Talk:Charles Manson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charles Manson is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This is not a forum for general discussion of this subject.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Swastika Tattoo

I think someone should post some information on Manson's swastika tattoo, such as where he got it, when he got it, and why he got it. Noitanod (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The swastika was just an adaptation of the X he put in his forehead during the trial and it's actually backwards. It's not an important facet in the life of this man, and it certainly isn't relevant to his infamy. Essentially, running down his tattoo history is trivia and well beyond the focus of this article. I'm firmly against exploring this in the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I completely disagree. The image of Manson with the swastika on his forehead is iconic. It is in fact the single thing that would enable many, if not most, people to recognize Manson in a photo. Noitanod is right: a few lines on the topic is entirely appropriate for an encylopedia article. Furthermore, the original 'X' on his forehead is certainly notable as part of the trial proceedings and is rightly already included in the article. 82.36.240.97 (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It's hardly what leads people to recognize Manson in a photo. Actually, in most photos, his forehead is covered by hair. Since he's been in prison since October 1969, it's obvious he got it in prison. If you actually have information about why he got it, then by all means, post it here and it can be determined whether this is important or if it is trivia. To my knowledge, there isn't information out there about why he did it, or that he's ever discussed it. To determine when he got it would require original research, and that's not allowable. A tattoo on a convicted murderer isn't, in my opinion, relevant to a discussion of what makes him notable and as far as I'm concerned, it's trivia. But if you have that info, enlighten us. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I cannot think of a single other famous individual who has a swastika tatooed on their forehead. Therefore, I actually don't see how you can argue that it does not help people recognize him. I'm just a casual reader here because of the recent news items. The only reason I ended up on the discussion page was because I was interested to read about the 'X' mark and why he did it and then surprised when there was no mention of the famous tatoo. If he had some random little picture tatooed on his arm, yes that's trivial. I'm not saying it warrants a discussion, I'm just saying it's notable and should be mentioned. I would also be amazed if no interviewer had ever asked him about it. 82.36.240.97 (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It's notable and should be mentioned. No more than 1 sentence, IMO. Tempshill (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
He claimed in an interview to have carved it on his forehead as a protest against the prison regime and / or society in general (he constantly speaks in generalisations and metaphors), because "world war 2 never ended" and "San Quentin" was "a concentration camp" IIRC. I will try and source these quotes in his Youtube interviews and add a bit to the article about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.254.215 (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

I'm reviewing the article for GA, and I can tell at 91k it is entirely too long. The usual guide to split an article is 50k, but I can understand that this subject is extraordinarily notorious and may justify 70k. I suggest splitting the article, condensing or just removing some of the information. I know this may be painful to do as it appears to be very well-researched. I'll give a more thorough review soon. --Moni3 (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that "Tate-LaBianca" redirects here. I suggest creating an article for the murders, and shifting the majority of information about them there. Within this article, they can be summarized in one or two paragraphs and a main article designation. Another article titled "Charles Manson in popular culture" could also be warranted. --Moni3 (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

While I think we could work on some condensation of the material included, we've been extraordinarily careful in containing the two small sections to only that which involves the use of his music and image and how Manson impacted culture in general. I think that spinning those small sections into another article would invite rampant trivia additions which wouldn't benefit anything. What we have in those two sections is what would essentially represent a summarization that would remain here anyway. Thoughts? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me just say that the analogy I'm about to give I could never in a million years image making. I am the principal author of the article on To Kill a Mockingbird, that went to FAC at 73k, and people commented that it was too long. It has spawned a characters article, a film article, a popular culture article, and one on Atticus Finch. There's no way I could possibly keep up with all the whatnot people add to its satellite articles. There's only so much you can do. Splitting it was an idea to keep you from having to delete. TKAM was once 91k, and I went through and cut and moved and cut and deleted and cut, and every last instance of it was almost physically painful.
What you might want to do is copy the Manson article to a sandbox, cut what you don't think is necessary (and often that's where helpful peer reviewers can assist), to illustrate what made Manson into who he is. Then read the article in the sandbox for clarity and comprehensiveness. I hesitate to suggest you include more information, but perhaps strong words from Tate's surviving family members (who attended all of his parole hearings, as well as those of his conspirators), the LaBianca's children, and recently repentant Krenwinkle and van Houten would assist in quashing the zealous who would be lured into adding trivia. --Moni3 (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have copied this to a page in my user space to work on, but it is going to take time to do credit to the article and JohnBonaccorsi's fine research work. Hopefully the GA review can be put on hold in anticipation of this. Might I ask what an acceptable size would be? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The guidelines state that 50k is where splitting should be considered, but I think 70k is a better guideline for this article. Since some rewriting has to be done, let me find out if a hold is enough or that inherently makes the article unstable. How long are you anticipating the rewrite will take? --Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
With my schedule, I think a week. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the nod to my research — but I see no point in summarizing the article so that somebody somewhere will deem it one of Wikipedia’s Good Articles. Do we get a gold star? I have seen the article reposted in toto at several internet spots. The other day, for instance, I encountered it under the heading "The Full Background on Charles Manson"; elsewhere, I’ve seen it broken down into a timeline. Manson summaries are all over the internet and are generally inaccurate and unintelligible, as Wikipedia’s article was about a year ago. There is no dearth of web-references to Manson’s time "in and out of reform schools" or his "courtroom antics" or whatever. In its present form, the Wikipedia article is without any of that; it consolidates information from many primary sources and presents the entire story, from Manson’s birth to his years since the murders, clearly and chronologically. As for the many wonderful Wikipedia articles that will be spawned if the article is reduced in size: I’ve seen some of what’s written at Wikipedia’s other Manson-related pieces — the Family-member biographies, for instance. They are rife with inaccuracies. I recommend that the GA nomination be withdrawn and abandoned and that we be pleased that persons who come to Wikipedia for information on the subject will get plenty of it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And with that, I give up and am removing the article from my watchlist. Withdraw it, it is obviously not my article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I fulfilled your request, Wildhartlivie, but I don't know why it was necessary. There are awful articles all over Wikipedia about very important topics, and editors work at them to make sure they are both comprehensive and encyclopedic; that is to say, an accurate and engaging summary. I've chosen Everglades as one. It was an astounding 3 paragraphs when I started, and it will be 6 full articles when I'm finished. And articles are posted on mirror sites pretty regularly, regardless of quality. I still find the To Kill a Mockingbird article posted places in the state it was in before I started improving it. So, there it is... --Moni3 (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to repost this here, so that it is clear why I am stepping away from this. I asked that the GA nomination be withdrawn because this is the second time I've attempted to take it to GA only to be met with problems in doing so. The first time, in November, was done when the article was fairly stable and as soon as I nominated it, two editors embarked on what was close to being an edit war over relatively trivial wording issues. This time, with JohnBonaccorsi stating very clearly he was opposed to trimming or revising the article in any way, I realize that any attempts to edit it down will result in the same. It's a really good article, it's well researched, but it would fail on its own merit once I started cutting the bulk down because he would come along and object. It's not worth the headache to me to go through this again. It's also obvious to me that there is a bit of an ownership issue with it, but not on my part. I've put lots of hours in on the article too, but I give up. I can't take the stress. Thanks for your attempt to help, Moni3. John, I don't know what you think Wikipedia goals are, but crafting articles to an ultimate featured article status is the primary one. The suggestions that were made for this GAN were suggestions. The same size guidelines could be met by condensation of some of the more rampant wordiness into simpler prose and crafting it more toward Manson and less of the family, since it is primarily a Manson article. On my workpage of the article, I cut 5kb out by simply removing the incessant internal notes. It's obvious the effort that I have put into the article has no meaning, so I'll leave you to "your" article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie —

1 — I object to your characterization of the edit war I had with BassPlyr23 — whose name, I've since learned, is Mike. Although the conflict extended to matters of wording — trivial or otherwise — its focus was the facts of the Tate and LaBianca killings. A quick search through the internet will confirm that those facts are routinely misstated, even by prestigious news sources; I ensured they were stated properly in the Wikipedia article. Anyone interested in the details should consult the archives of this talk page to see the great amount of source material I transcribed to support individual statements of fact.
2 — I should think Wikipedia's primary goal is to avoid being just one more of the internet's innumerable repositories of info-junk, although I can't say that the Manson article, as I encountered it a year or so ago, was evidence of that. I recall seeing some sort of Wikipedia "purpose statement" that indicated that Wikipedia is intended to present articles that link the world's information sources; the Manson article presently has, I'd guess, nearly two-hundred-fifty footnotes, several of which include carefully-presented links to primary sources. Inasmuch as all but a very-small handful of those have been contributed by me, I'm going to argue that I've demonstrated an adequate understanding of Wikipedia's goals.
3 — Is the article too long? To me, it certainly seems that it is; I was not at all surprised that its length was the first thing that drew attention when you nominated it for Good Article. In originally reworking the article, I succeeded in limiting it to 50k. When other editors began adding to it, I devoted myself simply to ensuring that the information they were contributing was accurate and well-referenced — which, considering that they generally offered no footnotes at all, was a bit of a chore. (Wearyingly enough, that effort — including my careful assembling of source information in support of statements of fact — continues, as may be seen by anyone who will consult "Beatle view," on the present talk-page.)
4 — The work you undertook at the time of the article’s first GA nomination, a few months ago, was primarily reference-reorganization. Much of it was footnote-reformatting via those "name=Watson12" codes that allow multiple references to one source to be consolidated as a single note. Throughout your effort, I instantly assisted you with additional information and footnotes you needed; I don’t recall that you then made snide comments about "ownership issues."
5 — As I say, I recognize that the article is long. I also recognize that summarizing is not as easy as some persons seem to think it is. I notice that Moni3, the editor with whom you and I have been having the present exchange about the GA nomination, has made some summary statements of fact. She has said that Tate’s surviving family members have "attended all of [Manson’s] parole hearings, as well as those of his conspirators." Really? Which surviving family members? Which parole hearings? Let’s not worry about that; we’re summarizing. And, gee, I seem to recall encountering, somewhere on the internet, a statement to the effect that one of Tate’s family members — mayber her now-dead mother — remarked that it was some time before she decided she should attend the parole hearings of the parties other than Manson. Should I check that out? Why? We're summarizing (i.e., being "encyclopedic," don'cha know). My concern with such — what's the word? — trivial things is an obvious indication that I don’t know Wikipedia's goals.
6 — The article is presently an accurate statement of fact. If I may be blunt, I’m no longer sure the footnotes are entirely accurate. I vaguely recall that recently, in examining some element of the article, I noticed that one of the footnotes you had reformatted with the "name=whatever" code was somehow mismatched with the statement it supposedly supported. In other words, the Bugliosi pages that were indicated in the footnote had nothing to do with the statement to which they were attached.
7 — Yes, I’m aware that the "suggestions that were made for this GAN were suggestions." Suggestions generally are. Similarly, my recommendation that the GA nomination be abandoned was — a recommendation. I have not stopped you from doing anything. I notice that Moni3 — who, I gather, is like you in understanding Wikipedia’s goals — has suggested that, in redoing the article, you include "strong words" from Tate’s surviving family members, as well as from the "LaBianca’s [sic] children" and "recently-repentant" [?] "Krenwinkle" [sic] and Van Houten. This, we are told, might "quash" something or other. If you knew Wikipedia's goals, you would have been outraged by that statement, which reveals an inclination to turn the article into a mass of trite tendentiousness of the sort that is the basis of most of Wikipedia’s gripping talk-page chatter.
8 — "Manson Family" redirects to the Manson article; I think it is very helpful that the article treats the whole subject.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, John, you've just proven my points. Anything I have done on the page has been summarized as trivial, inaccurate and definitely not appreciated. And to set the record straight, there was one issue of an error I made, which was to have typed "watkins" rather than "watson." I spent three days painstakingly going through the Bugliosi footnotes, individually, to condense them. You misrepresent my efforts, which have also extended to wording and organization, and cast doubt on the entire veracity of the article due to my presence. The fact is, John, you do have ownership issues with this article and have made that very clear in your response. I most assuredly could go ahead with changes, but I have seen what occurs each and every time someone makes a small change or addition to the page. You invariably come in and challenge or rewrite it. For example, the change this weekend, where an editor removed the words "all but" from the phrase "Manson was all but obsessed." Regardless that you backtracked on your objection, it still was immediately changed. As I said, I'm leaving you to your article, feel free to remove my vast sea of errors. I recall reading a note from the other editor which concerned not trying to win a Pulitzer Prize. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You will notice that, in "backtracking" on my objection, I assembled information that supported the revision; then I fashioned an appropriate footnote — as the editor who made the revision should have. I invariably challenge or rewrite what is careless or false.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Postscript: And, in fact, I did not "immediately change" the revision. I didn't change it at all. After objecting to it on the present page, I was careful to do a bit more research, which resulted in the footnote by which I graciously supported another editor's unsupported change. In short: you're a liar.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
1. Okay, you didn't change it, but you immediately objected to it. 2. I would strongly advise you to tone back your comments and remove the personal attack. It's your article, John, you've managed to accomplish that. You wrote it. You are the only one who knows anything about Manson, Wikipedia and writing an article for it. Have at it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know anything about Manson at all; a year or so ago, I would have been hard-put to name his co-defendants. That's why, unlike most of the article's other contributors, I've had to turn to research. It's helped in a way.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my statement that the article seems too long to me. I point out, too, that, as far as I can tell, an article's byte-count includes its footnotes, not just the text proper. Accordingly, the greater the care that editors take in sourcing statements, the more quickly those editors push an article toward the 50k guideline-limit. That is a Wikipedia defect I noticed early on. Presently, the Manson article has hardly a clause that is not footnoted; two or more footnotes in support of any one statement are not unusual.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Byte-count test

At Wikipedia’s “Sandbox” – a childishly-named page at which, to my unwarranted astonishment, I was quickly interfered with by vandals and by persons whose motivation I do not know – I attempted to determine how many of the article’s bytes are represented by footnotes. Before I was forced to give up, I got to the end of the subsection headed "Crowe shooting; Hinman murder." That’s a bit more than a third of the way through the article. I was working quickly and, as I say, suffered interference; but my results were these:

Article’s size up to "Crowe" subsection: 34,566 bytes
Footnotes up to "Crowe" subsection: 7,686 bytes

That’s more than a fifth of the article – about 22 percent -- in the form of footnotes. The percentage might well go up in the article’s remainder, which includes several footnotes with links that include long newspaper headlines and the like.

In running this experiment, I discovered that the article doesn’t contain a footnote for nearly every clause, as I stated above; but I still wouldn’t be surprised if 22 percent is well above the pertinent average.

The article’s overall count was 94,215 bytes, of which 22 percent would be 20,916. That puts the non-footnote byte-count at 73299, although, as I say, the count could well be lower than that.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Astonishing numbers

I have just taken a look at Wikipedia's article on The Beatles. I chose it more or less at random, simply as a subject that is connected to Manson and that is about equal in, let us say, general prominence to him. The article is 84,761 bytes. It has 119 individually-numbered footnotes, some of which are multiples, by which I mean the type that represent several individual notes that share a "name=[whatever]" code. Naturally, it's hard to count such things by eye as one scrolls down through a list of them; but the total number of footnotes appears to be about 132.

Earlier in this discussion, I estimated that the Manson article has "nearly two-hundred-fifty" footnotes. I was a little bit off. Would anyone care to know the actual number?

The Manson article has 183 individually-numbered footnotes; but of course, many of those, too, are multiples. Again — it's hard to scroll through the list and count them; but the total number of footnotes appears to be:

386

I'm going to spell that out: Three hundred eighty-six.

On the basis of all of those numbers, plus the information I gained from the "Sandbox" test I ran on the Manson byte-count, I'm going to guess that, in terms of text proper, the Beatles article and the Manson article are about the same size. In fact, the Beatles article might be a bit longer. At the same time, the Manson article is sourced about three times as densely, so to speak. Large parts of the Beatles article appear to have no footnotes at all; and in fact, one of its sections is headed by a "needs citations" tag.

And do you know what? Well — I really don't know how Wikipedia works; but if I understand the lists on this page, The Beatles is a Good Article.

In the light of all of that, the suggestion that the Manson article must now be revamped — summarized — to win the coveted Good Article laurel is, to put it mildly, insupportable.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article size

The pertinent WP policy regarding this issue is here and says "Specifically, for stylistic purposes, readable prose excludes: External links, Further reading, References, Footnotes, See also, and similar sections; Table of contents, tables, list-like sections, and similar content; and markup, interwiki links, URLs and similar formatting. To quickly estimate readable prose size, click on the printable version of the page, select all, copy, paste into an edit window, delete remaining items not counted in readable prose, and hit preview to see the page size warning." The number of references and space taken up by that isn't considered. It also gives instructions on how to check the count excluding references, external links and similar sections. AndToToToo (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If I've tallied it correctly, the article's readable prose is 57 KB.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I got 59. Just for curiosity's sake, I checked The Beatles article the same way and it was 55kb. A large amount of the additional space usage for that article is being taken up by photos, references, templates and books. The other mentioned article, To Kill a Mockingbird comes in at 50 kb. AndToToToo (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
In tallying the readable prose, I
(1) copied the page's printable version into an edit window
(2) eliminated everything except the text proper (from "Charles Milles Manson (born November 12, 1934) is..." to the last word of the last subsection ("Documentaries"))
(3) went through the text and deleted each of what must have been approximately three-hundred eighty-six bracketed footnote numbers (e.g., "[1]").
Did you take that last step? I see now, by the way, that I should also have eliminated the hidden notes, of which there are quite a few.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
By coincidence, I've just seen that another editor says that the hidden notes amount to 5 KB. If that's true, and if my tally is right, the readable prose is 52 KB.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I just checked: The hidden notes are not part of the printable version, so I'm back to 57 KB. As far as I know, the only things I didn't eliminate are the little "[edit]" brackets. It might happen that elimination of them would take the count below whatever dividing line the software uses between 56 and 57 KB; but basically, unless I've made a mistake, that's the range.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure how article size would be considered in comparing the print page method vs. simply opening the page to find the kb count. In the print method, hidden notes won't effect the article size, since they aren't included in the print text, in the same way that the text for a reference doesn't show. I don't think the 2 kb variance between your count and mine is significant enough to matter. However, 386 reference markers would use a little over 2100 keystrokes, which amounts to approximately 2 kb, so that would account for it. My response would be that some minor rewording would bring the byte count down without sacrificing content, although I honestly am only offering that as an observation. AndToToToo (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has given me a suggestion that the article be broken up into smaller articles. I've responded that (a) that might be a good idea, (b) I'd been thinking similarly, and (c) maybe the article can be broken up even a bit more than he has suggested. Because I haven't yet heard back from him, I won't get into details; he might prefer to bring the suggestion to this page himself.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Postscript: I've let the other editor know that, though I'd planned to say nothing about his suggestion until I would hear from him, I decided to remark on it after I read the helpful suggestion above about rewording the article to reduce the article's size. I've let him know exactly what I said and have told him that I posted the remark simply to relieve the tension on this page.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to go with Wildhartlive- the article is a hodgepodge of poor writing and useless detail- not very encyclopedic at all.TuppenceABag (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
That does not represent in any way what I said about the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revamp

The other editor has suggested I proceed with the article's breakup, as he and I have discussed it. He had recommended a three-part division:

1 — Charles Manson
2 — Manson Family
3 — Tate-LaBianca Murders

I suggested a possible fourth article:

4 — Trial of Charles Manson

I personally am prepared to proceed with such a breakup, although I would require several days — maybe even two weeks or more — to source and craft introductory material and the like. ("The trial of Charles Manson and three of his female followers for the murder of actress Sharon Tate and others was the longest and most-expensive trial in California history up to its time" — or whatever the facts are.) Additionally, I'd have to acquaint or reacquaint myself with some of the procedures for creating new pages etc.

Naturally, editors interested in proceeding similarly might be able to move more quickly than I can. Similarly, there might be editors opposed to such a move. Members of either group might want to post comments here.

I'm going to start preparing such a breakup. I won't execute any part of it without posting a notice of my intent to do so. If I decide against proceeding — because, say, I discover I don't have the energy for it — I'll also post a notice.

As the other editor pointed out, the current article is unwieldy. As he also remarked, a separate article for the murders is warranted by Manson's limited direct participation in the crimes; the physical events, so to speak, that are related in the murder accounts largely involve only Manson's followers. I had mentioned to the editor that such an article would also allow us to treat some differences in the murder accounts, differences I'd already addressed in "Atkins report," a rightly-short-lived subsection of the current article. (See "Addition of section 'Atkins report,'" on the present page.) I observed that, in preparing that subsection and making it part of the Wikipedia record, I was anticipating, to an extent, the breakup that I now think is a good idea.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well — I'm out of gas. As I've just told the editor who suggested the revamp, I won't be working on the article any longer. I wished that same editor good luck with any revamp he himself might undertake; I wish good luck to any other editor who might work on the article, too.
I remarked to the other editor that, of course, the primary sources don't always agree. Bugliosi and Gentry, for example, say Manson's request to go to San Francisco was made the same day he got out of Terminal Island; Manson in His Own Words says it was made the next day. Even so, I think the article has the facts pretty solidly in place; it's a good basis, I think, for any summary or revamp. Again: Good luck, everyone.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
And in closing: [1]JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Milles Manson

Is Charles Milles Manson the name used on official documents? He was born Charles Milles Maddox, and I understood that when he took his stepfather's name he changed his name to Charles Willis Manson.  Randall Bart   Talk  00:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his legal name is Charles Milles Manson. He was born with the surname of Maddox, but was changed to Manson sometime later. His birth certificate uses the surname of Maddox, with the named father as William Manson. He gave the middle name of Willis after an arrest in Mendicino County, California in 1967, although that wasn't a legal name change. He used the name Willis to fit into his schema, saying "Charles' Will is Man's Son" - meaning his will was as the son of man. It was part of his spiel. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I happen to have addressed the question of Manson's last name here. I've not seen it addressed anywhere else. Re "Willis" -- here's information I posted on this talk page back in September 2007:

From Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders -- 25th Anniversary Edition; Vincent Bugliosi with Curt Gentry; W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1994. ISBN 0-393-08700-X. Page 235:
I [Vincent Bugliosi] was curious about something. Up until his arrest in Mendocino County on July 28, 1967 [more than two years before the Tate-LaBianca murders], Charlie had always used his real name, Charles Milles Manson. On that occasion, however, and thereafter, he called himself Charles Willis Manson. Had Manson ever said anything about his name? I asked. Crockett and Poston both told me that they had heard Manson say, very slowly, that his name was "Charles' [sic] Will is Man's Son," meaning that his will was that of the Son of Man.
Although Susan Atkins had emphasized Charlie's surname in talking to Virginia Graham, I hadn't really thought, until now, how powerful that name was. Man Son. It was tailor-made for the Infinite Being role he was now seeking to portray.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
We must not forget the song by Ozzy Osbourne titled "Bloodbath in Paradise", which gave accounts of Charles Manson's different philosophies and his prediction of "Helter Skelter". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.157.78.113 (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One Mind

Should we incorporate the music that he has put out since he has been in prison? Notably the songs, collectively Albumized as "One Mind." These were released under a creative commons license and can be downloaded at: http://www.limewire.org/zlatin/digg.html

I only include the link to add veracity to the existence of the music.

Centrisian (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's already in there, under the Manson and culture section in Recordings. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NWA?

He is mentioned in "Natural Born Killa" and "Straight Outta Compton"... Why isn't this included in the article?--J.C. (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you'll notice, there is no listing of songs that mention Manson in passing, and in general, lists like that are considered trivia, which isn't encouraged or encyclopedic. Manson's own music is more relevant to his article, and is well enough recorded or covered that it needs no extraneous fill-in. There really isn't a place in the article for a one liner mention of the phrase "So f**k Charles Manson" or "with a crime record like Charles Manson" in a song that is otherwise not about Manson. It would take two articles of just one liners to cover when Manson's name gets dropped. The media section is specifically about the films and TV shows about Charles Manson and the Family. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)