Talk:Mary Brunner: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:31, 22 November 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mary Brunner article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women's History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Mary Brunner appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 May 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Mary Brunner, a member of the "Manson family", was incarcerated after a shootout with police at a robbery?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/May.

Wikipedia

dead links

Needs fixing. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan[reply]

This website makes it sound like they were searching for young woman only? if this was true tex would have never been involved in the murder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.8.115 (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in geography, location of Little Sycamore Canyon not in Santa Clara, California

Regarding the following inaccurate text from the Mary Brunner article:

"On April 21, 1968 Brunner and eight other Family members, including: Manson, Ella Jo Bailey, Dianne Lake, Nancy Pitman, Susan Atkins, Bruce Vann Hall, Marcus John Arneson, Stephanie Rowe and several others were arrested by sherriff's deputies in Little Sycamore Canyon, Santa Clara, California after they were found sprawled nude around a campfire beside a 1952 bus that had been reported stolen in San Francisco on April 12."

The location of Little Sycamore Canyon is in Ventura County, California, near the Los Angeles County line, not as stated in Santa Clara, California, which is 350 miles to the north near San Francisco. Little Sycamore Canyon is in the Santa Monica Mountains by U.S. Highway 1, (aka as the Pacific Coast Highway) and to the west of Malibu. The arrest mug shot of Charles Manson used by Time magazine was taken by the Ventura County Sheriff's Department on April 22, 1968, the day after the date of their arrest on April 21, 1968, which is stated in the above sentence.

Go to the following URL and click on "map", the map can be navigated by clicking inside the map and moving around with the mouse.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/0-Little-Sycamore-Canyon-Rd-Malibu-CA-90265/2118131789_zpid/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linstrum (talk • contribs) 00:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the Ventura County SO (SO=Sheriff's Office) mug shot, where the date of April 22 1968 is just visible at the bottom of the photo at the URL:

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=charles+Manson+mug+shot+1968&hl=en&newwindow=1&sa=X&biw=1209&bih=874&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnso&tbnid=h_PmZPF0YtPzMM:&imgrefurl=http://obaudoedu.blogspot.com/2011/08/o-assassinato-de-sharon-tate.html&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-s9i8aB_U2Fc/TkFQXR4gDzI/AAAAAAAAK30/bEaTpgVRgbk/s1600/charles-manson-mugshot-image-thesun-uk1.jpg&w=380&h=463&ei=P_dDUJ7qFs3qiQKzi4DAAg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=130&vpy=179&dur=2487&hovh=248&hovw=203&tx=144&ty=269&sig=116444030069886517142&page=1&tbnh=165&tbnw=143&start=0&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:77

Linstrum (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK...so, correct it. ExRat (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this weird error, too, and fixed it. Facsimiles of the _LA Times_ article of 4/24[23?]/1968, "Nine Nude Hippies Arrested; Found Huddled Near Bonfire", are widely published. Of course, no mention of Santa Clara (or even of Santa Clarita, a common confusion) are made at all. This error is copied in a number of places on the web, sadly. The Times article mentions "Deercreek Mountain Road, just above Bass Rock ... a quarter mile east of Highway 1" but I believe this has always been "Deer Creek Road"; it's Deer Creek Canyon Park. Rt3368 (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with the article.

Living people are entitled to privacy. Identifying a person who does not want to be identified as residing in a certain place as specifically as is done here against policy. And the source appears to be not good. What I took out is against BLP policy as far as I can see.Overagainst (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overagainst, you took out a reference to an open-source book. Wikipedia protects people's privacy, but it doesn't hide public data. Your edit doesn't really make sense either, because the source is used in 3 other places. The statement that she has changed her name helps no one determine her new name. The statement that she lives in Eau Claire really helps no one find her now since lacking her name, going to a city of 70,000 people without a name to start with is going to get you nowhere. The article was fine before the changes you made.Brownwn (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reference I can see for the removed detail are About.com article by Charles Montaldo who seems to be a fairly active net writer on crime, but he doesn't cite his sources so the article would not be sufficient ref for anything contentious. All this is beside the point however. Not surprisingly, Montaldo a licensed private detective, makes no mention I can see of the BLP information I removed. The other ref is a dead link. So not only is that detail intrusive BLP, it is unreferenced.Overagainst (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brownwn, Firstly my deletion of what I think is BLP was I think reasonable while the matter is under discussion, because if it does not belong in the article on BLP grounds you can't give the information on the Talk page. (and this is not my interpretation it's policy). Your comments can argue the point without mentioning the detail, if you succeed in getting the detail accepted fine but until then the actual detail does not belong in Talk. And youBrownwn did not just reverse the limited deletion I made to your comment, you took out my entire comment (above, in which I pointed out there are no references for the detail) and reverted the page to before it was made. And you didn't bother making a comment of your own. My original rejoinder comment is back now. Moreover you have failed to disputed my assertion that the detail is not in the referenced source, and you have failed to provide any new alternative source as reference for the detail, hence that detail which is now in the article has no source which coulkd be used as a proper reference.

To repeat: the references currently for the detail are [17] and [22] which consist of About.com article which makes no mention I can see of the BLP information I removed. The other ref is a dead link. I must insist that you provide a good reference for the detail we certainly can't have BLP without references left in the article, and my understanding of policy is it ought to be immediately removed. The onus is on you to provide a ref for that BLP detail you have put in the article.Overagainst (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 10:30, 22 November 2014 edit Overagainst (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 17,667 edits →Issues with the article. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:31, 22 November 2014 edit undo Overagainst (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 17,667 edits →Issues with the article. Next edit →
Line 49:		Line 49:
	::[[User:Brownwn\|Brownwn]], Firstly my deletion of what I think is BLP was I think reasonable while the matter is under discussion, because if it does not belong in the article on BLP grounds you can't give the information on the Talk page. (and this is not my interpretation it's policy). Your comments can argue the point without mentioning the detail, if you succeed in getting the detail accepted fine but until then the actual detail does not belong in Talk. And you[[User:Brownwn\|Brownwn]] did not just reverse the limited deletion I made to your comment, you took out my entire comment (above, in which I pointed out there are no references for the detail) and reverted the page to before it was made. And you didn't bother making a comment of your own. My original rejoinder comment is back now. Moreover you have failed to disputed my assertion that the detail is not in the referenced source, and you have failed to provide any new alternative source as reference for the detail, hence that detail which is now in the article has no source which coulkd be used as a proper reference.		::[[User:Brownwn\|Brownwn]], Firstly my deletion of what I think is BLP was I think reasonable while the matter is under discussion, because if it does not belong in the article on BLP grounds you can't give the information on the Talk page. (and this is not my interpretation it's policy). Your comments can argue the point without mentioning the detail, if you succeed in getting the detail accepted fine but until then the actual detail does not belong in Talk. And you[[User:Brownwn\|Brownwn]] did not just reverse the limited deletion I made to your comment, you took out my entire comment (above, in which I pointed out there are no references for the detail) and reverted the page to before it was made. And you didn't bother making a comment of your own. My original rejoinder comment is back now. Moreover you have failed to disputed my assertion that the detail is not in the referenced source, and you have failed to provide any new alternative source as reference for the detail, hence that detail which is now in the article has no source which coulkd be used as a proper reference.

	::To repeat: the references currently for the detail are [17] and [22] which consist of [http://crime.about.com/od/murder/ig/The-Manson-Family/marybruner.htm About.com article] which makes no mention I can see of the BLP information I removed. The other ref is a dead link. I must insist that you provide a good reference for the detail we certainly can't have BLP without references left in the article, and my understanding of policy is it ought to be immediately removed. The onus is on you to provide a ref for that BLP detail you have put in the article.		::To repeat: the references currently for the detail are [17] and [22] which consist of [http://crime.about.com/od/murder/ig/The-Manson-Family/marybruner.htm About.com article] which makes no mention I can see of the BLP information I removed. The other ref is a dead link. I must insist that you provide a good reference for the detail we certainly can't have BLP without references left in the article, and my understanding of policy is it ought to be immediately removed. The onus is on you to provide a ref for that BLP detail you have put in the article.[[User:Overagainst\|Overagainst]] ([[User talk:Overagainst\|talk]]) 10:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)