| Revision as of 05:44, 9 February 2010 editWheelmaid (talk | contribs)2 edits →Further corrections suggestions: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:59, 9 February 2010 edit undoSkagitRiverQueen (talk | contribs)5,856 edits →Further corrections suggestions: hmmm...Next edit → | ||
| Line 177: | Line 177: | ||
| Hope these help more than hinder...] (]) 05:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | Hope these help more than hinder...] (]) 05:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :Thanks for pointing out these errors, "Wheelmaid". Funny, but this all seems so very "familiar"... --] (]) 05:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:59, 9 February 2010
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charles Manson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | Charles Manson is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about this subject. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about this subject at the Reference desk. |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 29, 2004. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charles Manson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
Don't understand this sentence, need clarifing & direction
This sentence under the Childhood section is impossible to read nor understand. "Several statements in Manson's 1951 case file from the seven months he would later spend at the National Training School for Boys in Washington, D.C., allude to the possibility that Scott was African American." Several statements (what statements?), case file from seven months (what case file, what is this trying to say?). Then there is a pause to go on to allude that Scott was an African American? It is bouncing all over the place and has no direction. I also think that too much undue weight is being given to the Live birth certificate. Do we need to talk about his birth this much? It seems to me his birth is not this much of an importance. This article gets critism for being too long and the new edits have made it even longer. I think more editors are needed here before anything else is added. We need to cut out some of the fluff that is in it to give more weight to what Manson is notable about and that's is the murderous spree and the family he put together to accomplish his agendas. Thoughts? --CrohnieGal 12:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
(1) The sentence you mention in the beginnning of your comments is essentially as it was when JB created it. If you have questions about it, you can ask him. (2) Actually, it's not "bouncing around" at all and it really quite concise. If someone else has problems understanding it, please speak up. (3) The COB is mentioned a couple of times and the sentences presenting that imformation were actually improved last week (with JB's assistance). I COB thing has actually calmed down some in the paragraph and the thoughts brought together better than they were originally. If anyone else sees an issue with the COB info, please speak up. (4) The new edits have definitely NOT made this article longer - there were a number of things I cut out. (5) the article has been had too much "fluff" for a long time, and it is now in the process of getting "fluff" removed. What I did yesterday is just scratching the surface. (6) More editors before anything else is added? Who's adding? I know I didn't add anything yesterday. Merely copyedited. And yes, sure, there can always be more editors. (6) This article is about Charles Manson, not just "the murderous spree" and the Manson Family, ergo, it's fine to keep the article focused on Manson, rather than the murders. As another editor brought up, it's a good idea to make two seperate articles: one on just Manson and one on The Family. That way, some of *your* concerns will be addressed *and* the article will be pared down considerably. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Today's reverts
Just want to make it clear that the reverts I made today were only about making sure references were in place for two very strong statements. Calling Manson a "guru" is a strong statement that should be backed up by an exact reference. If it was added because it sounded good (don't know, because I didn't put it in), then it shouldn't be there. If it was added because he was actually called a "guru" by those in the Haight (as the statement implies), then it should be referenced appropriately with a page number. As far as the $$ amount Wilson ended up paying out as a direct result of the Family's presence in his home over a number of months, that is also a very strong statement. $$ amounts should always be contain specific references, as they are considered to be statistical information. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- You need to read the references at the end of the sentences. It is in there, all of it. I am leaving the article because even my minor edits are reverted so there is no reason to be here. I gave edit summaries for the little work I did yesterday. References should be at the end of a sentence if at all possible. There are big changes being made so that when two editors plans to make two articles out of this article is in play this article is prepped for it. A plan like this is usually discussed at the TP. Too many big edits are being made and errors are occuring because of this. I had to remove ref. that were duplicates because of what I believe was to fast of edits and too big of edits. I had suggested a while back to make smaller edits and come to the talk page and discuss the changes made in the article. Instead changes are being made in large sections, then a note placed here not to change them but to discuss the changes after the fact. This seems backwards to me. It should be changes made, then see what other editors active on the article feel about it. Some of the work being done is not accurate to the sources which is why John lost his cool a while back. So in closing, I'll be out of here if my work is not wanted here. As I also said another time, I think the extensions of Manson's birth that has been added applies too much weight which all I was told is this is about Manson so it's ok. When an editor questions a policy it's supposed to be discussed. I don't consider my challenge about this issue discussed at all. I would like to add, the changes I made yesterday I did with the references. Happy editing, --CrohnieGal 11:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Below are my comments re: Crohnie's comments above:
- You need to read the references at the end of the sentences.
- I read them - or, more accurately, I saw them. How is looking at the references going to tell me whether or not what I am asking is true? In case you forgot, I am asking if Manson was actually called a "guru" by those in the Haight and whether the $100k is verified through the references provided. Do you know the answers or are you just believing and trusting those questions are covered by the references because they were put there? I am challenging those two statements (as is the right of everyone reading the article). If you look at the article on providing refs, you will see that it states clearly - anything that is or could be challenged needs to be referenced. As you are probably aware, verifiability and truth aren't necessarily synonymous in Misplaced Pages.
- References should be at the end of a sentence if at all possible.
- I imagine that's true, however, I put cite needed tags after the specific things I am questioning, not references. There's a difference.
- There are big changes being made so that when two editors plans to make two articles out of this article is in play this article is prepped for it. A plan like this is usually discussed at the TP.
- I imagine that if that's the case, it will be discussed on the talk page at the appropriate time. But, my edits have nothing to do with "prepping" for anything. My edits are about making the article more reader-friendly over a broader spectrum. The sheer size of the article alone is enough to scare some readers off, but if the reading is a little easier, maybe more people will actually read and comprehend what they are reading. As it has been for too long, the article has been full of prose and complex sentence constructs that has no doubt left some readers scratching their heads and saying, "I have no idea what I just read". Further, prose and complexity (unless the subject matter is prose or a complex subject) is not encyclopedic.
- Too many big edits are being made and errors are occuring because of this. I had to remove ref. that were duplicates because of what I believe was to fast of edits and too big of edits.
- <shrug> Well...it's a good thing you were here to notice that error. But, mistakes happen in editing, don't they? No big deal, really. There's no deadline here. Nothing's going to the printing press. Nothing's lost if there are some errors in the wake of editing, you know.
- I had suggested a while back to make smaller edits and come to the talk page and discuss the changes made in the article. Instead changes are being made in large sections,
- I'm sorry, but that's just not practical for most people editing WP. Not everybody has the time (or patience) to make small edits piece by piece and then sit and wait for other editors to come along and dissect what they did so everyone can discuss it.
- then a note placed here not to change them but to discuss the changes after the fact
- Well, that's just not true. Where did I ever say, "don't change my edits" on the talk page?
- It should be changes made, then see what other editors active on the article feel about it.
- Uhh...that's what I did, Crohnie. And, in case you haven't noticed, *I am* "active on the article" (and now, so is Eaglizard).
- Some of the work being done is not accurate to the sources
- Can you back that up with specifics so we can talk about where what I edited is not "accurate to the sources"?
- which is why John lost his cool a while back.
- <sigh> John made a personal choice to do some very stupid things that got him banned. No one made that happen, no one was holding a gun to his head, no one pushed him over the edge - *he* did it all by himself. Intentionally vandalising and article and then making what were seen as legal threats is just *so* not cool. I gave him adequate warnings on this talk page about the vandalism, and I gave him adequate warning on his talk page. He refused to stop. I have tried to reason with him regarding his behavior and attitude, Doc has tried to reason with him regarding his behavior and attitude, other editors have tried to reason with him regarding his attitude and behavior. Heck, the admin who blocked him gave him an out. But each time, he refused to listen and decided he knew better.
- I think the extensions of Manson's birth that has been added applies too much weight which all I was told is this is about Manson so it's ok.
- What "extensions"? All I added in that section was changing "birth certificate" (which was incorrect) to COLB (which was correct). The rest of how that was all twisted around is on John, not me. If anything, I pared that section down some (more than once, IYRC, and it was reverted more than once) and made it less complicated to read. You recollection here is a little fuzzy - I told you that information on Manson (including his birth) was appropriate in this article because it's an article about Manson (which it is) - I was using it as reasoning, not an excuse to give undue weight to anything (as you seem to be stating).
- When an editor questions a policy it's supposed to be discussed. I don't consider my challenge about this issue discussed at all.
- Isn't that what we're doing right now?
- I am leaving the article because even my minor edits are reverted so there is no reason to be here....So in closing, I'll be out of here if my work is not wanted here.
- Who has said " work is not wanted here"? If you really are chosing to leave, please do it only because you honestly no longer want to contribute to this article, nothing else. Your "minor edits" were removing cite needed tags where I think two points need to be referenced specifically. The nature of Misplaced Pages is that "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here". Everytime you click the "Save page" button below the edit summary, that statement is there. *Everything* in Misplaced Pages is subject to change. Everything. It's not personal, so please don't take it that way. When I changed what you edited, I didn't think to myself, "those edits came from Crohnie and her edits aren't wanted here". Why are you taking my reverts personally? *I'm* certainly not making them personal...
More edits
I have made more edits to sections of the article today - Hinman Murder through Apprehension. As a whole, the edits were basically correcting some awkward and complicated sentence constructs as well as breaking up some run-ons along with correcting syntax and some grammar. Over all, just trying to make the article more reader friendly for a wider range of readers. Comments? Bring 'em here. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Im not sure about this but their is a character in a old computer game (Battle Zone 2) named charles manson so perhaps that should be mentioned in the cultural reverberation section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.137 (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Spahn Ranch grammar
I believe the last sentence of paragraph # 2 in this section should be corrected for grammar. The sentence dealing with Lynette Fromme and how she got her nickname, which reads in part: "...she was given nicknamed "Squeaky"." should be changed to "...she was given the nickname "Squeaky"." or "...she was nicknamed "Squeaky"." Wheelmaid (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that. That should be dealt with by the editor who felt the section needed syntax improvement and grammatical changes. Perhaps that editor will address the errors in language that were introduced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- You're free to change it yourself if you'd like, "Wheelmaid". After all, that's part of what Misplaced Pages's about - anyone being able to edit, that is. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you noticed it, why didn't you do something about it? Edits, not editors; the good of the encyclopedia, not personal attacks and personalities, WHL. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Because I'm not interested in having to ask your permission to correct bad grammar errors, misplaced references and language mistakes that has led to the article being tagged for copy-editing. God forbid, I get pulled into a situation where you revert because I didn't complain soon enough or find you templating the regulars when you don't agree that something is wrong, redundant or talks down to the reader. I would direct anyone who wonders to the great revert war SkagitRiverQueen embarked upon to return her redundant wording as I noted below. This article is open for anyone to edit, no one should have to ask your opinion or permission to correct bad wording. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you noticed it, why didn't you do something about it? Edits, not editors; the good of the encyclopedia, not personal attacks and personalities, WHL. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Edit reverts
Earlier this evening, SkagitRiverQueen edited a section of this article, changing wording from "Because she did not participate in the killings, Kasabian was granted immunity in exchange for her testimony." to "Because she did not participate in the killings, Kasabian was granted immunity in exchange for her testimony detailing the what happened on nights of the crimes." I removed that phrase because it was not only grammatically incorrect, it didn't make sense. She replaced the phrase with "detailing what happened on nights of the crimes." That additional phrase is redundant and I removed it. As I said in my edit summary, no one was expecting her to testify about tap-dancing bears. The content is self-evident and stating is a way of "writing down" to the reader, it doesn't require explanation. She reverted my removal, stating "you didn't complain about it before when it was already there for months I've reverted it back". I once again removed the offending phrase, and she proceeded to post a 3RR template on my talk page, reverted it once again to return to insulting the reader, and posted a "rvt back - there was no error in what was there - 3rr is now in effect, WHL" edit summary. This editor makes multiple edits to this article, then posts here warning editors to "discuss" problems with her edits (just as the complaint directly above this one) and edit wars to retain her preferred, inferior version and then templates the regulars while she is tooling along. This phrasology is both redundant, insulting to the reader, and stinks of instructional creep. What? Because she edited the article, she now owns it and controls what it says? No. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Further corrections suggestions
NOTE: That was my very first edit and in following the written protocol about not attempting to edit "semi-protected" articles until I had some experience, I posted it here. I surely didn't mean to offend anyone.
Some more suggestions:
Under the heading "LaBianca murders": First paragraph, first sentence: "The following the Tate murders..." might I suggest to change the word "the" to "then" or just delete the word all together and begin the sentence with "Following".
Under the heading "LaBiance residence": Last paragraph, last sentence: "...the group was released a just few days later." , I would suggest changing the order of the words "a just" to "just a".
Under the heading "Apprehension" : First paragraph, 5th sentence : "Watson and Krenwinkel, were soon arrest, as authorities in McKinney, Texas and Mobile, Alabama had picked them, respectively upon notice from the LAPD." An addition of "ed" to "arrest" and the word "up" after "picked them", I suggest here.
Under "Ongoing disruptions": First paragraph, second to last sentence: "Since their knives were in not concealed but in plain view...", I suggest deleting the word "in" that appears right before "not concealed".
2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: "Former Family member Barbara Hoyt...agreed to accompany the Moorhouse to Hawaii." , I suggest deleting the word "the".
Under "Defense rests": First paragraph, 4th sentence: "In the judges chambers, ... told Judge Olmert...". I noticed in preceding paragraphs, the judge's name was "Older".
Under "Conviction and penalty phase": First paragraph, 6th sentence: "Among some the weak points...", I suggest the word "of" be added after the word "some" and before the word "the".
2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: "On the same day the verdicts and juror recommendation that the death penalty were announced,...", I believe requires some clarification such as "be instituted" or something similar to be added after "death penalty" or the word "of" or "for" instead of the words "that the".
Hope these help more than hinder...Wheelmaid (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out these errors, "Wheelmaid". Funny, but this all seems so very "familiar"... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Old requests for peer review
- Former good article nominees
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
- B-Class California articles
- Mid-importance California articles
- WikiProject California articles
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- Top-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Ohio articles
- Unknown-importance Ohio articles
- WikiProject Ohio articles
- B-Class Religion articles
- Mid-importance Religion articles
- B-Class New religious movements articles
- High-importance New religious movements articles
- New religious movements articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- Selected anniversaries (March 2004)