Talk:Marilyn Manson/Archive 1

Illustrated Manson image
.. wow to whoever made that... simply brilliant.
 * I think it was a guy named Jim McDermott.

High School
Umm...Marilyn Manson did not graduate from GlenOak High. I am from Ft. Lauderdale and know that he went to Cardinal Gibbons High.

No, I'm pretty sure he DID go to GlenOak, according to VH1 Driven, and other sources -Meomega15 23:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam
How could he have served in Vietnam if he was born in 69?
 * He didn't. His father did, serving as one of those (I guess in helicopters) spreadning agent orange. --Julien 13:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
This article has a lot of unscholarly wording in it, though I wouldn't call it POV asuch.

An example is at the bottom of the Early Years section:


 * Little did he know this is exactly what a man named Trent Reznor would do for him on a grander scale years later.

This probably shouldn't even have been in the Early Years section. If anybody gets the point and cares about Marilyn Manson enough, please fix this article!


 * ....... why didn't you? Yeago 04:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was an interview with Trent Reznor that put Marilyn Manson on the path of rock stardom ("Career Musician" section). I swear I remember an interview I read once with the editor of the magazine/journal (whatever) that Marilyn Manson 'worked' (I think it was volunteer work), where the editor talks about sending Manson to interview Thrill Kill Kult and Manson returning visibly... affected. If i recall correctly it is then that Marilyn Manson got the band Marilyn Manson and the Spooky Kids together... does this sound familiar to anyone else? Naufana 21:23, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds familiar to me. heavensblade23 23:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Brian used to work for 25th parallel magazine as a Journalist.

Did he really play the triangle in high school, or is that just a joke? Everyking 01:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see the source for a lot of the information in this article. And is it just me, or does the author almost sound like he's trying to defend Marylin Manson?
 * - Definitely reads like a Hagiography to me...--81.135.215.79 21:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Triangle
Yes, Manson did play triangle in band. Read his autobiography "The Long Hard Road Out of Hell". Much of this article gets its sources from that book.

-Please Consider- Manson himself has stated that "Long hard road" is not a valid source of historically accurate information the way I understand it, the book was written by his persona, and was at least partly sensationalized and embellished. IF you want to include information and consider it accurate, you shouldn't take it from that book. It's like a 200pg MM ad. Something he wrote to reinforce the persona.. not reality.‡ 68.148.73.226 18:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Minor Typo
Fixed Minor Typo that prevented correct linking to related article. Changed The Heart Is Deceitful aBove All Things to The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things Factual information- Marilyn Manson was linked to Rachelle in 1988, in Manson's book the Long hard Road out of Hell, Manson states that "she is the reason I wanted to become famous, so she would regret dumping me" she left scars on me deeper than any I have since inflicted on myself" Rachelle is also known as Michele Greenberg, the two parted ways in late 1989.

Incomplete
Imo, there should be much more about the controversy around him and his on these matters. For example, why some people accused him of being largely responsible for the Columbine killings, what was his defence against that and last but not least what the interview by Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine did for him. Considering my mediocre English and the current strict Site-your-sources and no-original-research policies I don't dare to add it, but I am sure someone else can. Caesarion 10:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Funny thing is, in the film (and many other places) they say that the Columbine killers listened to Marilyn Manson, but in reality, they did not. Anyways, there is a clip of the Marilyn Manson interview on the Bowling for Columbine website. 69.236.72.116 07:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ribs
Is it true that Manson has had lower ribs removed for purposes of Autofellatio? 82.38.78.129 17:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope. In his autobio he said something like "If I could suck my own dick, I wouldn't bother making music, I wouldn't even leave the house." --BadSeed 17:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

If you read the autobio again you will find that the wonderyears comment was taken directly from it. There is another quote relating to him not making music but it is in amongst the text rather than quotes.

LOL @ "If I could suck my own dick, I wouldn't bother making music, I wouldn't even leave the house." Manson's a funny guy. To answer the question, he has denied many, many times that he removed his ribs so he could give himself head. Street walker 14:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

that aint true that just bull shit --Big420justin 14:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)justin

Even if you had ribs removed, it wouldnt make a difference. The spine can only flex a certain amount, you'd have to be one of these people that can fit in glass boxes to give yourself head.

Not true. It can be achieved by someone that's tall enough and "long" enough [if you catch my drift] if they stretch for a few weeks prior to attempting it. Lost Lullabies X 10:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Better picture
Would it not make a lot more sense to have a picture of the person and not his costume/makeup?

What would be even better would be would be two pictures, like a comparison.--Jimmyjrg 02:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Street walker 14:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have found some pictures of Manson with no or little makeup on. Unfortunately, I don't know the copyright status of these images. If someone could help out, that would be great. Here are the images I found:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (school photo)
 * (mugshot)
 * (comparison)

The mugshot picture is atrocious. Think of any other celebrities who have a mugshot as the first thing on their wiki? didn't think so. PLEASE choose something else 70.71.162.88 07:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, seriously. Who Gives a damn? If this picture wasn't published in Manson's own Autobiography I may agree, but the guy obviously thinks the attention is positive and and relevant (actually, it was another mug shot but let's not pick our noses). Why does everyone get so hot and bothered about the picture in this article? It changes about every week, anyway.Yeago 15:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)!!!!!

homosexual encounter with Danny Lohner
The external reference didn't contain anything about it (not that particular page, anyway) and I'm very skeptical? Anybody know anything about this? -VJ 06:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed it until somebody produces any evidence. -VJ 23:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The external reference said:

" Is it true that he blew the guitarist for Nine Inch Nails?

"It happened. I didn't plan it out. It just happened. We ended up laughing about it later. Everybody seems so taken back by it. My parents were there. They weren't even shocked about it, so I don't know why anyone else is. Ever since then, people have been questioning my sexuality. Am I gay, straight, bi-sexual? To ask me that is to be ignorant to what Marilyn Manson stands for. Marilyn Manson transcends morality, and sexuality. He's a gray area. I don't like putting a label on anything. Yet surely Mr. Manson can objectively understand how his actions on stage could shock some people. Yes, I see where they would be taken back. People's real fears start to come out when you do something like that. A lot of macho guys started calling me 'faggot,' wanted to start a fight with me. Why would they want to _fight_ me 'cause I did that? Obviously, it scared them. I'm confident enough with my sexuality where I can do something like that. Anyone who knows me knows I like girls." "

Zythe 01:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly certain that it was Robin Finck and not Lohner. Also, a bootleg video exists or used to exist of this incident.  It only lasted a second or two. heavensblade23 23:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was with Finck.

134.173.120.211 22:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this the "homosexual act" (or whatever) referenced in the Bill O'Reilly interview? Or if not, does anyone have a good source for that? I'm writing a paper about sexual fluidity in music, and I was hoping to discuss Manson if I can find some better sources. (Would that I could simply cite Wikipedia! haha)

friendship with Reznor
The page has that their friendship is now defunct, as I thought it was 5 years ago. I'm pretty sure they settled things a while ago with MM being in the Starfuckers video and appearing on stage at a NIN concert. I'm not an expert on this at all, but I think that part is a bit dated.
 * No it's not. That whole thing with trent and brian "making up" and appearing in concert together was a publicity stunt (why do you think it was filmed?). I don't know either of them personally, but i know that they're both different people now than they both were 12 years ago, so i doubt they'd have much to talk about if they ever did decide to get together. Besides who cares if they're friends or not? I don't see how that effects the music in any way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.43.214.196 (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Political Affiliation
Manson is a member of the US Republican Party. I think that fact is of enough notability to be added to this article. ---Wikikrieg---
 * This needs a source before it's added. I've been a fan for 11 years and I doubt the validity of this information.heavensblade23 23:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Manson has no political affiliation. Darkahn 15:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson/Brain Warner has stated in interviews that he endorses social Darwinism, and, therefore, he disagrees with state welfare. He also defaced a publicly displayed photograph of Bill Clinton with the word "communist". Further, while he has said he does not vote, he has said he trusts, i.e., supports, if only passively, the conservative Republicans over the liberal Democrats. And this was made clear with a remark that can only be described as idiotic by anybody with an understanding of queer theory. Whether or not the idiot crops up in Michael Moore's film to defend himself is beside the point. The personal is political and his ideologies are irreconcilable with left theory.

Darkahn asserts Manson/Warner has no political affiliation. The entertainer must live inside an apolitical bubble. In truth, he supports global free market capitalism. And lambasts state welfare. Manson/Warner is, by its very definition, rightwing.


 * Being right-wing economically does not make one a Republican. Although there is little doubt in those assertions of his political beliefs, other beliefs (particularly social ones) that he has previously espoused put him at odds with the Republican party, and likewise, that does not make him a Democrat. I'd say it would be fair to believe him that he has no political affiliation, since neither major US party seems to "suit him" and he has not been noted to have links with any other party. Saying that he has right-wing economic views is fine (sources support that), aligning him with a political party will need more substantial sourcing. --zootm 18:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Zootm, I did not attempt to align the entertainer with a "political party". Whether or not the man supports or represents Republican or Democrat views is beside the point. All human behaviour is political in its social, historical or cultural context and the views of Brian Warner are indubitably-ironically-rightwing. Social beliefs? He antagonises religious conservatives to make capital from angry children and this somehow nullifies his politics irreconcilable with left thought? You seem to be making the very common error of equating liberal with leftist. Warner might exhibit a liberalism which doesn't sit well with most religious conservative, but that doesn't make his views left. In fact, the left criticise liberalism for its accommodation of hate speech, and exploitation and dehumanisation. Neither does upsetting or parodying religious people make Warner left. Many grassroots Catholics, in Latin countries, in particular, couple faith with socialism. Theologians argue that rightwing politics are irreconcilable with the faith. The religious conservative vs secular left dichotomy is a ridiculous and fallacious bit of nonsense pushed by people who haven't even engaged with left theory or theology-it's probably just easier for adolescents to fathom to validate their hatred for god, and mommy and daddy, and the church. At the end of the day, a dynamic critique of hegemony is central to leftist theory and Warner's inhumane dog-eat-dog darwinism and glorification of global free market capitalism speak volumes-volumes you're clearly not reading because it makes you uncomfortable to accept the jackass is rightwing.


 * I'm not sure what you mean here. He is clearly economically right-wing, but "right wing" in the context of social political views usually refers to the view which is at odds with liberalism, regardless of what socially "left wing" means. It's a terrible muddying of terms, so I don't think that calling him "right-" or "left-" wing is useful in any descriptive sense, since the terms do not fully apply. --Zootm 10:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, Zootm, I'm sorry your country's political commentators feel the need to resort to the adolescent-level conservative vs liberal dichotomy to simplify American politics for the herd, but, truth is liberalism accomodates rightwing ideology. You assert liberalism is at odds with the right, however, liberalism accomodates hate speech. In contrast to left thought, liberalism does not operate on a critique of hegemony, because it instead accords white middle class men the "right" to vilify people of colour, dehumanise women and exploit the working poor. [The dehumanisation of women is another presentation of Brian Warner's obvious conservatism] All this is at odds with the right how exactly? Also, it speaks volumes that you neglected to address the point made earlier about Warner saying he trusts the republicans more than the democrats. Zootm, if you attempted to argue your point that liberalism is at odds with the right in a sociology lecture hall, you would be kicked in the pants.


 * My only real point is that the terms "right-wing" and "left-wing", in common usage, is extremely difficult to reconcile with the terms "conservative" and "liberal", because they're quite ambiguous the way they're typically used ("far-right" means a very different thing to "right-wing", as an extreme example, as much as left-wing people would like to make it seem otherwise). I just don't like the use of the terms, rather than anything else.
 * Also, please sign your posts. :) &mdash;Zootm 08:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Um...Zootm, your last post just contradicted your earlier argument. One second liberal is at odds with the right, and the next it is difficult to reconcile with the left. No s---t. I have been arguing the latter from the very beginning.

Whether Warner demonstrates liberalism, or libertarianism, neither voids nor reveals his conservatism. However, he is a misogynist, he is apathetic to both class and race injustice, and he is, by his own admission, pro global free market capitalism. Right-wing, right-wing and right-wing.

You don't get it, do you? Contrary to your assertions, conservatism and liberalism are not antonymous. Neoliberalism, a conservative ideology, germinated in libertarianism, and Warner embodies its cold, harsh indifference to the suffering of people of colour, women and the working poor. He is a hegemon. That is, he is ironically a champion of the status quo, particularly in regard to gender.

You still neglect to address the fact the entertainer stated he trusts the republicans over the democrats. I also note you neglect to address my point about his objectification of women, but I neither expect you to care about nor understand this issue.


 * I didn't argue some of your points because I didn't disagree with them. I do understand your arguments though, and your constant insults are doing little but undermining your credibility. Your arguments here are interesting though, so if you can find a good source to cite to include them on the page I think that they'd make a good addition. For what it's worth, though, the main reason I argued at first was that I thought you were disagreeing with "Manson has no political affiliation." on the interpretation of "political affiliation" as "membership or stated support of a political party", rather than of an ideology or similar (which is clearly how you've interpreted it), which is what's led to all this confusion.


 * Also, my "contradiction" was due to clumsy wording (due to being very tired when I posted the original post) rather than any shifting opinion, I think. And I'm not trying to assert that conservatism and (especially classical) liberalism are antonymous, I'm just saying that the common use of the words, especially in the states, is as opposing political forces and without at least some clarification (not much should be required) the article could be made confusing for some readers. Perhaps I'm not giving the average reader enough credit? --Zootm 12:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There are other political categories than "right-wing" and "left-wing." Manson seems quite clearly to be a libertarian anarchist. He's obviously right wing on economic issues, but clearly not on social ones. Just calling him "right-wing" is too simplistic a description of his views. Someone who is right-wing on social issues opposes homosexuality, abortion, and other kinds of "immorality." Manson opposes none of these things. Someone who is right-wing socially also supports "tradition" and deference to authority. Manson supports neither of these things. Manson's views are closer to anarchism, and while you're right to point out that liberalism is not the same thing as leftism, and has a lot in common with the right, I don't think it is at all accurate to characterize someone with mostly anarchist beliefs as "right-wing." That being said, I don't think "left-wing" is any more accurate a description of him. Frasor 02:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Frasor, Saying Warner does not support "tradition", despite a dynamic critique of his dehumanisation of women by feminist theorists, is ridiculous and fallacious. Larry Flynt supports reproductive rights as well, but he is still a racist, misogyist and capitalist pimp. Warner likewise harbours certain social views in regard to gender that are regressive and objectify women. These views are neither "anarchist" nor "liberal"-they're conservative, just like his views on state welfare.

If women consent to participate in pornography or Manson's hijinks, that is a matter of private personal freedom, and is therefore entirely compatible with anarchism. I highly doubt Manson would ever support women being forced to do anything to which they did not consent. Nor do I think that the women that Manson "dehumanizes" are being exploited because of capitalism. Nobody will starve or be unable to feed their kids if they don't take money from Marilyn Manson. If these women didn't want to have anything to do with Manson, they would suffer no consequences for that choice. While his views of women may not be compatible with leftist, feminist thought, that does not necessarily make those views incompatible with anarchism, since they are based on personal, uncoerced, independant consent. I really don't see why you have to agree with all leftist thought in order to avoid being classified as right-wing. Frasor 15:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Frasor, if you want to engage in debate about what you have called "personal, uncoerced, independant consent" (sociology isn't your strong point, I wager?), in some shallow attempt to justify the indefensible objectification of women, consider the fact the research shows that the vast majority of women who endure a system a prostitution of some form, whether it be prostitution, pornography or stripping, assert they would in fact leave such modern forms of slavery immediately IF given the CHOICE to do so. The socio-economic coercion of women, or working poor citizens or people of colour, costumed as consent isn't consent. Gender, class and race are each constructs which inform "choice". A racist, capitalist and misogynist culture not only accords privileges to its white middle class citizens but to those who at least "attempt and fit in". Uncle Tom's Cabin demonstrates the desperation in which people of colour live to "fit in" and the same applies for women who "choose a career" in self-exploitation, which only reinforces and normalises the sexism of the status quo. Perhaps if someone placed a metaphorical gun like poverty in your mouth to force you to "choose" to do something completly against your will, you wouldn't be so apathetic and ill informed.

Yes, I'm sure the women in Manson's videos and entourage just have no choice but to be there.Frasor 04:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Frasor, go back to school, son. Your cynicism and apathy only demonstrate your ignorance in regard to gender, and class and race. As with Zootm, any sociology lecturer would march your inane comments out of the lecture theatre, with laughter in tow. The rhetorical and adolescent-level stupidity you present as debate is the reason why academics discourage the citation of wikipedia entries.

Was there an argument somewhere in that attack? I couldn't seem to find one.

So do you believe that the women in Manson's videos and entourage are exploited or not? I doubt any of them are poor and just hanging around because they have bills to pay. Take his current girlfriend, Evan Rachel Wood; she's making a fine living as an actress and has been since before she met Manson. If she didn't want to hang out with him or be in his videos of her own volition, she wouldn't be. The same goes for Dita Von Teese. She has an education. She could quit and become a costume designer and be no less accepted by society. You talk as if the only reason she could have for being involved in burlesque is the fear of some dire consequence if she quits. Given the money, education and career options she has, I can't imagine what that consequence would be.

Is it really that far fetched to think that woman may actually, sincerely want to be half naked in a Manson video? Is that really so impossible? Is female participation in any display of sexuality aimed at men so objectionable to you that you see it as inescapably humiliating? You don't seem to be able to accept it as being anything but that. Frasor 04:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This talk pages is for discussion of this Wikipedia article, not for discussion of unrelated issues such as the objectification of women. If you have a source that states Manson's political affilliation please provide it, otherwise please take it elsewhere. Also, pelase indent your comments using the ":" symbol. Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 08:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * i'm pretty sure when manson was on david letterman he stated he was conservative. i'm sure the interview is somewhere on the net. i'll post a link if i find it. otherwise i have it recorded and can double check. although all my tapes is a bigger mess than the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.69.78 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

We're A Happy Family
What about the contribution he made to We're A Happy Family: A Tribute To The Ramones? He covered "The KKK Took My Baby Away."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

Manson's inclusion into "American Writers"
Personally I think we should hold off on this inclusion.

The book he claims to have written never surfaced and at the time I recall there were a number of questionable facts.

Firstly, the chapter he released online was not only very brief, but needed to be copyedited desperately as it was full of errors.

Also, he claims that the book was put on stall over some publisher war. Well, maybe these things just get kept under wraps but I don't recall anything more specific than that.

While I've always been intrigued by Manson, the book thing always seemed a bit shady to me. It was a nice idea to accompany an album with a novel, but its been 6 years. What could hold a book up that long? Even if it does exist in entirety, could it still even be published given the fact themes like Columbine are, well, dated?

I ask these questions not just to sink this category on this article, but I'm really quite curious if anyone else had any thoughts like this or some relevant information about the book's status.

Yeago 02:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's great, except that wasn't his only book. He has an autobiography he released a few years ago, with help from a ghost writer. Ergo, he's still an american writer. Dead 03:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeap. I suppose you're technically right. It wasn't a book, however, it was a press package. =)Yeago 14:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware they sold press packages at Amazon? Dead 00:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've heard claims that pivotal parts of it are fictionalized. I'm not interested in YAIS (yet another internet spar). The abortion, the meat dressed def girl, the grandfather. Yeago 02:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Meat dressed girl is 100% true, though her name was changed. She was interviewed in a video documentary on the band.  heavensblade23 23:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

clone high
reference removed by user:65.88.159.198. I don't know why.User:Dlohcierekim | User_talk:Dlohcierekim 02:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture
Going back to an issue that was discussed before, I really don't think it is appropriate to have his mugshot be the main picture. Showing him as he looks without makeup does not stay faithful to the essence of who Marilyn Manson, as he is seen in the eye of the public, is, and I feel that this is misleading. In my opinion, showing him without makeup is akin to having the title of this article be "Brian Warner." Does anyone else have thoughts on this? --DanyaRomulus 01:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Kind of a pointless discussion as the picture cycles regularly. As for your logic, its a picture Manson saw fit to include in his autobio, so, like, yeah.... dunno man wtvr.Yeago 01:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not that I don't think the picture has any merit at all, it's just that I don't think it should be the primary art on this page. The one we had before, with him praying and the white background, I thought was much more appropriate. --DanyaRomulus 05:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Its really quite subjective, I suppose. I think its kinda neat. But, like I said, the thing changes every week.Yeago 14:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And so now we have a drawing of him, and not a real picture? That's really "objective". 2_of_8 17:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, but pictures are made by photographers, so, I suppose according to your logic we can't really have anything that wasn't taken by a geiger-counter-driven random picture taker.Yeago 17:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

College
It's reported a lot that Marilyn was a "college journalist" before starting his band. Does anyone know where exactly he was going? --DanyaRomulus 20:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * broward community college, I'd imagine.Yeago 21:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought too, but I'm struggling to find any sources right now. --DanyaRomulus 00:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * the autobio?Yeago 04:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

request for info on surgical enhancment
There are rumors of mensson beign surgically altered, are they true? if so what has been done ? -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 09:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the supposed 'missing rib' so he can suck himself, it's just an urban rumor. Dead 22:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See his autobiography in which he admits to ear and nose surgeory, among other things.Yeago 22:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The book mentions surgery to shorten his earlobes, but nothing about any type of nose surgery.--70.156.126.4 (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Request a move
Could we move Marilyn Manson (person) to Marilyn Manson (singer)? I think it's better using "singer". CG 10:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He's not just a singer though, he's also a director, author and actor. Plus, person differentiates this article from Marilyn Manson (band) than singer would. Dead 11:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * is there some new MM on the scene? what's the issue?Yeago 20:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And painter/sculptor. Maybe Mariyn Manson (Artist) ? 68.148.73.226 18:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Jack Off Jill
''To gain more notoriety Manson single-handedly orchestrated an open mic poetry night at a South Florida club called Squeeze, which ended up being in his words, "The Goth Gong Show". Squeeze would later become his headquarters and home away from home, and where he would meet long time friend and confidant Jessicka (Jack Off Jill, Scarling.); he convinced her to start a riot grrl band, which he later dubbed Jack Off Jill. The two at the time were said to be inseparable, though Manson would later label her a groupie in his autobiography "The Long Hard Road Out Of Hell". Jack Off Jill went on to open most of his shows in South Florida. He produced many of the band's early recordings and on December 27, 1994 he and surname-free Jessicka were arrested during what police describe as "an undercover adult entertainment investigation." Both singers spent the night in jail in Jacksonville, Florida. The record indicates that, after several court appearances, both paid a $100 fine. Manson, however, wrote that charges were dropped due to lack of evidence. Jack Off Jill would again reunite with Manson as support on March 14, 1999, after being asked to take select remaining opening slots, after the depature of Hole from the co-headlining tour.''

Above narrative of antics does not belong in the "Personal Life" section. Firstly, that these two were "inseperable" is uncomfirmed both by sources or by the bleak personal content of this paragraph. While I don't doubt that every word of it could be true, it stands apart from the other items in having nothing to do with Manson, personally. I'm guessing this is a fan editorial. At best it is the most notable thing that ever became of Jack Off Jill. Put it there.

Yeago 22:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mugshot
A second thought. I think the mugshot should only be included if we have a section illustrating the sexual misconduct lawsuit it applies to. Otherwise, well, its technically NPOV but short of that, its just incomplete. Esp considering he was acquitted.

Could someone please do a writeup? Yeago 14:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll plan take it up next week, if no one does it before then. -- JHunterJ 14:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Write-up done. I haven't retrieved the mugshot to place it in the section though. -- JHunterJ 18:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Feud with the Smiths
He does state that bit about anyone touching a smith's album=homosexual, but it is hardly a tidbit demanding its own section, or noteworthy at all among the many other such tidbits..Yeago 04:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's also a "joke" and not a feud. The Smiths broke up in 1987, Spooky Kids formed two years later, so... Chris Stangl 05:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Change of Image
I think we should change this picture. It does not show how he really looks! He looks like a flippin' girl!MCRGIRL 16:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The previous picture was a mugshot. The picture here does change often, it's a matter of finding a free (preferably) or fair use one to change it to... -- JHunterJ 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Drugs
Does Manson use drugs? If so, should we include it in the article?
 * He does, of all kinds. He has an interview in High Times where he speaks at length about it, and Mechanical Animals-era interviews are often filled with drug anecdotes. He's been a huge advocate of drugs, in my opinion.Yeago 16:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * His use of cocaine, alcohol, and occasional pills is well documented, but the book and interviews express a dislike of marijuana and ecstacy, a single bad experience with LSD, disinterest in heroin and non-powder forms of cocaine, and disgust with nicotine products.--70.156.126.4 (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why hasn't Manson been busted for using drugs?

If he freely admits to using drugs, why haven't the authorities done anything about it? Because he's smart about it. You can admit anything you want, but that doesn't mean that they can come after you. They need to have reasons to believe he has them in his possesion.

Well, two possibilities: A. He lives in America. or, B. He's lying his ass off.

Either is plausible. Darkahn 15:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How about he's a rather well off celebrity. Since when do celebrities get in trouble? Shit look how many times Gallagher admitts during shows that he smokes. A guy on one of his videos actually HAD a blunt.

Why is it anybodies business but his own what he does in his free time? For the record though, he doesn't like to smoke pot and he does like to drink absinthe. He used to do lots of coke, but he quit that (IIRC) and he took acid once or twice when he was younger (and by younger i mean in his twenties). But i don't see how that's anybodies business but his.65.43.214.196 01:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

He is mentioned in the Ketamine wiki article. He apparently accidentally used Special K, thinking it was coke, and made a song about the experience called "Disassociative". Not only that, but he mentioned it when on a radio show, after asked when the last time he got high was, he replied something along the lines of, "Just recently. Ketamine." Sorry about being vague and such, I just so happen to be under the effects of lower-level opiates at the moment. 4.234.51.173 06:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just found the reference I was talking about. Here it is. Rock singer Marilyn Manson claims that the experience that resulted from his accidental use of Ketamine (which he mistook for cocaine) inspired the appropriately titled song, 'Disassociative' (from his Mechanical Animals album). Also on a television interview on the Howard Stern show he was asked when was the last time he got high to which he replied "just recently, Ketamine". There were teenage fans there asking him if he wanted to go smoke pot with them after the show. 4.234.51.173 06:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

He also "does" oxygen, which can get you high in it's pure form...There's actually a vid on Youtube where he's got an oxygen mask on. 72.241.165.155 19:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a common practice for singers/performers before or during shows as a medical treatment, it's not drug use, nor is oxygen a drug.--72.150.38.54 (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
His height, 6'3", is mentioned briefly by Marilyn Manson in his autobiographical work, The Long Hard Road Out Of Hell, as well as by him in interviews, wherein he usually credits his height to an abnormality caused at birth by his father Hugh's exposure to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.

What's abnormal about a height of 6'3"? ComaVN 09:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing. =). Manson likes to connect everything to some weird tale in his past. Most of it is phony--this one is contrived.Yeago 22:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There was an edit concerning Manson posing for Honcho. The photos did appear in the magazine to the best of my knowledge but were not shot for the magazine. There was also another, heterosexual pornographic magazine that Manson really DID do a shoot for around 1995. I forget the name of the magazine. heavensblade23 00:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Early Life
That photo in the "Eary Life" section shows Marilyn Manson's cover of The Beautiful People single. Shouldn't there be a childhood photo or something? I did find a picture of him at age 9. -- WereWolf 17:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A free photo? -- JHunterJ 17:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think so, yeah. WereWolf 18:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Abelcain
I removed the listing for Abelcain from the filmography list. Manson was attached to this film in 2002, but since then the project has stalled out completely. There hasn't been any recent information to verify that Manson is still attached to the project, or that the project exists at all, so putting an entry in Manson's filmography seems overly-optimistic at best. I also removed the unverifiable (and unbelieveable) claim that Manson was an extra in Napoleon Dynamite. - Rynne 05:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations Needed
It's almost unbelievable how many citations needed tags are on this page. Wikipedia isn't some gossip magazine. If some crazy thing can't be backed up, it should be deleted until there's an actual source for it. I'll come check back here next week or so. Banaticus 10:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a source for rumors -- it is neither the Weekly World News nor the National Enquirer. Opinions and rumors should be backed up by some 3rd party -- innuendo has no real place here. Banaticus 02:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I got rid of all the stuff with citation needed tags. Did he edit this himself?-- Dragon fly  ( 60 ) 05:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of this info seems right, it's just most of it's from his autobiography, and I doubt anyone is gonna go though it to check the page number or whatever.

Discography
If this article is on the person and not his band, why is the discography included on this page? --Ekaiyu 07:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's possibly relevant as Marilyn Manson the person was the lead singer (? musician) for those recordings, so it's like George Harrison having a personal discography (which includes his time with the Beatles) and The Beatles also having a discography.  In this case, though, the two discographies seem to be the same.  Does Marilyn Manson the person do solo work or is everything done with his band? Banaticus 09:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

He has worked on many things seperatly from the band (mainly soundtracks) but never a solo album, though as he has complete creative control over the band, they'd could be seen as solo albums if you want to get technical.

Picture
Why isn't there a picture at the top anymore, there was one there a few months back, were'd it go? --Jimmyjrg 00:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Section headers
Too many, and poorly arranged - for example, "Marriage" (2004), is a subsection of "early life".

"In May 2002 Twiggy Ramirez (real name Jeordie White) left the band, citing differences in perspective on the future of the band." What band? Who the hell is Twiggy Ramirez? Remember the lead is seperate, a summary; you haven't told us he formed a band and we haven't been introduced to Twiggy Ramirez either. Looks to me like you're trying to deal with themes inside chronological sections and not really pulling it off.

I'm not entirely sure how you're gonna organise the material here but clearly something needs to be done. Maybe you could get some ideas from Bill Drummond, which is a similar article in that the guy has fame resulting mostly from one band, but also has artistic and other interests. That one is structured:
 * Background (pre fame)
 * Career
 * 70s indie/post-punk
 * 80s solo/A&R
 * The KLF
 * K Foundation
 * to date
 * Reviews, accolades and criticism
 * Discography/artistic output

I suppose this article might take a form something like:
 * Background or Background and personal life
 * Music Career (or, simple chronology of his post-fame life)
 * Phase 1
 * Phase 2
 * Other work (TV, art) (not needed if doing chronologically)
 * Reviews, criticism, influence
 * Perhaps his disputes with other famous people could have a section here?


 * The info in "Lawsuits" should be slotted into Personal life or Career History I think
 * Trivia should be worked into the text or zapped
 * Some trivial stuff should be zapped from the main text or given some context to show why it's important.

Really I don't know enough about Manson to suggest a really good layout; you might want to start simply by removing most of the subsection headers? --kingboyk 08:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Singer or Person
I thought it was agreed to not change the aricles name from Marilyn Manson (person) to Marilyn Manson (singer) as he is more than a singer and so person makes more sense.--Jimmyjrg 06:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That's why it says person, dumbass.-- Wokid   €  08:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It actually says musician. 4.234.51.173 07:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Satanism
I would like a source for the allegation that he is "not a practicing Satanist", as from interviews and numerous other speakings, he has revealed that he follows that 'philosophy'; post-Columbine, he was much less inclined to speak about it, and he only -hinted- at it on his interview with Faux News' Bill o' Reily. Also, as someone who frequently discusses with members and priests within the Church of Satan, Marilyn Manson is rarely a topic that comes up - however, I have never once heard him referred to as a non-practicing Satanist; just not active in the Church of Satan. Let it be clear that the Church of Satan itself states that you do not need to be a member to be a Satanist; Marilyn Manson's 'title' might have been totally honorary.

His way of heeding Satanism is criticized by many, such as Magister Svengali, but that certainly doesn't mean he isn't a "practicing Satanist". Maybe a very POOR Satanist, but I have not once heard him rebuke Satanism, and a majority of his lyrics have Satanic imagery (not pseudo-Satanic Deicide kind of garbage) which, although hard to detect, also calls into question the allegation that he is not a practicing Satanist. Of course, I am willing to accept that he merely frequented with Anton LaVey as Alice Cooper did earlier in some form of 'shock value', though I've yet to see any real evidence of this.

Nearly everything that I have ever Marilyn Manson say, with the exception of his drug-use (something Anton LaVey himself knew and supposedly overlooked), has fallen in line with the philosophy of Satanism. I will keep an eye on this discussion topic, and unless a source is given rather than speculation, I will remove the allegation. Darkahn 14:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Since when did Manson's "Satanic imagery" supercede even that of Deicide's? There's got to be a reason Manson is frowned upon by black metal adherents.

Sort of on this topic, in the first paragraph it states that he uses it to 'augment'...huh, I went back to the article and it was changed within those few seconds it took me to get here. Still, I'm not sure if we should say it has given him commercial success, maybe attention, but I'm not sure about success. 66.53.78.161 22:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It was Manson's controversy that gained him the publicity which resulted in his success. The controversy was caused by various factors; his ties with COS was a key one, therefore it augments his controversial impact. As with Alice Cooper etc. before him, it's the controversy that rakes in the dosh.

Found this http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Marilyn_Manson. Read, and see what you guys think.

Manson damn near quotes LaVey in some of his songs. Example? Get Your Gunn, he makes reference of the esteemed "Good Guy Badge" which LaVey devoted much writing to. See the Devil's Notebook.

As a Satanist, I can say (with a clear head) that Deicide is sure as Hell (no pun intended) not Satanic, despite what black metal subculture brainwashed youth seem to think. Deicide is "anti-Christian", and there is not a single Satanic message in their music (not even in their song 'Homage to Satan') - only anti-Christian. To avoid any potential misunderstanding, I suggest reading on Satanism (including from Wikipedia, if the article has not currently been vandalised) or from www.churchofsatan.com. Whereas, as the unsigned commend states above, Marilyn Manson practically quotes Anton LaVey -- the founder of Satanism -- word for word from his writings.Darkahn 17:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have researched the Church of Satan before, and as far as I'm concerned it is religiously-recycled existentialism. Satan only seems to be present for shock value. Although there may have been no satanist sects predating COS, that does not dismiss the possibility that there were devil-worshippers around.

Of course there were devil-worshippers around -- there was not, contrary to what reverse-Christians try to claim, an actual religion or anything of similar called Satanism prior to Anton LaVey.Darkahn 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Some odd things
In the filmography it's stated that Manson was in the 2006 film Stranger than Fiction. I just was that film & didn't spot him. So I checked the imdb & still nothing. Just wondering where that came from? Additionally, it's stated that Manson guest starred in a Family Guy episode. A parody of Manson did appear in Saving Private Brian but I do not believe he played himself. I didn't want to correct either pieces of information as I'm not entirely sure, but maybe sources could be provided?
 * well i deleted the thing about family guy, cuz yeah they had a marilyn manson character on the show, but the character was voiced by seth mcfarlane (SP?) so it doesn't really count as manson's "film/TV work".65.43.214.196 01:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Gonna delete the Strange than Fiction entry as well. I didn't see him in the movie and can't find anything on the net about it, either. Maybe someone was hopeful. --MadameArsenic 15:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm also going to delete a reference to his appearing in Summer of Sam as a "gay character." The only gay character in the film is Bobby "The Fairy" Del Fiore, and that wasn't Manson in the role.  It was Brian Tarantina, who is a good 10 years older than Manson.  Further, there's no mention of Manson anywhere on the IMDb full cast list.  MikeFTM 06:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

2 questions that I have that go unanswered in the article
What happened to his eye(s)? Did he have breast implants? Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.70.29.194 (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Contact lenses + body suit.

Sigh...so many of these...Is it really so hard to believe he wears a contact and had a bodysuit on? Narcotics faerie 17:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Alteration
Did anyone notice that someone has been messing with the page? "Marilyn Manson was born on Neptune.He attended Heritage DuSchool,ender's shadow is a good book. Read it now or i will rip out your liver and eat it. Thank you." I suggest that we fix this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James:The Four Faced (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Someone messed with the page again. "How to Make Love Like a Corn Starch: A Cautionary Tale" James:The Four Faced 22:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So protective of this page.sigh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.36.36 (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Change in Title
Why was it changed to "Musician"? He is much more than a musician... Like other people have brought up before. I suggest that we change it back to "Person". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James:The Four Faced (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree. Darkahn 20:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson is not a person. It is a persona. A Pop-culture character. I mean seriously, you're trying to build a factual database of information on a fictional character. Is there a Persona tag? or fictional character maybe? 68.148.73.226 18:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

So I'm assuming that you would say the same thing about David Bowie or anyone else who does not use their "real" name. Either way the persona(Marilyn Manson) is more than a musician... so I still suggest a change to person... after all he calls himself Marilyn Manson. How about we agree that it is a "nickname". James:The Four Faced 05:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed Affiliations Section
I removed the affiliations section because it was conflicting with the list of Satanists (which says that he is an honorary member)

Health & Welfare
This page says Manson died yesterday and it's still up. You people fucking suck. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.145.18.192 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
 * That particular piece of misinformation was deleted hours before your comment. If you're still seeing it, reload the page and/or clear your cache. Additionally, please do not place new comments at the top of the page. If not responding to an existing comment, add your own header, as I've done. Thanks! Salamurai 06:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Move request
There is a move request ongoing at Talk:Marilyn Manson (band). I had suggested that move to get rid of the Marilyn Manson redirect but the consensus so far is to move this article to Marilyn Manson instead. Folks following this article may want to weigh in on that alternate suggestion since I'm suggesting the closing admin go ahead and carry out that move if consensus continues that way. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC) This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Vegaswikian 00:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. The person is the primary usage, not the band. --  SigPig  |SEND - OVER 03:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is Sandefur?
In the Marriage section, we're hearing about Dita Von Teese and then all of a sudden we see "...Sandefur's filing for divorce..." and "Sandefur reportedly took their two cats..." Anybody know who Sandefur is? Is it a nickname or something for Dita Von Teese? --Jlaramee 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bias in the introduction
I was taken quite agast by the overwhelming bias of the introductory paragraph to this article, and I would like to propose the removal of two sentences, namely "Manson bears the honorary title of "Reverend" in Anton LaVey's Church of Satan, though how closely he follows the dogma is questionable. Nonetheless, the controversy this affiliation augmented has garnered him publicity which has arguably contributed to his commercial success." Through its array of weasel words, what these sentences convey is: "Manson is beyond all doubt a satanist." This is quite simply not true--while some have made unfounded claims that he is a satanist, they are nothing more than silly rumors, and Manson has stated time and time again that he is not a satanist, that he does not prescribe to the Church of Satan, and that the title of Reverend was bestowed upon him as a joke.

In a 1997 WLOX interview, Manson stated, if I may paraphrase, that he is not a "devil-worshiper". He further renouces his belief in both a god and a devil and states that, if he does not believe in a devil, he cannot possibly worship it--his ideology can only be classified as atheism. This is also not the only time in which he has outright stated his beliefs, and, in no interview or publication, has he ever stated that he was a satanist. There has also never been any evidence or any serious argument presented to the contrary; as such, I don't believe his alleged satanism can be denoted as "questionable," but rather the answer to the question of whether he's a satanist is quite resoundingly no.

I also can't help but notice that nowhere in the article is Manson's alleged satanism or his title as Reverend of the Anton LaVey's church discussed other than in the introductory paragraph. If the article is not going to address these points at all, then why are they in the introductory paragraph?

If no one objects to the removal of these highly biased and unfounded assertions within the next few days, I intend to remove them. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I can only assume you know absolutely nothing about Satanism. We are not devil-worshippers, we are atheists -- so Manson's statement was right on the money of what a Satanist, atleast in the true and LaVeyan sense of the word, would say. King Diamond has often denied he is a Satanist, then admitting, then denying again, despite being a card-carrying member of the Church of Satan. We do not believe in God or the Devil. I was the one whom stated how closely he follows Satanism is questionable, because of his illegal drug use; Satanism is against illegal activities, and any form of self-harm or addiction. The only devil-worshippers are the morons who label themselves "theistic satanists", despite the fact that their religion is quite new compared to so-called LaVeyan Satanism (the FIRST real religion to take up such a name, until the advent of the internet allowed the virtually online religion of "theistic satanism" to take hold). Manson ascribes to LaVeyan Satanism.

1. The song "Get your Gunn" practically quotes several of Anton LaVey's essays. (See: The Devil's Notebook.)

2. There is a picture of Anton meeting with Manson, though I won't upload it here for copyright reasons.

3. The Church of Satan has said repeatedly that Manson is a member and was bestowed the title in an honorary fashion by the late Anton LaVey. He still holds this title, despite his mostly inactivity.

4. Contrary to what people seem to think that Manson says in the Bill o' Reilly interview, it was not bestowed as a joke. Infact, he makes it very clear: "No, not necessarily. [not a minister, which is true] That was earlier ... it was a friend of mine, who's now dead, who was a philosopher [Anton LaVey] I thought I learned alot from, and that was a title that I was given, so alot of people made alot out of it. It's not a real job, I didn't get paid for it." This statement of his, and refusal to even mention Anton's name, garnered him a bit of dislike in the Church. He has not kept an active membership, but he has not "closed" it, either.

5. Nearly everything Manson has stated falls in line with the core belief system of Satanism, with the exception of his glamorization of illegal drugs. Satanists, especially one of Manson's calliber, do not blurt out their religion.

6. Marilyn Manson wrote a foreword to LaVey's book, Satan Speaks!.

7. This Christian exposè, while incorrect in its refference to the Church of Satan as the "First Church of Satan", an entirely different organization, is roughly 97% correct, if you're willing to look past the fundamentalist nonsense.

8. As such, and because Manson does not use his belief system as a real "identity", I have placed it in the trivia section. Darkahn 17:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not see how LaVeyan Satanism could be denoted as "true Satanism". LaVeyan Satanism is a New Age fad begun in the 1960's, whereas what I would define as "true Satanism," that is the popularly held conception (be it misconception or not) of Satanism is diabolatry, which predates Christianity. This is, however, admitedly not my area of expertise. In any case, as I stated above, his subcribing to LaVeyan Satanism (for which there may well be more evidence than I originally had thought) is certainly worthy of mention, just not in the first paragraph. In any case, his participation or lack thereof in this church plays a very minor role in his career and his life, though it has gained him notice in the media. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Diabolatry is just that -- diabolatry. Satanism was a little-used prerogative pre-LaVey, but that is of course off-topic. 12.96.46.209 10:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Satanism is just an idealogy, not even really a religion. The organization is built of people who hold the same beliefs about religion and think relatively similarly.
 * regardless of LaVey-ist satanism vs "true satanism", that is neither here nor there. Manson was inducted into the LaVey church of satanism and he's stated over and over that it was just a joke.
 * This could have it's own section in the article until it can be verified beyond doubt one way or another. I see compelling arguments that he IS in the LaVey church, but he has denied it more than once.

K!netic 02:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tense errors
While reading this article I came across several places where it said something to the liking of "Marilyn Manson was the leadsinger" so I would like to suggest that a person speaking English natively do read this article focusing on the tense. A more specific example of the wrong tense (I believe it should be "is" not "was"):

''His music is frequently featured on the show C.S.I.. The character on the show, Greg Sanders, is a big fan of Manson and the actor who plays him, Eric Szmanda was a personal friend of Manson.'' XezzeX 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

genre
isnt it called "shock rock"?· Lygophile   has   spoken  05:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Shock Rock is a label for rock bands that have shocking stage performances, coverart or lyrics. Not a genre. Manson (Industrail Metal, Alternative Metal), GWAR (Thrash Metal, Hardcore Punk), Kiss (Glam Rock, Heavy Metal), Rob Zombie (Heavy metal, Alternative Metal), th Misfits (Hardcore Punk) and Cradle of Filth (Black Metal, Symphonic Black Metal, Gothic Metal) are all "shock rock" even though there sounds, lyrics and stage performances are very different

drugs
Manson doesn't use drugs!!! His band only promotes drugs...they don't use it! john 5, he used drugs but was therefor kickt out!!!....So...manson doesnt use drugs and by the way...he's to cool to use it!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.66.200.83 (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Manson takes drugs and he's said it a million times before. So do his bandmates, I am sure. Nukleoptra 17:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I second Nukleoptra's comment Doody 09 03:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

John 5 didn't do drugs or alcahol and some say thats why he was booted annoymous 5-10-07 5:44 PM

If you've read Marilyn Manson's autobiography you'd know that he frequently snorted cocaine and LSD during the recording of Antichrist Superstar. If you believe what the press says, he also has a current drinking problem that contributed to the collapse of his marriage... anonymous 5-14-07 10:21 PM

You Fuck's Are So Damn Retarded, John 5 Was Kicked Out Because Of Different Music Ways, Manson Didn't Want 5 in the band because he was too much better to be in the band.--Manson 0015 21:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Drugs
I read somewhere that Manson does not condone the use of drugs but he does if it becomes an addiction?? I can't remember where I read this and therefore I don't know how true it is.--137.215.9.20 12:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)-Suicide-Doll-137.215.9.20 12:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're thinking about Manson's statement on the release of Gidget Gein from the band. Manson stated in The Long Hard Road out of Hell that the problem there was not the fact that Gein was a drug user, but that Gein allowed drugs to consume and take over his life. Manson is an open drug user as he wrote about many, many past drug-use experiences in the book (circa 1998), and was even a marijuana-userduring the recording of The Golden Age of Grotesque. I don't know what the word is in 2007, but it's most likely that Manson is still a drug-user; his problem was with the idea that an individual could possibly allow drug-use to literally control one's life. R-Tiztik 00:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Trying to understand
I've been a Manson fan for about 2 years now and everyday I have a new view on him and his work. I'm trying to understand a previous comment someone made. If i get it right you are saying that "Marilyn Manson" as we know it is merely a public persona. So therefore a fictional character? Am i right to say that most of what we know about Marilyn Manson is fictional? Does that also mean that what we know about Brian Warner is fictional? --Gwen 12:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Gwen--Gwen 12:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * He's still one person, but he's just altered his physical appearance for publicity/reputation purposes. If you've seen his mugshot, it's an improvement. K!netic 01:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

ugliest person ever? the answer is yes.


 * Really? I'd say he's one of the most beautiful men I've ever seen, but that's just a matter of opinion. Anyway, on topic with the post that was here originally, famous surrealist director Alejandro Jodorowski (who's friends with Manson, was the priest at Manson's wedding, and plans on directing a film starring Manson as Pope) once told Manson

'You are a performance. I do not know you without make-up, no one knows you without make-up.' Blahmicho 13:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Development of Persona
I think something about the development of his persona would be useful in the early section of the page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Art section
Could someone go through this site and extract newspaper and magazine sources for the art section. Thanks. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A note regarding sources
As a Biography of a Living Person, extra care should be taken to ensure that all material on this page is reliably sourced. I have fixed the marriage section, but other sections (such as "art" above) need to be backed up with reliable sources (not fan sites), or the usnourced information should removed. See WP:BLP for more details. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mansons wedding
Was it not in Kinnety Castle County Laois/Offaly?
 * The source says Gurteen castle. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Books section
Content seems a little Biased don't you think? Zazaban 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't it be books by Manson, not books about Manson? -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems the section exists mainly to attack Manson. I'm removing it. Zazaban 09:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Molestation by Grandfather
That's pretty important in his development and should be in the article. Zazaban 18:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Add it if you can source it, forget it if you can't John R S 05:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Theistic Satanist"
What's with the "Theistic Satanist"? I'm pretty sure that's been debunked over and over in interviews.


 * Manson is sure as hell no Theistic Satanist; he's quoted The Satanic Bible in songs, in interviews, et cetera, and only recently started saying his membership within the Church of Satan was only "joking" -- mostly due to record label pressure, probably. 12.96.46.209 12:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting Holes In Happiness
Does anybody have a source that it's a single? It seems like it's actually confirmed now, and will now be needlessly difficult to add due to the speculative additions of it previously. Zazaban 01:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

All about popular issues - reliable?
Do you all think this is a reliable source? My problem with it is that it sort of presents itself as a factual source, but it's kind of got an agenda - to convince you that Christianity is right. It just seems kind of sneaky. Anyway, what do you all think of replacing the source? delldot  talk  02:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the article that source cites seems to kind of contradict what the article says: We say he was "raised in his mother's religion", but in the beliefnet interview that I think is the one cited by the popularissues site I'm questioning, he says, "My father was Catholic, but my mother, I believe, was Episcopal. So I sort of veered off into the watered-down version of Catholicism." So I think this should be changed.  delldot   talk  03:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Painting?
The photo we had before might not have been brilliant, but I think a painting is far less useful as the main picture for someone. Surely there must be plenty of other possible photos we could use? (E.g., a quick search through the history shows before we had Image:Marilyn Manson Ljubljana 2007.JPG.) Mdwh 10:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the old picture Image:Marilyn Manson f10300967.jpg which was literally a joke and might as well be a picture of Cliff Richard as Manson. I used a painting I found on the Commons Image:Marilyn Manson kot Ikarus.jpg. I thought it was rather good and it did at least show the guys face. That got reverted because the illustration "should show him and not a painting". Leaving aside the interesting metaphysics there, I take it the consensus does not like the painting. Ok, I've put back the earlier Image:Marilyn Manson Ljubljana 2007.JPG, but I notice that Image:Marilyn Manson Ljubljana 2007 (9).JPG could easily be cropped to give a better picture. Would editors give this some thought: this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. --Simon Speed 21:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've cropped Image:Marilyn Manson Ljubljana 2007 (9).JPG and enhanced it as best I could with the GIMP. Personally, I think this Image:Marilyn Manson Ljubljana 2007 (9) crop.JPGis the best of the photographs available. (But then I prefer Ines's painting :-) ). Comments? --Simon Speed 17:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the picture is awful, to be honest. What about a GFDL liscensed photo?  I'm sure I could get permission for a quality image.  For examples of "my work" (asking for permission basically), take a look here: (first row).  I think if we get a high quality image with proper permission the photo will stop changing every 5 seconds. Drewcifer 23:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the current image, remember the guy is not Brad Pitt, but if you (or anyone else) can get a good free-licensed publicity type photo, that would be great. Just do it. --Simon Speed 00:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The picture could be better if you just do some white on the mouth and chin and take an arm sample because those look absolutely nothing like his tattoos to if you could do a touch up that would make the pic better. The current image is horrible but could be repaired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkw515 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger
I agree with the proposal to merge the Celebritarian Corporation article into this one. Bearian 15:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Per Articles for deletion/Celebritarian Corporation, I've done a rudimentary merge. Feel free to expand if fit. --Tikiwont 10:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)