Talk:Tex Watson

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Big section on his use of speed 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  LaBerge reference 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Article revision and clean up

message: 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)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: 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)
thread_title: Conversion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sincerity & Disputing Release of Recordings 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The most important fact about Watson is that he is a convicted murderer 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tex Watson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: Fixing [[WP:BLP]] violations

message: Is this a reliable source?  Who is the author? Is he a recognized expert? Who is the publisher? Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk •  17:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Assessment of sources

message: moved for clarity and visibility.  John from Idegon (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edits 8/20/2016 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Daily Mail article of 07/April/2016 

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  A blog was used for this article in several places 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations using an online version of his autobiography.