Talk:Susan Atkins

Death?

NOTICE - ADMINISTRATORS - ATKINS IS NOW DECEASED - "BIO OF LIVING PERSONS" NOTICE SHOULD BE REMOVED - thanks.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 00:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

How can it be written that she died of Natural causes, when clearly she died because of Cancer?? that's not very accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmlxxviii (talk • contribs) 03:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, unless you're the medical examiner and want to issue a different cause of death to the press officially, all we can go on is what was given as her cause of death, which was, in fact, stated as being of natural causes. If you will look, the cause is cited to the announcement. We can't do original research and say it was clearly something else in face of the official cause given. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Natural Causes is all we can verify right now. Based on some letters her husband sent out to supportive websites, there is some doubt that she even still had cancer at the time of her death. He had stated she was in remission and that further treatment for the cancer had been cancelled as a result. This was in August. Sometimes when people have suffered a long illness, the cause of death is not the illness itself but something as simple as their heart stopped beating AKA Cardiac Arrest - that would be natural causes. All it means is that her death was not the result of trauma, acute illness, accident or homicide. She was in her 60's and had gone through some pretty physically demanding treatments for her cancer. Chemo and Radiation often leave the body in a weakened state. It would be speculation to say that the cancer was the cause of her death. If she was under the care of a doctor at the time of her death, and she was, they can simply write natural causes if they want to on the death certificate. let's not dramatize this. Her death was expected and anticipated. it is why she was pushing for compassionate release.LiPollis (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the actual medical information was so scant, I've never been clear on the reason her leg was amputated. I don't think it was ever explained. Have you heard anything definitive, Lisa? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ca is classed as natural death. Tumour growth had got going again since August and it was seen as unviable to continue on with another round of aggressive treatment per a source - perhaps the MDs weighted Susans debilitated poor quality of life, and the fact any reprieve would be hard won in discomfort terms and short lived - cancelling out any humane value. As a prior oncology nurse I'd guess the amputation (if related) was due to bone cancer, which had metastatised (seeded)to the brain. It seems the diagnosis was made too late given the leg and brain treatments began simultaneously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.106.243 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

whatever.. Cancer is what caused her to die, even if it wasnt' there when she died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmlxxviii (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Cancer is a natural death! It would only not be natural if she was shot, stabbed or something... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpgon (talk • contribs) 20:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

alk3 Songs

The popular alternative band Alkaline Trio has two releases of a song entitled "Sadie" about Ms. Atkins. I feel someone should add it to the wiki. I would do it but I'm profoundly lazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.109.34 (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

COD

As has been widely discussed above, Atkins' released cause of death was by natural causes. There is no supporting documentation to change it to terminal brain cancer. That was changed back. Also, that her husband had embarked on a sympathy campaign to raise support for her release, he made many postings on his website regarding her current condition, including saying she was paralyzed and bedridden. It is important to include that prior to her last parole hearing because it was part of his grassroots effort to win that parole. Switching it to the end implies she was denied parole and then he posted the blurb about her condition. This has been discussed quite extensively above. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the article was changed to state she died of brain cancer. Sources given for this include this one, which only says "Atkins, California's longest-serving female inmate, was suffering from terminal brain cancer." This one which states natural causes, and this one, which says it goes to her obituary but redirects to a summary page with a list of links including one that only says she was being treated for brain cancer. No cause of death was cited. The edits also include a mention of a pending autopsy, which is not present in the references given. So what's more important, the last edit or accuracy based on reliable sources? There isn't a source present that alleges that the cause of death as released was not natural causes but brain cancer. Also mentioning that 22 days elapsed between parole denial and death is self-evident as one sentence gives parole denial date and the next on gives death date. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that an *official* COD isn't given by a prison spokesperson - and what a prison spokesperson says the cause of death is should never be considered *official*. Official COD's are given by the doctor who signs the death certificate and/or a coroner after performing an autopsy. No matter what the spokesperson stated publically, that is not the *official* COD - period. Currently, the article is reflecting an unoffical COD and calling it official - that's dishonest and it's not accurate. Maybe we should go for "consensus" on this?  ;-) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no wording that says natural causes is the "official" cause of death. It says natural causes and the reference at least supports saying that. We can only report what reliable sources say, and none of them say "cause of death was given as brain cancer", so changing the wording to say that with references that do not support it is misleading at best, dishonest at worst. All we have is the released cause of death. I can find no mention of the release of a death certificate. I have already written the editors who weighed in above to look at this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What's in the article - "died of natural causes" - gives the impression that is the official cause of death. That's wrong, that's dishonest, and it should be either removed completely or worded differently (which is exactly what I did and you then reverted it). A statement to the press by a prison spokesperson isn't a "released cause of death", it's a prison spokesperson talking to reporters so they will get their story and go away. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have already written the editors who weighed in above to look at this. She likely did die as the result of brain cancer, however no sources exist to support that. Meanwhile, it isn't correct in any way to add references claiming her death was the result of cancer when they do not say that. Claiming that we cannot use the cause of death released at the time because it isn't "official" is basically splitting hairs. Also, bearing in mind the points made by Lisapollison that her husband had currently been stating that treatment was no longer necessary and had been stopped. We are obliged to reflect what references report, not what someone *thinks* it should say. Her death was not unattended, there were medical personnel present to state the cause. Your wording claimed a cause of death of cancer. That is not supported, even in the references you added. I doubt that prison spokespersons made up what they said. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Medical personnel at an attended death can only pronounce the person dead, they can't give a definitive cause of death. That is a fact anyone working in even the lowest levels of medicine knows. The prison spokesperson was speaking on behalf of the prison, not on behalf of the Madera County Coroner. The prison spokesperson did *not* give an official COD - it was impossible for him to do so, because an autopsy had not yet been performed. Beyond all of that, death certificates of those with the kind of co-morbidity Atkins had going on wouldn't list the phrase "natural causes" as an offical COD - they give a medical diagnosis (or diagnoses) as the cause of death as determined by either the deceased's physician or the medical examiner. The wording in the article needs to be changed to not make it seem as if "natural causes" is the COD - and that's where it is right now. This is an encylopedia, and passing something as lame as "natural causes" off as the official cause of death by default is wrong in an encyclopedia article. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And the absence of a released death certificate from the coroner leaves us only to include what can be reliably cited, which is what is being done. Citing the statement given at her death is much less lame than adding references falsely claiming to say her cause of death was brain cancer when they don't come near saying that. I won't reply anymore here. Other opinions have been invited and there's nothing else to say outside of that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not good enough. As it stands, the statment that she died of natural causes gives the impression that is the official COD. It's not. This is an encyclopedia, and the material in it needs to be encyclopedic. The statement needs to be reworded regardless of what can be cited - period. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the phrase "of natural causes" as it is unknown what the official COD listed on the death certificate is. As it was before the change, the statement took on the appearance of being the determined and official COD. Leaving it as it was would be irresponsible. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware that you could determine what was good enough or what defined irresponsibility. We can only cite what sources give us, and despite having added two sources claiming that cause of death was brain cancer, they did not state that. As I said, other opinions were requested on this. The references states natural causes, unless you're holding the death certificate in your hands, you are not in a position to overrule reliable sources or argue legalities. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Now you're just edit warring - plain and simple. The fact that there is nothing available showing what the official cause of death was is proof enough that it can't be cited. Not putting in a disclaimer that states the prison spokesperson's statement isn't the official word on her COD (as I have tried to do several times over now) is irresponsible. I have tried patiently to work with you on this, but it is clear you're not interested. That's unfortunate. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please keep your false accusations to yourself. I am including what the source says. I did not attempt to insert references to support your claim of brain cancer that clearly did not support that contention. At least admit that much, since it's clearly what happened. You cannot state with any confidence or certainty that "natural causes" is not the cause of death and anything that attempts to lessen the statement released at her death is unsupported, nor can you provide sourcing to support your contention that the prison statement is not definitive. You can only state what the source says. Anything else is synthesis, to add any "disclaimer" to it is unsupported and dishonest. Follow what the sources say, that is all that is available to you to say. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You two are priceless, really. If we all got on as well as you ladies did, WP would be a distant memory. This is about semantics, it seems.

Here's how I see it: To quote the prison announcement with the cause of death being "natural causes" is not incorrect, because that it what the prison announced, and the statement is there for the record. Was it actually natural causes and not brain cancer? I don't know (but, in my opinion, probably not). What does the death certificate say the cause of death was? We don't know, and we can't speculate on it because it's not on the record (like the prison announcement was). A cited source vs. speculation on what the official COD on the death certificate (which isn't as yet available)... it's a no-brainer. If the death certificate COD can be unearthed, then it should be added and referenced. Until then, it is fine to quote the official prison source, because that's all we have so far.

Now, that was all about the content of the edit; period. No "false accusations", no "edit warring". Neither one of you is going to get banned from WP, so (& I hate to beat a dead horse) you're going to have to co-exist, and even edit together (shudder ;.) Responses? Doc9871 (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's okay to quote the prison official. That was never the issue. The issue is that the article as it stands give the impression that what the spokesperson stated as the cause of death was the official cause of death. And it isn't the official cause of death because that's impossible. The prison official couldn't have known the official cause of death because (a) the death certificate hadn't been completed yet because (B) an autopsy hadn't been performed yet. All I insist on is that the article no longer gives the impression that "natural causes" was the official cause of death. Which, BTW - it never would be because of the co-morbidity issues Atkins had going on. Allowing the statement to stay as is, is *not* in the best interest of WP *or* the readers of the article. Regardless...I've taken this to mediation and am hoping for it to all get sorted out there. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is "natural causes"? Everybody dies of something, not just "because". To have the official, death certificate COD listed here (or any and all articles) seems like a lot to commit to. "Official cause of death" on every bio page? Come on now... Doc9871 (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, uh...hmmm...that isn't even close to what I said. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

But it is what you've implied. There is no "official" autopsy released. There is no definitive proof that one was ever done. I would point anyone to the comments made above in the Talk:Susan Atkins#Death? section on this by Lisapollison. She states "Natural Causes is all we can verify right now. Based on some letters her husband sent out to supportive websites, there is some doubt that she even still had cancer at the time of her death. He had stated she was in remission and that further treatment for the cancer had been cancelled as a result. This was in August. Sometimes when people have suffered a long illness, the cause of death is not the illness itself but something as simple as their heart stopped beating AKA Cardiac Arrest - that would be natural causes. All it means is that her death was not the result of trauma, acute illness, accident or homicide. She was in her 60's and had gone through some pretty physically demanding treatments for her cancer. Chemo and Radiation often leave the body in a weakened state. It would be speculation to say that the cancer was the cause of her death. If she was under the care of a doctor at the time of her death, and she was, they can simply write natural causes if they want to on the death certificate. let's not dramatize this. Her death was expected and anticipated. it is why she was pushing for compassionate release." There is no proof that her body didn't just stop functioning, which is what natural death means. There is no reference to support that Atkins' death was not attended by a physician. Considering that death was expected, there is nothing to say that the physician who attended her death did not sign a death certificate. Meanwhile, my issue remains inserting what amounts to opinion or editor-assessment on what the prison statement said. In the absence of conflicting sourcing, we only have that. There is nothing that I can find in Wikipedia that says we are obligated to supply our own interpretation of what an announcement means. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing can be added within the sourced sentence that wasn't in the source to begin with, which I see as another issue. To even make the statement about the official cause of death would necessitate being on its own, and with a , as it is original research... Doc9871 (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Still not the point... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the point - I'm specifically talking about this. Editors are not allowed to enter, e.g. "the official cause of Atkins' death as listed on her death certificate has not been released to the public" when that is simply not in the source. This makes the source invalid, and is totally inappropriate. If this were proper, any editor could add anything they wanted to within a cited passage in WP and not have to support it, because it "just became cited". No, ma'am... Doc9871 (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I just did a search to see if any sources at all stated that cancer was the cause of death. I could not find even one. It is considered original research to say anything else right now. We are not supposed to be here to report truth. We are supposed to go by what the references tell us. Right now all we have is the announcement that she died from natural causes. So we have to state that. When and if we can find a reliable source saying otherwise we can add it. Until that time we have to go with what we have which is she died of natural causes. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this comment says it all.; 'Sorry, but that's not good enough. As it stands, the statment that she died of natural causes gives the impression that is the official COD. It's not. This is an encyclopedia, and the material in it needs to be encyclopedic. The statement needs to be reworded regardless of what can be cited - period". (Bolding by me) That is a wrong way to look at things here. We go by what is cited, not by what we think the truth is. The article says she was dealing with brain cancer. We shouldn't believe that our readers will not consider this as part of the possible reasons for the death. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Doc, I agree. Reducing the sentence to "A prison spokesperson announced to reporters that her death was due to natural causes" is sufficient and based on the source material currently available it's the most that can be said. There is no claim that it is anything more than someone from the correctional profession, rather than the medical or legal profession, making a general press statement. If anyone gets the impression that it's an "official" COD based on that, it is their misinterpretation, and there's only so much that can be done to avoid readers from misinterpreting this point. Crohnie, I also agree with your comment about "truth". Verifiability is the first aim, and truth is the second. If both can be achieved simultaneously, that's wonderful. If not, we don't step beyond what we can verify. Rossrs (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Folks, there are already all kinds of things in WP articles that aren't verifiable. It's just as wrong here as it is wrong in the Bundy article to leave the impression that the Rule version of Cowart's statement is the actual version *just because the Rule version is verifiable*. I don't need to be lectured about truth vs. verifiability in SP - I know all that (I've been here longer than a number of you, after all). And it is not the problem of the reader to be able to understand that what they are reading isn't the official COD - the statement as it is in the article is misleading, therefore, it is up to the editors of this article to make sure it is not misleading. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people who read WP articles do it to get information right now, not so they have to look up all the references to see what a statement in the article *really* means. At this point, I think it would be best to just leave out "natural causes", leave it that she died, and keep the statement from the husband (which I tried already to do last night, but it was reverted). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to come comment on this. Seems the question is whether or not to somehow state the fact that we can't find an announcement of the official cause of death, and if so, how it should be worded. Two facts bear on this in my mind: 1) That an official death certificate COD isn't always available in the press for all notable individuals who have died, and we often have to rely on whoever the press is relying on to tell us what happened; and 2) that, in reference to the specific wording being pushed: whether or not the official death certificate COD has been "released to the public" isn't something we can determine based on our own inability to find sources for it. The explanation all the available sources seem to rely on is the prison spokesperson's, so it seems like we can rely on that too. Qualifying the cause as being according to that spokesperson seems perfectly legit for a Wikipedia article. No source found thus far includes any disqualifier saying that "no official COD has been released", so this indicates to me that we don't need to either. The level of officiality of the information we report, if that's a word, isn't always to the level of a legally-binding document. That's not the standard of verifiability on Wikipedia. Our standard is reliable sources, so we can and do simply use the information they report. If they think their source is acceptable then so do we. Finally, on my #2 point, the fact that we can't find a source that states a possible release of the official COD doesn't mean it wasn't released at all. Maybe it was, but the press never reported it, and we don't really know that for sure either. All we know is that we can't find it, and to say in the article that it must not exist, just because we can't find it, seems like WP:SYN, or something similar. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:00, 25 Jan 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen - It's common, and usually desirable, to support statements by referring to policies and guidelines, otherwise it reads only as someone's opinion. There is nothing new in that approach so it should not be taken personally or construed as lecturing. It's also irrelevant how long you have been editing here, so please keep such comments out of any replies you may make to me. Equazcion: I think you've summed it up better than I could have, so I'll just say I endorse your comments above. Rossrs (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! What on earth makes you think I was addressing you specifically, Rossrs? (that really made me chuckle, thanks for the comic relief - seriously ;-) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment directly followed mine and addressed a point that several editors, including myself, had made about truth/verifiability, so I'll take it as a given that I was one of the editors that you feel was lecturing you. I replied on that basis. The second part of my comment was preemptive, but you seem to have missed that, probably while you were "LOL"ing. I didn't and don't suppose you were talking specifically to me, or only to me, and so I used the words "replies you may make to me". I didn't anticipate that you'd misread it so badly, which only makes the tone of your reply even more hilarious. Your comment about how long you've been editing, was irrelevant and inappropriate regardless of who it was aimed at, and it was your choice to throw it out for anyone to see. You shouldn't try to bolster your own case by attempting to diminish the opinions of other editors simply because they may not have racked up the same number of editing hours that you have. It serves no useful purpose to flavour your comments with little asides like that. So, we've both had a good laugh and should move on. My initial comment was solely about the article, you responded with a personal reaction, and I commented on that. We're now off-topic and it's time to steer it back. We should be discussing how to improve the Susan Atkins article. Rossrs (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

In an attempt to mitigate the drama I can see starting here, I'm going to answer for SRQ in the manner she would: "You're misinterpreting everything I've said and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop making unfounded assumptions. They border on personal attacks and incivility." There, now that we've gotten that out of the way, it would be great if we could all stick to discussing the content of this article rather than commenting on each others' comments, whether to call them "comic relief" or "hilarious" or unwarranted in some other way. If there's nothing left to say about the article then let's all just keep quiet. Silence is golden. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:13, 26 Jan 2010 (UTC)

"I'm going to answer for SRQ in the manner she would". Wow. And that's sticking to dicussing the content, how? Exactly how is inflaming things more by saying something I wasn't going to say and in a manner I wasn't going to answer at all helpful? I suggest you look at your own comments above as completely "unwarranted" and not presume to speak for anyone - especially when you speak for someone in the negative manner you did. Not cool and completely out of line. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, I said what I wanted to say to SkagitRiverQueen and she replied to me and said what she wanted to say. If we disagree, we disagree. Answering "in the manner she would", what can I say? I wouldn't ever want anyone to "answer in the manner that I would", regardless of their intentions. Not a good approach. I hope that SkagitRiverQueen and I have both said what we thought needed saying and are moving on. As I said in my most recent comment, back to Susan Atkins. Rossrs (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Susan Who? Is that what this is all about? Oh, right, Susan Atkins... gotcha! Doc9871 (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A-T-K-I-N-S. Repeat after me : "Su.... san At..... kins". With us now, Doc? (Heaven help us when we get to "Pat...ric...ia Kren-win...kel" or eeek, "Les...lie Van Hou...ten" ) Rossrs (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Would (gulp!) Bobby Beausoleil create such a stir on his page? "Bow-suh-lay", or "Bhew-sohlie"? "Bow-silly"? Egads! Doc9871 (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bow-sill-lay. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup, mademoiselle... Doc9871 (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Vous êtes la bienvenue, Monsieur. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

More

Huh - why was the cause of death I added, as identified by her husband on Larry King Live removed? Is it subjudice still? Or are tv journalist interviews not as authoritative as print media ones on Wiki? (Edward)(203.96.104.140 (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

No, it is non-authoritative and unsourced. Her husband is not an authority on causes of death and does not reflect an official statement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The source was Larry King Live and the words were quoted. I think this article was moving away from a neutral POV. Why on earth would a statement from prison officials e taken as having any credibility. They're not Drs, nor next of kin so are far less likely to have any clue as to cause of death - especially soon afte the fact before autopsies have occurred. They also have a vested interest in obscuring the facts given the conflict of interest in that they might well face legal suits if it was to do with inadequate care or treatment. The official view was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It seems like you are working from a belief Wiki would publish that view over one reported by Larry King from say the person who actually looks after Iraqs weapons? Just because a Govt official said it versus a private individual. James Whitehouse is authoritative as he would certainly as NOK have seen the coroners verdict. I checked Wiki policy and found this which seemed salient;

"Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." So I guess the question is whether the Larry King Live show is a reliable source and/or gives James Whitehouse authoritativeness - the program producers clearly thought he knew something about his wifes cause of death, since they directly asked him the cause in front of millions of viewers - and he did not disqualify himself from answering the question in front of millions of viewers. As a lawyer whose livelihood depends on upholding a high standard of integrity and credibility I'm somewhat doubtful he would have lied. I believe the info should be contained in the article and to not do so creates bias that is potentially advantageous to the Prison service in litigatio contexts - thoughts of other eds welcomed. Edward (203.96.104.161 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

First of all, you didn't add a source, you only said that's where it came from, so it wasn't given a source citation. Secondly, let's not be absurd with the hyperbole. This has nothing to do with Iraq, so please do not muddy the waters with supposition regarding that. You don't seem to have entertained the possibility that her husband was not speaking from a medical opinion, and as a lawyer, he isn't a medical authority. He can only speak to what he believes. Undoubtedly her death was hastened by cancer, but without an official announcement, we can only use what sources are available. Whitehouse's belief isn't authoritative. Atkins' death was attended by medical personnel, the warden didn't give his personal opinion speaking for the prison. The only thing we can reliably report here is what was officially given when she died, the statement was from the medical people overseeing her death. There is no evidence of a coroner's report and there is no evidence that James Whitehouse speaks from that. The program's producers do not control what is broadcast, unless it violates FCC code, so if Whitehouse made a statement, it does not mean that it is authoritative nor that it is accurate. This has nothing to do with supporting the prison, it has everything to do with an officially released COD, which is not something Whitehouse is qualified, or endorsed to do. Do you actually think that any of the public statements Atkins' husband, be he a lawyer or not, are not biased? Until there is an official cause of death that rules out the initial COD, it cannot be changed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The link can easily be found by going to Kings website. The initial cause of death is not actually a cause of death - it is an initial statement about a broad category. Natural causes under law includes cancer and virtually anything that is not violent. It merely speaks to not dying from violence so has little to do with identifying any actual cause of death - rather with excluding certain causes. So Whitehouse merely elaborated, he clearly has greater information by the date of the King interview (3 months after death). As I understand it all persons dying in State institutions are required to have coroners declare a specific cause of death - something to do with human right treaties, so I'm quite sure an autopsy would have established this by the King Interview. I'm not sure why this matter is a bone of contention when a decent source exists, especially as much else in the article does not cite sources or needs verification. I might check to see if other articles required production of Autopsy or coroners reports to verify death cause or whether family reports as regards cause delivered via media are normally sufficient. Edward (203.96.104.161 (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.104.161 (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC) That didn't take long. Here we have a report Patti Tate (one of Susans victims) died from breast cancer, with no reference. Does this need removal too? Or is it OK as victims or supporters likely wrote it even though they lack medical training. http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Doris_Tate Edward (203.96.104.161 (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

It is not the responsibility of anyone else to go and hunt up a source to support what another person decides to stick in an article. See WP:PROVEIT. And as I've said ad nauseum, there has been no released results from a coroner's inquest, thus it can't be sourced. It is a bone of contention because one cannot just come in and add a cause of death at whim, and Whitehouse's statement is not an official cause of death. There is no decent source, it's just what Whitehouse wants to state, with no support to suggest it is in any way official. And just for your edification, that other stuff exists is not a valid reason to add unsupported speculation to this article. And technically, Patti Tate was not one of Atkins' victims. She was the sister of a victim. In most high profile cases, a citation for the official cause of death should be present. All content requires a source. No one removed anything from this article that was sufficiently source. Your addition was not sufficiently sourced and Whitehouse's statement is not an officially released cause of death. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

And the transcript says his response was "She had a malignant brain tumor". It does not say "She died from a malignant brain tumor." His response in no implies a cause of death. It needs to be an officially released cause of death, not Whitehouse's half answer to the question. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

OK I nearly give up, not wasting more time researching and providing good sources and links. I provided a good source showing natural causes was not the final verdict and that the coroner was reviewing it to come up with a cause of death. I then provided a King transcript from CNN showing Whitehouses answer to the direct question of what she died from. If someone can't accept a clear statement to a cause of death from the well informed next of kin being included, with the qualifier "alleged", and removes an update that is doubly sourced and only uses the word "alleged" cause of death, lest there is still any uncertainty despite compelling verified refs that this quite reasonable cause was alleged by her obvious Estate Trustee - I give up. I now believe this page is being singled out for unreasonable standards of verifiability, and only on certain facts. As Wildhartlivies page says the standard here is verifiability not truth. I gave two media sources - one verifying that at the time the statement of "natural causes" was made they had not established the cause of death and that this inquiry was in motion, which put the existing statement re cause in context. I then provided the most verifiable update on issue status -the statement on Larry King. It is splitting hairs to say that her husband did not more or less produce a medical report to back him up. Noone does that, and in no way did Whitehouse reply with a "half answer" nor was his respnse what you cite. Here is the exchange verbatim KING: What did she die of? WHITEHOUSE: It was a malignant brain tumor.. Most English speakers would understand in context of the questionasked of him that he meant she was killed by brain cancer - or maybe I'm Irish? I also note this silliness has found it's way onto Charlie Mansons page - where it is in my opinion inappropriately mentioned that Susan died "from natural causes". When it's his page and that was not a verified fact (per refs I provided today), and the corrections media statement clearly stated that investigations to determine the cause of death were ongoing by the coroners office. The only thing I can imagine is that people may wish to make it appear Susan died nicely, versus victims, which is why the strong challenge to use of references and facts in context. Oh and Patti Tate is technically a victim, otherwise she would not have been on the victims register, and entitled to present impact statements to the Parole Board. Why are sources cited - LA Times and CNN deemed improper by you? Yet a New York newspaper item that gave less detail skewing things is cited. Your edit removing my update seems to me uncalled for and impulsive. It was salient, factual and referenced. You can have your way, but I'd say you'd seek other Eds advice if improving the page to be current and accurate is a goal. Which I believe I was. I shall watch to see if a more reasonable approach is taken. If not I may obtain the Coroners report - money I could well not want to spend, hope this excess burden of proof also extends to whoever wrote that Patti Tate died of breast cancer - sans refs. Edward (203.96.104.161 (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC))—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.104.161 (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, tldr. He did state that she was killed by a brain tumor, he said she had one. Again, there was nothing you posted that referred to the official release of a cause of death. Hubby's opinion or how he wants to slant it doesn't count. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

He did not say "she had" (subject : brain tumour) - he used the word "it" which is a definitive tying his noun to the interrogative of the prior question. This is what he has alleged as causal, even more strongly so by his inclusion of the adjective "malignant". The current article is out of date and misleading, as the statement by the prison official is out of context. It does not explain that investigations were ongoing as the prison official did. The article therefore misleads by not telling the whole truth. My revision corrected that with proper sources - to reflect that the cause of death was not finalised and that her Husband had updated the media several months on. This simply appears as discrimination - that you'd be happy to let an untrained prison staffer statement to media be reported but not the husbands to equally reputable media. It is a specious argument that he'd speak with bias about cause of death and that the prison would not. Wiki policy only says to attach flags if there is cause to doubt a sources report - I can imagine no cause to lie about cause of death. Except for the prison to do so, or rather to gloss it (to avoid litigation). And legally the husband would have a right to access more of her medical info than random prison workers. All the prison was saying is that she did not die of violence, that is hardly worth an inclusion in wiki at all to my view - few people do. Readers should be able to acces the latest most verifiable info. That would be Whitehouses statement. Or at the least if his report is not worth anything to Wiki, sans documented medical reports, then the readers should be left with the info and link to the LA times story which lets them know natural causes was not the final finding which would necessarily be much more detailed, as investigations were ongoing. My question is why mislead when there's no need? We don't need to suggest a cause of cancer but the article should reflect what info is pitched by an accepted source. If that's a prison Official only, it should take care to cite the fact that the coroner would be reviewing her case to give a definitive cause. As it reads "natural causes" sounds like a done deal, end of story - when it clearly isn't per LA Times. I think this is disrespectful to the deceased and living relatives. I wonder too if Whitehouse might not have a case against wiki for allowing claims of bias or implying that his alleged cause of death is inaccurate on this publicly viewable talk page. Defamation only requires insinuation of wrongdoing eg lying to millions of tv viewers. And that this causes upset. Given he's in the mourning stage I'm sure if he dropped in here and found prison officials incompletely cited and himself disqualified due to insinuations of bias or not knowing what he's talking about then he would be aggrieved. I raise this matter to help you see the imbalance as I understand neutrality requires accurate proportionate representation of significant views. Edward (203.96.104.237 (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

I think the Larry King statement can be included.

• KING: What did she die of?
• WHITEHOUSE: It was a malignant brain tumor.

That seems a pretty clear answer to the question. I'm not saying we should state this to be the official cause of death, but we can certainly include the fact that he said this, IMO. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:29, 27 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Mediation requested

FYI, a request for mediation has been initiated (not by me) at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-25/Susan Atkins. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:08, 25 Jan 2010 (UTC)

It can certainly be filed, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree to it. The opinions expressed here today convince me that there is no need. I do not need a lecture on what goes on a death certificate, nor who signs it. The mediation request states that this article needs to say "however, the official cause of Atkins' death as listed on her death certificate has not been released to the public." There is no need to escalate this to mediation when opinions have said that this sort of "disclaimer" qualifies as synthesis. No one mentioned my points that it is highly likely her death was attended by a physician, who could possibly have signed a death certificate. If that is the case, the cause given is official. There is no demand to autopsy in an attended death of someone expected to die. There have been no references presented that any of the facts being touted are true - no reference to an autopsy, no reference to "official cause of death", no reference to a released death certificate. I won't waste my time being dragged to mediation to try and force me to agree to including synthesis. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I know the family, and have been told some circumstances. I believe (though have not been advised either way) that an autopsy is certain to have been ordered, due to some issues. According to the next of kin Susans' brain tumour, which had been in remission following treatment, rapidly grew again shortly prior to her decease, as indicated by worsening neurological symptoms. They believe this cancer was the cause of death. They used to monitor or participate in this page, but apparently found it a challenge, so I'm sure they won't mind that in the interests of accuracy I have attempted to clarify the matter. I realise I am not an official source, but hope this info may be considered by any mediator or useful. [[Aileen]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.59.119 (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No one has stated she died of old age. We can only report what is carried in reliable sources, and the only source we have that approaches that says "natural causes", which can certainly apply when a death is expected. There is no reliable source that supports including an authopsy mention and none that states cancer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tate/LaBianca

I think all of the "citation needed" bits at the end of the Tate/LaBianca section can be sourced through the Bugliosi/Gentry book "Helter Skelter." PurpleChez (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have that book, but if you do, all you have to do is find the page numbers the "citation needed" tags correspond to and insert the references. You seem to have been around WP for awhile, no? Doc9871 (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Motivations section

New to editing, but the Motivations section doesn't seem to be about Atkins at all. Is is appropriate? Katiedert (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm deleting the Motivations section because it isn't about Atkins. Katiedert (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wildhartlivie: "motivations are for the crimes which she committed, whether it was specifically hers or the overall." Doesn't that mean it's more appropriate on the article about the crimes? This article is not about Atkins. That paragraph is about Manson and the trial. The information in the paragraph is good and appropriate - but not in this article. Katiedert (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And what exactly would you suggest be said about her motivations? This outlines the motivations for the crime. Under the circumstances, effectively, her hands were a stand-in for Manson. She was following the orders of Charles Manson, she was a devout follower at that time. Manson's reasons were the reasons for Atkins, Van Houten, Krenwinkel and Watson. It was a package deal. The Manson article explores this in depth, but as far as Atkins is concerned, these are the motivations. Manson's crimes were her crimes, Manson's trial was her trial. The other defendants in the trial, which includes Atkins, were all on equal footing legally as Manson was. What would you say? This is the motivation, this was what she did. When you cut out that section, the whole flow of the article is interrupted. This is a step in the process of what happened. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember to not bite the newcomer, please. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not chastise me. There is no biting of a newcomer here. Since when is asking what someone would have it say equate with incivility? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We'd probably be remiss as encyclopedia editors if we didn't include motivation in an article on a (prominent) murderer. Whether the motivation could be attributed merely to Manson's motivations transferred to Atkins, this article still needs to provide motive info. I don't really see WHL's comment as significantly bitey, and the situation on this talk page and all others where you two both participate would probably be better served by not pointing out such things about each other, whether deserved or not, considering your history. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:15, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of "history", I would have been remiss as a Wikipedia editor to not point out that her tone was bitey. Someone needed to do it. Indeed, if *I* was Katiedert, I would have certainly been put off by her opening statement. Katiedert admitted she was new to editing, and is only looking for some answers. To reply to her the way WHL did is exactly what Lar was talking about when he told her recently to, "Change your approach. You need to be kinder and gentler." There was nothing wrong with what I said to her - it was short, to the point, civil, and in no way any kind of personal attack (nor was it chastisement). Only a gentle reminder. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Someone" need not be you. Leave it to others, or tell a third party to look at the situation and determine if a gentle reminder is warranted. A gentle reminder from you, at this point, will not be taken as such, as you should hopefully understand. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:39, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a child, nor am I a new editor. I am perfectly capable of determining if a gentle reminder is needed. Why you're making this a much bigger deal that it was (or needed to be) is anyone's guess. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with your capability. It has to do with the deliverer of the message being someone who notoriously is seen by the warned party as an instigator. This goes both ways. You shouldn't be warning each other in any situation, because no matter how they're worded, they come off as something else entirely. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:45, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. It really has to do with (1) The delivery of the message, and (2) how the recipient of the message receives it. If something so simply and gently worded as "Remember to not bite the newcomer, please" is seen as "something else entirely", then I'm thinking it's the recipient who is reading some serious bad faith and much more into what is actually there. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The assumption of good faith was abandoned long ago on both sides. That's the situation we're left to deal with, and the best way to do that would be to avoid any and all confrontation. Lar's informal restriction was placed with that in mind. Realizing that it isn't "officially" in effect anymore, it's still probably the best way to proceed, as the situation and feelings haven't exactly changed. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:05, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Let's be realistic, please: a "gentle reminder" from you, SRQ, to WHL concerning WP guidelines (or policy, for that matter) is really not going to look that way to most, now is it? Not to WHL, and not to many of the multitudes of editors watching this endless saga (whether they comment on it or not). Asking a third party to comment on a perceived "bitey" tone from WHL is so much more advisable and constructive considering the growing history here, I think... Doc9871 (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Enough already. Yes, yes, you are all experienced editors. OK? There, there....feel better? Good, now cut it out with the backbiting. As experienced editors you should know that talk pages are reserved for discussion about the article and it's potential improvement. I think we can all agree this discussion jumped off those rails many many lines ago. Take a time out please. Consider refraining from making any further statements ABOUT OTHER EDITORS here for 3 days and if you still feel that strongly then - have at it again. Usually that's all it takes. I realize we're all grumpy about losing an hour to some daylight scheme but really, enough. If you were all over my house, I'd make you a nice cup of tea and take you out to count alligator Lizards. it's some odd local Lizard census thing I signed up for. May you all have a nicer rest of the dayLiPollis (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been pretty "heated" for the last seven hours since the last post and yours. Thanks for "breaking it up", kind madam! Doc9871 (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

... Thanks for the input, those of you who responded to my question. I understand Atkins' motivations for the crimes are an important component of the article. Is there a way that section could be framed differently, to emphasize Atkins more? I think there may be, but I don't want to cause any trouble.

And I was a little put off, just for the record. I'm just getting my feet wet. Thanks, folks. Katiedert (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the motivations section does need more info on Atkins; anyone got any books on her out there? Just needs some reliably sourced material, really. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a pretty extensive archive on all issues related to the Manson cases. If we could build some consensus here as to what information it is the editors feel needs to be included, I could be of some help to you. The thing is, Susan's own statements and recollections changed significantly over time. Compare a direct quote from her from the late 70's after her Christian conversion and long after she was self-assessed to be "Free onf Charlie's influence" and then compare that with direct quotes from her as filtered through her last husband and you get the equivalent of night and day. What her motivations were, according to her, varied enormously depending upon her audience and what it was she was hoping to gain from them. Her own book "Child of Satan, Child of God" is pretty interesting and close enough in time to the events to be of considerable value. Her stated motivation for writing the book was to unburden herself of the guilt she felt and as a message to other fellow downtrodden people that they too could be "saved." As such, it is probably one of the more candid and accurate accounts from her perspective. SO long as one understand the intended audience she was speaking to (Christians she hoped would support her rehabilitation and eventual parole).

The other book I highly recommend just for a good overall accounting of the crimes is Greg King's book "The Life of Sharon Tate" it is half a biography of Tate and half an accounting of the crimes. King's book is a treasure trove of well-referenced and properly cited data. If a person hasn't bothered to read his book, they should stop talking, stop writing, order the thing and read it. It's that good. He manages to include information uncovered by controversial sources without dragging the controversy into the picture. (Yes, I am referring to Bill "Nellie" Nelson). King doesn't try to argue any one theory of the crime to any greater extent than any other. He doesn't go for the "They did it to spring Bobby" angle or the "It was all Tex's idea" theory or any of the dozen others that have come in and out of favor over time. So in summary I would say, for the purposes of understanding Susan's motivations, the best two sources to begin with (but not end with) in my opinion would be Susan's own book and Greg King's. After that there are a few others but it would be best to begin with those.LiPollis (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Lisa - Atkins story did change significantly over the years. I also agree that "Child of Satan, Child of God" is an excellent reference. I first read it in 1979 - and today, I still feel it is one of the better references on the Manson murders. Isn't the King book actually titled, "Sharon Tate and the Manson Murders"? Thanks for your input here. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You are indeed correct about the title of Greg King's book. I just checked Amazon and saw the darn thing is out of print and expensive to buy used. Now I thoroughly regret lending my best copy to a fellow Manson archivist who never returned it. I believe she has 3 other rare books of mine that she hasn't returned as well. Let that be a lesson to you all! Always have a back-up copy when it comes to books on this subject or other historical crimes. they tend to go out of print and up and price .. and, be careful who you lend them to. If they are truly valuable, and some Manson-topic books are, don't lend them even to your mother. Luckily I bought a second copy to mark up. This is slightly off topic, but I also recommend keeping your copies pristine if you can and instead of marking up the book itself, photocopy the entire book (index and all) and use THAT as your mark-up copy. the day may come when you wish to sell your rare books and you will want to have your mark-up copy in reserve for your own research. It also prevents you from frequently bending pages in paperbacks like Susan's Book. SO now that I see Greg King's book is so pricey, I suggest checking your local library for it. if you have any real interest in Susan Atkins and her crimes and how to improve this article, his book is an excellent place to begin if you want the big picture laid out for you in a coherent manner. Also, his index and notes are beyond anything you can get in any other manson-related book. They will lead you to primary resources easily. Thanks for correcting me, SkagitRiverQueen. LiPollis (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - I saw it was OOP and pricey as well, but I bought it anyway. AFAIC, an OOP first edition hardback is worth the $50+ pricetag. I'm a big book collector and Amazon.com used book-sales is my friend! :-D Another great source for used OOP books is, of course, eBay - but I have also found some really obscure titles that you can't find anywhere else at eBay's half.com. Although I did score a really hard to find copy of "The Phantom Prince: My Life With Ted Bundy" (written by his clueless girlfriend) at eBay a couple of years ago. I think I paid as much as $40 bucks for it, but it was worth it. It was kind of funny...some doofus actually tried to threaten me not to bid higher because he/she wanted the book worse than I did. LOL! --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.104.140 (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC) 

It should also be noted that Susan Atkins had always maintained that the reasoning for the murders was the copycat motive, to free Bobby BeauSoleil and not the Helter Skelter race war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.74.62.84 (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean, outside of her grand jury testimony? 50.111.49.173 (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Fake mug shot photo

The photo shown as Susan's mug shot is most certainly NOT her, but an actress who played her in a Manson Family biopic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.39.28 (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The top shot is most certainly Atkins. Are you referring to the original arrest mug shot? You offer no links or refs to your claim. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

The IP is referring to the "mug shot" in this section - and it is most certainly not Atkins. I will try to track down the source, but this should be removed as it is clearly not her. Doc talk 01:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was wrong. Apparently this is Atkins, and the mug is widespread enough so that there's nothing we can do about it. Weird, because I thought the same thing, that it was a fake. Oh well... Doc talk 02:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe that the picture titled "mug shot of Atkins taken after her arrest" is a picture of Susan Atkins.I believe that the picture is of a person who portrayed Susan in issue 20 of Pop Smear magazine. The article recreated the killings in a photo journalist stle and participants were played by Maynard Keenan as Charles Manson as well as Dick Manitoba,Wayne Kramer,Arthur Kane,Texas Terri,Jeff Dahl. I do not have the name of the person portraying SusanI can post a link to copies of pictures from that issue if required —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.4 (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect Garwain is correct. This is a certified mug shot: http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/ae249/houserascal/boone1.gif - can we crop/put this up instead? If you look at the facial features of many other newspaper photos of Atkins back at the time of the arrests, the current photo has many dissimilarities. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

I have always thought the picture looked suspicious, and only when I looked elsewhere did I see that the image was credited as being Atkins on multiple sites. So, yes: could you post the links to Pop Smear? If it is indeed not Atkins the picture should probably just go. Doc talk 20:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two links, the first is to a copy of the magazine cover showing Maynard as Manson and describing the content including the manson article. http://www.fourtheye.net/2009/05/maynard-as-charles-manson/#comments The pictures from the article ar then posted at http://toolband-ru.livejournal.com/58105.html this is confirmed by one of the comments on the first link. The person portraying Susan is seen in pics with maynard Keen as well as in the "mug shot". I think there may be a copyright issue with the fake mug shot as the argument of public domain would apply to the pic if it was a mug shot but not if it is from a magazine shoot. I think it should be removed Garwain (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Gone. Good research! Doc talk 07:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No one (on) the face of the Earth worked as hard as Susan did to right an unrightable wrong."

Wow. According to this not even Jesus Christ worked as hard as this lady. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.46.2 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That was a quote from her husband, who is understandably biased in his assertion of her righting some unspeakable wrongs. The source provided is a dead link, so I removed it and added a citation needed tag. I'm sure it's out there and I'm looking for it... Doc talk 22:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Leave it. Removing it was the right thing to do.88.110.123.30 (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

@Doc9871: I can look for a source on that. I have a number of works relating to the Manson Family cases and if there is a reliable source on that in existence I can look for it. I'm not sure how relevant it is though since it's just one person's opinion on her and not something that was really impactful on either her biography or on the broader subject of the case. Alicb (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Incarceration

I thought I had read or heard that she was the longest incarcerated person (or maybe female) in the state (or maybe in the USA). Does anyone know? If so, it should be mentioned in the article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: hmm my understanding is that Sadie couldn't be the longest incarcerated person. She was convicted locked up at the same time as the other two women and Manson and they are all still alive and still locked up, so they have to have her beat on that record, right? At the time of her death, she had been incarcerated for 40 years, which is a long time but almost 50% less than someone Alicb (talk)

@Alicb: Thanks. (1) I meant at the time of her death, she was the longest-incarcerated person. (Probably others subsequently "beat her" and broke that record.) (2) For some reason, I don't think they were all locked up at the same time and, thus, they were all "equal". I forget the various factors (maybe posting bond? maybe one girl ran away for some time?, etc.), but I don't think they all came in to prison at the same exact time. (3) You stated: she had been incarcerated for 40 years, which is a long time but almost 50% less than someone. I don't understand this statement. Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Oh that's a good point. I mean, we know that she isn't the longest incarcerated person because the man who holds that record has his own Wikipedia article and he was incarcerated for 86 years -- half again as much time as Sadie's sentence. If you accumulate her other unrelated prison stays (that is, before the trial that made her famous) she may be the longest serving female inmate in the state of California though, so I think you were right and I was wrong about that part of it. Sadie, Katie, and Patricia were arrested at the same time but I think she had an extensive prior criminal record including car thefts and the murder of Gary Hinman. Alicb (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is the source that you may have read which backs up your point.http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/25/california.manson.atkins/index.html?eref=rss_us. Good catch! Alicb (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Alicb: Thanks. (1) When they talk about longest-incarcerated, I assume that they mean "continuously". Not "adding together" different discrete prison sentences to come to one total aggregate amount. (2) I think Atkins was arrested and jailed for some other matter (something about stolen cars?). In jail, she bragged to some fellow inmates about her involvement in the Manson murders. As a result of this, the rest of the Manson gang was later rounded up and imprisoned. So, I think that Atkins was in jail first; and the others followed a little bit later. Thus, Atkins had the longest incarceration (beating the others by a matter of a few days or weeks). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is the guy you may be referring to: Leroy Nash. Nash "was an American career criminal and one of the oldest prisoners in history as well as one of those longest incarcerated (for a total of 70 years), spending almost 80 years behind bars. He was the oldest American on death row at the time of his death in February 2010." Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The Patricia Krenwinkel article states: "Following the death of fellow Manson gang member, Susan Atkins, Krenwinkel is now the longest-incarcerated female inmate in the California penal system, along with Leslie Van Houten." Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Did you want to add this information to the article? Alicb (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Book

User:Ewulp, you know very well what I'm doing. I'm removing text that I added because I decided that it was a poor addition. I made the mistake of adding information to an article without reading it first to see if the information was already present. It is, so I never should have made the change in the first place. Please go do whatever it is you would be doing if I had never edited the article. Thanks. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Once you add text to an article, it's part of the article and you no longer "own" it. I challenge you to show me where the existence of Atkins's book The Myth of Helter Skelter is "information already present" in the article. There is no good reason to leave this publication out of her biography. Ewulp (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)