Talk:Tex Watson

Big section on his use of speed

Big section on his use of speed - seems like too much info re: this topic. 71.90.92.4 (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it a Wikipedia policy that articles must be written in some sort of pseudo-English? A couple of hours ago I corrected the illiterate expression "became disinterested in school" to "lost interest in school," and now it's been reverted. Whoever did this must also have become disinterested in school at an early age. -- I just made a few more improvements to the languate of the section on "Early Life." without changing the content. If those edits are reverted too, I'll have a better understanding of why this site is as deeply flawed as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.118.225 (talk • contribs)

Um, please look up the word "disinterest". It means something different than "lose interest" and the phrase is not an illiterate expression. Please take a minute to read WP:CIVIL and move on to something that better challenges your intellect and "languate" skills. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

LaBerge reference

This is ridiculous. I can see the point about the self published source (not that I think it makes it unreliable when backed up by the other source) but the TV story definitely exists and I'm sure noone would argue that it's been fabricated by some YouTube user. It happens to be on YouTube and yes, that may be a copyvio, but since I can't find the exact date it aired I can't make a proper reference to it without linking to the video. If I knew the date I could make a reference without linking to the video and I don't think anyone would object. The actual source is the news story itself, not YouTube. I restored that source but I don't have the time or energy to fight over this so if you want to revert it again, go ahead but I think it's utterly ridiculous to remove a reliable source just because it's been watched on YouTube. That's certainly not helping to improve the article, and if it gets reverted again I hope some other user agrees with me and restores it. Entheta (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I can't see anything in Wikipedia:Reliable sources which would support the claim that A Current Affair suddenly ceases to be a reliable source just because an admittedly copyright-violating Youtube link has been provided as a convenience to anyone who wishes to check the source. --Stormie (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Glad I'm not the only one who can't make sense of it. Entheta (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the issue. There has been a lot of clamping down on sources like mansonfamilytoday.info, etc. because they contain unofficial and in some cases, possibly, illegally obtained content, thus they are being removed on a widespread basis. This is the basis for the issues with YouTube. It has nothing to do with whether anyone thinks it's been fabricated, but does have everything to do with the fact that the television program A Current Affair is a copyrighted and owned product. As you said, it may be a copyright violation, and that, for the YouTube ref, is the problem. We aren't permitted to disgregard that something may be a copyright violation and in fact, people get blocked for disregarding that. It isn't ridiculous to insist on valid, reliable sources. You're right, the news story is the source, but by using the link to YouTube, it asserts that the clip is legally on YouTube. It can be sourced to the news story itself and it would be fine, but using a YouTube copy of the program isn't fine, that isn't valid. But if you aren't inclined to find the proper sourcing for it, it isn't acceptable to just stick in a YouTube link that also violates copyright law. It has nothing to do with whether the clip is watched on YouTube, it is all about that YouTube, or the YouTube uploader, has no legal right to post portions of a copyrighted television program. If it's important enough to the article to be in it, then it's important enough to be validly sourced. I'm sorry if you find this frustrating, but if you pursue the question with WP:RS/N or an administrator, you're going to get the same answer. Find a way to source it to the original broadcast, but the fact is, we can't post an admittedly copyright-violating clip. References aren't a convenience, they are asserting the validity of the statement. Alternately, the actual parole hearing can be used if the details can be found. There certainly must be something somewhere in news sources or publications that would support this without resorting to a convenience link to YouTube. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well first you cited WP:EL which was completely irrelevant and then you cited WP:RS where I can find nothing about links to copyrighted materials being unacceptable references. I'm trying to be constructive and improve the article by providing sources. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. You seem to be running your own race here, reverting everything for some reason I can't figure out because it obviously has nothing to do with the guidelines you linked to. Entheta (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple things. First of all, review WP:AGF - I'm not jerking your chain here, I'm tell you clearly what the issues are about the links as they pertain to Wikipedia. Your "I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. You seem to be running your own race here" isn't good faith and you aren't getting the real problems I'm trying to explain to you. Read the rationale that I wrote above. It isn't about citing A Current Affair, it is about linking to a bootleg copy of a copyrighted television program. If a link doesn't qualify under WP:EL, it isn't going to qualify under WP:RS. There isn't a magic list on the WP:RS page that says "this website is okay but this website isn't". That you acknowledged that YouTube is a copyright violation for the program is really all that is necessary - that's why you can't link to the page. I suggested to you that you ask any administrator about the YouTube link - or take it to WP:RS/N - because it's as I say - you can't use an illegal copy of a source posted somewhere online to support content. There's no hidden agenda here, but there is awareness that links such as these are being more closely scrutinized and references to valid sources are required. I'm sorry if you think you're being picked on, that's not the case. I've actually been trying to find a source to support this that doesn't break federal law. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Google News provides links to a number of articles regarding the 1990 parole hearing which mention LaBerge. They're all behind paywalls, though. Anyone want to spend a few bucks on them? p.s. this search would seem to date the Current Affair piece to August 8, 1990, if that helps anyone. --Stormie (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. At last someone's being constructive. I would add that as a reference if I thought it wouldn't be reverted. I'll leave it to someone else if they want to try and see if the boss approves. Entheta (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, please review WP:AGF. I clearly explained the problems and stated I was trying to find a usable reliable source. Even if you can't or won't appreciated the issues regarding posting links to copyright violations, do yourself a favor and go ask at WP:RS/N. I'm not taking exception to the actual A Current Affair as the source, it is the link to a site that violates United States copyright law, which Wikipedia, as a whole, takes very seriously. It's not good enough to acknowledge that the link might be a copyright violation but use it anyway. If I didn't take it out, it wouldn't be long before a bot came along and removed it as well. I'm sorry you see this as something other than it is, but basically, that's your problem. This is an issue I've been dealing with for weeks now and it isn't trivial. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, which is why I just suggested adding A Current Affair and the air date, without the YouTube link (I didn't explicity say that but I thougt it was understod that by "that" I was referring to what Stormie just wrote, ie A Current Affair, August 8 1990 and nothing else). So because the problem was YouTube and not A Current Affair and we've figured out the air date I don't see the problem of using that as a source (and just to make sure I'm not misunderstood again, I'm still talking about using it as a source without the YouTube link). Entheta (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Article revision and clean up

editors please be patient, this article was a mess with an almost complete omission of Watson's actions in the murders as well as dead links to a few websites. Fixing this will take a few days as I find books and references. Thanks. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I was completely willing to assume good faith when I saw your first edit summary. I'm a little taken aback by this one, however. I tag scores of articles every week. When I see an article on my watchlist that is increased by nearly 40%, I look to see what is going on. It so happens that in the past on the majority of these Manson related articles that are about living people, WP:BLP has been rather strongly enforced. Some, to the point that large portions of unreferenced content was removed for lack of sourcing. As it is, WP:BLP is a huge issue, none more so than on these crime and criminal related articles. That would also be the reason it was tagged so quickly. Otherwise, WP:BLP people may well come in and remove it and clear the history linking it. So when you call the article whitewashed, or insinuate that it is deficient, which really isn't a helpful comment, it doesn't set up a congenial atmosphere. The mansonfamilytoday.info site is frequently up and down. That was the only website in the article with deadlinks at present. It doesn't help that some of the content added was copied from other, less well referenced articles, or cites copied from another article that were actually taken from a different version of the book. The only article which I can say is correctly and adequately sourced is Charles Manson. The rest were cut and have not been built back up. The burden of evidence through citations falls upon the person adding the content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well what was up was what I'd want if i was this guys poor kids. The article I found simple skipped over the murders and his actions and had a huge section that was a thinly veiled expose of speed as an excuse for his actions. The cut and paste will all be reworked and, agreed its from only so so sourced material but I believe it to be true under the first amendment and I'll back it with a wide variety of cites, not just Helter Skelter. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of points I want to make. In the article, there are facts that are reported differently, depending on the speaker. I changed "Tex Watson is responsible for holding the eight month and a half months pregnant Sharon Tate while Susan Atkins stabbed her to death with Tex also participating" to "Tex Watson held the eight month and a half months pregnant Sharon Tate while Susan Atkins stabbed her to death, with Watson also participating." We shouldn't assign guilt so much in how we write, but let the cited facts speak for themselves. Besides, it's noteworthy to include that at first, Atkins testified at the grand jury hearing that she was the one who stabbed Tate, then rescinded her testimony. Then Watson said he was the one who stabbed Tate. Since there is a verified discrepancy in their statements, it should be noted that way here, too. They were all held equally responsible by law. The other point would be to ensure that you are either calling the subjects in the article by their entire name or the surname only, not by just the first name or nickname. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Section re speed

At 00:32 and 00:33, 9 November 2009, the article's section re Watson's use of "speed" on the murder nights was revised — shortened. The first edit summary was as follows:

reducing, this is most of the article! and an obvioulsy [sic] pov to absolve actions

The second edit summary was this:

pointless and non-sequiter [sic] belongs in speed article not here

The first edit reduced passages that had been quoted from Watson's autobiography — passages in which Watson reported his use of speed on the nights of crime. It also reduced the size of a passage quoted from an October 1969 Los Angeles Magazine article. The magazine passage — whose remainder was eliminated in the second edit — is what was characterized, in the second edit summary, as "pointless and non-sequiter" [sic]. It reported on the possibility of a connection between speed and crime.

As for the statements in the edit summaries:

1. The only reason the speed section constituted "most of the article!" is that the article was a piece of junk, which contained almost no other information at all — and which, incidentally, does not seem to be undergoing any improvement.
2. Having added the speed material to the article myself, I am in a position to say that it was not at all intended to "absolve actions." Watson's autobiography — which reports his speed use — was published over three decades ago. In those thirty-plus years, nobody, to my knowledge, has reported on the speed use. I have seen no reference to it in the many sources I've consulted in the course of quite a bit of work on some Wikipedia Manson material. More importantly — nobody has connected Watson's report with the Los Angeles Magazine article — which was published before the crimes had even been solved. The magazine article makes, in effect, a prediction that the autobiography — published nearly a decade after it — fulfills — and nobody sees any importance in it (countless references to the Manson Family's use of drugs notwithstanding). In short: The quotation of the passage from the Los Angeles Magazine article was just about the opposite of "pointless and non-sequiter."

In a post of 23:00, 8 (?) November 2009, on the present talk header (in the entry headed "Article revision and clean up"), the editor who revised the speed section has repeated what is said in her edit summary. She writes that the "huge section" was "a thinly veiled expose of speed as an excuse for [Watson's] actions." Some persons you just can't fool.

"Sequitur," by the way, ends with "ur," not "er." It's a Latin verb, not a noun.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I could actually care less about spelling errors in a revision line but thanks. I'm also typing with a baby in one hand. Honestly, the entire section about speeds effects does not belong in this article. All of Tex's speed claims should merit only about one paragraph, he's obviously not a trustworthy source!Catherine Huebscher (talk) 2:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not a proper response. I have stated why I think the speed section does belong in the article; you have replied only that "honestly," it doesn't. Stating that Watson is "obviously not a trustworthy source" is also not a response — not even when an exclamation point is at the end of it. Watson either was taking speed — or wasn't. I believe Atkins has confirmed the use of speed on at least one of the murder nights, and I think Linda Kasabian also remarked on it, in the recent Manson documentary on the History Channel.

I hadn't been taking this matter seriously enough to consider undoing your revisions — but the inadequacy and, indeed, offensiveness of your response have made me reconsider. I will be undoing the revisions.

On another note: The material you have added to the article has problems too numerous to mention. I advise you to read Wikipedia's Charles Manson article before you make any more changes.

Lastly: The expression is "I couldn't care less" — as in "I couldn't care less about the baby in your hand." The expression means "I care so little that it would be impossible for me to care less." The mis-locution "I could care less" is an inane corruption of the inverse, which is "as if I could care less."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"In those thirty-plus years, nobody, to my knowledge, has reported on the speed use. I have seen no reference to it in the many sources I've consulted in the course of quite a bit of work on some Wikipedia Manson material" Perhaps because Watson is using it as an excuse or another smoke screen to go along with his Christian life? I think the veracity of anything he writes could be called into question. Because almost no one read that book and its more of a biased novelty book then a clear look at the crimes? Include his quote but an excessive section on speed, as the above editor has pointed out does not make sense here. The article is about Tex unborn baby killer Watson who is the only source who said he used speed aside from perhaps Susan Atkins who was nearly tried for perjury. Nowhere in helter skelter, the definitive Manson book, could I locate, any recounting of their usage of speed on the nights of the murders as Tex mentioned. The article you quote belongs in the main meth page or should be condensed. And please drop the English lessons and/or critiquing my responses to you -you've made your point and it is very boring. Stick to the article.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 1:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If you had any intelligence, you would recognize that what you term my English lessons are presented to you wryly, as suggestions that you learn to think before you speak — but such suggestions are always lost on those who require them. They are also invariably boring to a semi-literate, which you continue to demonstrate yourself to be. You are rude — nothing more or less.

No, wait — you are uninformed as well. Your own revision of 00:28, 9 November 2009, includes the statement that Manson advised Watson to make the murders at Cielo Drive "look heinous" — but the only real source for that is the very Watson autobiography that you term a novelty that was read by "almost no one." (It's possible Watson's trial testimony included it — and that the testimony was reported in Helter Skelter — but in the autobiography, Watson declares which parts of his testimony were true and which parts false.) The autobiography is also the only source for what you reported — not quite intelligibly — in your revision of 01:49, 9 November 2009 — namely, that Manson and Watson entered the LaBianca house together. Your account of the stabbing of Sharon Tate does not mention the variety of the Atkins accounts — and, more notably, does not mention that, in his own autobiography, Watson says he stabbed Tate on his own — i.e., that Atkins did not participate in the stabbing (although he, Watson, testified to the contrary).

I won't go into your contributions' other problems, which, as I have said, are numerous. I don't even care that much about the speed material — although your response to my arguments in favor of its inclusion continues to be inadequate. I am going to replace the material once again — and will continue to replace it. If, at some point, some other editor makes a reasoned, well-mannered argument against its inclusion, I'll let it go.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And let me add — bigmouth — that the speed section quite clearly indicates that the report of the speed use on the night of the murders is from the Watson autobiography. The section is of value — as I have already said — because within months of the murders, a magazine article indirectly made a suggestion that was quite-possibly true — i.e., that the frenzy of the murders was influenced by the use of speed. As I have also said, countless trite references to the supposed use of LSD and other drugs by the Manson Family have not noted this at all. That, to say it again, is why the speed section is important — far more important than the mishmash of inaccuracies and half-accuracies that you have contributed to the article. If a Wikipedia reader wants to conclude — as you conclude — that Watson is lying about the use of speed, that is up to him or her — not to Wikipedia's editors.

Now — run along and complain about my incivility to a Wikipedia administrator — who will likely understand civility as little as you do.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Catherine, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You're giving a strong impression here that your motivation is not to improve the quality of the encyclopedia article, but rather to make sure that it present a sufficiently negative picture of Watson. John, it doesn't need anyone running along and complaining for me to ask you to have a re-read of Wikipedia:Civility. You can make your points (which I largely agree with) regarding Catherine's edits without being personally abusive. --Stormie (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Stormie — you're right. At this very moment, I'm composing a post intended not only to say a few more things about the value of the speed section but to neutralize the harshness of my remarks to Ms. Huebscher.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ms. Huebscher — I apologize for my harshness. Allow me to say a few more things about the value of the speed section. When you arrived at the Tex Watson article, you saw that it said almost nothing about the Tate-LaBianca murders. Evidently, you regarded that as evidence of a "whitewash." It was probably simply evidence that the editors, including me, who have attempted to whip some of Wikipedia’s Manson material into shape have not given much attention to the Watson article in particular. I am pretty sure that — in addition to the speed section — the only passages that I personally have contributed to the article have been two — one that explained Watson's first meeting with Manson and one that established the record re Watson's "I'm the devil" statement; but even those were added by me only to correct gross errors. A full, clear, and thoroughly-footnoted account of the crimes — including Watson's part therein — may be found at the Charles Manson article.

When I added the speed section, I anticipated the criticism it has received from you and another editor, on the present talk header. I knew that some persons would think it disproportionately long — if not altogether irrelevant — but I posted it anyway — because it is important — because, as I have said, the countless Manson reports, all over the internet and everywhere else, recycle — usually inaccurately — the same old material. One of Wikipedia's strengths, in my view, is that it enables ordinary persons to put before the world pieces of knowledge that have been overlooked by the cognoscenti. Possibly, some writer or magazine editor or filmmaker or other such person will one day come to Wikipedia, spot the article's speed section, and see in it an important something never really brought to the world's attention. In addition, the speed section, as crafted by me, was one of the article's few passages that was properly footnoted. Just about the whole of the article's remainder — except for the one or two other passages that I added — was, if I’m not mistaken, footnote-free (as, not incidentally, are most of your contributions). Because you reflexively thought the speed section intended to absolve Watson of wrongdoing, you deleted, in short, one of the article's few passages that had been presented with care.

As you see, I have reinserted the speed section. Maybe you will be inclined to leave it in this time. I have, by the way, taken a look at your blog — and have seen your photographs. Congratulations on your beauty and vivacity. They are rare enough.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks no problem at all, I had no intention of being rude myself, I apologize as well. I now realize that the Manson articles (I should have known this...) carry strong opinions and emotions along with them. Perhaps if the article was constructed better the section would fit in? Is that what you mean?If so that makes sense to me. Watson's article should be much more lengthy as he's next in line after Manson and perhaps alongside Atkins for the amount of havoc he wrecked. So yes leave it in and make the article much more detailed with conflicting accounts as well as trial documents etc.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, too.

Yes — that's essentially what I was saying. The Watson article is little more than a "stub," if I have the Wikipedia terminology right. It's underdeveloped, as all editors who have concentrated on the Manson articles surely recognize. With Wikipedia, one contributes where one has the energy and the time. My own contributions have been mostly to the main Charles Manson article and one or two other Manson-related articles — not this one. I contributed the speed section because I happened to have spotted the relevant material and figured that nobody else would insert it. It's as if I had seen an incomplete billboard and thought, "I know just how to paint that hand." I added it, with the knowledge that the article might one day be completed in such a way that the speed section would seem a proportional part of it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks so much guys! This article can definitely be improved if everyone stays cool and works together. I think the most important thing to keep in mind when parts of an article look too long or detailed is to ask ourselves: is this bit really too long? or is it that the other bits are too short? It would be great to balance the speed section not by cutting it, but by fattening up the rest of the article with good well-sourced info. --Stormie (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Good mediating there, Stormie.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

As I said in the preceding section — one contributes to Wikipedia where one has the energy and the time. I personally can not work on the Watson article, but one thing that I can see the article probably needs is a section or two between "Early Life" and the account of the murders. What follows is a very-rough suggestion for such material. It definitely should not be regarded as accurate; I'm simply going from memory. I won't even attempt to footnote it — but I'd say most of it probably comes from Chapter 6 through Chapter 10 — and so on — of Watson's autobiography. I also haven't entered all of the necessary internal links — such as to "Beach Boys." The material starts with what is presently the final sentence of "Early Life":

JOINING THE FAMILY

In early (?) 1968, Watson picked up the Beach Boys' drummer, Dennis Wilson, who was hitchhiking. When the two of them arrived at Wilson's Sunset Boulevard home, Wilson invited Watson inside, where Watson met Charles Manson. Manson and several of his hangers-on — his so-called Family — were, at the time, more or less living at Wilson's house. Watson was instantly taken with the guitar-playing Manson, who seemed to him to radiate love.

Over the ensuing months, Watson spent much time at Wilson's house and in Manson's company. In the latter summer, Manson and the others left — or were evicted from — Wilson's house and settled into the Spahn Ranch, a derelict movie ranch some twenty miles north. Before long, Watson joined the family there.

At the ranch, elderly owner George Spahn recognized Watson's Texan accent and gave him the nickname "Tex." At first, Manson kept Watson at a distance, as he, Manson, apparently tested the younger man's malleability. Before long, Watson was fully integrated into the Family and became, among other things, a reliable mechanic for the group. Telephoning his parents one day, Watson told them that he had found, in Manson, the Jesus of whom they had spoken to him throughout his childhood.

TENSION

In late 1968, Manson established alternative living space for the Family at two unused (or little-used) ranches on the edge of California's Death Valley, some hours' drive from Los Angeles. Near the year's end, Watson was with Manson on a return trip to Spahn Ranch. While they were there, they visited a Topanga Canyon acquaintance who played for them the Beatles' White Album, just then released. By this time, Watson had become troubled by what he saw as the displacement of his personality — by Manson's. On the same day that Manson and he heard the album, Watson abruptly left the Family, to which he did not return until the following March (1969). By that time, Manson had woven the White Album material into his prophetic vision of an America-ravaging racial conflict that he called Helter Skelter.

Through the spring and summer of 1969, the Family prepared for Helter Skelter, which, as Manson preached, was impending. With Watson as a chief mechanic, the Family bought dune buggies or created them from vehicles they stole. Some of the buggies were kept, for the Family's use in the coming chaos; others were sold, for cash ostensibly intended to fund other preparations for the race nightmare. With Family members as his backup group, aspiring-musician Manson struggled unsuccessfully to record an album of music that would predict and direct the conflict, the way, in his view, the music of the Beatles had prophesied it; the music-industry connections he had made through Dennis Wilson did not avail.

In June 1969, when Manson tasked Watson with getting money for the Family, Watson hit upon the plan of defrauding a black drug dealer named Bernard Crowe. After Watson slipped away with money of which Crowe was supposedly to receive a portion, Crowe telephoned Spahn Ranch and threatened to wipe out everyone there. By some accounts, Crowe, in telephoning, asked for "Charles" — meaning Watson — and got Manson on the phone. When Manson countered the threat, by shooting Crowe at his Los Angeles apartment, the Family's tension over the imminence of Helter Skelter increased. The possibility that blacks would attack the Family at Spahn Ranch in retaliation for the shooting of Crowe — whom Manson mistakenly thought he had killed — seemed to be the conflict's harbinger.

Okay, my fellow editors — again: That's pretty rough — and completely un-footnoted — and probably only semi-accurate; but it's a start. The article's next section, which presently begins with Manson's declaration, "Now is the time for Helter Skelter," should probably start with something about the Hinman murder — but again, I'll leave that to others.

The article might also benefit from the placement — somewhere — of at least three quotes. The first is from Watson himself (Chapter 1 of his autobiography) — and makes clear his condition in the murders' aftermath:

I felt nothing at all ... not even fear of what might happen if I were caught. Because, like the rest of the Family, I knew a secret: The next day or the day after that (at least sometime very soon), Los Angeles and all the other pig cities would be in flames. It would be the apocalypse, the deserved judgment on the whole sick establishment that hated us and all the other free children, the establishment that had cheated Charlie out of his genius.

The other two quotes I don't have at hand. They are from My Life with Charles Manson — the Paul Watkins autobiography that is hard to obtain. Some years ago, I got it briefly from a library. One sentence I remember was something like this:

Over the course of a year, I saw Charles Manson break Tex Watson down from a normal American youth to nothing.

The other sentence was the description Watkins gave of Tex Watson when Manson and he, Watson, arrived at the desert ranches not long after the murders. It was something like this:

He looked like a zombie.

Again — my fellow editors: All of this is merely a suggestion — and should not be relied upon as factual; I'm going from memory. To repeat: I personally can not work on this article — but I can offer that.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

PS The conversion of vehicles into dune buggies for sale is reported, I think, in The Family, by Ed Sanders. Sanders speaks of a kind of assembly-line that was running at Spahn Ranch. Those of you familiar with the story will recall that on August 16, 1969, a week after the murders, the Family was arrested, at Spahn, as a ring that was stealing vehicles and converting them into dune buggies. Sanders also speaks of some dune buggies that the Family bought. I forget what he says was the source of the money. My reason for writing, above, that "some of the buggies were kept for the the Family's use" is that that's the only thing I can figure out. The Family had Manson's "command buggy," for instance, at Spahn Ranch — and then stolen buggies were found with the Family at the desert ranches during the October '69 raids (which led to the solving of the murders). That's what I figure: They were keeping some buggies for themselves — and selling others for cash. It was, I might say, a typical Manson enterprise: parasitism (in the form of theft) semi-disguised as industry. — Anyway — this can be found in Sanders.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Conversion

The bit about Watson recieving Jesus as his savior probably doesn't belong in the lead. Also, it should be rewritten in a more NPOV style...as is it sounds a little too devotional for an encyclopedia. PurpleChez (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sincerity & Disputing Release of Recordings

I removed the personal characterization. From a personal standpoint, I believe it's credible to doubt his sincerity as to being rehabilitated, finding spirituality, etc..., however, I don't believe the manner in which that was expressed in the "Later Years" section is within the scope of a Wikipedia main article, WP:NOR, WP:NPV and including in how it was related to the release-of-tapes event. I believe it would be proper to include statements pertaining to such doubts, but they should be of reliable sources other than an editor of the WP article, for example news sources re: testimony at his parole hearings might properly address that. - Gillwill2000 (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The most important fact about Watson is that he is a convicted murderer

Watson is a convicted mass murderer. This is the only reason he is a notable individual with a page on Wikipedia. The article should start by saying that. The reference to is having been a member of the Manson family "community" and its "alleged" criminal nature is ludicrous. Change suggested to fix this - the article should start: Charles "Tex" Watson is a convicted mass murderer. (link to article about mass murder - his acts fit the FBI definition according to that article). He was a member of the "Manson Family" (link to relevant article). Remove reference to "community" and "alleged" criminality entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PTSN (talk • contribs) 11:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Tex Watson. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Charles "Tex" Watson → Tex Watson – or Charles Denton Watson. Per WP:NICKNAME: "Notable distinctions can be explained in the article, but avoid (for example) adding a nickname, or a contracted version of the original first name(s) in quotes between first and last name. For example: Bill Clinton, not William "Bill" Clinton." Also see Whitey Bulger, not James "Whitey" Bulger. --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC) BarrelProof (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support, verbatim per nom. No preference on which name to use. --BDD (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Seems in-line with WP:NICKNAME. NickCT (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support A redirect will be left to accommodate those few people who think of him as Charles "Tex" Watson. --MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Relisting comment Although there is a clear consensus for moving the article, it's not clear whether it should be moved to Tex Watson or Charles Denton Watson. @BarrelProof: @BDD: @NickCT: @MelanieN: Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I recommend Tex Watson. In a rough search it got about twice as many hits as Charles Tex Watson and way more than Charles Denton Watson. BTW at the DAB page Charles Watson I think he should continue to be referred to as Charles "Tex" Watson. Same for the defaultsort. --MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support only to Tex Watson Red Slash 05:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tex Watson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061027142220/http://www.charliemanson.com/timeline-1980-today.htm to http://www.charliemanson.com/timeline-1980-today.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit requests

scan of the annotated Wikipedia article with requests

Hello. At WP:OTRS ticket:2016022810008942 a request was made for changes to this article. This is a private archived ticket. I am recording where it is, but it is not for public access.

The requested changes were presented as a printout of the 16 February 2016 version of this Wikipedia article, annotated with handwritten notes by the subject of the article. A copyright release was sent with the notes. The scan of the notes is uploaded to Commons.

Anyone who wishes to communicate further about the matter with questions or comments should do so here on this public talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Obvious question - how do we know it's really Tex Watson asking ? Anybody can say they're anybody online , and in a letter too ! Without verification, I'd say we'd need to use what's referenced reliably. KoshVorlon 19:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

KoshVorlon As with most such requests, it typically does not matter who is asking. I looked a bit at the notes in the letter and I do think the letter's focus is on matching content with reliably referenced sources.

There are requests here from a Wikipedia contributor. Some of the requests are to remove unreferenced content, and there are other requests to add content from sources which are suggested. I do not immediately see any reason to question or verify anyone's identity. Until and unless someone raises an issue that makes that relevant, I think that usual Wikipedia protocol is to consider requests on their own merit rather than by who might be making them. How does that sound to you? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact that it went through OTRS suggests it's the individual themselves , otherwise the changes would have been suggested on the talk page or boldly made, so it bring us back to the question, are these changes reliably sourced or is it a case where the individual , presumably the subject himself, has confirmed their identity via OTRS (which is one reason why OTRS would have been emailed ). If so, ok, otherwise, because it's a BLP I'd move to not make any changes that have no reliable verification , just because BLP's are such a sensitive area. KoshVorlon 16:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Mail sent from a prison is opened and read by staff before being sent on to the addressee. One thing that is checked is that the letter does not contain impersonation. Also, his SID number must appear on the envelope and that is public record. John from Idegon (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

If the proposed edits can be verified in reliable secondary sources and an editor wants to take ownership of those edits, then I think they can be made. We should not, however, treat this as a mandate or feel obligated to make any edits that are not in accord with our policies or guidelines, or that simply don't improve the article.- MrX 15:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

ETA: Also, I agree, it makes no difference whether the edit request came from the article subject or someone else. The identity of the requester is not a factor.- MrX 15:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Must note that this article is sorely lacking in citations generally. Definitely needs a lot of work. Montanabw^(talk) 01:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I echo the above comments. While WP appreciates feedback and alerts from its readers, including BLP subjects, 1) Changes to an article are based on sources and WP guidelines not the requests of the purported subject of the article, it's representative or claimant. 2) In this case, most of the article is unsourced.

In this regard, I'm challenging all of the unsourced content in the article. If it is not sourced soon then I'm inclined to remove it per WP:BLPREMOVE which says: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced/is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research)/relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below), or,/relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. Comments? Suggestions? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixing WP:BLP violations

WP:BLP says:

• All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation.
• Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

I am therefore removing contentious material such as claims of crimes committed where there is no reliable source cited that verifies a conviction ie drug dealing etc..-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment of sources

Is this a reliable source? [1] Who is the author? Is he a recognized expert? Who is the publisher? Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This [http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/linder.htm | appears to be a work from Professor Doug O. Linder, professor of law at University of Missouri, Kansas City. Because it's being published on the website of his college and likely not subject to peer review, I would be hesitant to use this as a source, unless it was published by a reliable publisher. KoshVorlon 13:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits 8/20/2016

moved for clarity and visibility. John from Idegon (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Why was my edits removed? I've FBI files and Watsons book to back them up The Gman49 (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Because you added negative information about a living person without citing a reliable source. From what you mention as sources, I would suggest you present your sources here and a proposed edit. We should probably discuss them. John from Idegon (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Daily Mail article of 07/April/2016

I have just added a link under External Links from Daily Mail regarding Tex Watson's letter to wikipedia demanding some changes in this article in wikipedia about him. I appreciate it if admins confirm and acknowledge this letter and if changes are/were necessary and if the article has been amended. With many thanks.Gharouni ^Talk 01:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

A blog was used for this article in several places

CieloDrive.com?? How did this get by BLP guidelines? HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Can you explain more please? If It is not .com then what is it? In the address bar I can see it is www.cielodrive.com. Gharouni ^Talk 09:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

it is a BLOG - blogs are out of bounds for Reliable Sources on Wiki! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.50.200 (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe website that is cited in the article only for copies of transcripts that are also available elsewhere, although perhaps offline. It also doesn't look like the average low-quality blog to me. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

doesn't matter, it's self-published OR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.59.129 (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I had the same thought! And now there is another one being cited here multiple times that makes "cielodrive.com" seem like Encyclopedia Britannica! The page itself in no longer on the web, but now citation points to its archive on the wayback machine. Haole.Longpig (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Citations using an online version of his autobiography.

There are multiple citations linking to an online version of his autobiography, "Will You Die For Me?". Considering that the book has been published several times over the past decades, would it not be far preferable to cite one of these print versions? My intention is to consolidate them myself using the 1978 edition published by Fleming H. Revell company, unless there are major objections. Haole.Longpig (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)