User talk:JohnBonaccorsi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello JohnBonaccorsi! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Smee 19:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

-- Looks like you have not yet been welcomed, so welcome to the project! Yours, Smee 19:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Re: Helter Skelter

A couple comments about your lead paragraph edit on "Helter Skelter".

  1. I've been using the shorthand "(credited to Lennon/McCartney)" because the Lennon/McCartney page explains the practice and the terse phrase avoids opening that topic while being accurate. I've no problem with your edit, but wanted to explain.
  2. I don't think "sui generis" is accurate; there were other loud, dirty sounding songs before Helter Skelter, and in fact, McCartney was inspired by Townshend's comments about another song. I don't feel strongly enough to change it, but I encourage you to consider that issue and also whether "sui generis" will mean anything to the average Wikipedia reader.
  3. Here's the real issue: I disagree with your change of "misinterpret" to "interpret." for the Charles Manson part. McCartney has described what inspired the song, and what it was about, and directly refuted Manson's claims. "Misinterpret" means "to interpret, explain, or understand incorrectly," and that certainly applies here. It's not POV because Manson is the only person who interpreted it that way, and is countered by the author of the song, musical critics, experts on the Manson case, etc. Giving equal weight to Manson's interpretation as possibly valid is not balanced and not supported by reliable sources (Manson himself is not a reliable source). Can we compromise on an edit that you approve but indicates the essential fallacy or Manson's understanding of the song? Otherwise, we lend credence to the Beatles involvement in his heinous crimes. John Cardinal 13:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

John -- Because I know very little about the operation of wikipedia, I had no idea I had a talk page where comments from other persons would be listed. I just stumbled onto your comments. I hope what I'm typing now will show up where you will be able to see it. Re your comments: The Lennon/McCartney shorthand would be fine with me; thanks for explaining it. Maybe the opening sentence could be: Helter Skelter, written by Paul McCartney (credited to Lennon/McCartney), etc. Maybe the bit about the album's formal and informal names should be dropped, too; it's dealt with at the White Album page, I think. The wording could be: recorded by the Beatles on the White Album. The link to the White Album page would do the explaining. Re use of sui generis: If it feels wrong to you, please delete it; but here's my thinking: (1) McCartney's having been inspired by Townshend's comment doesn't mean McCartney didn't come up with something quite different from the work Townshend was discussing -- and doesn't the wikipedia entry leave some uncertainty re the recording of which Townshend was supposedly speaking? (2) My familiarity with rock is certainly not comprehensive, but I know of no recording that sounds like Helter Skelter. (3) My inexperience with wikipedia makes it impossible for me to say whether an average reader of the page would be mystified by the term "sui generis," but I think I've seen a wikipedia dictionary-type page. Maybe "sui generis" could be linked to that. Re "misinterpret" versus "interpret": If "interpret" bothers you, then, again, please change it; but "interpret" really does seem to me to be the right word. "Misinterpret" works against your goal, I think. It makes it sound as if Manson's outlandish exposition of lyrics that don't really seem to be about anything has to be rebutted.John B of Philadelphia 07:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Postscript, re your changing "clangorous number" back to "song": I'm surprised you don't think "clangorous number" is an improvement. If you'd care to elaborate, please do.John B of Philadelphia 07:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

John B, I can sympathize with not knowing the Wikipedia conventions. I have been an editor for awhile, but I didn't start to learn the ropes until January when I registered a user name and started doing a bit more editing. For conversations between users, the dominant convention appears to be, "I post on your talk page, you reply on mine." Personally, I prefer an approach where a conversation that starts on your talk page stays on your talk page so that the whole thread is in one place, and some Wikipedians to it that that way. I think the former is more prevalent because users get a notification when someone edits their talk page. I have my preferences set such that any time I change a page, it goes on my watch list; if I have posted a message on someone talk page, I watch it for a few days.

Actually, this conversation could take place on the Talk:Helter Skelter page, and that way, other editors interested in that page could participate. For now, let's both edit this page and we can move to the article's talk page if we want input from other editors. (Unfortunately, input from other editors usually comes in the form of edits without edit summaries rather than talk page discussions.)

If you are new to Wikipedia, you should read some of the articles about Wikipedia content:

  • Neutral point of view (NPOV) — All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.
  • Attribution — All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
  • Citing sources — Include citations to reliable sources when you add content, especially regarding contentious issues and biographical material about living people.
  • Manual of Style — Format guidelines
  • Guide to writing better articles — Advice on how to write an effective article.

Please note that many Wikipedians think it's fine to delete anything without a citation. I'd prefer that editors make an effort to see if a reliable source exists either by looking for it themselves or challenging the editor who made the addition... it's easier to tear down than to build but we need more people building. I see the other side, however: a lot of uncited material has been added to Wikipedia, and most of it is biased or wrong or just plain crap.

When writing about music and musicians, we have to be careful to avoid fancruft. The rules for "no original research" (from Attribution) expressly disallow people stating their opinions. Even when you find a reliable source that you agree with, the Neutral point of view policy essentially requires editors to search for opposing points of view from reliable sources. In practice, the NPOV stuff matters most for contentious issues that are in dispute and for items that are essentially opinion, even from acknowledged experts. So, no one's going to object if you say an ounce is 454 grams; it should be cited, but it's unnecessary to find a disputing opinion from a reliable source. On the other hand, if you say something is first, best, worst, etc., it will be deleted or challenged, and if it isn't, it should be.

Regarding "Helter Skelter," let me start by saying that I didn't mean to insult you or anythng like that and my goal is to make articles better, not to write them myself. Also, what follows is my opinion, not the truth. (And editors don't have to cite sources for entries on talk pages!)

  • My objections to "sui generis" are (A) it's not a term most people will know and (B) it makes a claim without citing a reliable source. Remember that it doesn't matter whether you and I believe/know/think it's true; it has to be verifiable from a reliable source, and if there is a dissenting opinion from a reliable, pertinent source, that should be cited, too.
  • For "clangorous number", I think clangorous is a little awkward and number is a little informal. Having said that, a lot of song articles use track and similar terms to avoid the repetition of song. Taken together, the phrase seems to be an attempt to spice up the sentence and I think the lead paragraph should formal and direct.

Overall, that sentence doesn't work for me now. It's got a couple uncommon terms and uses a synonym for song that most people know but might trip over given the rest of the sentence.

Regarding what the average Wikipedia user will understand, despite my previous comment, I don't know any better than you. I think I was imprecise with that comment. I think the Guide to writing better articles is what applies here and I'll leave it to your judgement.

Regarding interpret versus misinterpret, I am OK with interpret. I still think the setence could be construed as implicitly giving validity to Manson's theories, but the best place for disavowing that is probably in the Charles Manson section of the article.

I hope you find this helpful and that you are not put off by my edits or comments. This is what editing by committee is like; you have to put up with people editing what you wrote and you have to argue for results you like and against results you don't. John Cardinal 13:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, John, and for the helpful and encouraging words. I had hoped my reply to your original comment would not give the impression I'd been insulted, but I gather it did. I'll keep in mind your remark about editing by committee.

Re sui generis. Your strong sense that the term is too little known to be appropriate persuades by its strength alone; the term should come out. That notwithstanding, I don't think the sentence should remain what it was, a bald assertion that the recording is heavy metal. Was my characterization of the song as sui generis what prompted your remark about fancruft? True, the characterization is unattributed; but, unless I'm misremembering, so was the questionable statement that the song is an example of heavy metal. (We need go no farther than Wikipedia's Helter Skelter talk page to see that classification brought into doubt.)

Re clangorous number. Number hadn't struck me as informal, but you're probably right that it is. How about recording? Yes, the repetition of song is awkward; but moreover, the sentence seems to be about the song as presented on the album, not the song itself (which could have been presented in the style of, say, James Taylor if the Beatles had wanted it that way). I would disagree that clangorous is awkward; it's the apt adjective. Although your view that the phrase as a whole is an attempt to spice up the sentence and is thus inappropriate is reasonable, I'm not persuaded of it. Helter Skelter, as presented on the White Album, is a clangorous number.

The problem is that there is no good term for a specific recorded presentation, on an album, of a song. Number, beyond its being arguably informal, is probably best used for a song as performed live; recording is a bit broad and could be regarded as having to do with sound quality, in the technical sense; performance, again, seems best applied to a live presentation. Track -- although I myself used it in reference to Helter Skelter in Wikipedia's Charles Manson entry -- seems best applied to a particular component of a multi-track recording. Cut, which really wasn't bad, doesn't seem to work in the post-vinyl age. Record is usually reserved either for a single or for an album as a whole. Song, as I say, is a problem. We're talking about the song as presented on the album, not the song itself. (Cf. the Grammy distinction between "Best Song" and "Best Record." I think there are two separate awards.)

Re interpret versus misinterpret. Stating my view more strongly, I'll say that misinterpret is a conversation-stopper. Manson's interpretation of Helter Skelter should not be disavowed in the Wikipedia entry. On the other hand, I won't dismiss your concern that interpret somehow validates his interpretation of the song. How about the following: To the mind of Charles Manson, Helter Skelter was one of several White Album songs echoing and bolstering his (Manson's) prophetic declarations of a war to arise from tension over racial relations between blacks and whites.

Postscript: "Prophecies," not "prophetic declarations."John B of Philadelphia 19:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

John B, I think you should proceed as you see fit. I like the direction and logic of your thoughts above, and I need to give you room to breathe. I will leave you with this: cite, cite, cite, even if those before you didn't. — John Cardinal 19:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciative words, John; but don't worry. I haven't felt you've been denying me room to breathe.

I've just posted a new version of the entry's opening paragraph. It employs your parenthetical use of Lennon/McCartney, and it is without the blather (mine) about the formal and informal names of The White Album. Sui generis is out, but so is the entire remark about the song's being an example of heavy metal. You are right to imply that I can't justify an unattributed statement by observing that a statement it replaced was, similarly, unattributed; but because I don't really know where to start in identifying, say, a notable rock critic who has argued that the song is an early example of heavy metal, I have simply presumed, as I say, to delete the remark, which seems a bit of a wild one. If you think it would better have been left in place, unattributed though it was, I'll put it back. The upshot is that the phrase about McCartney's effort to create something loud is now combined with the (reworded) statement about Manson's interpretation.

If the Manson statement still seems off to you, please let me know. I tried clangorous piece, not incidentally.John B of Philadelphia 21:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Postscript: And if clangorous is still bothering you, John, as maybe reflective of a point of view, please delete it. Should you get rid of it, you might want to retain piece as the noun.John B of Philadelphia 23:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A response

John B, I like the new paragraph. The Manson thing is good, I think. I don't have any of the books on him and so I am no expert, but the reference makes it clear it was in Charlie's head and not Paul or John's, and that's mainly what I was looking for in that part. "Clangorous piece" is OK as is.

Re: Heavy metal and having sources... The All Music Guide (AMG) has a set of reviews on line and the AMG ratings are shown in many Wikipedia album and song infoboxes. Another source for reviews is Amazon.com. I ignore the user reviews (at least for Wikipedia purposes) but when there is an official review that's another piece of evidence in addition to AMG. For the really popular stuff, Rolling Stone has reviews online for their top 500 songs and top 500 albums. Songs are mentioned in the top 500 album reviews; so even though only 15 or 16 (I think) Beatle songs are on the top 500 songs list (a lot, but not a big percentage of their catalog), there are 7 or 8 albums on the album list and you might find things there.

Clearly, there are review books out there and I think there may even be paid subscriptions for RS or other sources where you can get more reviews. I haven't explored that much. Most of the Beatle song articles are lacking basic citations for stuff everybody knows but more importantly can be cited pretty easily from one of about 10 sources. That's mainly where my focus has been. — John Cardinal 03:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to create a User Page

You may wish to create a User Page. You can just click on the red "user page" tab uptop, or invariably also John B of Philadelphia (talk · contribs). There is some interesting information on User Pages at Wikipedia:User page. Here is the list of Userboxes, and this is some Wikipedia information about Userboxes. Yours, Smee 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] DYK userboxes

If you wish, you can now utilize the userbox: {{User DYK|1}}, and the number can be adjusted to show number of created articles appeared on DYK, which looks a little something like: {{User DYK}}, (plus the number inserted).

You can also utilize the user box {{User Did You Know}}, by inserting {{User Did You Know|Paul Watkins (Manson Family)}} on your userpage. Yours, Smee 10:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Aside

I saw some rumblings about this, and (I assume) from your user name you might be interested in it. More info at: Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 4. Yours, Smee 00:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 8 June 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul Watkins (Manson Family), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Great job! Is this your first article to be featured as a "Did you know?" on the Main Page? Smee 07:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Watkins (Manson Family)

I just missed that one, is all -- I was targeting the article for the egregious violation in linking to the Blogspot site. I've removed that link as well, now. -- Merope 18:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, I misunderstood. Links to content that violate copyright are not permitted on Wikipedia--thus I have removed the YouTube links and the link to the transcript. I have also removed the excessive quoting of the transcript, since its length violates our fair use policies. You are free to summarize the section of the transcript you quoted. However, do not restore the links that violate policy. 01:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your criticism

Dear Sir: Thank you for your criticism of my spelling. It is surely "irresistible", not "irresistable", and I have corrected my user page accordingly. As for "near" vs. "nearly": you are right again! The Oxford American Dictionary, 1980 edition does indeed give "near" as an adverb in addition to "nearly". I hope that you will feel free with any further criticisms of my work. Writtenright 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

[edit] You are right again

Dear John: I have thought about your question in the matter of "lone" versus "only" and really see no appreciable difference between the two after all. I have reverted my previous edit to restore the previous text. Once more, thank you for your input. You are truly a valuable wikipedian. Writtenright 00:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

[edit] External Links

Hey John B, I emailed you, but FYI, you can actually just post the URL on the talk page of the appropriate article and say that, since it is your website and you have a conflict of interest, you are posting it for other editors' consideration. If people like it, they will link it. Cheers! --Chuck Sirloin 14:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sock puppetry

If you believe a banned editor is editing Wikipedia under another name or IP address, the place to go is Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. You can create a report and editors with checkuser powers (which I do not have) will examine the IP addresses involved and make a decision. Administrators will then carry out any blocks as necessary. -- Merope 12:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manson external links

I think it would be fine to re-add a link to the article that you mentioned. --Chuck Sirloin 22:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did I figure it out?

Hi John,

I don't know if I figured out that this is the way to get a hold of you within Wikipedia, but if it is, then thank you for helping me to figure it out!

In terms of how I figured out how to e-mail you directly, if you look on the left side of the screen, there's all those Wikipedia links. Under "Toolbox," there is one that says, "E-mail this user." That's how I figured it out. Asc85 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Comment

I was reading through your recent revisions on Manson and wanted to let you know that I found one change a little confusing. In the Crowe shooting, Hinman murder section:

Though Beausoleil would state, in magazine interviews of the 1980s and 1990s,[52][53] that he went to Hinman’s to recover money paid to Hinman for drugs that had turned out to be bad — and that Brunner and Atkins, unaware of his purpose, went with him idly, merely to visit Hinman, Atkins would write, in her 1977 autobiography, that Manson directly told Beausoleil, Brunner, and her to go to Hinman’s and get the supposed inheritance — $21,000; she said Manson had told her privately, two days earlier, that, if she wanted to "do something important," she could kill Hinman and get his money.[50]

I know what it means, having read the article many times. (And I have an MA so I can read :) ) The paragraph is overly complex, actually, one sentence. I find that when I come across a paragraph such as this, once I find too many commas and phrases, I often end up beginning it over for clarity. I may stop reading it. Would it be possible to sort this out a bit and simplify it? Something more basic, such as:

In magazine interviews given in the 1980s and 1990s, Beausoleil stated he that he went to Hinman's to recover money paid to Hinman for drugs that were supposedly bad. Further, that Brunner and Atkins were unware of his intent, going along idly, merely to visit Hinman. However, in her 1977 autobiography, Atkins wrote that Manson directly told Beausoleil, Brunner, and her to go to Hinman’s and get a supposed $21,000 inheritance. She said that two days earlier, Manson had told her privately, that, if she wanted to "do something important," she could kill Hinman and get his money.

I think that it's important to state things in concise prose, bearing in mind that not all readers are as fluent in English or as sophisticated (think junior high school). Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to broach this on the article talk page since it was more of an aside comment from me to you about the article. Your change is good. I didn't check back about the previous mention of the inheritance, and it did occur to me that I'd overlooked it. I added the mention of drugs supposedly being bad, because it's always seemed to me that there may well have been some drug trading along the way, and that was an excuse based on true past drug deals somewhere. In any case, this works for me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I knew it said you wouldn't be checking this page, but I also knew that WP would tell you that there was a message here for you. I'm the person who asked for the page protection on Manson because the evening it happened, the vandals were horrible. The protection isn't permanent, but once it expires, if the vandalims returns, it will be returned, I suspect. I'd be just as happy to keep the anonymous IPs locked out, simply because that's from where the proponderance of vandalism comes. I know it inconveniences you, and for that I'm sorry. I'm not sorry, though, to relax my vigilance of the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
There were enough drugs floating around them, and no one has actually discussed from where the supply came, although a lot of it was probably readily available. Beausoleil has worked diligently for decades to distance himself from the Family, and why not. Did not someone say at one time that the other murders were done in order to free him? In any event, he's enjoyed a lot more leniency than the Tate-LaBianca killers - he's had the freedom to record music, make and sell art, and move to Oregon to be nearer his wife. Those are luxuries compared to the freedoms the others get. The bad drugs remark is familiar to me also, but I don't remember where I've seen it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment re: Manson edits

John:

This is what I've been talking about - readability and succinctness. Instead of trying to win a Pulitzer Prize, give the people the info they need (otherwise known as the KISS principle of writing - keep it simple, stupid!!)

Translation - nice job with the edits!

Mike (BassPlyr23 (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Note

One of the edits you made today may be problematic. "At trial, Van Houten would claim uncertainly that Rosemary LaBianca was dead by the time she stabbed her." It's okay in the article, but at some future point, when the article might go forth as a good and/or featured article candidate, in regard to verifiability, "uncertainly" would probably require a reference verifying she was uncertain, or better clarification regarding this. I know what you are conveying, but without support, it would be considered a POV word. Just wanted to let you know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it clarifies it quite well, thanks. I'm quite impressed that you remember what edition of the book I have. Sometimes I don't remember and I have it next to me on the shelf. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you did nothing wrong. If the editor doesn't want to respond to your note, or mine, and decides to remove it, well... so what. Apparently, he didn't like it, but has chosen to do nothing about it, so don't worry!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I did go ahead and removed the redlink. There isn't really an issue with redlinks in articles - even featured ones - so long as an article is likely to be created for the link. In this case, I don't really think anyone is going to write an article for a long obscure late night CBS news show, so I have no problem with removing it. Hopefully, in the near future, the article will be settled down enough to consider re-submitting it for a good article review. It deserves to be one, but it will need to be very stable in order to pass. What would prevent it from meeting featured article criteria mostly likely would be the citation format (they seem to like the templated format, which is simply a lot of work for the trade-off). It will remain stable so long as we can continue to justifying the semi-protection. No article will ever be permanently protected, but at least in this case there is an adminstrator who sees the benefit of longer term protection for an article as high profile as the Manson one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creative Common release

Hi. I saw your notes for the CC license for Manson's music. If the ultimate focus is to move this to a good or featured article status, the links for the references may be a problem. The LimeWire links are essentially blog posts, which isn't in keeping with WP:EL. I found another reference that isn't so much: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2281577,00.asp. Probably, just one or maybe two references should be enough. I expect there will be wider news articles about it in the coming days. Just a note! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks good to me. It makes sense that, if Manson wanted to release his music, he'd do it under CC license since he really isn't supposed to profit from anything. Of course, it hasn't stopped Beausoleil, Watson or Atkins, but then don't they all fit theirs in under some sort of charitable protection? In any case, it is right up to par. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-headings

I think introducing sub-headings into those longer sections is a good idea, it breaks them down a bit and makes it easier reading. The sub-headings need to be very concise, definitive and neutral. I've changed some, see what you think. I was particularly uncomfortable with the headings of "Endgame" and "Never-ending tale" as they seem to me to lend an air of POV to it. Let me know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the "Later revelations" at 5 in the morning. I was searching for a term and knew that wasn't the one I wanted. While further sub-headings are a good idea, we also don't want to overkill (no pun intended) with them. I took out some that seemed somewhat unnecessary to me. In featured articles, most don't go from one heading directly followed by a subheading. I know there are a couple places where that happens (justice section), but that seems more logical in effect. I looked long and hard about a heading for the section you called "Contest." I too thought it needed sectioning, but I'm not satisfied with Contest either. Perhaps something that alludes to "Family trial disruptions". Could we consider changing the "Later developments" back to "Later events" and then the "Enduring concerns" could be changed to "Recent developments"? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Disruptions work for me. The other one I'm not sure about is "Remaining in view." It's passive and doesn't really convey what the section is about, which are, essentially, shenanigans, though I'm not suggesting that. Later exploits? I don't know yet. Any other thoughts? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the Prosecution case heading. I haven't had a chance to do much this evening, since I managed, once again, to procrastinate in filing my taxes. I'll get back to it tomorrow. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tattoo

The wording you've suggested is reflective of original research. The tattoo can be mentioned, if it can be cited, perhaps by saying something along the lines of "...Manson was denied parole again in 19xx, where he appeared with a reverse swastika covering the X first carved into his forehead during the Tate-LaBianca murder trial." I thought I had read somewhere it was one of main reasons he was given for parole denial when he first showed up with it, which could be used as a source. I did a cursory search for material that supports that but haven't found it so far. I'm not in favor of giving it anymore weight than that. In some ways, it's like addressing when he pierced his ear, if you follow my thinking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess that mostly my hesitancy about this subject comes from a couple places. One is that, like you, I don't much care for someone coming in and suggesting someone else do some work to satisfy that person's curiosity. Another point is that in my experience with people mentioning Manson's swastika, it's usually a passing interest in whether he had skinhead or Nazi leanings and that certainly isn't the case. The primary point, though, as I said on the talk page, is that it mostly is a piece of trivia that, at least to me, cheapens the article, and by extension, the work that has gone into it. I think that it's likely that the reason there are no reliable sources about it is that no one of note has considered it worth the effort. The web hits I found on it generally tend to treat it like just one more example of Manson's weirdness, like his beard, hair and piercing eyes - they are there but they aren't significant to what he's done. I did see a dead link to an auction on a dubious site for a letter he supposedly wrote about what the tattoo means, but were that even authentic, it would be just more of Manson's BS.
What I can say about it is that without sourcing, it would throw the article out of good article potential and that I am vehemently opposed to having happen. I don't think that photo is from the Tate trial period, he appears younger than that in the photo and it is titled "MansonEarly.gif." I think it's a doctored photo. I don't know what to tell you, this is one of those iffy areas that just seem to me to be overkill, for lack of a better word. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I read the Heller piece when I was looking around for a source about the tattoo. Two things struck me. One was that he was mostly interested in rallying against network television airing a film on Manson because it isn't quality television and is bereft of subject matter (as opposed to, say, Survivor). The other was that his knowledge of Manson was also bereft of subject matter. Since it was just an opinion piece, I didn't lend it much credence. In any case, I think, as they say, we have an accord on what to do with this at this time. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atkins report

I'm not comfortable with the addition of this section. I'm afraid it's venturing into original research territory. As it currently stands, the section is a compare and contrast exercise of various statements and I'm not sure that I see that it works the Manson article specific, although it may work in the Atkins or Watson. The voice of the section vastly differs from the rest of the article, and the imbedded links aren't consistent with how the rest of the article is cited. The article is already at the point for good article submission, and I think at this point, a major addition like this needs to be brought up on the talk page before it is made. Mostly, it just doesn't fit into the narrative of the rest of the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns re: the differing testimony. I think my main concern in re: to Manson specifically is that this goes a little far afield for the focus. I appreciate your reaction to my objection, and yes, it's part of the record. Again, it may fit very well in one of the other articles, since it pertains to those individuals. I'll make a note on the talk page. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pop-culture icon

The relative issue of self-promotion is a fairly large consideration in WP due to the conflict of interest factor. If the guy is connected in anyway to the development, sales or distribution of a documentary or piece of art related to Manson, then it's considered advertising, which is a huge violation of WP:CoI. I'll concede that POV, in some cases, is... well, POV too. The article may benefit from the addition of images, but I'm not entirely sure what they might be. As I said, a copy of the Rolling Stone cover or Life might be acceptable and defensible from a fair use of image standpoint and recognizability, and certainly other photos of Manson over the years as they relate to sections.

I've been reading through your webpage and I'm drawn in. It's well integrated and has a lot that isn't assembled together elsewhere. I'm off to go read it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just an FYI

Just wanted to let you know that when you add material with footnotes and suddenly something disappears, it's usually because there's an error in a reference. In the case of what happened to you a bit ago, I bolded the place that caused the loss of material:

At the Canoga Park house, while Family members worked on vehicles and pored over maps to prepare for their desert escape, they also worked on songs for their world-changing album. When they were told Terry Melcher was to come to the house to hear the material, the girls prepared a meal and cleaned the place; but Melcher never arrived.<ref name="watkins13"/ref>

The "ref" is what did it. Thought that might help. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll pull out my book and read a bit and let you know my reaction to it... probably tomorrow. I don't think the revision is a big deal, though, at first glance. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination

I've nominated the Manson article for Good Article consideration again. It's been very stable for a while now, with no big disputes over content, sources or wording. Hopefully, it will remain so while it is being reviewed for GA. Keep your fingers crossed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. I came back today with my breath held, a little worried that a bunch of people would have jumped in and started doing screwy things to it, but so far, so good. It seemed a good time and I'm hopeful. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Helter skelter revision

Hmm, you're possibly right about the current version not being great. I'm now inclined to think the whole paragraph should go - the other uses are adequately covered in their own articles which are accessible via the linked to disambiguation page. As ever, if you disagree you can always make further edits. --BrucePodger (Lets have a beer) 21:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Charles Manson. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Be aware that even in heated discussions over articles, making comments such as "In short: you're a liar" is inappropriate and less than productive. Comment on the issue, not the contributor. Also, it is inappropriate to disclose any information about other editors, even with comments as innocuous as "whose name, I've since learned, is Mike." That is for the editor in question to reveal, not you. Finally, Wikipedia makes no distinction between the amount of material any one editor contributes to an article in regard to whose work in more important or whose opinion has more weight. It is a collaborative effort, one in which you need to attempt to work more cooperatively with others. Please contain your comments in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. AndToToToo (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In regard to the editor giving his name on your talk page, you still do not have the authority to carry that to neutral talk pages. While it may be your interpretation that calling another editor a liar is justified, as an outside observer, you did cross the line by making a directed personal attack in violation of WP:NPA. The editor involved in your dispute on the Manson page raised valid questions regarding perceived ownership, which you did support by asserting that your contributions were more important and valid while implying that the other editor's contributions lessened the reliability and validity of the entire article. That is unacceptable. In my view, your actions did not stop the other editor, you only insulted her. In reviewing the history of the page and the various talk pages involved, some of these points are entirely valid. By belittling the contributions of the editor, you have discouraged her from participating on the page, which is one of the salient points in WP:OWN, which also acknowledges that while an editor may not be aware that there are feelings of ownership on an article, it doesn't preclude that it exists. I would encourage you to step back and assess your willingness to work within a group, even though your opinion may not end up being the one followed. AndToToToo (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
With every comment, you assert that your contributions are superior, to the detriment of those of others. While you have demonstrated familiarity with policies requiring referencing and the methods thereof, the primary goal is to strive for good, and then featured status articles, the manner for which is outlined by guidelines and policies that include article size. You stated very clearly disdain for the goal of obtaining good article status for this article, and in fact said that you'd prefer to keep the article as is rather than consider changes to bring down the size. Why would you want to reject the possibility of contributing to an article that could be considered one of the best?

I have been involved in projects to condense references in the manner that was done on this article. The simple fact is that such condensations are usually done based on the referencing that is already in the article, so if errors are in the referencing, they were there at the onset of condensation. One does not need to consult the source for a reference formatted to cover, for example, pages 200-212 and then include all the existing references encompassing those numbers. Again, if there is an error resulting, it was already there. The editor admitted that 'there was one issue of an error I made, which was to have typed "watkins" rather than "watson"', which apparently was caught and corrected. Given the degree to which the changes on the page are monitored, another would have been noted. I found a note where User:Wildhartlivie stated she had an older copy of that particular source and can find at no point where you questioned her ability to read it and summarize material or questioned whether she had other sources and in fact, offered assistance to her in finding a pertinent passage in the older version at one point on her talk page. In any case, I trust your assertion that your contributions and work are superior and correct, while the other editor "has lessened the reliability and validity of the entire article" can be backed up. I predict this may be taken to review, as your statements are becoming more damning as you write them. I find it most enlightening that while the other editor has not responded to the talk page since yesterday telling, in that your charges regarding her contributions and their value have escalated.

In addition, if you are saying that her decision to walk away from an article because of conflict is petulant, then you really are too involved and should consider backing away for a period yourself. As the discussion continues, the anger and possessiveness of your remarks are escalating, from someone else made an error, to that person's contributions are all suspect, from stating an opinion that some things aren't relevant to rejecting someone else's contribution. From what I can tell, someone who does not usually edit the article suggested a history of a tattoo and the other editor expressed her opinion that it was trivia and not a relevant facet of Manson's life. That would have been her opinion, and I could find no contribution to the article itself that was removed in the course of that, so you are incorrect in your charge that a contribution was rejected. A suggestion was. Further, it appears that the two of you reached an agreement regarding it, so I have to wonder how in that instance was collaboration not a factor. In fact, your talk pages are full of efforts at collaboration. If the contributions of this editor are so suspect, why would you seek out her opinion or confirmation? I did note at least one instance on her talk page where you approached her to make changes to article contributions to which you objected.
The conversation on the talk page reveals that the discussion regarding size began on May 6, and the editor agreed to work on it in her sandbox space, but you made no objection to it until late on May 10. I have to wonder why you did not bring up your objections earlier, as you were active on Wikipedia after the suggestion and before you objected.
My impression is that the other editor did not willingly lie about your reaction to a change by an outside editor, but misspoke and corrected what was said. Repeating the allegation that the editor is a liar is a personal attack that only compounds the issue and is, again, a violation of WP:NPA. That simply must stop. I can certainly understand that you are not happy with comments that you have ownership issues with the article, but at present, I can't disagree with it. Your Wikipedia contributions are solely related to Manson or the Manson family and the degree to which you are willing to defend them as the person who "promptly whipped [contributions] into shape" and does "the heavy work of actually mustering the content" supports the viewpoint, albeit unstated, that you are at least the watchdog protecting the article. I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that perhaps others would have made more contributions but have learned that it would be promptly redone? I note on the talk page that this isn't the first time contentiousness has arisen regarding a good article nomination. I saw that the other editor was approached by a third Manson editor earlier this year about submitting the article for GA nomination again, but expressed reluctance to do so I concur. I would urge you strongly to review Wikipedia policies such as assume good faith, no personal attacks, maintaining civility and etiquette. As far as revealing personal information about others, that is also covered in WP:NPA and to more serious situations by WP:OUTING and policies related to the oversight committee.
Finally, each user can create a sandbox space to work on articles. To do so, you need simply type User:JohnBonaccorsi/Sandbox to one of your current user pages and save it. At that point, you would click on the redlink and a page opens where you can paste what you need to, or start a new article. Using the Wikipedia sandbox is mostly offered to newcomers to experiment and is open to anyone. That should solve your problem mentioned on the Manson talk page. AndToToToo (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no intention of spending the next three days debating back and forth with you over this article. You have asserted that your contributions are superior by stating that you allowed the other editor to act as a "shepherdess", which implies to the reader than it was something you indulged. You asserted your contributions are correct in comparison to the other's by questioning whether the editor even has sources and by stating frankly that the other editor's contributions lessened the reliability and validity of the entire article. I see no other way to interpret your statements.
At present, there is no other editor routinely involved in it except you. I have already examined the changes you made today and will note that the reference "carelessly deleted" is one of four for the same sentence and I would therefore question why that particular statement is so incendiary that it needs that many citations, or that the one you returned is so vital that the other three couldn't support it. If it is that vital then the other three are redundant. I also note that the edit summary for the first of the other two edits you made at the same time states that a footnote was being removed from a place where it did not belong and in the next edit, the book was returned to the precise same place with only the addition of a page number. It appears that it was worded that way to bolster your assertion that the other editor has riddled the article with error. I spent 4 hours last night looking back over the history and checking a myriad of changes. As I noted above, the editor did admit that one reference was entered incorrectly, and I found where that was caught and corrected. One of my most salient points was that you managed to work in collaboration with this editor for a long period of time with no problem, so I really have to wonder why it is that you are exerting so much energy to discredit the other editor, unless it is out of anger. As noted, other editor(s) previously involved with the article do not appear to be so now.
While I again recognize that you do not feel you have ownership issues with the article, the other editor has indicated an opposing view, I do feel you have them, and the good article reviewer also expressed the same on her talk page and offered guidance to the other editor on who to contact regarding that. I again would urge you to step back and assess the degree of your reaction to this and your response in the last two days, both in this discussion and on the article talk page. To elaborate on reviews: A review can extend from a request for comment on an editor's behavior to a peer review of an article to a request for arbitration with the Arbitration Committee and usually stem from particularly vitriolic disputes. I have been attempting to mediate this issue to prevent it from becoming that. I'm not interested in a listing of your complaints against any other editors, or an enumeration of their sins. I am simply interested in stopping this from becoming a vendetta. AndToToToo (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that in order to cut down the length of the article, it might be advisable to create a new article (or two)? To wit, an article specifically dealing with the murders and their aftermath (call it "Tate-LaBianca Murders"), and perhaps another dealing with Manson's co-defendants and associates ("Manson Family")? This way, the goals of Wikipedia as the other editors seem to interpret them are met, the essential integrity of all articles is maintained, minimal retyping needs to be done, and the information is disseminated.
Which is more important to you - winning the war, or getting the information out there? It looks from the various talk pages that you're possibly about to lose your account because of your attacks on Wildhartlivie and for other violations (such as using my real name on a talk page, which I'll thank you not to do again). Is this what you want?
I hope you'll take my advice in the spirit in which it's offered - as a token of friendship and good will - and not add me to your apparently lengthening list of Wikipedia enemies. It's not worth the hassle in the long run. BassPlyr23 (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Since we seem to be on the same page regarding the breakup of the Manson article, I say go for it. The whole article is too unwieldy, what with the multiple references and hidden notes. The murders themselves merit their own article - since Manson's direct participation in the crimes seems to be limited to entering the LaBianca home, tying their hands and then leaving, the rest of that section of the Manson article is devoted to the actions of his followers (although we all know that the murders would never have occurred without his instigation). Good luck. BassPlyr23 (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Was just reviewing your proposed "Manson Trial" article, which I'm sure is just in skeletal form at this moment. I would think that you would include this in an article about the Tate-LaBianca murders - I don't happen to believe that the trial itself merits a separate article. Watson's trial and Van Houten's retrials are certainly more connected to the murders themselves than to Manson. Just a thought here. BassPlyr23 (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note to me

User:JohnBonaccorsi/Sandbox/MansonTrial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.193.13 (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User:JohnBonaccorsi/Sandbox/MansonFamily

User:JohnBonaccorsi/Sandbox/Tate-LaBianca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.193.13 (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)