Talk:Helter Skelter (scenario)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Album name[edit]

The Beatles record refered to in this article is listed as The White Album, however, the actual title of the record is The Beatles the "white album" is just a nickname resulting from the record's packaging.

The nickname should not have been used without explanation. In the article's lead section and in the Timeline, I've inserted parenthetical indication of the album's formal name.JohnBonaccorsi 23:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

The Wikipedia copyright policy says: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). The tatelabianca blog states that it is carrying the contents of the book is copyright, and not of the blog author or owner. It is, of course, highly unlikely that the blog will ever be sued, but per our policy we may not link to that external site unless and until it can demonstrate that the content is carried by permission of the rights holder. The introduction rather seems to state the opposite, being rather an apologia for not having permission. Removing the link to the blog does not impact on the article since the citations are to the book itself and their validity is independent of the ability to link to content of the book. Many citations to print sources can't link to the source online, this is not a problem as long as sufficient detail is provided for independent verification. In that respect, page numbers would be useful. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intent to undo[edit]

I am reluctantly going to undo the series of edits by 24.5.15.124. At first, I simply undid his/her worst error, the alteration of the verb "pored" to "poured" in a context in which the former was correct; but now I am going to undo his/her elimination of bracketed substitutions that were necessary to make quoted passages accurate or intelligible. (To put it bluntly: he/she seems to have no knowledge of the function of brackets in quoted passages.) When I do so, I will also be undoing his/her heading changes, whose importance, for better or worse, is not great. In other words, I'm going to execute a mass-undo rather than attempt to undo the de-bracketing instance by instance.JohnBonaccorsi 23:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of 04:51, 7 March 2008[edit]

At 04:51, 7 March 2008, the article’s opening sentence was revised as follows:

The murders perpetrated by Charles Manson and members of his Family were inspired in part by Manson’s interpretation of Helter Skelter, as describing an apocalyptic war that would arise from tension over racial relations between blacks and whites.

Previously, the sentence was this:

The murders perpetrated by Charles Manson and members of his Family were inspired in part by Manson’s prediction of Helter Skelter, an apocalyptic war he believed would arise from tension over racial relations between blacks and whites.

The revision is unclear and misconceived. What is meant by "Manson’s interpretation of Helter Skelter," the phrase the revision employs to introduce the subject of the article? Does it mean Manson’s interpretation of the everyday word helter-skelter? It can’t mean that. It apparently means Manson’s interpretation of the Beatles' song "Helter Skelter" — or, arguably, of the term helter skelter as used in the song; but neither the song nor the term (as used in the song) is the article's subject, although both certainly have to do with the subject. The subject, as is indicated at the head of the article and as is clear throughout it, is "Charles Manson’s prophesied war" — the war that he predicted and that he took to be the subject of that song and, in fact, several other Beatles songs.

I am going to undo the revision.71.242.167.173 (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too much detail[edit]

Encyclopedia articles are supposed to summarize. This article should not list and explain every Beatles song connected to this fantasy. It's way too much detail. Tempshill (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above is wiki-junk — internet junk, I should say. What? The Beatles weren’t actually trying to communicate with Charles Manson through their records? Thanks for alerting us; the rest of us were taking that suggestion seriously. What you disdainfully refer to as "this fantasy" happens to be the subject of the article — and happens to have been at the heart of what is arguably the most-notorious murder in history. At countless places on the internet, it is summarized — inaccurately and unintelligibly.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript: I apologize for my harshness and my snideness. I do think the article is fine as it is.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Post-postscript: Although the revision-history page indicates the article's byte-count is 65,381 kilobytes, the "readable prose," which I have just tallied by the method recommended here, is forty-three (43) kilobytes. The tally was made as follows:
1 — I transferred the article's "printable" version to an edit window.
2 — I eliminated everything except the text proper (i.e., from the article's opening sentence to the final word of its current final section ("Addendum")). By "everything," I mean the footnotes; the external links; the footnote brackets (e.g., "[1]"); the "[edit]" brackets; and the "Manson Family" template, category-links, and general Wikipedia information at the article's end.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's an eyesoar to readUbicumque (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you mean "eyesore." (I have now removed several "bullets" that might have been what was bothering you.)JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with the comment above, and I don't see why we need this article at all. It's effectively pure trivia, as in useless information; and it's at least partly speculation. Everyone knows Manson was crazy, I don't see the need for this long article that details the exact specifics of his insanity. What's the purpose of it? Why not just say 'Manson believed that Helter Skelter and other Beatles songs contained hidden meanings predicting a coming race war' and leave it at that? Terraxos (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just say "Manson believed that 'Helter Skelter' and other Beatles songs contained hiddden meanings predicting a coming race war" and leave it at that? Well, for one reason, as the article makes clear: that's not what Manson said. "Helter Skelter" isn't a race war; it's a war among whites. His insanity notwithstanding, Manson was acute enough to see that the real political fault line of the so-called civil-rights era was between racist and non-racist whites; blacks are essentially a sideshow in the Helter Skelter scenario. The tensions to which he -- vicious maniac though he was -- was sensitive are still at the heart of American life, as may be seen in such trivial matters as our current Presidential contest. The Helter Skelter scenario is an ingenious fantasy in which the counterculture triumphs over the squares. Whatever should be said against him -- and it is a great deal -- Manson was a kind of American Epic Poet, whose one famed work reflects dynamics that are still very much with us. Wikipedia should explicate it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And so you claim that it is a "war" of sorts between "racist & non-racist whites" as far as who is elected president of the united states? You must be a moron if you see it that way, because obviously policies and standings on issues along with actual administrative and diplomatic ability most certainly has nothing to do with an election, right? I take offense to that kind of pseudo-intellectual idiocy. Voting for a black man with no talent for the office he wishes to obtain does not make you stand out as a non racist(who is apparently doing "The right thing" by what I would guess is your logic,) it simply makes you an idiot. Not to even mention all the millions of black voters, as undeserving of the title as many of them are. 68.202.82.33 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the latter part of your curiously-structured second sentence, the verb should be "have," not "has." (The subject is plural.) I would also recommend "take offense at that kind of pseudo-intellectual idiocy."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't shoot the messenger John but your appear to be famous now- http://tatelabianca.blogspot.com/2009/06/john-bonaccorsi-is-fucking-idiot.html ThePizzaMakingCaveman (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow — and on the official Tate-LaBianca Murders Blog.JohnBonaccorsi (talk)
Yeah it kinda of is a bummer to be called out on the Official site, but anyway man my desire to reach you tonight has led to all kind of hassle. You owe me oneThePizzaMakingCaveman (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your '60s patois is delightful. — Y'know, I've visited that blog before. On the one hand, the guy's an obvious Manson partisan — but on the other, he seems vicious and crazy. It doesn't add up.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this discussion is somewhat old but I also feel the article is overly detailed. (Note: I don't think it's necessarily too long, but merely that it has too much un-encyclopedic content.) Does this article need a lyric-by-lyric description of Manson's ideas about Beatles songs? NO! Does it need a verse-by-verse description of Revelations 9-10 as interpreted by Manson? NO! Does it need a guide of where one can read more about Helter Skelter? Guess what, NO again. There's more, but you get the idea. 72.195.132.12 (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was definitely overly detailed, had things completely unrelated or at least very thinly. Also, the comment, "Manson was a poet." Nothing on here actually references anything Manson said himself until the end when he claims Bugliosi's using this as a motive was a conspiracy. The rest was and is conjecture and heresay. I've worked on cutting a lot of excess but it could probably still be cut down. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Supposed"[edit]

At 06:00, 30 June 2009, an editor added the word "supposed" to the article’s first sentence:

The murders perpetrated by members of Charles Manson’s "Family" were inspired in part by Manson’s supposed prediction of Helter Skelter....

I am going to delete "supposed." Manson’s preaching of Helter Skelter is attested, in whole or in part, in the following:

  • Tex Watson’s autobiography, Will You Die for Me? — particularly, Chapter 11
  • My Life with Charles Manson — the autobiography of Paul Watkins — particularly Chapter 12
  • Child of Satan, Child of God — the autobiography of Susan Atkins — particularly the chapter entitled "Helter Skelter." (Although Atkins argues that the triggering of Helter Skelter was not the motive for the murders, she says Manson "was convinced that he had some sort of apocalyptic connection with The Beatles" and that he "felt a black-white 'armageddon' was coming and then feared that [his shooting of Bernard Crowe] might trigger it.")
  • Statements from Family members and associates such as Juan Flynn, Brooks Poston, and, I think, Dianne Lake. These statements are quoted in Bugliosi and Gentry’s Helter Skelter, but I won’t attempt to track them down now. (Somewhere in the Watkins autobiography, too, is a scene in which Lake fearfully tells Watkins that "Helter Skelter is coming down.")
  • Statements by Family associate "Juanita" (apparently the "Juanita Wildebush" referred to in the Watkins autobiography). An interview that was presented in issue #31 (circa 2006) of an apparently-indie magazine called Tin House is transcribed in a [http://tatelabianca.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html June 5, 2008 entry] at a blog called "Official Tate-LaBianca Murders Blog." It contains this exchange:
Interviewer: Manson also talked a lot about race wars, didn't he? Wasn't that the foundation of his "Helter Skelter" ideology and ultimately what led the Family to murder?
Juanita: What was going to happen in this backward world to make it right was that the black man, who had been oppressed for years, was going to become the superior race, and the blacks would rule the world. "Helter Skelter" was Charlie's plan for and name for their uprising and also, it turned out, apparently, for the murders which he hoped would provoke that. [EDITOR'S NOTE: Manson hoped that the murders would be thought to have been committed by blacks, bringing even further oppression down on them, in turn provoking them to rise up.] The reason we had to find a place in the desert was we had to have a place to run and hide, because as whites we were going to be killed or enslaved unless we were smart enough to find a place to live until - until it all balanced out. Eventually, the black man would ask Charlie and the Family to take over, because he wouldn't be able to rule on his own.
We didn't call it "Helter Skelter" until the Beatles record came down, and then it was, "Aha, look at that - our prophets." It's only in the last two years that I've even been able to tolerate listening to The White Album.
Interviewer: Was that really going on, what Helter Skelter describes as the mental preparation and buildup for the murders - playing the songs "Helter Skelter," "Piggies," "Revolution 9," and "Blackbird" from the album over and over? The line in "Blackbird" that goes, "All your life, you have only waited for this moment to arise," which supposedly referred to the rising up of the blacks?
Juanita: All of that was going on.
  • A statement from California Highway Patrolman James Pursell, who arrested Manson at Barker Ranch in October 1969. The statement is quoted, I think, in Bugliosi and Gentry’s Helter Skelter, but it also appears in a [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3xqpWB4yAIU/SkLJ8tHhDZI/AAAAAAAAArA/hnEc27AnRoc/s1600-h/LAManson016.jpg July 2009 Los Angeles magazine article] published to mark the Tate-LaBianca murders’ fortieth anniversary:
Pursell: Charlie [who had just been arrested] told us that his group was out there looking for a place to hide because there was an impending race war. He told us that the blacks were going to win. He told us that because we were number one, cops, and number two, white, we should stop right there, let them loose, and flee for our lives.
(This statement is particularly interesting, because it reveals that Manson’s Helter Skelter remarks were not made only to his intimates.)
  • Statements made by former Family member Catherine Share, as, for instance, in the [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3xqpWB4yAIU/SkLOQYtt8MI/AAAAAAAAArY/_zB3i9IWIM4/s1600-h/LAManson017.jpg July 2009 Los Angeles magazine article] I’ve already cited. (See also the statements of former Family member Barbara Hoyt in that article.)
  • An article by Rolling Stone writer David Dalton, whose quotation of statements Manson made directly to him about a black uprising, the Beatles, and the Book of Revelation is presented in the Wikipedia article. This is another example of Manson’s talking about Helter Skelter, shortly after his arrest, with, essentially, a stranger.
  • Gregg Jakobson’s [http://truthontatelabianca.com/index.php?topic=1643.0 trial testimony] — which includes, among other things, a description of a Helter Skelter mural that, as far as I can recall, Bugliosi and Gentry don’t even mention in Helter Skelter and that, accordingly, has not become part of Manson lore. It is striking:
Prosecutor Bugliosi: Did you ever see the words Helter Skelter written at Spahn Ranch?
Jakobson: Yes.
Bugliosi: Where?
...
Jakobson: There was a room called--it was an old saloon in one of the old sets.
Bugliosi: Among the front buildings at the ranch?
Jakobson: Right.
Bugliosi: Right off Santa Susanna Road there?
Jakobson: Yes. And there was a big mural in day-glo colors. It glowed with blue light. It depicted Helter Skelter, and it was written.
Bugliosi: The words were written?
Jakobson. Yes. And there was a picture of the mountains and the desert and Goler Wash, and so on, and Helter Skelter coming down out of the sky.
Bugliosi: Something like a map?
Jakobson: It was more like a mural that covered the whole wall. It was rather impressive.
...
Bugliosi: And you say that on this mural there were the words Helter Skelter as coming down fast?
Jakobson: Helter Skelter. Not coming down fast. The picture was coming down out of the heavens, like rocks or objects. They were painted, in other words, the mountains and so on, were painted. Not with words.
Bugliosi: At the bottom of the mural were there the words Goler Wash?
Jakobson: Yes. I am a little fuzzy on that but--
Bugliosi: Were the words Death Valley at the bottom of the mural?
Jakobson: I seem to recollect that, yes.
Bugliosi: You indicated that Mr. Manson used the term Helter Skelter fairly frequently in is every-day conversation; is that correct?
Jakobson: Yes.


That — you know, that's what he said, that — that next summer there would be this big revolution and that the chosen people would live in a hole in the middle of the desert; and then after the crimes, we went out and looked for the hole.

I could present a few other items — and there might be yet others, which are not coming to my mind or with which I’m not familiar. The above is enough.

Opposed to all of that, as far as I know, is nothing but mere gainsaying. This, for instance, is from Manson himself, at about the one-fifth point of his 1992 parole hearing:

[A]s far as lining up someone for some kind of helter skelter trip, you know, that's the District Attorney's motive. That's the only thing he could find for a motive to throw up on top of all that confusion he had. There was no such thing in my mind as helter skelter.

That doesn’t justify the use of "supposed" in the article’s opening sentence; and, in fact, the use of "supposed" is irresponsible if it’s based on nothing more than that sort of thing. It merely ratifies Manson’s self-serving denials.

Any editor who is aware of substantive statements that raise doubts that Manson preached Helter Skelter will kindly present them here before reinserting "supposed" — or an equivalent word — in the article.71.242.134.155 (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of Watkins and possibly Watson years later, how much of this has to do with it being the motive for the murders? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References to "Glass Onion" and "Fool on the Hill"[edit]

In a pair of edits at 05:58 and 06:11, 13 September 2009, I removed the article’s statement that Manson construed "Glass Onion’s" reference to "the fool on the hill" as a reference to the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. The statement was based on the following, which is from Chapter 11 of the Tex Watson autobiography, Will You Die for Me?:

And there was more, much more. The proof that the Beatles knew about Charlie, knew that he was in Los Angeles and were urging him to speak out, to sing the truth to the world, was in their song "Honey Pie":
Oh honey pie my position is tragic Come and show me the magic Of your Hollywood song....
Obviously they wanted Charlie to make his album. And if they weren't so exhausted from their fruitless trip to find the true Jesus (Charlie) in the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in India (whom they had written off as "the fool on the hill" in an earlier song that was referred to in the White Album's song "Glass Onion"), they would come looking for him in California - they'd join him. After all, didn't they say as much when in "Honey Pie" they sang: "I'm in love but I'm lazy"?

I’d recently been struck that it’s not quite clear there that Watson is saying Manson himself had something to say about "Glass Onion." After another editor entered a revision (at 22:06, 11 September 2009) that revealed that this whole subject is complicated by the reference to the earlier song "The Fool on the Hill," I decided to delete the article’s references to both songs ("Glass Onion" and "The Fool on the Hill").JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wells book[edit]

I recently became aware of an excerpt from Charles Manson: Coming Down Fast, a recently-published book about Manson. After reading the excerpt, I had copyright questions that I have formulated and addressed in a long document that I have prepared in my Wikipedia “sandbox.” One of the reasons the said sandbox page is long is that it includes the entire excerpt of which I’ve just spoken. If the page were shorter, I would post it here, on the talk-page of the Wikipedia article entitled "Helter Skelter (Manson scenario)"; but because it is so long, I will keep it in my "sandbox." The page is hereby "published," and I ask Wikipedia editors and administrators to read it. In it, I request the assistance of Wikipedia editors and administrators in bringing its copyright questions to the attention of the legal department of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. The page is this:

User:JohnBonaccorsi/Sandbox/Wells bookJohnBonaccorsi (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm[edit]

Interesting stuff, but should the wikipedia article be so huge for sth that is basically just a bucketload full of shit 88.72.192.123 (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the above; this article is significantly longer than it should be. The information is hardly encyclopedic and would probably fall under trivia. 68.5.161.143 (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are free to do what is necessary... -- megA (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point[edit]

This article basically a long treatise on a murderer's insane fantasy. Not sire if it fits wikipedia guideline. --222.255.193.81 (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Helter Skelter (Manson scenario). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

too long??[edit]

Personally, I thought this was fascinating and well structured. If I think a portion is too wordy I can skim.PurpleChez (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PurpleChez I know you added your comment four years ago but I'm just reading it now so please forgive the late response. I definitely think this article could use a trim amongst many other things. I don't agree it's well structured. However, I don't know if you worked on it but I personally definitely support a trim. As far as other things to take into consideration please read the comment I added about neutrality on the talk page. Thank you. If you notice misattributed quotes please correct them. This article frequently quoted other people and attributed them to Manson. Also, I've done my best on this already but when someone makes a claim, Wikipedia should note who it was and not present it as objective truth, especially on an article like this. Anything without a verifiable citation can be removed outright. This includes a lot of info on here. That means if it has no isbn or URL. These are mostly ref that say Watson or Watkins Ch. and then different numbers. Also blog sites like Abounding Love probably don't cut it. Some things to keep in mind if you still have any desire to work on this. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I don't remember the specifics that I had in mind, so I'll have to rethink it. Thanks for the message!!PurpleChez (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Helter Skelter (Manson scenario). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added unbalanced and neutrality tags[edit]

This is a highly questionable article. It argues Bugliosi's case and book. His book already has a page. A prosecutor's job is to argue one side and be subjective by definition. Wikipedia's job is to be neutral. I've made some improvements towards this but overall this is a one sided article. It attributed quotes to people when other people said them. It took something someone said, specifically Paul Watkins and Tex Watson and presented it as objective truth. It's filled with OR from what I can tell. It has many citations that cannot be verified. No URL or isbn. It has many highly questionable sources that may not qualify as reliable on Wikipedia. These are some of the reasons I added these tags. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the neutral tag after a lot of work. I think the claims and allegations are now correctly attributed and there are no longer any misattributed quotes. Still very unbalanced though. By nature a page like this will be because it proposes a prosecutor's argument which is meant to be unbalanced. However, the way Wikipedia can correct this is by explaining other theories in detail like it did this one. For anyone reading this, there are countless articles and probably 50 books on this. Expanding the copycat theory would be a good start. At some point the alledged drug dealing connections between Watson, Manson and Frykowski, Sebring may be worthwhile. As well as Rosemary LaBiancas drug connections with Sebring, Frykowski, and Watson. Also Rostau. Also Watson's habit of robbing drug dealers. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On another note I cut a lot of excess including a lot that had nothing to do with the theory or at best was a big stretch. I also fixed the refs and citations. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai Kung fu Cowboy, I apologise for my rudeness towards you in one of my edit summaries. Not that it's an excuse, but I'm afraid I've found your contributions quite worrying in terms of keeping to a neutral point of view and reflecting what's stated in the sources – ie, without resorting to editorial intrusion and/or seeking to tell the real "truth".
Looking at the article as it stood in June, before you did substantial work on it, I'd say it was actually way better before and certainly more informative. Yes, a lot of statements probably needed attribution, but it was far from a disaster on that front. When I arrived here a day or so ago, what was immediately jarring in the text was the abundance of terms like "allegedly", "supposedly", "possible", "claimed", when the supporting sources, from what I can see, state the points directly and without uncertainty – meaning, it was simply Wikipedia casting doubt on the content. (I actually thought the biased tag added in July was appropriate because of this sort of editorialisation and questionable phrasing that seems to arrived in the last couple of months.)
On the other hand, your comment after I added more of Manson's 1970 Rolling Stone interview (that "This is really what should have been included in the first place") gives me some cause for hope. By that I mean, it hadn't seemed to me before that you were aware of Manson himself having drawn the connection between the Beatles' White Album, chapter 9 in the Book of Revelation, and his idea of an imminent race war and the downfall of the Establishment. Or perhaps I'm wrong there too? Just seemed to me that your edits demonstrated a reluctance to view Helter Skelter as anything more than the figment of Bugliosi's imagination and dependent on testimony and statements by the likes of Paul Watkins and Tex Watson. (I appreciate that it was Bugliosi who pulled these strands together as a motive for a killing spree, of course, but Manson was almost being presented as an innocent bystander – everyone else was pinning these apocalyptic race war/Book of Revelation/White Album clues and analysis onto him.) And with the "allegedly", "supposedly", "possible", etc, the overall impression was that readers shouldn't believe any of this; and indeed, the article now ends with Manson's 1992 statements saying as much.
I'm sure other scenarios have gained traction, but this is an article dedicated to Helter Skelter. I've added mention in the lead of the two other theories. If the article still explored the subject with the sort of depth and comprehensiveness we had back in June, I'd say the main text should include some detail on these alt theories; not so sure in its current state, though.
Anyway, my feeling is that the tag stating "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints" is no longer applicable and can be removed. The article needs more secondary sources, sure, but it's a page about the HS scenario so, unsurprisingly, the viewpoints are going to be mainly focused on the topic of HS, and any reader would expect that. JG66 (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JG66 It was not "way better." It didn't attribute anything anyone said to them. It presented all of this as is, including frequently quoting Manson in third hand accounts. Watson writes that Manson told him something in his book and it's edited as a Manson quote. Bugliosi writes his legal argument of something Watkins said to him and it was used as a Manson quote. Definitely horrible editing for Wikipedia. We really shouldn't be doing anything like that.
As far as better. If you look through the history of this talk page you're most definitely in the minority. It was frequently brought up that this page may not fit Wikipedia for various reasons and at least needed to be cut significantly. I even reached out to another editor who had earlier wished to "trim" it but it had been so long it was left to me to take the initiative.
In my opinion this article may still be too long. I think including anything beyond what members of the Manson Family said just reiterates Bugliosi's book which is unnecessary for Wikipedia. Presenting his prosecutorial theories will always be biased because that was literally his job. Anything on here beyond Bugliosi argued and wrote that this theory was the motive for Tate-LaBianca is excessive. I think it should include Watkins, Watson, Manson, and possibly others like maybe Share? But it's too heavily Bugliosi to just say this was a Manson theory.
Also, thank you for the apology. Water under the bridge. As far as Manson. My opinion hear. This cannot be added. Of course the guy ranted about this crap. No doubt. He ranted about the Beatles, Black Muslims, the apocalypse, and god knows what else. He was raised in prison, psychotic, and highly manipulative. I also happen to believe Bugliosi was highly manipulative and possibly borderline. He also used these murders and rantings of this guy to draw a very sketchy line that the Beatles were to blame for these murders. Watkins wasn't even living with them at the time of the murders. Are there more logical explanations? Probably. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you haven't convinced me one iota that you're approaching the subject as a neutral – which is a requirement on Wikipedia. I've had a fair bit of experience of writing articles here and I know what we "should be doing". What the article really needs is more secondary sources, per WP:PSTS. Those authors would and should be the guide with regard to how far, say, the Helter Skelter scenario is viewed as credible or utter rubbish, and I'm sure Bugliosi's motives would come under scrutiny as well.
Either way, what is that biased tag referring to, exactly? This is an article about Helter Skelter; what other viewpoints about Helter Skelter (not about Manson murder theories generally) are being overlooked? Thanks, JG66 (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And responding to the in depth thing. This article talked about things like the MLK assasination with no sources let alone ones that tied it to Manson. It was out there. I'm removing the tag but I think it still is fairly ridiculous. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JG66 I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. But attributing quotes to someone, someone else said is not neutral. I was approaching this from a neutral viewpoint. A word like claim, to me, means something someone said. It's the dictionary definition. I honestly don't think you approached this neutrally at all either. It's why I used the word for Krenwinkel as well when she said it was for other reasons but I've now changed it. All my edits were done in good faith to remove bias and excess. Removing the excess was done in response to the numerous times it was brought up on this talk page. Attributing claims or theories or whatever you wish to call it is necessary on an article like this. Misattributing them shouldn't be done on any page. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<edit conflict>What? You added all that "allegedly", "supposedly", "possible" editorialisation, for a start ... All I've wanted, as for every article here, is that the page describes and reflects coverage afforded the topic. That's probably because I've got no major preconceived views about that coverage, but it also happens to be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Perhaps you should read those policies and guidelines. JG66 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JG66 That's not true. But I will look at those again. Thank you. I fixed a lot of citations. I removed a lot of excess. I attributed the statements to their sources. Everything I said before was true. I fully understand your point about the words but I didn't intend for them to be as loaded as you're implying but I understand your point. Before my edits there was no attribution to the sources and often the Watkins, Watson, and Bugliosi sources were attributed to Manson. Often in quotes. Sometimes in block quotes. I wish that wasn't true but it most definitely was unfortunately. I'm sure you see that as a problem as well. Either way thank you for pointing out how those words can be construed and from now on I'll say, say or stated, when someone says something to avoid any confusion. I had used those words as well but I didn't think of the others as problematic. Good tip. And yes the one time I used possible was accurate. Stating that Bugliosi objectively found a connection to something was wrong. It cited him. He's saying he found a connection to something that was never verified by anyone else. He's the only source. Saying he inferred is what I originally wrote but you deleted saying it should be stated objectively because he was the source. That's not true. That is not a credible source to say that objectively. It's a source about the subject. So I added possible instead. Infer was really the correct word to use. Another source would be better and actually credible. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a section on criticism of the theory[edit]

The lede mentions that there are alternative (credible) theories, which means that a number of people don't buy into the Helter Skelter narrative. If "Helter Skelter" weren't inherited wisdom due to the best-selling book, I think pretty much anyone would admit it sounds like prosecutorial fantasy. So a criticism section is certainly warranted. The page on the Manson Family for example, says: Mike McGann, an LAPD investigator on the Tate–LaBianca murders, later said, "Everything in Vince Bugliosi's book (Helter Skelter) is wrong. I was the lead investigator on the case. Bugliosi didn't solve it. Nobody trusted him."[1]: 104  Bueller 007 (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC) Bueller 007 (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"If 'Helter Skelter' weren't inherited wisdom due to the best-selling book, I think pretty much anyone would admit it sounds like prosecutorial fantasy." Spare me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxRiawiq2dI ("Leslie Van Houten, December 29, 1969, interviewed by Marvin L. Part") 98.114.190.60 (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ O'Neill, Tom (2019). Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties. Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0-316-47757-4. Archived from the original on June 6, 2021. Retrieved July 18, 2021.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Helter_Skelter_(scenario)&oldid=1204149378"