection, headed "Childhood," which ends with events of 1947. As a continuation, it picks up with an account of Manson burglaries and goes on to say that he was placed in the Indiana School for Boys "at age thirteen" — i.e., in 1947 or '48 (as elementary arithmetic based on his birth year reveals).JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here. You've entered numerous weasel phrases, including your favored "surmised by researchers". Your edits raised objections from multiple editors here and are not accurate. Another weasel phrase would be "it is believed". Editors agreed, despite your insistance, that the article was correctly and well worded. You didn't bother to mention you moved around other sections. If I beat John to reverting, I apologize to him. This is a delayed continuation of edit warring. LaVidaLoca (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's stick facts about edits and leave personalities and speculation about behavior out as it does nothing to work toward making this article better. If you have something to offer about the edits themselves, please do so, but also be certain to do so without the uncivil and unneccessary editorial. If you object to what you see as "Weasel phrases", that's understandable. The rest of the commentary, however, is really unneccessary and inappropriate. As far as dates for this section - dates are one of the things that makes encyclopedias encyclopedic (not to mention that it's just good writing technique when providing facts). If there are any dates to be applied here from the references listed (or even a date spread), they need to be added. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To correct myself: Bugliosi and Gentry do, in fact, indicate that Manson's 1951 escape from the Indiana School for Boys took place in February of that year and that his transfer to Washington's National Training School for Boys took place in March. If you think those months should be specified, please enter them. I personally don't think they're necessary. The material is immediately followed by the article's subsection headed "First imprisonment," which begins with Manson's October 1951 transfer to Natural Bridge Honor Camp and thus reveals that the Indiana escape and the Washington transfer took place before that month. That's detail enough.

Your comment to editor LaVidaLoca is objectionable. You are obviously simply trying to throw back into some editor's face the charge that was fairly leveled against you before you were blocked — i.e., that your comments were personal and did not have to do with edits themselves. Nothing that has just been said to you by editor LaVidaLoca was inappropriate.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't only addressing LaVidaLoca, I was also addressing you. Please stop commenting on me and attempting to analyze why I am saying what I am saying and why I edited what I did. Article talk pages are for discussing edits, not other editors. Yes, I do believe the dates should be included - this is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias include dates. Not including dates or time frames is confusing for a reader unfamiliar with the subject at hand. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. And for the record, I do not have rollback, so I did not "rollback" your edits as you claimed when you reverted me. That's one revert. You use poor grammatical phrasing, insert multiple instances of phrases that are confusing in nature. At least 3 and maybe 4 editors objected to your "reworking" of content. Just because you waited e few days after being blocked to return does not make your editing a continuation of that effort. Please stop "improving" the article and stop making unfounded accusations against other editors. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It was my mistake that I stated you used rollback. For that error, I apologize. Regardless, it's not good faith nor appropriate editing behavior to completely revert an entire section that was edited in good faith based on a few edits you see as disputable. I will continue to "improve" this article because it could stand improving. Furthermore, I am just as important to Wikipedia as anyone else here. It is not the right of *anyone* to keep others from editing an article unless they are being disruptive and/or vandalizing. And even in those types of cases, it is up to administrators to block someone from editing, not other editors. If you think my edits were vandalism or disruptive to Wikipedia, please feel free to report me to AN/I. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I stated my reasons. Other editors have agreed. That is consensus. Please stop be so aggressive in your posts. I can certainly give a revert count here since that has been exceeded in the past. LaVidaLoca (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a consensus amongst non-adminsitrators to keep editors from editing. I'm sorry you think my posts are aggressive when all I have been doing is trying to stay on-topic by talking about edits and asking everyone not talking about edits to stay on-topic. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well — you certainly sound sorry.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be disengenuous. There certainly can be consensus against edits that are made. Other editors have agreed that your edits are not progressive or accurate. The consensus is that your edits are unhelpful. Perhaps if you first proposed changes for discussion that might make things clearer. Otherwise, it seems clear that objections should be expected, until there is agreement that something is constructive and improves the article. At present, that does not exist. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop editorializing on me personally and stay on-topic by talking about edits only. There can certainly be a consensus about specific edits, but that isn't what I said. From what you and LaVidaLoca wrote above, it appears you both believe I should stop editing this article all together. It doesn't matter that you think I should stop "improving" this article - anyone is allowed to edit this article just like any other article in Wikipedia. My edits were not vandalism, nor were they disruptive. All they did was change some bad, overly flowery, unencyclopedic (and in some cases, immature) grammar and syntax. All of that is improving an article, not disrupting it. Unless you have a case for, or evidence of, my edits actually being disruptive rather than productive, there is no legitimate reason for my edits being reverted completely. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is editorializing on you personally and are factually talking about edits you've made. Your comments about what you think I or Wildhartlivie believe, no one has said and to claim so is a defacto personal comment. Please desist from making personal comments. Listen to your own advice. In fact, at least three other editors disagree with the changes you have made and that has been expanded upon here and in edit summaries. It is obvious that you have a different perception of what comprises "bad" grammar and syntax, but at least three other editors have spoken in favor of it, and that does make a consensus agaisnt your opinion. You are in fact, making changes with which at least one editor with an English composition post-graduate degree disagrees and disputes. LaVidaLoca (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"No one is editorializaing on you personally" - No, that's incorrect. "[Editors] are factually talking about edits you've made" - That's also incorrect. No one is talking specifically and only about edits, but about me personally. It's very clearly so - all one has to do is read the words of you and the other two editors above. "at least three other editors disagree with the changes you have made and that has been expanded upon here and in edit summaries" - What has been "expanded on" is that the three of you don't want me to "improve" the article. That was also stated clearly. "It is obvious that you have a different perception of what comprises "bad" grammar and syntax" - That's correct. As someone who makes a living correcting the incorrect grammar and syntax of others, I'm confident I have a pretty good handle on what comprises good grammar and syntax. The larger problem here, however, is that you were either inciting, or taking part in, edit warring by completely reverting the entire section I edited. As Wikipedia:Reverting states: "Revert vandalism on sight, but revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. Edit warring is prohibited". You did exactly the opposite of what is acceptible for reverting. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

<sigh> There simply is no discussion here, only bad faith accusations. I refuse to discuss this with you if you are going to continue asserting you personally are being discussed. Please stop making this personal. What has been said here is that at least three different editors do not see your edits as "improvements". LaVidaLoca (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what "three different editors agree on" based on biased opinion (and the bias is clear from statements all three of you made above based on your perceptions and assumptions of *why* I was making the edits). What matters is that I am an experienced Wikipedian who is trying to do what Wikipedia editors (experienced and inexperienced) are asked to do - edit an article. No article is considered complete or perfect to the point of where new edits and editors to an article should be seen as unwelcome. By saying there is a "consensus" against my edits, it is obvious that I am being told my edits here are unwelcome. By being told that I need to stop "improving" this article, it is obvious I am being told that my edits here are unwelcome. That is not an acceptible attitude and is considered uncivil behavior against the standards and overall goal of Wikipedia. I will be consulting other editors and/or administrators as to whether or not I have grounds to take this further to AN/I (or any other appropriate Wikipedia noticeboard). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice. We don't agree with your edits and out comes the "I'm going to a noticeboard to make this an AN/I or whatever else I can think up to do". Give it a rest. You're the one who continues to maintain there are personal attacks here. Very nice. How many articles have you done this on? Two, three, four? It happens every time you arrive at an article and try to force your viewpoint on it. No, your edits don't "improve" the article. Not in any way. LaVidaLoca (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you misquoting and misrepresenting what I said? I said I was going to consult with other editors and/or administrators as to whether or not I have grounds to go to AN/I, not that I am going to go to AN/I. There's no resemblance between what you claim I said and what I actually did say. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate effect that asking people to stay on-topic so often moves the discussion one step further off-topic. (It takes two, but most people step into dyads once there's a possibility for one, so you can't really assign blame. (If that made no sense, ignore it.)) There certainly are ad hominem remarks going both ways in this section, and I see less discussion of edits than would be ideal. The solution to that problem is simply to discuss the edits.

They're much easier to discuss one at a time. SRQ, is there a particular edit you'd like to discuss first, of the ones you made? Maybe the one in the section below, that JohnB is talking about? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This has gone on way too long for me to continue with any of it tonight. I have other things to do that take precedence over hashing through all of this and the above will have to be embarked upon at another time (probably tomorrow) when I'm refreshed and don't have a lot of studying to do. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We'll see you then. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision of 00:56, 14 January

At 00:47, 14 January, the article's "Childhood" subsection included this:

For a period after he was born, his mother was married to a laborer named William Manson, who had been identified as father on the Certificate of Live Birth and whose last name, at some point, the boy received. The boy's biological father appears actually to have been a "Colonel Scott", against whom Kathleen Maddox filed a bastardy suit that resulted in an agreed judgment in 1937. It is unclear whether the boy ever really knew him.

At 00:56, that was changed to the following:

Sometime after Manson's birth, Maddox married a laborer named William Manson,. The elder Manson was named as father on his stepson's Certificate of Live Birth; it is unclear when Charles Maddox's last name was changed to Manson. The boy's biological father appears actually to have been a "Colonel Scott", against whom Kathleen Maddox filed a bastardy suit that resulted in an agreed judgment in 1937. It is unclear whether the boy ever really knew him.

In addition to its prolixity and the comma carelessly left near the end of its first sentence, the revision has two sense problems:

1. The indication that Kathleen Maddox's marriage to William Manson did not last has been lost.
2. "Stepson" begs the question of William Manson's relationship to Charles Manson. It's not certain, in other words, that William Manson was not the natural father of Charles Manson. (Yes, William Manson is identified as Charles's stepfather in the infobox at the article's head — but the article proper, at least, should not include such an identification.)

The verb-change from "had been named" to "was named" is also, arguably, a bit of a problem — because it gives the impression the identification of William Manson as the boy's father, on the certificate, came after the wedding of Kathleen Maddox and William Manson. Because we don't know the wedding date of those two, "is named" is probably best.

I am going to restore the original wording. Before the words "Certificate of Live Birth," I will place the words "the boy's." I will use "is named" instead of "had been named" or "was named."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not appropriate, nor is it cooperative editing behavior to completely revert what another editor has done based on a few things out of place. It is not a sole editor's right to decide that decent, good-faith edits should be completely removed. What is appropriate here is for two editors to work together and make compromises through talk page discussion(s). *That* is the way to be a responsibile editor in Wikipedia. No one owns Wikipedia articles. Everyone is allowed to contribute and to do so without fear of having their good-faith, productive edits reverted in total just because another editor doesn't like them. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, guys, can we hold off on editing for a few minutes here, please? I've got something mostly written that I want to post, and I think I can help with this. Would people mind just a brief break in the editing while we talk a little bit? I guess I'm offering to informally mediate, if editors here want to accept that offer. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen — I clearly indicated your revision's problems — problems that amounted to more than "a few things out of place." Had you demonstrated, on this talk page, a willingness to respond simply, politely, and in detail to such a statement of problems, I would have awaited a response from you; instead, I simply changed what you had written. More importantly, I didn't "completely revert" what you had done. If you will look at what I placed in the article, you will see that it reflects some of the changes you made. If you have a response to the criticism I offered above, please post it here.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. You suggest that everything would have been better between us if *I* had done something differently. Your choice to use ad-hominem right off the bat (rather than indicating you were interested in working together on the article) with ' "Whomever" wrote this section? Learn some basic English. After a three-day block, you have obviously returned to this article belligerently, determined to get your way on something or other' said something differently to me. As well, on January 8 you said, "I'm not interested in working with you". Are you suggesting that if I had responded differently then the ad-hominem wouldn't have happened and you would have then been "interested in working with [me]"? I'm getting mixed messages here. Perhaps you can explain further? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that wasn't the response GTBacchus was looking for. I'm really sure he said to drop those sorts of comments. LaVidaLoca (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a response to my criticism of your revision of 00:56, 14 January, please post it here.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that "Learn some basic English" is inappropriate, as well as more of what you cited there. However, can we have that conversation elsewhere? I'll host it at my talk page, if that helps. Here is for article-talk. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just noticed that, at 23:06, 13 January, editor SkagitRiverQueen entered, on this talk page, a post headed "Childhood section," in which she described and explained the changes she had made to the article's section on Manson's childhood. It was five minutes later, at 23:11, that SkagitRiverQueen posted "First offenses," which I regarded as belligerent. When I read "First offenses," I had not seen the post headed "Childhood section." I thought that, after a three-day block related to her revisions of the article's childhood material, SkagitRiverQueen had simply returned to change that material again, without explanation, and had then gone on simply to disparage the article's "First offenses" material. That is why my response to her "First offenses" post included my criticism of her "Childhood" edits — criticism I would otherwise have positioned in her post called "Childhood section." In short: had I seen SkagitRiverQueen's "Childhood section" post, I would probably have thought her at least a little bit less belligerent — and would probably have responded to "First offenses" more temperately.

GTBacchus — I appreciate your mild tone; but I will say that I don't think "Learn some basic English" is inappropriately directed to an editor who repeatedly blathers about (unspecified) "syntax," "grammar," and other problems, while frequently creating typos, ungrammatical constructions, and other such problems for other editors to clean up in the article. If other editors are not to be burdened with such cleaning up, such an editor needs to be brought up short.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess when I say "inappropriate", I'm really thinking in terms of success rate. Bringing someone up short can "work" or not, depending on a lot of contextual variables. Complicated stuff. Perhaps you and I disagree on this matter.

We really don't need to talk about which statement made by whom (that's right, "whom" ;)) was more or less appropriate or helpful than which other statement, though. The way to go is forward, with discussion of edits. If anyone needs to seek sanctions against anyone else, that's not for this talk page, and I'm happy to entertain conversations elsewhere, if that seems like that will help. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And lest I myself be accused of being unspecific:

07:18, 7 January: Editor JohnBonaccorsi corrects SkagitRiverQueen punctuation

07:37, 7 January: Editor Wildhartlivie corrects SkagitRiverQueen ungrammatical construction

02:37, 14 January: Editor JohnBonaccorsi removes stray SkagitRiverQueen comma of 00:56 (as noted above)

I could probably come up with a few others — but I think my point is made.JohnBonaccorsi (talk)

GTBacchus — I guess you and I just posted comments at about the same time. You're right about bringing someone up short. Maybe it's a judgment call. Anyway — let's hope things work out.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi. I've just looked over the edits made today, and I've got some observations, which I hope you don't mind my sharing. Here are the edits: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13. Since I began typing this, there's been a fourteenth (reverting 11), and another talk page section has started, but I've gotta post this before I grow old.

• JohnBonaccorsi, your edits are very easy to read and follow. You make one change at a time, you use the section edit links, and your edit summaries are clear, descriptive and focused. Article histories can be difficult to untangle and read, and edit summaries aren't the best place to have a conversation. "See talk" is just about the most appropriate way to smoothly transition from a reversion to a discussion; thank you for doing that.
• Edits 1, 2 and 4 are SkagitRiverQueen's, and they are significant section reworkings of "Childhood", "First imprisonment" and "Second imprisonment" respectively. Edits 3, 5 and 6 are some back-and-forth with the "Childhood" section, and then Edit 7 is LaVidaLoca reverting all the way back to before edit 1. That means that Edits 1-7 had no net effect, as far as the actual text of the article. They did have the effect of putting 1, 2 and 4 on the table as putative rewrites. That's a lot of suggested changes there.
• Edits 8-10 are JB working on the "For a period after he was born" paragraph of "Childhood"; they combine into this. Edit 12 is also JB, snipping a bit from the "Second imprisonment" section.
• Edit 11 is SRQ again, with a much less extensive edit to "Childhood" than earlier - essentially, it's Edit 1 restricted to a single paragraph, namely the one JB was working on in 8-10. It's a little tricky to see what the change is, due to an error that SRQ caught and corrected in Edit 13. You can see it here; you just have to ignore the bit under "First imprisonment".
• These edits all happened more-or-less concurrently with the above talk page section, which concerns another section of the article: "First offenses". That talk page section has a whole lot of ad hominem remarks in it.

Ok, SkagitRiverQueen, check it out: This is what I recommend. You've got a lot of ideas for edits that you believe will improve the article. That's awesome; thank you for wanting to make it better. If you implement them as many at a time as you did in edits 1, 2 and 4, you're very, very likely to end up at 1 + 2 + 4 = 7. Reverted all the way; no net gain. (Funny how that worked out, huh?)

Now, I wouldn't have made edit 5. It was going to be pointless; the first revert in a situation that you know to be tense pretty much always is. That's why I play 0RR. Once B and R have happened, it's time for D. A second R leads to a third one so much of the time, and they add nothing to the history but worry lines.

What I'd do after the first revert is to isolate one small change that's part of your rewrite, re-make just that one change, and comment on the talk page about it. Then don't do any editing until a conversation happens. That means a conversation has to happen, and it's got to somehow stay on topic.

That last bit, about staying on-topic, is directed to everyone here to whom it applies — you know who you are. Each editor in good standing, which includes every one of us here, is welcome to work on any article. There are no topic bans affecting this situation. If you want to get a topic ban, you're welcome to seek one, but only ArbCom gives those out, and they won't talk to you until after an RfC or two and couple dozen AN/I threads have gone down. Nobody's going to block anyone from this article anytime soon (unless someone freaks out and starts deleting everything or something), so you have to work together.

So... SkagitRiverQueen, I'd love to see your reply to JohnBonaccorsi's comments about your edit. B and R have happened, so we have to D. Let's just hash it out. I am addressing the additional issues you bring up above, but I'm going to do part of that somewhere else on the wiki, that I think will be more appropriate. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note

Hi all, it's clear that there's significant work underway around here, good for ya'll, but I just dont care enough to read the talk and see what's happening. So the point I'm going to make has likely been made before, maybe even recently. Nontheless, I'll risk it, because this article suffers from having a vast amount of material only indirectly related to Manson himself, such as the actions of Atkins and Watson, et al. Question: why does something so significant as the Family not have its own article? This would be a very linkable article, and would make both it and this article more coherent, and comprehensible. Check the current article size, btw, 108k is a lot of text. In fact, the Family itself is interesting enough that there should probably be a separate Tate/LaBianca Murders article. Imho.

I strongly suggest that most of the material on the family and the murders should be split into a separate article on The Manson Family, and I can't understand why it hasn't been. But I don't actually care, so, as always and ever, do what thou wilt shall be the hole in the law... Eaglizard (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)(fixtEaglizard (talk))

This is a subject that has been brought up before and the overriding opinion is that everything that is relevant to the murders is also relevant to the Manson article because he was tried and convicted of those crimes and the actions of the co-defendants were directly related to the conviction. It has a lot of content because there are a lot of events to cover. It has to be here because the crimes and the trial relate to Manson himself. Anything in here is relevant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't relevant, or that it doesn't belong here. I'm saying that my few years experience as a WP copy-editor tells me that if there were two separate articles, then they would both be much better articles. As it is, you're spending a lot of time nitpicking over stuff because you're trying too hard to pack too much into one article. Imho, that is. (But, I don't care to argue the point. I already did my time in the trenches in a side-skirmish to the Great Antisemite Edit Wars, and I've learned to recognize polarized and rigidified opinions when I see them. Reading just a little bit of the talk here makes it quite obvious that improving this article is and will continue to be a very slow, painful process, which interests me very little. Have fun, ya'll!) Eaglizard (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, posting this means you disagree. But don't be mislead by the discussion above. This article was stable for a very long time until just recently. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, my point precisely: I disagree. But, I'm not willing to fight over it. I have an idea though, so I might be back around in a day or two. Perhaps my initial impression of a high level of contentiousness was wrong? Eaglizard (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, currently there are two camps, both of which are strongly opinionated. However, I suspect that the majority of editors here are firmly against splitting this article up. We pulled it from GA and FA consideration for that very reason. The article is clearly well researched and supported and this has been thoroughly discussed in the past. Besides this article, there are articles at Helter Skelter (Manson scenario), Recordings by Charles Manson and myriad articles about individual members, all of which need enhancement and referencing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Eaglizard for putting into perfect words the exact way I feel about editing this article but wasn't able to piece together in my mind. First of all, I agree that not only is there too much being packed into one article, but I also believe there is too much "literary" effort here. Rather than reporting the facts in a straight-forward manner, there's more flowery language than necessary - especially for an encyclopedia article. The other thing that pops out at me with the flowery wording and too-long sentence construction is that the editors appear to be trying too hard. Truth is, no one's going to gain any real notariety or citations or awards through what is written here - there will be no Pulitzers for how well any of us edits Wikipedia. Now, back to the meat of what Eaglizard wrote ... "polarized and rigid opinions...[make it] quite obvious that improving this article is and will continue to be a very slow, painful process". Like Eaglizard, I have now come to the same conclusion and am just as disinterested as he/she is. I'm not in the least interested in "slow and painful" right now - as my life is currently quite full. Oh, I'll keep the article on my watchlist and I'm certainly not leaving the project, but as far as fighting those polarized and rigid opinions any more in this (or any other) article goes...I've got better things to do with my brain and time than to worry about childish lines drawn in the sand out of the need for some to control a bunch of words on a computer screen. Life's too short, the sun will still rise tomorrow, and in the global scheme of things, Wikipedia is just Wikipedia (which pretty much equals little - if anything - of real, meaningful importance).

Indeed - "have fun, y'all!" --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean you're not going to respond to the direct questions asked of you by GTBacchus, and you are dropping your one-sided war here? You know, for someone who is always slamming around words like "comment on the content, not the contributors" and "stop making personal comments", there is a terrible amount of bad faith comments being cast about in that post. Because other editors completely disagree with you does not mean people are drawing childish lines in the sand or are polarized and rigid. It means simply that your POV is not in agreement with the other editors here. Sorry you feel like Wikipedia has no real, meaningful importance. Is that why Jimbo Wales' face pops out of the corner of your talk page? There is nothing wrong with putting forth literary effort, except, perhaps, in your eyes. Mark this down, folks, her life is too full to bother with this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as a general note and warning to everyone involved here, stop with a) the personal attacks, b) edit warring over personal attacks, and c) leaving templated warnings on experienced user's pages. I would respectfully suggest the two most recent comments made and removed stay gone as neither one was dealing with the article, and everyone get back to the subject at hand. Leaving warning templates for experienced editors is only fanning the flames. Have a cup of tea, and take a few deep breaths. Dayewalker (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that an experienced editor who left the message she did to JohnBonaccorsi KNOWS better than to leave such a comment and the attack in the edit summary where she called me a hypocrite most certainly qualifies as well. For someone who drags people to WP:AN/I as often as she does, she KNOWS better and such templated warnings are justified, experienced or not, those posts were vicious. LaVidaLoca (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Making any retaliatory "personal attacks" against SRQ, whatever the reason and however slight and subtle, only diminishes the argument of her edit warring, further giving her ammunition to fight back with: "The pot calling the kettle black". Whether her attacks are more vicious or not is irrelevant (I believe) in the eyes of the administration, who are clearly and actively involved, and watching. She cannot face further sanctions for edit warring if the other editors engage in the same behavior she is accused of. My past comments on this issue are on record... Doc9871 (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Dayewalker and Doc9871 are entirely correct. LaVidaLoca, that means your last post above. You don't have to call someone out as "vicious", and when you do, you make yourself look worse, and you weaken your position. Stop. Do not comment on the contributor. Do not speculate about the contributor's motives. Just rise above it. Nobody in this dispute is clean; everyone who rises above it wins. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

The Tom Snyder interview has now been removed in total which I think maybe mistaken. I personally liked that information. Can it be returned in full like it was before all the activity of the night? John I think you originally put it in and removed the little bit that was left last night. Would you mind putting it back into the article? I think it actually adds to the articles interest plus it breaks the referencing up a little so that the article isn't being referenced from just a couple of citations. Of course this is my POV about it but do any of the other editors here have an opinion about this? Thanks for your thoughts and of course for reading, :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the quotation from the interview? A long time ago, the article's "Early life" section ended with this:

Snyder: Let's go back to 1967, the time you were winding up serving a term of a number of years, ten years, and written accounts indicate that you told the authorities, "Don't let me out, I can't cope with the outside world." Do you have a recollection of that? And do you —

Manson: You're making a desperate plea out of something, man. There's no desperate plea out of it. I said I can't handle the maniacs outside, let me back in.

Snyder: I didn't use the word desperate. That's your word, Charles.

Manson: Yeah, well, your inflection and your voice tones were, uh, implications there.

Editor Wildhartlivie deleted that, I think, a long time ago, probably simply to shorten the article. At 00:56, 14 January, I merely deleted the long-remaining reference and link to the interview — a reference and link she'd left simply out of politeness, I think. As I recall, I deleted them because editor SkagitRiverQueen had removed them — as misplaced; her deletion had been undone when a multiple-edit revision of hers had been reverted.

I'm not sure what you think should be reinstated — but maybe editor Wildhartlivie and you will be able to discuss it here.

I hope that's clear enough.

PS Re your revision of 12:55, 14 January: The name "Charles" had been used because, in that place, the reader might not know whether "Manson" meant Charles or William. A better form, originally, would probably have been something like "Manson (Charles)" — but there are countless Wikipedia editors who would have removed that and left an edit summary that read simply "grammar."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi John, your ps makes sense, feel free to revert me. On reverting me, never ever worry about my feelings getting hurt. I try to help and if a reasonable editor undoes or changes what I do, well that's what happens here. So feel free to revert me. As for the Snyder stuff, I have to collect my thoughts on it. For some reason I was thinking of something different so maybe I have the wrong place. I get tired by this time so right now just ignore because I don't honestly remember what I was thinking, sorry about that. Thanks for responding though, not much use am I right now! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

John i just caught your addition of Manson (Charles) and the edit summary 'grammar'. Thanks I enjoyed the laugh. I really was caught by surprise and actually enjoyed something light hearted for once. Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad you got a kick out of it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

My Changes

I made many helpful changes to this article but I see now that other editors have reverted nearly all of them. I must say, I find that disappointing and bit insulting as well. Therefore, I won't be making any others. I am Zeus, king of the gods (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

New changes

I am sorry to see the large changes done to the article without even a peep on the talk page. There were other editors who disagreed with these changes in the past. I for one will not continue here at this time since what is discussed is ignored. Good luck with the article. I've had this on my watchlist for a long time, I may remove it soon but will watch it for a little bit longer to see if discussions that are productive are initiated. Thanks and happy editing, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I had fully intended to put something here about the changes and inviting dicussion regarding those changes, after finishing my most recent edits. Unfortunately, I was distracted from doing so by an event here at my home, and didn't get around to doing so until now. When I started to do so, I saw you had commented, Crohnie. It was not my intention to leave comments here about the changes out of the picture. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been watching this page for long but I have been considering providing more information on it. In my opinion there should be more information about the abuse Manson endured as a child not because I think it should be viewed as an excuse but because it will help people understand how troubled children turn into troubled and violent adults. I also disagree with some of the changes although I think it is accurate mostly. I'm not sure how important the suggestion about his father being black is. It is in Bugliosi's book but there clearly isn't anything to back it up including his skin color. I doubt if this is true and doubt if it should be a high priority; however there should be more about extensive reports of abuse not only to Manson but many other killers. This is backed up by many reliable sources and it isn't being explained to the public well enough. I trust your intentions are sincere and if so and the sincere people abandon articles then the less sincere people will take over. Not that I think the recent work is insincere just that I think some of the priorities should be considered more carefully. Zacherystaylor (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think adding more *referenced* information on the abuse he endured as a child could certainly enhance the article. Caution should be taken, however, in making sure that undue weight is not given to the subject. This is a big article with a lot of information - putting undue weight on Manson's childhood abuse could unbalance the article somewhat and end up being unproductive. Just my two-cents. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed however I don’t think we’re in danger of providing undue weight on this. There is a lot of research indicating how important this is although it doesn’t all refer to Manson. I am only considering adding what does relate directly to Manson on this article. This will be based on two sources already cited here, Neumon Emmons and Bugliosi. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Then...you know what? Edit away! The more different eyes we can get looking at and editing this aritcle, the more it will improve. As long as your edits are referenced and factual, your edits will likely be supported. Happy editing. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Intent to correct

Because of a series of edits executed from 17:11 to 17:53, 16 January, by editor SkagitRiverQueen, the article includes the following paragraphs:

Charles Manson was born to an unmarried 16-year-old named Kathleen Maddox in Cincinnati General Hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio. Inititally, Manson was known by "no name Maddox." On the Certificate of Live Birthrecorded three weeks after he was born, Manson's legal name is Charles Milles Maddox. For a period of time following her son's birth, Maddox was married to a laborer named William Manson. The elder Manson is named as father on Charles Manson's original birth certificate, however, at a later date, Maddox would file a suit naming another man as her son's biological father.

Although it is unclear when Manson was given the use of his stepfather's surname, by the time a bastardy suit was filed by his mother, his last name had been changed Manson. In the suit, Maddox names a "Colonel Scott" as Manson's biological father and the suit resulted in an agreed judgment in 1937. In the quasi-autobiographical Manson in His Own Words, Colonel Scott is characterized as "a young drugstore cowboy ... a transient laborer working on a nearby dam project." It remains unclear, however, whether Manson ever actually knew "Colonel Scott."

In 1947, Maddox attempted to have her son placed in a foster home but failed, as there were no placements available. The state of West Virgina then proceeded to send Manson to the Gibault School for Boys, in Terre Haute, Indiana. After 10 months at the school, he fled from there to find his mother. Maddox subsequently rejected him.

Following his mother's rejection of him, Manson burglarized a grocery store allowing him to rent a room. More burglaries followed, including one from which he stole a bicycle and ended when he was caught in the act. Manson was subsequently sent to an Indianapolis juvenile center. After one day of confinement, Manson escaped but was recaptured and then placed in the well-regarded Boys Town. Four days after his arrival there, Manson escaped with another boy. The pair committed two armed robberies on their way to the home of the other boy's uncle.]

Apprehended during the second of two grocery-store break-ins, Manson was sent, at age 13, to the Indiana School for Boys. He would later claim he was brutalized sexually there.] After a number of failed attempts, Manson finally escaped with two other boys in 1951. In Utah, the trio was was caught driving to California in vehicles they had stolen. Along the way, they had burglarized several gas stations. For the federal crime of taking a stolen vehicle across a state lines, Manson was sent to Washington, D.C.'s National Training School for Boys. Despite four years of schooling and an I.Q. of 109 (he later tested at 121), Manson was still illiterate. It was at this time that a caseworker labeled him aggressively antisocial.

Those paragraphs have several defects:

"known by 'no name Maddox'" — Faulty locution. "Known as," if anything, would be correct — but because "no name Maddox" is in quotation marks, even "known as" is not necessary. "Was" is all that is necessary.

Removal of comma after Certificate of Live Birth suggests there is more than one Certificate of Live Birth. Comma belongs there. Also — no space was left between "Certificate" and "recorded."

"legal" before "name" is unnecessary and either tendentious or obfuscatory. Should be removed.

"For a period of time following" — Questionable use of "following." Should be "after."

"original" birth certificate. Problem the same as with "legal."

"at a later date" — Prolix. "Later"

"Although ... Manson." Awkwardly-worded sentence. Should be split in two. More importantly: Reference to bastardy suit right after preceding paragraphs’s mention of a suit filed by Kathleen Maddox leaves the reader thinking that two different suits are being mentioned. "changed Manson" should be "changed to Manson."

"remains unclear" — Why "remains"? "Is" unclear.

"state of West Virginia sent him" — From the sources — Helter Skelter and Manson in His Own Words — I personally can’t tell the location (state) of the court that sent Manson to Gibault. In Manson in His Own Words, the subject is addressed in a paragraph in which it is said that "[t]he next couple of years" – i.e., those that came some time after the return of Manson’s mother from prison – "saw us [Manson and his mother] in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio,West Virginia, and probably a couple more states." Reference to West Virginia should be removed.

"After 10 months at the school, he fled from there to find his mother." – Faulty locution. Should be "fled it." "Find his mother"? Complete mischaracterization. From Manson in His Own Words: Sick of Gibault and tired of waiting, I ran away. Naturally, I went straight to Mom’s. From Helter Sketler: He remained at Gibault ten months, then ran away, returning to his mother.

"Subsequently" rejected him? — Pointless and misleading. Gives the impression the rejection took place after an interval. From Manson in His Own Words: She turned me in and the next day I was back at the Home for Boys. From Helter Sketler: She didn’t want him, and he ran away again. "Subsequently" should be removed.

"Following his mother's rejection of him, Manson burglarized a grocery store allowing him to rent a room." Defective construction. Gives impression the grocery store was allowing him to rent a room. As the Wikipedia article originally indicated, the burglary brought him cash, which enabled him to rent a room. Also — faulty use of "following." Should be "after."

"More burglaries followed, including one from which he stole a bicycle and ended when he was caught in the act." Another defective construction. I won't waste time trying to characterize this one.

"After one day of confinement" — "Confinement" = unnecessary and confusing. "There" will do.

"Well-regarded" Boys Town. — Well-regarded by whom? Catholic priests who like to watch over little boys? Pointless.

"brutalized sexually" — Wikipedia article originally said, "sexually and otherwise." That is supported by pages 44-45 of Manson in His Own Words (2002 edition). On those pages are, for example, this: Back at the school, a guard gave me thirty lashes with the escape strap. "And otherwise" should be restored.

"(he later tested at 121)" — A complete sentence has no place in a mid-sentence parenthetical remark.

"Still illiterate" — Why "still"? Despite the schooling and his IQ, he was illiterate.

"It was at this time" — Unnecessary and misleading. Gives the reader the impression that Manson’s having been deemed aggressively antisocial has already been mentioned.

I will be correcting these problems. Because there are so many of them — and because the time I can give to the Wikipedia article is quite limited — I have had to compose the present notes hastily. I'm not even going to give them a close check for typos and such. What time I have I will give to the correction of the article.

If an editor disagrees with the criticisms above, he or she will please respond to them here.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing what I wrote is fine, John - after all, this is Wikipedia and that's what Wikipedia is about. Reverting wholesale or changing most of what I wrote to be reverted back to what it was before, however, is not. IMO, from what I see above (and I haven't really yet looked at it all in detail) you're being extremely picayune about what was changed. As I have stated before, much of the wording, syntax, and grammar - along with too many run-on and complex sentences - needs to be cleaned up in this article. In many cases, what I changed was based on the immature writing style. In other cases, the flowery wording just wasn't encyclopedic. I know you have stated previously that you are not interested in working *with* me (when I suggested we should work with each other rather than against each other), but in the interest of the article, keeping the peace, and the project in general, could you reconsider working in concert? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

John go for it. You know the references really well. I can't help right now because I'm having one of those days where I shouldn't have gotten out of bed. Did you help the article when it was a FA article (which it isn't anymore unfortunately). --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in knowing exactly what you mean by "go for it", Crohnie. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's my take on your criticisms of the recent edits:

"known by 'no name Maddox'" — Faulty locution. "Known as," if anything, would be correct — but because "no name Maddox" is in quotation marks, even "known as" is not necessary. "Was" is all that is necessary

Disagree. No one *knew him* "by" that name, that was what had to be put into the record until a legal name was given and recorded. During that time period (and up into the 1970s) it was not uncommon for "No Name" or "Baby Boy/Baby Girl" to be used as a designator and indication that a name had either not yet been given or the child was to be put up for adoption and was a ward of the state. Because he had not yet been given a name, the hospital had to put down something - he was "known as" by the State of Ohio for record purposes and until a name was given and recorded with the county registrar.

You are correct: he was not "known by" No Name Maddox. That is what I said. You are the one who wrote that he was "known by" No Name Maddox — at 17:13, 16 January, if you care to check. As I have argued above, even "known as" is neither necessary nor necessarily correct. I will restore "was."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of comma after Certificate of Live Birth suggests there is more than one Certificate of Live Birth. Comma belongs there. Also — no space was left between "Certificate" and "recorded."

Not hardly. And...no space was left? So what? Everyone makes mistakes. Even you. But seriously, if you need a comma in that place to make you feel better, by all means add it back in.

:"legal" before "name" is unnecessary and either tendentious or obfuscatory. Should be removed.

Not unneccessary at all. His name wasn't legally anything until it was recorded by the county registrar. "Tendentious or obfuscatory"? Sorry, but...LOL.

"For a period of time following" — Questionable use of "following." Should be "after."

Either/or. Whatever.

"original" birth certificate. Problem the same as with "legal."

Not. Big difference between original birth certificate issued by hospital in those days and the Certificate of Live Birth recorded by the county registrar.

"at a later date" — Prolix. "Later"

Yep - "at a later date". At a date later than the one recorded on the COB and when Maddox claimed Manson the Elder was Manson the Younger's father.

"Although ... Manson." Awkwardly-worded sentence. Should be split in two. More importantly: Reference to bastardy suit right after preceding paragraphs’s mention of a suit filed by Kathleen Maddox leaves the reader thinking that two different suits are being mentioned. "changed Manson" should be "changed to Manson."

Okay.

"remains unclear" — Why "remains"? "Is" unclear.

It "remains unclear" until Manson says otherwise. After he's no longer on this earth and there is no possibility of him clearing it up (or a family member clears it up), it "remains unclear". Really though, it's just another way of saying it. I felt that "is unclear" sounded like an immaturely constructed statement.

"state of West Virginia sent him" — From the sources — Helter Skelter and Manson in His Own Words — I personally can’t tell the location (state) of the court that sent Manson to Gibault. In Manson in His Own Words, the subject is addressed in a paragraph in which it is said that "[t]he next couple of years" – i.e., those that came some time after the return of Manson’s mother from prison – "saw us [Manson and his mother] in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio,West Virginia, and probably a couple more states." Reference to West Virginia should be removed.

Okay.

"After 10 months at the school, he fled from there to find his mother." – Faulty locution. Should be "fled it."

Okay.

"Find his mother"? Complete mischaracterization. From Manson in His Own Words: Sick of Gibault and tired of waiting, I ran away. Naturally, I went straight to Mom’s. From Helter Sketler: He remained at Gibault ten months, then ran away, returning to his mother.

I'm pretty certain that it already said, "find his mother". I could be wrong, though. How about if it read, "After 10 months at the school, he fled from it and went straight to where his mother was living". ?

"Subsequently" rejected him? — Pointless and misleading. Gives the impression the rejection took place after an interval. From Manson in His Own Words: She turned me in and the next day I was back at the Home for Boys. From Helter Sketler: She didn’t want him, and he ran away again. "Subsequently" should be removed.

The use of the word there is neither pointless nor misleading. The rejection did take place after an interval - it took place after he left Gibault. Look at the definition of the word "subsequently" - it fits this just fine.

"Following his mother's rejection of him, Manson burglarized a grocery store allowing him to rent a room." Defective construction. Gives impression the grocery store was allowing him to rent a room.

No it doesn't. It gives the impression that because he obtained money he stole from the grocery store he now had the means to rent a room. Something he didn't have before he stole the money.

As the Wikipedia article originally indicated, the burglary brought him cash, which enabled him to rent a room. Also — faulty use of "following." Should be "after."

No, it's not a "faulty use" of "following". The event followed his mother's rejection of him. And likely *because* of his mother's rejection of him - after she rejected him and wouldn't allow him to live with her, he had to get the means to provide shelter for himself.

"More burglaries followed, including one from which he stole a bicycle and ended when he was caught in the act." Another defective construction. I won't waste time trying to characterize this one.

Then why bring it up at all? Now you've wasted my time. I can see that I made an error when editing it - why not just mention it needs to be fixed? Why the snarkiness? Honestly, John - your attitude is getting really old.

"After one day of confinement" — "Confinement" = unnecessary and confusing. "There" will do.

No, "confinement" is neither unneccessary nor confusing. The word is clear and it's just another way of saying that he was confined there. Go on, live dangerously...leave it as "confinement". ;-)

"Well-regarded" Boys Town. — Well-regarded by whom? Catholic priests who like to watch over little boys? Pointless.

"Pointless"? LOL! Now your youth and lack of knowledge in Americana is showing. Go ahead, look up Boys Town.

"brutalized sexually" — Wikipedia article originally said, "sexually and otherwise." That is supported by pages 44-45 of Manson in His Own Words (2002 edition). On those pages are, for example, this: Back at the school, a guard gave me thirty lashes with the escape strap. "And otherwise" should be restored.

No, "otherwise" should not be restored. The addition of the word leaves the reader asking, "and otherwise, what?" Don't forget, the casual reader - who is the majority of those reading Wikipedia, BTW - isn't going to be grabbing the reference and immediately reading for further information. Either include what "otherwise" actually is, or leave it out. Leaving it in is confusing. Wikipedia is supposed to be reader friendly.

"(he later tested at 121)" — A complete sentence has no place in a mid-sentence parenthetical remark.

I agree. So why was it already in there? I didn't put the parenthesis in.

"Still illiterate" — Why "still"? Despite the schooling and his IQ, he was illiterate.

Uhh...because despite the schooling he had and his IQ of whatever it was, he was *still* illiterate, that's why. "Still" should stay. Without it, the statement seems like it's missing something. Not to mention, it's properly descriptive.

"It was at this time" — Unnecessary and misleading. Gives the reader the impression that Manson’s having been deemed aggressively antisocial has already been mentioned.

No, it's neither unnecessary nor misleading. But, if there's no reference for when the caseworker declared him antisocial (which is kinda funny, because caseworkers can't give psychological diagnoses such as that), then take it out.

I will be correcting these problems. Because there are so many of them — and because the time I can give to the Wikipedia article is quite limited — I have had to compose the present notes hastily. I'm not even going to give them a close check for typos and such. What time I have I will give to the correction of the article.

There really aren't that many of them. And don't forget, Wikipedia is meant to be a work in progress, there's no deadline here. Relax, John - let's work on this together and cooperatively. It *is* possible, you know... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Responses to responses

"known by 'no name Maddox'" — Faulty locution. "Known as," if anything, would be correct — but because "no name Maddox" is in quotation marks, even "known as" is not necessary. "Was" is all that is necessary

Disagree. No one *knew him* "by" that name, that was what had to be put into the record until a legal name was given and recorded. During that time period (and up into the 1970s) it was not uncommon for "No Name" or "Baby Boy/Baby Girl" to be used as a designator and indication that a name had either not yet been given or the child was to be put up for adoption and was a ward of the state. Because he had not yet been given a name, the hospital had to put down something - he was "known as" by the State of Ohio for record purposes and until a name was given and recorded with the county registrar.

You are correct: he was not "known by" No Name Maddox. That is what I said. You are the one who wrote that he was "known by" No Name Maddox — at 17:13, 16 January, if you care to check. As I have argued above, even "known as" is neither necessary nor necessarily correct. I will restore "was."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of comma after Certificate of Live Birth suggests there is more than one Certificate of Live Birth. Comma belongs there. Also — no space was left between "Certificate" and "recorded."

Not hardly. And...no space was left? So what? Everyone makes mistakes. Even you. But seriously, if you need a comma in that place to make you feel better, by all means add it back in.

A comma will certainly make me feel better. Good grammar always does. If there is only one Certificate of Live Birth, the comma is necessary. Instead of "adding it back in," as you say, I might simply write, "A Certificate of Live Birth" — and leave the comma out.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

:"legal" before "name" is unnecessary and either tendentious or obfuscatory. Should be removed.

Not unneccessary at all. His name wasn't legally anything until it was recorded by the county registrar. "Tendentious or obfuscatory"? Sorry, but...LOL.

Again — you make my point for me: If he had no legal name before anything was recorded by the registrar, then there is no need to characterize the recorded name as "legal." That it was legal goes without being said, in other words, and the use of the word "legal" thus unnecessarily raises a question whether he had an earlier "legal" name. In addition: it is not the place of Wikipedia to pronounce on Charles Manson's legal name. I will be removing "legal."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"For a period of time following" — Questionable use of "following." Should be "after."

Either/or. Whatever.

"original" birth certificate. Problem the same as with "legal."

Not. Big difference between original birth certificate issued by hospital in those days and the Certificate of Live Birth recorded by the county registrar.

Yet again — you make my point for me: We have no idea who, if anyone, was named on the "original" birth certificate, whatever that might or might not have been. We know only that William Manson was named as father on the Certificate of Live Birth (a photocopy of which is linked in the article). I will be removing "original."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"at a later date" — Prolix. "Later"

Yep - "at a later date". At a date later than the one recorded on the COB and when Maddox claimed Manson the Elder was Manson the Younger's father.

The "date" recorded on the Certificate of Live Birth is not mentioned in the sentence in which you have used the phrase "at a later date" — so "later date" means nothing. This combines with the confusion caused by your erroneous reference to the "original birth certificate" to make this sentence confusing and unreadable. I will revise it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"Although ... Manson." Awkwardly-worded sentence. Should be split in two. More importantly: Reference to bastardy suit right after preceding paragraphs’s mention of a suit filed by Kathleen Maddox leaves the reader thinking that two different suits are being mentioned. "changed Manson" should be "changed to Manson."

Okay.

"remains unclear" — Why "remains"? "Is" unclear.

It "remains unclear" until Manson says otherwise. After he's no longer on this earth and there is no possibility of him clearing it up (or a family member clears it up), it "remains unclear". Really though, it's just another way of saying it. I felt that "is unclear" sounded like an immaturely constructed statement.

It "remains" unclear only if the Wikipedia article refers to some clarification effort that was unsuccessful. It "is" unclear.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"state of West Virginia sent him" — From the sources — Helter Skelter and Manson in His Own Words — I personally can’t tell the location (state) of the court that sent Manson to Gibault. In Manson in His Own Words, the subject is addressed in a paragraph in which it is said that "[t]he next couple of years" – i.e., those that came some time after the return of Manson’s mother from prison – "saw us [Manson and his mother] in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio,West Virginia, and probably a couple more states." Reference to West Virginia should be removed.

Okay.

"After 10 months at the school, he fled from there to find his mother." – Faulty locution. Should be "fled it."

Okay.

"Find his mother"? Complete mischaracterization. From Manson in His Own Words: Sick of Gibault and tired of waiting, I ran away. Naturally, I went straight to Mom’s. From Helter Sketler: He remained at Gibault ten months, then ran away, returning to his mother.

I'm pretty certain that it already said, "find his mother". I could be wrong, though. How about if it read, "After 10 months at the school, he fled from it and went straight to where his mother was living". ?

Yes — you are wrong: you wrote it, at 17:11, 16 January. You might have done me and the Wikipedia editors who are reading this exchange the courtesy of taking a moment to check that on your own; instead, you have wasted more of our time. I don't think it necessary to say anything about his having gone straight to his mother; but if you would like it, I'll add it, when I will put the sentence back in shape.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"Subsequently" rejected him? — Pointless and misleading. Gives the impression the rejection took place after an interval. From Manson in His Own Words: She turned me in and the next day I was back at the Home for Boys. From Helter Sketler: She didn’t want him, and he ran away again. "Subsequently" should be removed.

The use of the word there is neither pointless nor misleading. The rejection did take place after an interval - it took place after he left Gibault. Look at the definition of the word "subsequently" - it fits this just fine.

"Following his mother's rejection of him, Manson burglarized a grocery store allowing him to rent a room." Defective construction. Gives impression the grocery store was allowing him to rent a room.

No it doesn't. It gives the impression that because he obtained money he stole from the grocery store he now had the means to rent a room. Something he didn't have before he stole the money.

As the Wikipedia article originally indicated, the burglary brought him cash, which enabled him to rent a room. Also — faulty use of "following." Should be "after."

No, it's not a "faulty use" of "following". The event followed his mother's rejection of him. And likely *because* of his mother's rejection of him - after she rejected him and wouldn't allow him to live with her, he had to get the means to provide shelter for himself.

"More burglaries followed, including one from which he stole a bicycle and ended when he was caught in the act." Another defective construction. I won't waste time trying to characterize this one.

Then why bring it up at all? Now you've wasted my time. I can see that I made an error when editing it - why not just mention it needs to be fixed? Why the snarkiness? Honestly, John - your attitude is getting really old.

"After one day of confinement" — "Confinement" = unnecessary and confusing. "There" will do.

No, "confinement" is neither unneccessary nor confusing. The word is clear and it's just another way of saying that he was confined there. Go on, live dangerously...leave it as "confinement". ;-)

The word "confinement" leaves the reader confused whether Manson was put in, say, some sort of isolation, as opposed to an ordinary wing or ward or whatever-it-might-be-called of the place. In fact, he seems to have set thirty-some other boys free with him. (Manson in His Own Words 2002, page 39.)JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"Well-regarded" Boys Town. — Well-regarded by whom? Catholic priests who like to watch over little boys? Pointless.

"Pointless"? LOL! Now your youth and lack of knowledge in Americana is showing. Go ahead, look up Boys Town.

As it happens, I was on the grounds of Boys Town exactly two weeks ago, when I was in Omaha, Nebraska, on a family matter. "Well-regarded" is obviously POV. I will remove it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"brutalized sexually" — Wikipedia article originally said, "sexually and otherwise." That is supported by pages 44-45 of Manson in His Own Words (2002 edition). On those pages are, for example, this: Back at the school, a guard gave me thirty lashes with the escape strap. "And otherwise" should be restored.

No, "otherwise" should not be restored. The addition of the word leaves the reader asking, "and otherwise, what?" Don't forget, the casual reader - who is the majority of those reading Wikipedia, BTW - isn't going to be grabbing the reference and immediately reading for further information. Either include what "otherwise" actually is, or leave it out. Leaving it in is confusing. Wikipedia is supposed to be reader friendly.

In context, "and otherwise" obviously means non-sexually; but if you think some detail would be helpful, I won't revise the sentence without adding it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"(he later tested at 121)" — A complete sentence has no place in a mid-sentence parenthetical remark.

I agree. So why was it already in there? I didn't put the parenthesis in.

You turned the parenthetical remark from a phrase, which is proper, to a complete sentence, at 17:26, 16 January. Maybe you were bothered by the verb "tested" — as if it had been intended to indicate that Manson, as opposed to his IQ, had been tested. I'll try some wording that might not cause what I think bothered you.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"Still illiterate" — Why "still"? Despite the schooling and his IQ, he was illiterate.

Uhh...because despite the schooling he had and his IQ of whatever it was, he was *still* illiterate, that's why. "Still" should stay. Without it, the statement seems like it's missing something. Not to mention, it's properly descriptive.

Uhh ... "still" is redundant when the sentence begins with "despite."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"It was at this time" — Unnecessary and misleading. Gives the reader the impression that Manson’s having been deemed aggressively antisocial has already been mentioned.

No, it's neither unnecessary nor misleading. But, if there's no reference for when the caseworker declared him antisocial (which is kinda funny, because caseworkers can't give psychological diagnoses such as that), then take it out.

JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

An interesting approach

...that ya'll have got here. I don't believe I've ever seen editors come so close to blows (or at least, personal attacks) over such incredibly minor points of grammar and syntax! But it really does appear, to me, as if all of you are sincerely trying to maintain civility, and that's a good thing.

For some reason, I'm getting an interest in this topic, and I might be editing this thing myself in the very soon-time. We'll see. I'm curious to see how difficult it will actually be.

For a first suggestion, I'll ask this: if it was fairly common for children to have the appellation "No Name" at that time, then what exactly makes it encyclopedic in Manson's case? Did it somehow affect his later life? (I doubt it, but maybe it did.) This seems to me like exactly the sort of "telling detail" that gets picked up by pro writers (something Carlton Stowers would write, to be specific). Which makes it the kind of thing that causes this to sometimes sound more like a True Crime novel than an encyclopedia article, in my opinion.

I suggest simply removing the reference to 'no name', since this article is already too long as it is. Responses? Eaglizard (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

An interesting approach

...that ya'll have got here. I don't believe I've ever seen editors come so close to blows (or at least, personal attacks) over such incredibly minor points of grammar and syntax! But it really does appear, to me, as if all of you are sincerely trying to maintain civility, and that's a good thing.

For some reason, I'm getting an interest in this topic, and I might be editing this thing myself in the very soon-time. We'll see. I'm curious to see how difficult it will actually be.

For a first suggestion, I'll ask this: if it was fairly common for children to have the appellation "No Name" at that time, then what exactly makes it encyclopedic in Manson's case? Did it somehow affect his later life? (I doubt it, but maybe it did.) This seems to me like exactly the sort of "telling detail" that gets picked up by pro writers (something Carlton Stowers would write, to be specific). Which makes it the kind of thing that causes this to sometimes sound more like a True Crime novel than an encyclopedia article, in my opinion.

I suggest simply removing the reference to 'no name', since this article is already too long as it is. Responses? Eaglizard (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)