Talk:Charles Manson/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

unmentioned Legacy the Manson effect on the legal system

Several times I've had Charles Manson cited to me as the reason possession of over 100 hits of LSD can be charged as an "attempt to overthrow the government" charge Which I feel would be a part of his legacy that he changed the legal system in that way Also on a side discussion this is a charge I feel to be in direct contradiction of the Second Amendment... IRON-EYES (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like fake news and myth to me. Do you have a reliable source that mentions this?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

And as far as reliable source no. This is just passing conversation stuff that was said to me by people I was arresting

If I ever were to try to check this out I always thought I'd have to look at Federal LSD laws and try to find if and when attempt to overthrow the government charge ever been applied to LSD possession and then I'd have to look back try to find when it all started and see if it was Manson or shortly after and see if he was ever cited in the case notes

What's with the page numbers?

Footnote numbers that refer to books have page numbers in superscript following them. I've never seen that on Wikipedia before. Is that standard formatting for book references, or did someone mess something up? TychaBrahe (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

This can be done using Template:Rp. The syntax is something like this:

<ref name="source4"/>{{rp|[p.10]}}

where a citation with the ref name source4 has been previously defined. I used this a lot in the Romany Marie article so there are many examples of it there. – Athaenara ✉ 03:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I should note that there I used the techniques described in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-09-21/News and notes#Reference system updated, and explained fully in Help:Footnotes#List-defined references, in which citations are defined and named in the references section itself, but using the Rp template to cite specific page numbers certainly doesn't require that. – Athaenara ✉ 03:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've recommended on this talk page that they be converted to Template:Sfn style but nobody has done it yet.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, your response is, like TychaBrahe's question, specifically about footnotes, while mine was about citing sources inline. – Athaenara ✉ 07:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2017

Change "Charles Milles Manson (born Charles Milles Maddox; November 12, 1934)" to "Charles Milles Manson (born Charles Milles Maddox; November 12, 1934 – November 18, 2017)" 73.106.75.135 (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The BBC is reporting Manson's death, at 02:13 GMT today, (8:13PM Sunday, Californian time). 86.30.22.26 (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Already done. 86.184.159.8 (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Sociopath

Many have described Manson as a sociopath,[1] exhibiting the classic signs of sociopathy, in particular, complete lack of empathy for others, directing all of his actions for his benefit alone, and narcisism. I was thinking that this should be mentioned in the article, perhaps as a sentence or two in the lede? — Loadmaster (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Jeff Guinn (August 2014). Manson: The Life and Times of Charles Manson. Simon & Schuster. p. 399. ISBN 978-1451645170. Retrieved 20 November 2017. There was nothing mystical or heroic about Charlie - he was an opportunistic sociopath.

That would fit in a section for "Mental health" --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Where is the section "Mental Health" or "Psychology" -- was there no psychological evaluation (even unofficial) of Manson? Nothing? Jdevola (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't know, not really knowledgeable of Manson. I'm sure there were, so composing a section for his evaluation(s) would be appropriate.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit request November 2017

In section "Cultural influence", please delete 'whose inmate number is 06660, an apparent reference to 666, the Biblical "number of the beast".' There is no reference supporting this assertion; it is WP:SYNTH. 2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I removed the 666 part (the reference was a generic one and didn't connect manson to 666) but kept the south park part including the number (presumably, that can be verified but I've added a cn tag anyway). --regentspark (comment) 18:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

 Note: Marking as answered. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Manson wanted to blame the BBP

"The word "pig" was written in victims' blood on the walls of one home and the front door of another. There was also another phrase apparently scrawled in blood: Helter Skelter (it was misspelled Healter). The reason for the disturbing writings, a prosecutor argued, was because Manson wanted to start a race war and had hoped the Black Panthers would be blamed for the killings."http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/us/charles-manson-dead/index.html ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:81:81D2:92C1:B992:277C (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't tell, from either your header text ("Manson wanted to blame the BPP") nor your actual message, what you hope to accomplish by adding this here. Would you please provide this context? CityOfSilver 21:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The race war expectation is already mentioned in the lead "Manson believed in what he called "Helter Skelter", a term he took from the Beatles' song of the same name to describe an impending apocalyptic race war. He believed the murders would help precipitate that war. — Wyliepedia 06:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

"ending the sixties"

A line from the LA Times piece from today stuck out to me: "Manson became the first of many people and events to end the ’60s." I've read similar things before, like in the book Sonic Alchemy. Stuff on that subject should be incorporated somewhere in the article, definitely in the lead. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It's just poetic, though, isn't it? Who or what ended the (spirit of the) sixties depends wholly on what the sixties mean to the readers. "Peace and love" is the obvious association, but even presuming everyone gets that, who's to say what peace and love are? I say that vibe only gets stronger juxtaposed with war and hate, not destroyed by them. Californians were getting high and murdering each other well before Manson and continued long after. Defining the "end of an era" is too tricky for Wikipedia's voice in the lead, but I wouldn't mind reading something of the sort (attributed) in "Cultural influence". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Certainly caused many people to lock their doors at night. — Wyliepedia 06:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a very misleading line. What people often call the "60s" (the counterculture) extended well into the 70s, with (for example) the solo career of John Lennon, ongoing Vietnam War protests, and the operation of radical groups such as the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers. It is simply not true to say that Manson ended it.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it just adds to the Manson story, rather than being a fact. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead image discussion

A: May 1956
220 × 268, 57 KB

B: January 1971
300 × 387, 30 KB

C: October 2014
547 × 660, 40 KB

D: August 2017
472 × 554, 37 KB

Since Charles Manson has now died, the custom of placing the latest quality image of him in the lead infobox of the article is now no longer. In the case of an article about a deceased person, the lead image is always one that would be identified as the photo in which depicts the subject at their most recognizable, whether it be age, hairstyle, event it was taken at, context of the photo, ect. Here are the four best candidates plucked from the Wikimedia Commons category for Charles Mansion.

iVotes

(note: please provide a reason, precedent, policy, citation, or guideline to support your iVote. iVotes without a solid reason will be discarded. iVote is not a vote per se: it is a show of consensus.)

• B – The second from left is the one most would recognise in my view. Is the tattoo not there yet, or just not visible? -- Longhair\^talk 10:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• B – photo B is most recognizedEschoryii (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• D – He only just died, so you should use the most recent. zzz (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• D as most recent, and appears to be most used on news coverage Darkness Shines (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• B – is the image the most like what he looked like before the killings. A is too early, and C and D are late in life. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• B Best illustrates the guy he was when he did the thing(s) that made him the guy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• B because it shows him at the time that he became notorious.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• B The image should be B because it was taken around the time of the killings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:ED02:A200:1D9B:9FC9:2EA8:5271 (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• B Because (plagiarized statement follows!) Best illustrates the guy he was when he did the thing(s) that made him the guy.--regentspark (comment) 14:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• When is the B photo actually dated? I've seen it claimed as August 19, 1969 and January 25, 1971. He looks much different in that photo than in any of the footage I've seen from 1970/1971.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• At what point in the future would the image be changed to a more well-known image of him (i.e., from the 1970s)? — Loadmaster (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• There are some great photos here and I am going to upload a couple in a minute that are public domain.

Here is the Commons category for Charles Manson media. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think B is very representative, also Had Manson been executed, he might barely be remembered today... Instead, with a healthy assist from news coverage, he was able to capture the public’s attention every few years when he got a parole hearing or in the occasional interviews he granted zzz (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

That's very true. I wasn't alive for the murders and trial, and first "met" the Cactus Jackish '89 Inside Report version. A scary bastard, that one, unlikely to charm teenagers like the Jesus version did. If an '80s pic was an option, I'd have probably picked it on gut reaction. But since I had to consider things instead, I'm now stuck believing his true heyday was around the massacres. His later promos were undoubtedly interesting and well-covered, but wouldn't have been worth a lot (in money, fame or educational value) without the backstory. Almost every "modern" TV news image of Manson was accompanied by classic ones, yet none of the classics were framed against future ones. Logically follows that, over time, more people have more often seen the influential version, who most closely resembles Exhibit B (so far). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

You're probably right in that respect, I would leave it a few months after his death, though, per BDP but I am in the minority. zzz (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The main thing to remember about BDP/BLP images is that they're neither out of context nor in false or disparaging light. There's nothing false about any of these mugshots, and any disparagement the family might feel about his decades of incarceration has already been felt. Manson has straight-up self-identified as a criminal (though denied making himself one). Not like when an otherwise squeaky-clean celebrity is unduly remembered for the two women he killed driving drunk. No harm, no foul here. A picture of his corpse would be too much for now, but perhaps make sense later (if it even leaks). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I should have been clearer, I was just thinking of the general "don't suddenly change how you treat the article/subject" aspect, and the top picture is a large part of that, as the representation of the readers idea of the subject , which will change over time from the current image to the one you prefer. I suppose you could say, the spirit and not the letter. I apologise for not being clearer, but you made a valid point also in fact. I hope that makes sense. zzz (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

You're coming in clear now. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Signedzzz. This dang article gets 1.7-million views per month. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'll have to stick at it, then. It is full of mistakes. zzz (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Signedzzz. Crikey, it got 1.8-million views yesterday (the 20th). Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• I was ruminating on this at one point today and I decided that when "B" gets moved to the infobox, "D" should be moved to the Death section, as "D" is basically what he looked like at the time of his death. Having fun! Cheers!! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2017

Sometime after his prison stent (between 1962 and the seven year prison sentence at "McNeil Island Prison" in Washington state) Charlie was being audited by a Level 1 Scientologist...Charles Manson entered later and studied, did TRO etc. Charles Manson at this time, went by 'Charlie' he was not only involved with all of the Scientology Beliefs & Practices, it became known during the FBI reid in 1977. He was listed in that reid as a 'Active Scientologist'. < They kept records of all audits > Charles Manson entered later and studied, did TRO etc. The church was concerned about Manson’s activities and how they might reflect on Scientology. Scientologist was, or Rather, needed to be everywhere. Used book stores, Hippie Communes, Other Churches and even Hotel/Resorts.... Eventually prison officials got suspicious of the group's strange activities and broke up the group. Marvin White, later sent Manson books (after that Scientology group from prison had broken up) on Hypnotism and Black Magic.. Dsue69 (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

We would need reliable sources for this Darkness Shines (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Remotely famous for his music career

A drug induced manipulation that produced a recording is hardly a career and not remotely famous. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Gotta agree Darkness Shines (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I should add, it's notable within meeting Wilson, but did not make Manson remotely famous musically. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this discussion is about whether the "infobox musical artist" module should be included in the infobox on this article, following one editor's repeated re-insertion of this module. Because the facts in that module are not key facts about Charles Manson from most readers' perspective (indeed, some of the facts--like genre and label--aren't even covered in the body of the article), I don't think it should be included. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

As a recording or performing artist, he's borderline crap, but as a songwriter and muse, he's done better than most who try. Many a non-violent author would kill to be picked up by The Beach Boys, Guns N' Roses or Rob Zombie, let alone all three. Less directly, ATWA became a System of a Down tune, Tate-LaBianca gave us the narration for White Zombie's "Children of the Grave" Sabbath cover and his surname became Marilyn's.

If we're to include an infobox, it should focus on his songs rather than his records, which sucked too much to make it on their own. The associated act shouldn't be Kaufman, who isn't an act at all, but rather the successful talent Manson contributed to over the decades. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed most of your TP posts have been "out there" as if provoking a response - ok, here's one - Manson had no talent whatsoever as a songwriter. Your taste begs ... well, I'll stop there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.28.113 (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say he was talented, I said his songs and ideas were adopted by successful talent. It's like how Wayne Cochran didn't have what it took to make "Last Kiss" work, and it would've been forgotten without J. Frank Wilson and Pearl Jam, but never would've happened at all without him. "Cease to Exist" didn't chart near as well, but received broader mainstream coverage and analysis. If people are still talking about your art 50 years on, it doesn't matter if it's mediocre or in good taste. Only means it's notable work.

But what's a TP post? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Really ? you have to ask ? - FlightTime (open channel) 23:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably "talk page", on second thought, but maybe "toilet paper". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Restore — "his records, which sucked too much to make it on their own" ... your opinion on his music has no bearing on their notability. Like it or not, Manson is a bonafide singer-songwriter, and it is a key fact of his biography. He was produced by Brian Wilson for Christ's sake, and everyone with the slightest interest in the story has heard "Look At Your Game, Girl" or "Never Learn Not to Love". I agree that Kaufman and the Awareness label should not be listed in the infobox module, since they're relevant only to Lie. Also, Manson apparently continued making recordings made while in prison, so when restoring "years active", it should state 1968–2017.

The tone of these arguments sound very much like "we shouldn't validate this guy's music" rather than "his music isn't important enough to mention". Reminder of WP:CENSORSHIP: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, when I said "his records", I meant the Lie collection. And "sucked...on their own" is only my appraisal of their potential lasting impact in some hypothetical universe where they're only associated with Kaufman and Awareness, rather than one of the most heinous (and one of the greatest pop music) acts in history. That's the universe the old infobox was describing. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Unless there's a good reason it should remain, the link to [List of death row inmates in the United States] in See Also should be removed. Charles Manson is no longer on death row, on account of he is dead. Also, he doesn't appear on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.156.23 (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done It turns out Manson was not on the official list for California either. At present the official list is dated 11/3/2017 indicating Manson was likely never re-added after being dropped in 1972 when the death penalty was invalidated. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

After Manson's death, a man claiming to be Manson's grandson stated his intent to take possession of Manson's cremains and personal effects. does not conform with the source. Please change it to After Manson's death, his grandson, Jason Freeman, stated his intent to take possession of Manson's cremains and personal effects. 2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. This edit would be pretty controversial so not only do we need a a source verifying Freeman said this, we need one that verifies he's Manson's grandson. Please see our reliable source policy. CityOfSilver 05:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The source is already cited, I'm merely attempting to get the article to stop violating WP:CLAIM and conform with what the WP:RS says! 2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I am talking about the addition made in this edit by @Marc Kupper: 2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not sure why but I thought the source we used was Freeman's interview with the New York Daily News. Freeman is giving conflicting statements about his intentions but if we're going with the San Francisco Chronicle, your requested text looks better than the overly skeptical prose we have now. CityOfSilver 05:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done, although if you could have a look, I'd appreciate it. Sorry about the confusion. CityOfSilver 05:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. 2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 and CityOfSilver: As some people use WP as an "authoritative source" I was trying to avoid saying he was the grandson and so had worded it to be that he was claiming to be the grandson and to not include his name in the article.

People Magazine has "Did Charles Manson Have a Long-Lost Grandson?" which includes "PEOPLE was unable to verify his claims" and "PEOPLE was unable to independently verify their authenticity" (about some documents that the guy showed People magazine) This the level of skepticism we should be having with regard to this claim.

I suspect the easy fix for us is to delete the sentence about this guy. If he's successful in claiming the remains, and perhaps Manson's estate, we can then use that media coverage to document that the remains and estate were released. The state of California has fairly strict rules about who can take possession of a body or cremains. They don't want to get involved with a relative jumping in and grabbing a remains and moving/burying them against the wishes of others. I'd imagine a funeral home will be especially cautious when a celebrity is involved. Thus, if this guy is successful then it will be because the funeral home and/or state of California's prison system has accepted his documentation that he's the only rightful heir and/or that the other heirs have released their claims.

Another option for us is call him a grandson here but to not name him and also to link to the People magazine article as a source. Someone looking at the citation would then see that it has not been reliably determined that he is the grandson. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

This CNN article from 2012 indicates that CNN was so sure Freeman is the grandson of Manson that they tested his DNA to try and link another man to Manson, and it was negative. The Miami Herald calls him one of three "confirmed grandchildren". Newsweek used the People article as a source and so repeats the doubt. I don't think that one source's inability to acquire "independent confirmation" of documentation submitted to them should prevent us from going with the majority of the sources here. There is no basis for excluding Freeman's name, nor for deleting the sentence. This has adequate coverage to be included here, and updated and condensed as events unfold. 2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

More people are coming out of the woodwork. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/charles-manson-death-will-pen-pal-12382032.php --Marc Kupper|talk 05:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Marc Kupper: Your source was that San Francisco Chronicle article and instead of saying that Freeman is Manson's grandson, like the article says, your text had it saying Freeman is a man claiming to be Manson's grandson. The skepticism isn't a big gigantic BLP violation since I guess it's literally true to call Freeman a claimant like this but I still don't see the point in having it, especially since this

"it has not been reliably determined that he is the grandson"

is just not accurate. Pretty much everybody who's publicly been in Manson's orbit has been a ghoul of some form or another. Are we still disputing that this one, whose father according to several sources was born "Charles Manson Junior," happens to be a blood relative? CityOfSilver 05:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

At the time I added the skeptical text I was looking at several news articles and web sites. Most of those were skeptical and that mindset carried into the sentence I added to Wikipedia. I happened cite a source that was not skeptical which made it look like a BLP violation on my part in that text I added was skeptical but my supporting source was not. Someone corrected this to remove the skepticism. I'm fine with that. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The use of a direct link to a PDF of the alleged will is troublesome for me. Does it run afoul of WP:BLPPRIMARY? I think that if there is a published article describing the will, we should use that instead. At present, we have nothing to support assertions such as that it is a former pen pal of Manson's. 2600:8800:1880:C359:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the direct link to the PDF is bothersome. I did it as TMZ and other media organizations were paraphrasing the line about who was disinherited. The paraphrased versions left open the possibility that a grandchild could inherit the estate. The original will was clear that was not the case. I instead quoted the will directly and sourced it. Today I checked for new news articles and discovered there's a third person stating they intend to claim the estate. I've added that to the article. As there are now at least three parties the line about who is disinherited no longer seemed necessary and so removed it and the link to the PDF. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070520113112/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/manson.htm to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/manson.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2017

189.199.221.3 (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Charles Manson known as the "God of Folk" (Folk Music)because it is the most famous figure of the genre, its music is transcendental and unequaled and because there is no equality, also that several of his songs have been sung and reinterpreted by world-class performers.

We need a reliable source for that Darkness Shines (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:American male criminals

Please explain why this individual is not included in the above listed category? He is male and he was an American (atrocious) criminal. It would seem to the average reader that he fits this category for inclusion. Thank you. I would of added it by editing. However, the page is in lockdown.05:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)2602:306:8B8C:29A0:F0E3:8AF8:20F:267E (talk)

Early Life - First Offences

The first sentence reads:

Manson returned to Gibault and ran away ten months later to Indianapolis, but instead of returning to his mother he supported himself by burgling stores at night, and rented a room.

Manson was an American, and said acts took place in the United States. The correct term is burglarizing. This needs to be changed.

-73.215.211.84 (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Done. --regentspark (comment) 20:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2018 (Spelling Error)

On the last sentence of the first paragraph under the "First imprisonment" header, McMechen, referring to the city in West Virginia, is misspelled as "Mcmehen". 2604:2D80:840A:84F0:8D8E:962D:ACA9:BB90 (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Spintendo      02:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Scientology references are missing?

There are numerous sources describing Manson's interest in scientology and self-identification as a scientologist in adjacent articles, e. g. Manson_Family#cite_note-bugliosi-1, yet the main article remains reference-free regarding this fact. How come? Shouldn't it at least be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnkleYears (talk • contribs) 21:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll add it somewhere. --MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2018

Charles Manson used to drug people into killing for him and he used to keep people in the los Angeles caves in California. he used to have favorite killers so they would get more sleeping room in the caves and if you were new you would have to climb all the way down in the caves and there would be barely any room down there. Manson had other caves to shower and stuff. the caves were hidden in the hills. Nadineavery (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Nadine Nadineavery (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done Please provide a reliable source for this material. You tube videos are not reliable sources. --regentspark (comment) 11:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Shahrokh Hatami ...

Entering the name "Shahrokh Hatami" in the WP search field leads straight to this article, and I think it shouldn't.

Shahrokh Hatami was a prominent Iranian photographer of 1960s celebrities like The Beatles, Faye Dunaway, Sharon Tate ... but to my knowledge he never took a single picture of Manson. I wonder how photographing Sharon Tate "qualifies" Hatami's name to be linked with Manson?

Since this article is locked/protected, can someone please remove the name "Shahrokh Hatami" from the links that lead to Manson's page? Thanks.

http://www.shahrokhhatami.com/

https://www.theguardian.com/music/gallery/2017/nov/27/shahrokh-hatamis-beatles-photographs-1963-cavern-club

https://english.alarabiya.net/en/media/print/2017/11/25/Lensman-Shahrokh-Hatami-who-accompanied-Khomeini-to-Iran-dead-at-89.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.115.19.114 (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: created the redirect, maybe they could explain why. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

At the time that I created the redirect, the article contained two paragraphs about an encounter between Hatami and Manson. That version is found here. I was not the one who wrote those paragraphs. Currently, those paragraphs can be found in the Manson Family article. Hatami is also mentioned in the Mia and Roman article, although it mentions him in only one place. So the redirect should probably be retargeted to one of those articles, or a new article should be written about him. He is probably sufficiently notable for an article. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

The article states that the first time Manson was seen with a swastika was 1981, when in fact he did that during the trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattySadMan788 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Article says "as early as" not "first time". If you have a source for an earlier sighting, please provide it. --regentspark (comment) 14:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction

Section "Early life", "Childhood", says that he was born to unmarried Kathleen Manson, and then in the third paragraph, it says that she married before Manson's birth. It should be corrected. DATrevino (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I've removed "unmarried". That source doesn't appear to be particularly reliable anyway. --regentspark (comment) 14:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Minor edit

Section "1968–1971: Cult formation, murders, and trial" currently links to Manson_Family#Gary_Hinman_murder which does not exist - it should link to Manson_Family#Hinman_murder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.88.11.194 (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. --regentspark (comment) 14:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2018

the Tate murders took place on both august 8th and 9th 1969 Mollyandersxn (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. --regentspark (comment) 16:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

His "occupation"

@Ilovetopaint: I don't think any of those were "occupations" for Manson, at least maybe failed ones and is "cult leader" an occupation for anyone ? - FlightTime (open channel) 17:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Manson recorded an album with Henry Rollins and was covered by the Beach Boys and Guns n' Roses. If that's a failed occupation, then how do we define people like Tonetta or Wild Man Fischer? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ilovetopaint: I did find Jim Jones is also listed as a "cult leader" so....... - FlightTime (open channel) 18:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to identify him as having an occupation. He did not have a very substantial or notable career that is distinct from his cult leadership, and I don't think that's appropriate to list as an occupation. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Grown-up IQ

It seems that, whereas Manson's IQ when he underwent an IQ test while imprisoned at 16 was 109 (he was illiterate at that time), his IQ as a grownup after the Tate incident was tested as remarkably higher - 121. Could we add that? I think it's rather noteworthy, albeit I haven't been able to find any related mention. Göbbelschen (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Claim needs a reliable source. Klbrain (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It's also a bit odd to state that "the national average was 100". Is this actually true, or is it just the case that 100 is the median score?

Mother's name?

It seems worthy of note that no sources apart from The Clever provide Manson's mother as "Kathleen Manson-Bower-Cavender"; the triple-barrelled usage combining all three of her marriages would surely be extremely unorthodox, and at any rate, she married Lewis W. Cavender on 23 August 1945, and Gale Bower on 21 October 1965 (see https://www.c[insert the rest of his name here, no space afterward- Wikipedia blocked this URL]manson.com/related/kathleen-maddox and https://www.mansonblog.com/2018/10/charles-mansons-mother.html for an account of her life, pictures of marriage certificates. etc), so if anything it should be "Kathleen Manson-Cavender-Bower" (that is, if there exists any reliable evidence that she ever used all three married names at once, which seems unlikely). Guinn is extremely circumspect in his references to her subsequent husbands (not even mentioning the third by name), but from context and based on the marriage certificate shown at the second link above, Cavender must be the 'Lewis (no first name)' mentioned in the article; the Guinn book in fact doesn't stipulate anywhere that the 'Lewis' by which the author refers to him is his surname, in fact from context it seems clear it's his first name, which would match the marriage to Lewis W. Cavender- Guinn, based on the certificates, got the year wrong, however. On the 1945 certificate it gives Cavender as 29, where Guinn states him to be, on meeting Kathleen in 1943, 27. Additionally Guinn's book mentions Kathleen's third marriage as taking place in October 1965, corroborating the above account of her marriage to Gale Bower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RBWhitney12 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a better image

This one is one of the most famous images taken of him, more people recognize him like this than the old man in the infobox, but that may not be a good argument.

I just think this one is better Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Grammar

"to commit murder for the deaths of seven people"? Doesn't it sound weird? After all, every murder ends up with someone's death.

So, how about: "to commit murder of seven people"? 85.193.247.94 (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Scientology

I recently read an article, where they discussed his relation to Scientology. According to this, the saying that Charles Manson thought Scientology was "too crazy", is just a meme. I can't be sure if this is any more reliable as a source, but at least the article itself cites books written about Charles Manson & his time with Scientology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.22.162.228 (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with previous commenter. The source cited for Charles Manson stating he thought Scientology was "too crazy" makes no mention of him saying that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pictureofabear (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Page numbers following citations

I’m not sure if this is Wikipedia policy (I’m a newish editor), but several citations have page numbers in the body of the article. Is this normal? Should they be removed and/or edited or is this format correct? Astropiloto (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2020

Diane Sawyer has a Wikipedia article, please add a link to where she is mentioned. 73.211.34.240 (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2020

Charles Manson was 5feet 7inches in his prime, 5feet 6 and 3/4inches when he died, he states this in a couple of interviews. Check out the Dianne Sawyer interview fast forward to the last minute of it and he tells her how tall he was/is at that time. The American government and the media liked to portray him as being smaller as to demean him. 2A00:23C5:5385:9000:34B4:3528:FC0A:E957 (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

1969 Folsom State Prison records show Manson was 66 inches tall [5 foot 6 inches], and weighed 130 pounds. Manson is currently shown as 5 foot 6 inches tall at Wikipedia. Jerry Stockton (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add wikiilink for Beausoleil under "Cult Formation" for clarity

In the section "Cult formation" there is a wikilink for Charles 'Tex' Watson but not one for Robert Beausoleil. When skimming the page, this gives the impression that there is not a Wikpiedia Entry for Beausoleil. The earlier entry in the introduction for Beausoleil (which had a Wikilink) used the description "Bobby Beausoleil" described as a friend. whereas here described as a former musician, so it is also not definitely clear that it is referring to the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.157.65 (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Is arson really victimless?

I mean, it's not violence against a body, but it harms property owners and can be used to terrorize people's minds. Even if it is found to be definitively victimless, is it really all that necessary to say say "victimless arsons" in the infobox? Finally, the infobox is the only place where the word arson exists on this page. It seems believable, but where's the source about this alleged victimless arson? Kire1975 (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

According to Victimless crime: "Definitions of victimless crimes vary in different parts of the world and different law systems, but usually include possession of any illegal contraband, recreational drug use, prostitution and prohibited sexual behavior between consenting adults, assisted suicide, and smuggling among other similar infractions." I'm just going to change it. Kire1975 (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's victimless.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2021

change Manson being a white supremacist to not because it was untrue and an overstatement. 38.13.25.8 (talk) 05:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source to support your request. MBihun (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2021

In the first sentence in section illness and death, the hyperlink goes to the wrong page for Corcoran. It should be this one, the state prison not the Irish surname:

http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/California_State_Prison,_Corcoran 24.5.143.20 (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Changed Corcoran to Corcoran, California. Jerry Stockton (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Run n Fly (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2021

Change height from 5’6” to 5’2”

Height for Charles Manson is listed as 5’6” with a citation. According to the book “Helter Skelter” by Vincent Bugliosi (DA who prosecuted the case), Manson was 5’2.” There is a mugshot in the book that shows he is clearly just over 5 feet and could not be 5’6” 2601:600:C880:FE0:4945:4261:E11E:1998 (talk) 05:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This article's source rebutts the 5'2" in the photo shown in Helter Skelter and says it is "clearly incorrect and probably faked". Wikipedia would need more reliable secondary sources to override the 5'6" height value. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 08:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Manson in the Haight

Parolee and Patient

Less than a month after his March 21, 1967 release from prison, Manson moved to Berkeley from Los Angeles. This should have violated his probation and been enough to return him to prison. Instead, after calling the San Francisco probation office upon his arrival, he was transferred to the supervision of criminology doctoral researcher Roger Smith in Berkeley and was allowed to stay there. Until the spring of 1968, Smith worked at the Haight Ashbury Free Medical Clinic, which Manson and his family frequented throughout their stay in the Haight. Roger Smith, as well as the HAFMC’s founder David Smith each received funding from the National Institutes of Health to study the effects of drugs like LSD and methamphetamine on the counterculture movement in the Haight. The patients at the clinic became subjects of their research, including Manson and his expanding group of (mostly) female followers, who came to see Roger Smith regularly.

LSD use

Manson received permission from Roger Smith to move from Berkeley to the Haight-Ashbury District, where he first took LSD, which he would use frequently during time there. David Smith, who before founding the HAFMC had studied the effects of LSD and amphetamines in rodents, wrote that the change in Manson’s personality during this time “was the most abrupt Roger Smith had observed in his entire professional career.” Manson also read the book Stranger in a Strange Land, a science fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein, which along with his heavy LSD use, gave him messianic delusions. Inspired by the burgeoning free love philosophy in the Haight during the Summer of Love, Manson began preaching his own philosophy based on a mixture of Stranger in a Strange Land, the Bible, Scientology, Dale Carnegie and Beatles, which quickly earned him a following.

Cult formation

During his time in the Haight, Manson attracted the first of the followers who would come to be known as his family. Manson had already gained his first follower on the UC Berkeley campus, the librarian Mary Brunner, after having talked her into letting him sleep at her house for a few nights, an arrangement that quickly became permanent. He then came across Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, a runaway teen and convinced her to live with him and Brunner. Manson soon began attracting large crowds of listeners and some dedicated followers. He targeted individuals for manipulation who were emotionally insecure and considered to be social outcasts. In his book Love Needs Care about his time at the HAFMC, David Smith claims that Manson attempted to reprogram their minds to “submit totally to his will” through the use of “LSD and … unconventional sexual practices” that would turn his followers into “empty vessels that would accept anything he poured.” Paul Watkins, one of Manson’s most trusted followers, testified that Manson would encourage group LSD trips and take lower doses himself to “keep his wits about him.” Watkins said that “Charlie’s trip was to program us all to submit.” By the end of his stay in the Haight in April of 1968, Manson had attracted 20 or so followers by employing these techniques, all under the supervision of his parole officer Roger Smith and many of the staff at the HAFMC.

Protection from Prosecution

Under the supervision of Roger Smith as his parole officer, Manson grew his family through drug use and prostitution without reproach from authorities. Manson was even arrested on July 31, 1967 for interfering with a police officer in the line of duty in an attempt to prevent the arrest of one of his followers, Ruth Ann Moorehouse. Instead of being sent back to prison, the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor and Manson was given three years’ probation. He avoided prosecution again in July of 1968, when he and the family were arrested while moving from San Francisco to Los Angeles with permission from Roger Smith. The bus crashed into a ditch where Manson and members of his family, including Mary Brunner and Manson’s sick newborn baby, were found sleeping naked by police. Manson was arrested on suspicion of theft, although he was later found to be the owner of the bus, and Brunner was charged and later convicted of endangering the life of a child. Afterwards, he was again arrested and released only a few days later, this time on a drug charge. This pattern of arrest and release is described by Tom O’Neill in the book CHAOS: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties, where the author manages to uncover the most complete picture of Manson’s parole file to date. The full version of Manson's parole file has never been fully released, nor was it allowed as evidence during his trial.

Noahrennick (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Noahrennick Personally I think this is good info. A couple of my thoughts. It needs to be trimmed. Statements like, "this should have violated his probation," need to be cleaned up. Maybe cut or say could have. Parolees frequently move to different cities within the state thy live. Even if it could be a violation it doesn't mean it will be. Also when saying Smith, use first names as well as there are two. You can reformat refs so that they can read as only four but I'm not sure that'll work with the page. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2021

There is a section that indicates the following:

"Nikolas Schreck conducted an interview with Manson for his documentary Charles Manson Superstar (1989). Schreck concluded that Manson was not insane but merely acting that way out of frustration.[80][81]"

as far as I can tell, Nikolas Schrek has absolutely no qualification or training to make an assessment of a person's psychiatric issues. This section should be removed. 24.21.14.40 (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. The text makes it clear that it's Schrek's opinion instead of a medical professional. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2021

He was born on November 11th. This website says the 12th. 70.69.154.169 (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 05:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2021

It says "the Manson Family... threatened to immolate themselves if Manson was convicted – just as nuns in Vietnam had done in protest of the Vietnam war"

I would change "nuns in Vietnam" to "monks and nuns in Vietnam," as saying nuns implies only women self immolated in Vietnam. Although it is possible that the Manson family specifically mentioned nuns in Vietnam. 212.230.133.132 (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have reworded the sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Was he a neo

in the picture he has nono German symbol 148.74.170.22 (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2021

In the article there is this sentence. Lyndapmck (talk) 09:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)"According to a popular urban legend, Manson auditioned unsuccessfully for the Monkees in late 1965; this is refuted by the fact that Manson was still incarcerated at McNeil Island at that time.[37]"

Can we change, or add to, this sentence. "The rumour that Charles Manons auditioned for The Monkees was also refuted by Micky Dolenz. Micky, in an interview with Charlie Pickering in 2018 revealed he, Micky, lied when he said in the 1970's that Charles Manson had auditioned for the Monkees." Lyndapmck (talk) 09:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Once upon a time in Hollywood.

This film was not centred on Charles Mason in any way. Ridiculous statement. 185.71.29.237 (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Occupation = Musician?

Sure, he has an album and there are people out there who have actually bought it. But, his career trajectory is "set school on fire", "messenger boy", "petty theft", "grand larceny", "convicted felon", "cult leader", "life in prison". Where does occupation=musician fit in all this? I also don't agree with the "and musician" in the lead sentence but, apparently, that is much discussed so I'm letting it be. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Height

The state of California has listed Manson as 5'2". Every documentary on Manson has listed him as 5'2". Manson's mugshot shows him as 5'2". This article inexplicably lists his height as precisely "5 ft 6 in". It is supported by a single citation to a footnote from the book "XXX: Love and Kisses from Charlie: Swinging Single: Representing Sexuality in the 1960s". However, the footnote does not actually claim that his height is 5'6". Instead, it reports that unnamed Manson supporters have disputed his official height of 5'2". With no apparent evidence, these supporters claim the state of California altered the mugshot layout and that California officials have repeatedly lied about his height. The (again unnamed) supporters conclude that "Manson is at least 5'6"". These 'supporters' do not even provide an exact height, only that he was "at least" a certain height. Obviously, this is absolute rubbish. The official reports overwhelmingly accept his height as 5'2". Our article here apparently accepts the outlandish conspiracy theory as absolute truth. This needs to be corrected. Xenocide^{Talk|Contributions} 18:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I will add a proposed solution. The height line should be removed from his infobox. It is far too conclusive based on the provided citation. We can then include a few sentences in his Early life section, discussing the official height of 5'2", and Manson's dispute that he was "at least 5'6"". Xenocide^{Talk|Contributions} 14:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Where can the information The state of California has listed Manson as 5'2" be found? Jerry Stockton (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Manson is shown on a 1957 FBI record as 5' 7", on his 1967 California Driver's License as 5' 7", and on his 12-9-69 Los Angeles Consolidated Booking Form as 5-7. He is shown on two later prison records as 5' 6". No documents from the State of California can be found that list Manson's height as 5' 2". No mugshots from the State of California can be found that show Manson's height as 5' 2". The items that appear to be from the State of California that show Manson as 5' 2" are from third parties and are not reliable as they have CLEARLY been altered. The information that Manson was 5' 2" is a hoax.

• Federal Bureau of Investigation, April 1957, LA 76-2512, page 12, Charles Milles Manson, Date of Birth: November 11, 1934, Height: 5'7".

~ Please see the above record at the FBI website: https://vault.fbi.gov/Charles%20Manson/charles-manson-part-02-of-02/view (page 93, Manson 5'7")

• California Driver's License, 7-21-67, S516372, Charles Willis Manson, expires 1969, Born: 11-11-34, Height: 5-7.

~ Charles Manson's 1967 California Driver's License at Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/172122016988607832/ (Manson 5-7)

• Folsom State Prison Fingerprint Card, Oct. 29, 1969, Charles Willes Manson, First Degree Murder, Guilty, born 11-11-34, Height: 66".

~ University Archives: https://auction.universityarchives.com/auction-lot/charles-manson-signed-fbi-fingerprint-book-card_820460C8E6 (Manson 66")

• Los Angeles Consolidated Booking Form, 12-9-69, Charles Manson, born 11-11-34, Height 5-7

~ TMZ: https://www.tmz.com/2021/05/02/charles-manson-1969-booking-form-after-manson-family-murders-for-sale/ (Manson 5-7)

• San Quentin Fingerprint Card, Apr 22, 1971, Manson, Charles M., No. B-33920, Height: 5' 6", Age: 11-11-34, Offense: Murder 1st 7 Cts, Term: Death.

~ CHARLESMANSON.COM: https:// www . charles manson . com / manson - mugshots/ (Manson 5'6") Find replacement link.

• Photographs with ID 69-586 381 and/or LA 812081B, dated 12-9-69, showing Manson wearing fringed buckskins and as 5' 2", are COMPLETELY unreliable as they CLEARLY have been altered. Using the scale on the wall that shows Manson as 5' 2", and measuring up from the floor, Manson would only be about 3' 8" tall. Jerry Stockton (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2022

The passage below is inaccurate. Linda Kasabian did not join the Manson Family until early summer 1969, about a month before the murders. She was not a “core member”, and the only reason she was sent with the others to do the crimes is because she had the only valid driver’s license. She wasn’t there long enough to be brainwashed and that’s why she testified for the prosecution. See Linda’s own Wiki, which contradicts this one.

“The core members of Manson's following eventually included: Charles 'Tex' Watson, a musician and former actor; Bobby Beausoleil, a former musician and pornographic actor; Brunner; Susan Atkins; Linda Kasabian; Patricia Krenwinkel; and Leslie Van Houten.[55][56][57]” AMerrickanGirl (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Linda Kasabian doesn't appear to be mentioned in any of those three sources so it fails verification. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2022

Please add the book FAMILY by Micol Ostow, (Carolrhoda Lab 2011) to the "books about Manson" section. Here is the link to the book review in Publisher's Weekly: https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-60684-155-6

Here is the book blurb on the Amazon book page:

I have always been broken. I could have died. And maybe it would have been better if i had.

It is a day like any other when seventeen-year-old Melinda hits the road for San Francisco, leaving behind her fractured home life and a constant assault on her self-esteem. Henry is the handsome, charismatic man who comes upon her, collapsed on a park bench, and offers love, a bright new consciousness, and―best of all―a family. One that will embrace her and give her love. Because family is what Mel has never really had. And this new family, Henry's family, shares everything. They share the chores, their bodies, and their beliefs. And if Mel truly wants to belong, she will share in everything they do. No matter what the family does, or how far they go.

Told in episodic verse, Family is a fictionalized exploration of cult dynamics, loosely based on the Manson Family murders of 1969. It is an unflinching look at people who are born broken, and the lengths they'll go to to make themselves "whole" again. Mcemsh102 (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Aoidh (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit request; nonsense sentence in the fourth paragraph

""Manson's notoriety was an emblem of insanity, violence, and the macabre influenced pop culture""

this sentence makes no sense please Joniscrystalpalace (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the entire paragraph, you're correct in the first sentence, but the rest is not really lede-worthy either. The lede is still too long really. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2022

This article states that Charles Manson had two (2) children. He had three (3) children:

1. Charles Maddox Jr. aka Charles Jay White (4/10/1956-6/29/1993) with mother Rosalie Jean Willis 2. Charles Luther Manson aka Jay Charles Warner (9/24/1960-2/19/2007) with mother Leona Rae Stevens 3. Valentine Michael Manson aka Michael Brunner (4-15-1968-living) with mother Mary Brunner

This article states that Charles Manson had two (2) biological children. He had three (3).

I am unable to edit this Wikipedia article. Please correct.

Allison322

Allison322 (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Mary Brunner job description not accurate

In the article, Brunner is described as a "librarian", but she was 23 year old with a B.A. in history who took a job as a library assistant at U.C. Berkeley. In the 1960s, just like today, university librarians had master's degrees and did the "knowledge work" at libraries, while library assistants were workers who staffed the circulation desks, shelved books, etc. Just as not everyone who works in a hospital can be called a doctor, not everyone who works in a library can be called a librarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.131.196.213 (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Nazism and Bisexuality

Categorising Manson as an "American Neo-Nazi" is patently absurd. He did not self-identify as a Neo-Nazi, he belonged to no Neo-Nazi organisations and he didn't advocate essential tenets of Nazi philosophy such as Social Darwinism, Holocaust denial, totalitarian government, militarianism, etc. Responsible Wikipedians, who know that words mean particular things, should remove him from that category.

Furthermore, in this interview with Rolling Stone, Manson came out as bisexual and corroborated what Paul Watkins said in his autobiography and what Bobby Beausoleil said in interviews years ago, so someone should add him to an LGBT Category. But that won't happen and everyone with an IQ above that of a rock knows why, though that doesn't make it right either. 86.139.101.26 (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

IQ is Average

109 as an IQ score is not Above Average; it is Average. When considering the Standard Error of Measure; or the Confidence Intervals (90 or 95%) it could be said that his IQ was average to above average.

WISCV interpretation, Pearson Assessment: "For both the primary index scores and the FSIQ, scores ranging from 90 to 109 are typically considered average." www.pearsonassessments.com Retrieved 09 June 2023 2600:1702:2D50:16A0:D5B9:D234:2B38:A048 (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

silly

this article just sounds silly. Will someone help me understand how someone can get someone to commit murder and then be sentenced for being a murderer? Eck (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Adolf H, Lenin, Stalin, Mao,...--Ralfdetlef (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023

This doesn’t read correctly as it wasn’t the ‘summer of love’ that was emerging as the signature hippie locale, it was Haight-Ashbury:

“Manson established himself as a guru in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district, during which the "Summer of Love" was emerging as the signature hippie locale.”

Change to:

“Manson established himself as a guru in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district which, during the "Summer of Love", was emerging as the signature hippie locale.” OldGreg77 (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

OldGreg77,  Done. Cullen328 (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Real son

Why no mention of his children? Did I just miss it? 70.51.30.244 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Since there is info on his kids available, I assume there is a policy regarding the inclusion of info on the spouses and children of notorious guys like Manson. Yes? No? Homeboy (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2023

The 'early life' section says "in an attempt to life honestly". That is a typo. "Life" should be changed to "live" SenatorMS (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you! RegentsPark (comment) 20:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)