Talk:Bobby Beausoleil

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

Topanga Canyon[edit]

"He met Charlie Manson in Topanga Canyon in 1966" - Surely not. Manson was in prison until March 1967.

Link to blog[edit]

Should it be included? An edit summary suggests that this issue was discussed, but I don't see any discussion here. So discuss it here or link to where it was discussed please. DMacks 17:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is at User_talk:165.228.131.12. I've asked them not to re-insert that link. SWAdair | Talk 11:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the link. It is to the Official Tate LaBianca Blog. This is a blog that over the last two years has become the primary research site for the TLB case. It has primary research and many articles. There is no question in my mind that it is a valid link and should be reinstated. Spawnopedia 18:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is spam. Look at page histories for mass spam attacks and see Wikipedia:External links, particularly point 11. This was already discussed many times and the link was deemed inappropriate. It has been, and will continue to be, reverted on sight. Philip Gronowski Contribs 21:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not spam because you merely state so. I see the page histories but I merely see you reverted every time without discussion. I find no discussion anywhere. I therefore will have one here. If the discussion here concludes the link valid, then your reversion will be [Wp:Vandalism] I am not sure by what authority you speak to me like that, but this is the page to discuss the link and it will be discussed here whether you accept it or not. That said I see your point 11 and by extension this boils down to whether COL SCOTT on that page is a recognizable authority or not. I will ask several authorities for their opinion and should they agree, then that is that. Spawnopedia 21:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask several authorities for their opinion... WP:OR. If your authorities want to come contribute to the discussion on this talk page, they're more than welcome to join in. But you running off to survey self-selected "authorities" doesn't cut it. (PS: Saying "official" in the blog name doesn't make it an authority.) --Kynn 21:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not call other user's edits vandalism unless they actually are vandalism. Because I was following policy and reverted the link to the blog appropriately the edits were not vandalism. If it is found that the edits were wrong then one must not immediately call vandalism, remember Hanlon's razor. Which authorities might you be asking? Philip Gronowski Contribs 21:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the link. No slight intended but based on what it says, are you saying you are stupid not evil? I don't get it. The authorities would be the people with the top websites on the case, Mark Turner at www.charliemanson.com and Bret at http://www.internet.is/bret/manson.htm

Certainly seem good to me. Spawnopedia 21:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is done in malice, removing the links was not done in malice, it could have been done in ignorance (stupidity) of the reliability of the author. "Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice" therefore applies to your previous comment. Again, don't call other person's edits vandalism unless they clearly are. Philip Gronowski Contribs 21:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Philip I won't. Spawnopedia 21:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now that that part is settled: Merely having a link to a blog on a website does not indicate that the website is a recognized authority. The website was also determined by several administrators and users to be inappropriate. Philip Gronowski Contribs 23:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Bobbybeausoleil.jpg[edit]

Image:Bobbybeausoleil.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I've included more info on the Clair Obscur show, including references. Please discuss before removing - my edits on this were removed, saying the references were not valid.165.189.169.190 14:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

INitial Description, Music and Acting[edit]

I don't know that actor is really accurate in terms of the primary, initial description of him - he didn't really act in much - there's not much to the "Acting Career" section. Also, the article states he was a member of The Grass Roots/Love and that's the primiary focus of the "Music Career" section. However, the founder of the group says he wasn't a member - he came around sometimes and hung out played rythym guitar, but was not a member. However, he has focused on music in his life in prison.

Would he even have a Wiki article if not for his involement with the Manson Family and his crimes as part of that group? 165.189.169.190 (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boby Beausoleil's filmography includes four titles, his discography eight albums. Surely that justifies describing him as an actor and musician? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.234.245 (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Homepage of Bobby and Barbara Beausoleil"[edit]

At the bottom of the article, there is an external link to the "Home page of Bobby and Barbara Beausoleil". What is that? Did he marry in prison??? (if so, the Wikipedia entry makes no mention of this). Am I to believe that that is a photo of the Manson Family's Bobby Beausoleil??? What is this??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.141.105 (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the webpage for Beausoleil and his wife. Yes, he married in prison. It's not on the page because there isn't much out there to source it at this time. And yes, that is a photo of the Manson Family's Bobby Beausoleil. If you look at the old pictures of Bobby here (click on Bobby's story and Chronicles), you can easily see it is the same guy, 40 years later. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bobby Beausoleil. 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bobby Beausoleil. 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bobby Beausoleil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over "occupation"[edit]

We seem to have a content dispute over whether Beausoleil should be identified in the infobox with "occupation = Multimedia artist, musician". As best I can tell, his occupation for the last 50 years is best described as "prisoner", and his primary notability is for being a murderer and associate of the "Manson family". I think it is not appropriate to identify an occupation in the infobox. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content dispute also involves the lead sentence, regarding whether it should say "... is an American murderer serving a life sentence ..." or "is an American musician and multi-disciplined artist serving a life sentence ..." Clearly, I suggest the former rather than the latter. Beausoleil is definitely primarily notable for non-artistic activities. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the opening sentence need to say "murder"/"murderer" twice? There is a consensus that it should say that he is "serving a life sentence in the California state prison system for first-degree murder." In that case, he can hardly have an occupation. I propose a more neutral alternative: "Robert Kenneth Beausoleil (born November 6, 1947), is an American citizen serving a life sentence in the California state prison system for first-degree murder." Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "citizen" seems a bit strange to me (and I see you didn't include it in your own edit). I checked the opening sentences of articles about two other Manson associates (one male and one female) and two other living incarcerated Americans (one male and one female) selected at random from Category:American murderers, and found the following:
  • Leslie Van Houten ("... is an American convicted murderer and former member of the Manson Family.")
  • Tex Watson ("... is an American murderer who was a central member of the 'Manson family' led by Charles Manson.")
  • Theresa Knorr ("... is an American woman convicted of torturing and murdering ...")
  • Paul Modrowski ("... is an American man who is currently serving a life sentence for murder ...")
Based on this small sampling, I changed your opening phrasing from "... is an American who is serving a life sentence ..." to "... is an American man who is serving a life sentence ..."
—BarrelProof (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the ongoing dispute over Beausoleil being identified as Multimedia artist and musician:

All edits have been properly sourced and referenced after extensive research, with the intention of creating a complete profile of the subject, not merely focusing on the negative. No attempt is being made to leave any of the bad things out of reporting. Other significant attributes such as work in the creative arts both prior to and during incarceration are included. While I understand that some may have animus towards anyone who has been associated with Charles Manson, this cannot be the guiding principle in accurate and complete reporting. No person is entirely defined by the worst thing that they have done. His occupation for the last 50 years is not best described as prisoner. Beausoleil created during his incarceration, Lucifer Rising, which he is most known for and has gone on to release 9 albums, 4 compilations, and 5 singles. He has been creating art since the 80s with a gallery show in 2005 in California (at Clair Obscura) which is referenced on his page and one in 2015 at the Contemporary Art Tasmania in Australia

- http://bobbybeausoleil.com/newsroom-page-5.html

From 1994-2015, he has also taken part in various prison programs over the years where he was worked in video productions.

- https://bbreferencearchive.tumblr.com/post/162482353520/robert-beausoleil-resumé

Wikipedia promotes and supports balanced reporting. It should not be used to introduce a one-sided depiction of a subject. Mnpie1789 (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's balance, and there is WP:UNDUE ... to call this murderer an actor based on bit/brief appearances in what are basically films or shorts documenting the scene - meh. I wouldn't call him an actor. Vanity press issues of one's own unmemorable 'music' didn't make him a professional musician. He's unknown to the world outside of his crimes. The statement in the lead should be removed and something much more toned down used in its place.50.111.49.173 (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear to everyone that you have enmity towards Beausoleil on the basis of him having been an associate of Charles Manson and who committed a brutal murder. That is understandable and you are entitled to feel that way. However, your remarks reflect a blatant prejudice. Responsible editors on this page are creating a balanced presentation of the information. There has been no attempt to minimize the crime or to whitewash the subject in any way, but only to include other aspects of his life that are in fact valid and of interest, despite your evident prejudice against him.

Your attempts to remove these aspects of the history are vandalism. It is clear you are trying to "blackwash" the subject to make it conform to your personal orientation in regards to the subject. Truthful and honest valid reporting trumps that. Further attempts by you or any user will be reported to Wiki admin. Mnpie1789 (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly no consensus for the introduction as drafted by Mnpie789. I've reverted it again pending further discussion here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the name of this page is BOBBY BEAUSOLEIL, the name that he has gone by his entire life since infancy, both personally and professionally. This should not be a matter of debate if you take into consideration that everyone who knows him or is familiar with his history knows him by this name. That's a pretty strong consensus. Again truth and accuracy trumps prejudice. If someone would like to start a new page called Robert Beausoleil, they are free to do so, but efforts will be sustained to preserve the integrity of this page.

There is no dispute that Beasoleil murdered a man, and that it was indeed a savage crime. He himself has admitted this on numerous occasions over a long period of time, but for more people than you would be willing to admit exist, Beausoleil is also a respected musician and artist with a modest following of fans around the world.

Please allow this balanced historical wiki to be preserved. If you want to start another page that only talks about the bad stuff, that is your prerogative. Mnpie1789 (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:HYPOCORISM. The article title is indeed Bobby Beausoleil, and his full name is Robert Kenneth Beausoleil. The point is that you do not need to state that he is commonly known as Bobby because that is the title of the article and it is commonplace for "Robert" to be shortened to "Bobby". But that is a minor point. As others have said, there are no reliable sources that describe him primarily as a "musician and multi-disciplined artist" - only his own pages which carry little weight here (see WP:BLPSELFPUB). The reason he is notable in Wikipedia terms, like it or not, is because he is a convicted murderer, and that should be the focus of the opening paragraph - see MOS:OPENPARABIO. So, please revert to the previous agreed version of the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That must be one VERY small circle who considers him a "multi-media artist." Besides Beausoleil himself, and a few Manson hanger-on's, who exactly would that be for considering this for WIKI inclusion??50.111.50.240 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghmyrtle The paragraph you altered is being reverted, and your username will be submitted to wiki admin for vandalism, along with this communication.

The paragraph you removed regarding details about the parole hearing was taken directly from the decision portion of the 2019 hearing transcript. This was sourced properly and indexed accordingly. Therefore, you are engaging in vandalism and in violation of the user terms of agreement for Wikipedia editors. The opening paragraph is being reverted as well, duplicating the form used on the wiki page for Bob Dylan: Known by name first, born name in parentheses. That is would be an issue to anyone is just silly, given that the title of the page is Bobby Beausoleil. Anyone can start their own page called Robert Kenneth Beausoleil, and if someone chooses to do so, this editor promises not to interfere.

It is evident that you have vindictive sentiments towards Beausoleil based on the crime he committed half a century ago. You are entitled to possess these sentiments, as you have good cause, but you are not entitled to use Wikipedia to express them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia established for being a source for reliable, accurate, and comprehensive information. It is not a form for trolling, “blackwashing”, or a blog where expressing a narrow or biased point of view maybe acceptable.

Your assertion that Beausoleil is not qualified to having a professional history as a musician and artist is patently absurd. This assertion is obviously rooted in willful ignorance. All you have to do is click through the references already on the page to verify Beausoleil’s creative history. More references have been added in support of acknowledging the existence of the subject’s professional history.

It is well known that Beausoleil began playing music professionally at age 17, years before committing a crime. He was a member of the musician’s union for those years. His soundtrack for the Kenneth Anger film was reviewed by All Music, widely accepted as one foremost reliable sources of music information and was given a 4.5-star rating. Portions of that soundtrack have also been used in several other motion pictures by reputable filmmakers, including Gasper Noe and Chris Moukarbel, including a recent documentary about Lady Gaga.[1] In addition to this album, he has created and released 8 others, all currently in world distribution. This in addition to being very productive as a visual artist.

By the way, most of the information about Beausoleil’s work in the creative arts was added to the page by other contributors before this editor began contributing to it. Clearly, your opinion does not make a consensus. In any case what is important there is not consensus but accuracy and comprehensiveness in the information.Mnpie1789 (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.interviewmagazine.com/film/web-exclusive-gaspar-noe-kenneth-anger
@Mnpie1789: A further comment on the "Robert" versus "Bobby" issue: There is no ill will associated with calling him "Robert" rather than "Bobby" in the opening sentence. This is the common practice on Wikipedia, per MOS:HYPOCORISM (also known as MOS:NICKNAME). Please see, for example, the articles on Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. All of those articles start with the formal name and make no mention of the common nickname that is the title of the article, because the relationship to the nickname is considered obvious. Regarding Bob Dylan, that situation is different, because "Dylan" is not a common nickname for people named "Zimmerman". —BarrelProof (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... Feel free to report me wherever you like. I look forward to seeing the response. You are acting in direct and blatant contravention of Wikipedia guidelines, too numerous to list. All I will do for the moment is to correct the most obvious errors in your formatting and then - if there is no response to whatever request to authority you make - I will go back and make further corrections to the article. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is now up for discussion at WP:BLPN. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a terrible mess, full of terrible sourcing and narrative writing style. Rather than repeat myself, please see my comments at WP:BLP/N#Bobby Beausoleil. In the meantime, I have removed all court documents and other records as a blatant violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Do not re-add court documents or other records. (The information attached to them also needs removal, but then again , this entire article needs to be gutted and started over from scratch to bring it into Wikipedia standards.) Zaereth (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The noticeboard discussion has been archived, and can be found at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive281#Bobby Beausoleil. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The edit-warring over the opening paragraph - seeking to describe him primarily as a musician, rather than as a murderer, contrary to the evident majority view of editors at all discussions so far - is, unfortunately, continuing. The only solution, it seems to me, is to seek to have Mnpie1789 blocked from this article as a disruptive editor. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the previous version was better balanced and more accurate, I have to agree with Mnpie's removal of the official legal documents, which per BLPPRIMARY should not be used as sources under any circumstances. The lede does not even need sources; those should be in the body. The lede is just a summary of the rest of the article, so anything there should already be sourced somewhere below. The prominence and weight given in the lede should reflect the prominence and weight given in the body. I find edit warring to be distasteful and beneath me, and strongly recommend Mnpie to cease and desist, and work this stuff out on the talk page until a consensus is reached. If they continue to revert without discussion, then report it as a slow edit-war on ANI or a similar noticeboard. Zaereth (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem at all over removing the official legal documents, and indeed thanked Mnpie1789 for those edits. The issue is simply over the right balance in the opening paragraph, and the failure of Mnpie1789 so far to accept a wording that recognises that Beausoleil's notability (per MOS:OPENPARABIO) is as a murderer, not as a musician. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's more than that. There's a failure to seek consensus, and quite possibly a misunderstanding of what the term means. Consensus is not a counting of votes but a weighing of arguments, and if a person's argument fails to convince others, consensus is against them. In not all but many cases there is no point in arguing with or trying to convince the other person; you should be trying to convince everyone else. And there are a huge number of logical fallacies in Mnpie's arguments, in icluding argument from authority, appeal to emotion, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, kettle logic, circular reasoning, argument from ignorance, to name a few. There seems to be some fundamental misunderstandings of NPOV, UNDUE, RS, V, NOR, MOS, BLP, etc... People often focus too much on one little portion of a policy or another, but they all work together and augment each other, depend on each other, and while BLP works in accordance with and is augmented by all of the other policies, it ultimately trumps all other policies. There appears to be sort of a WP:right great wrongs motivation that borders on the level of fandom (keep in mind "fan" is short for "fanatic", meaning someone who is intrinsically and irrationally biased toward...), with a righteous, no holds barred, "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" approach. Definitely suggests someone on a mission. Not to mention their history suggests an SPA, adding to the suspicion that there may be some COI also at play. (Not sure, just thinking out loud.) The behavior to me seems very much disruptive rather than collaborative, but that's a matter for a different board.
Resolving the most egregious BLP vios, mostly this is a content dispute which should be resolved though the usual means, ie: talk page discussions, RFCs, mediation, or even arbitration if that's what it takes. But first all parties need to make a serious attempt to work it out on the talk page rather than battling it in mainspace, or else it becomes an admin problem, in which case someone (usually the uncooperative/disruptive party) may be blocked or even topic banned. Zaereth (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that there are some Wiki users who wish to use this BLP article as a "murderer profile" page, a strategy that flies in the face of a code Wikipedia policy: Balance and Neutral Point of View (NVOP), if that strategy deliberately excludes significant mitigating aspects of the subject's history. Believing that neutrality is paramount in an article reporting on a living person, this editor will vigorously resist attempts to introduce such bias that defaces this biographical article. Any responsible person who invests any time at all in researching the subject, Bobby Beausoleil, will find more than ample reliable information to support including, in addition to the criminal history, his decades of noteworthy professional achievements within the summary contained in the article. WP:BOLP says "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone...Bewared of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism-that every Wikipedia articles is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape-does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times."

WP:NPOV "All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources..." This editor invites other Wikipedia editors to help in preserving the integrity and neutrality of this article, and to prevent it from becoming an expression of malicious intent through the exclusion or undue minimizing of significant and properly sourced information. Mnpie1789 (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As we have discussed, his notability is nothing to do with his activities as a "musician and multi-disciplined artist". His notability - the only reason he has an article - is because he is a convicted murderer. That is not mentioned in your opening sentence, but needs to be the focus of the opening sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with that and with what Zaereth said in the BLP Noticeboard discussion: "It's ... weird to start off with, 'Subject is a man incarcerated in a prison.' That's not what he is notable for, nor is he notable for being a musician. He's clearly notable as being a convicted murderer, and the article should begin with just that. Everything else about his notability is without a doubt a far second to this, and the balance of the article should reflect that." … "Even in sources like Rolling Stone, his involvement with the Manson case is the top thing they talk about. The article, both the lede and body, should reflect that." We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This isn't a matter of how we want Beausoleil to be known. It's about trying to describe how he is known, relying on independent (secondary and tertiary) reliable, non-fringe sources. The article should start with a plain statement of his primary source of notability, which does not involve music and artistry. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprisingly, I also concur with BarrelProof for the reasons already stated. I reverted Mnpie's latest edit, not so much because I want to be involved in this dispute but because (as the quote on my user page says) animals, including humans, are motivated by wanting something rather than getting it, even if it means not necessarily liking what they get. The opposite of motivation happens upon getting the reward. Hopefully, Mnpie will try to work this out collaboratively rather than combatively or dictatively, which never goes over well around here. Zaereth (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will say, for the record, in response to all the appeals to emotion, that I am glad Mr. Beausoleil has reformed and wish him great luck in his career. We're not here to try and punish or smear anyone --that's what BLP is all about. If this crime had happened in Somewhere, Minnesota, it would be a mere footnote in his article, but unfortunately it happened close enough to, and is tied to murders that occurred in Beverly Hills, California. I imagine he never dreamed at the time how much press coverage this would get, including multiple movies and documentaries, but unfortunately it did. The name Manson was legendary growing up, on the same level as the devil (how's that for an album title?). When you needed a go-to evil person (ie: "don't go out there at night or some Charles Manson will get you"), Manson was the number one choice. You can blame Hollywood, but I'm sorry to say that due to the high-profile nature of this particular case, it is never going away. What we are bound to do by our policy is to document the things that make a person notable (the reason they have an article) in proportion to the significance of that information to their notability. It's not about who they are, were, or will become, but what they are known most for. The good news is that Mr. Beausoleil has the ultimate power to affect this himself, in the real world, by continuing to make a name for himself in the music industry. Zaereth (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that relevant discussions can also be found at the following places:
—BarrelProof (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above-referenced edit warring noticeboard discussion has since been archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive387#User:Mnpie1789 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 24 hours). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The title and subject of this page is Bobby Beausoleil therefore given name is noted secondarily (see Bob Dylan's wiki page). Also, I changed American murderer to American man due to BarrelProof and Ghmyrtle comments below from February.

":::Based on this small sampling, I changed your opening phrasing from "... is an American who is serving a life sentence ..." to "... is an American man who is serving a life sentence ..."

—BarrelProof (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)"[reply]

Mnpie1789 (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Bob Dylan officially changed his name in 1962. That is far different than having your name shortened into a nickname, unless he officially changed it to "Bobby". Why is this so important to you anyhow? Look at Kim Kardashian or Buck Dharma for example. That's how the manual of style says to do it, and this is concurrent with the Chicago Manual of Style and Reuters Manual of Style, to name a few. It's just more formal and professional that way, and an encyclopedia is a very formal work. Zaereth (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More directly, "Dylan" is not a common nickname for people named "Zimmerman", so MOS:HYPOCORISM would not consider the alternative name to be obvious. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, Dylan also changed his first name too. "Bob" or Bobby is not always short for "Robert", just as "Sam" is not always short for "Samantha". Sometimes it's short for "Stephanie" and sometimes for "Samuel", and sometimes for Lucifer's original name "Samael", before getting tossed out of heaven. And sometimes it's just "Sam". We almost always begin an article with the subject's full, official name, be it Barak Obama or Sarah Palin; Cheech Marin or Tommy Chong; Joey Ramone or Brian Connolly. Zaereth (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the surname is what makes it substantially different. If he had just decided to use "Bob Zimmerman", we would just start the article with "Robert Allen Zimmerman (born May 24, 1941) is an American singer-songwriter ..." instead of "Bob Zimmerman (born Robert Allen Zimmerman on May 24, 1941) is an American singer-songwriter ..." —BarrelProof (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those comments quoted by Mnpie1789 were from much earlier in the conversation. Mnpie1789, please stop edit warring over the characterization in the opening sentence. It is clear that you are continuing to oppose the consensus over both the characterization of Beausoleil in the opening sentence and also the hypocorism guideline. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional archived discussion may be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive388#User:Mnpie1789 reported by User:BarrelProof (Result: one week). —BarrelProof (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by Griffdawg567[edit]

I have several misgivings about the recent big edit by Griffdawg567. One is that it replaces the story of Hinman's murder with the "Straight Satan" story, as if that version of the events is unquestioned fact. In reality, my understanding that this is a story that was told only many years after the murder and comes primarily from Beausoleil himself. As far as I know, there was no mention of "Straight Satans" or the purported drug deal in the trial or in other contemporaneous reports – what was said at the time was about a rumor of Hinman inheriting money. The rumor of inheritance has been completely removed from the article by Griffdawg567. Rather than just give one description of the events and assume that is true, I prefer to describe multiple plausible versions and document the reliable sources where these versions of the facts came from. We should not necessarily believe what Beausoleil (and perhaps Manson) said a decade or more after the murder. There is a lot in that edit by Griffdawg567. Much of it seems to be sourced to a recent documentary film that I have not seen. I don't think we should assume that the content of that film is correct – especially if much of it came from Beausoleil and Manson. I corrected some aspects of that edit already, for reasons stated in edit summaries. That edit also added several references to the website cielodrive.com. It does not seem clear that the website cielodrive.com is a reliable source (although I have some respect for it). That edit may also have some other problems. I am very tempted to just revert that whole edit, because it has multiple problems and I think it is the responsibility of the person wanting to make changes to do so in a less wholesale fashion and justify what they are doing. The rest of us should not be required to clean up a mess made by someone else. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BarrelProof, i have reverted back to the previous version.
Griffdawg567, please do come here and discuss your edit; you won't find us unreasonable, but such a vast change to the heart of the article definitely needs discussion. Perhaps we can aim for something along the lines BarrelProof offers, with multiple plausible accounts given. Happy days, LindsayHello 05:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section is not cited[edit]

The following section is not cited. It should be deleted or re-written in an objective manor, since this article is in reference to a living person.

Beausoleil went with Atkins and Brunner to Hinman's house, where Beausoleil had also briefly been living, demanding that he give them money, but Hinman told them he didn't have any money to give them. Beausoleil called Manson at Spahn Ranch and told him no money was forthcoming, and was instructed by Manson to hold Hinman captive at the residence and convince him to get the money before Manson arrived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qual479terrace (talk • contribs) 03:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Description redux[edit]

I wonder if it would be OK to include in the opening statement that Bobby is a music artist. He has collaborations with lady Gaga and several music albums that are on apple music, spotify etc. Other convicts also have information about their creative careers, such as Danny Masterson. Thoughts? GatosCiencia (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC) Comment moved here from previous location, where it was buried in an old/finished discussion; i'm neither endorsing nor criticising the suggestion, simply making it a bit more visible. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 10:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, i don't think it's necessary to change the opening paragraph of the lead; there is information about Beausoleil's music (and other activities) in the second paragraph, which should be sufficient. WP:FIRST says [t]he first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is...[d]o not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject, which i understand to mean that we should put the major reason the subject is notable in it, not a list of secondarily important things. In this case, there is no doubt that Beausoleil is notable almost entirely because of his involvement with Manson and murder; anything he's done since is very definitely secondary. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 19:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bobby_Beausoleil&oldid=1206210623"