Talk:Marilyn Manson/Archive 3

Splatter Sisters
Veteran producer Edward R. Pressman and filmmaker David Gordon Green are teaming to produce Adam Bhala Lough's retro slasher film "Splatter Sisters," with Marilyn Manson and Evan Rachel Wood attached to star. variety.com --MishaelNSK (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

External Link Request
I suggest that a link to http://www.nachtkabarett.com/Grotesque be added to the external links portion of this page, as it is considered an official Marilyn Manson page, and in fact, is endorsed by Manson himself. It deals in-depth with the meanings and sources of all the symbolism and metaphorical images throughout Manson's body of work. For proof that Manson promotes this site and its "Babalon" forums, see: http://www.nachtkabarett.com/Update/83:MarilynManson-com-Announces-Babalon-as-Official-BBS.


 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done  AJ Cham  08:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Television
He has made a recent appearance on Tim And eric Awesome Show Great Job! in the episode "Crows" He plays Darkman, a crow-like human who makes Tim And Eric pay for their cruelty to birds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.216.155 (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Manson's song Disposable Teen's was used for TNA Wrestler Christopher Daniels theme song for a short while, lyrics were not included as it was the instrumental version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.149.172 (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Appearances in Other Media
Manson was one of the characters regularly caricatured in the British TV Series "Bo Selecta". Would have added this to the main article, but it appears uneditable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.147.34 (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why the article can't be edited. I'm able to edit. I will add it for you if you can't.--Artsupplymannequin (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a song by Relient K called Marilyn Mason ate my girlfriend. It is not on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.250.4 (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect foot note
Second foot note : it's season 2 episode 18 "Prehistoric Ice Man" instead of episode 219 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.239.139.168 (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

third footnote, should be Family Guy, season 5, episode 4, not 504. There aren't 504 episodes in season five o.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkferrari (talk • contribs) 23:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

MrHyperborean (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC) ✅ Joe Gazz84 (user)•(talk)•(contribs) 17:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

discography..
i'm pretty positive there is an album that's been missed out; 'Smells Like Children'

i own this album myself, and am just wondering why it hasn't been included anywhere?

it was clearly a key part in the bands style development.. and was also a very early product of theirs.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.246.163 (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the album wasnt included because it has only full-lenght albums, and Smells Like Children is an EP. Hellspriest (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

- He is a freak. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2  Talk Autographs Contribs 03:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mrjack465, 16 January 2011
Under Music, Please remove:In 2010 Manson was featured in the Motionless in White song, "London in Terror".

There are no sources that can validate that Manson appeared in the song. The song does not credit him as a contributor. Also, as a person very familiar with Manson, I can confidently say that Manson's voice appears no where in the song.

Mrjack465 (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ There was no source provided, so per WP:BURDEN, the statement was removed unless a source can be found. Stickee (talk)  13:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request Jan 22
Marilyn Mason appeared in Celebrity Ghost Stories. add it to other media stuff kay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danooky (talk • contribs) 02:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Gamer
Marilyn Manson's "Sweet Dreams" is used in the movie "Gamer" but isn't listed in the filmography section of the page. Could we get this added? (Later edit) The cover of "Sweet Dreams" is also featured in the remake film House on Haunted Hill (1999). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.45.142 (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, but can you give a source for this? '' Ϣere [[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="

timmmy turner liked marylin manson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.45.178 (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Satanism
Nothing about satanism at personal life? --188.27.126.114 (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's all a relic of his ACSS era now, nothing too important these days. Dark Prime (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson
He Is Not Crazy He Is The Man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.185.133 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect High School
Cardinal Gibbons High School is listed incorrectly, he actually graduated from GlenOak High School in Canton, Ohio in 1987. I believe the incorrect information is coming from an article that was in the Sun Sentinel May 26, 2009. A correction was published the following day (May 27, 2009) with the correct high school. Ljw1127 (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit requests
We were reading Annie Lennox's page which linked to Androgyny. If anyone should be included on the Androgyny list it is Marilyn Manson.

173.77.137.131 (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Not done: Thanks for the opinion, but Wikipedia should only include information based on reliable sources. If you have a reliable source linking Manson and androgyny, please list it here. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I see in the section "Appearances in other media" that the Metalocalypse episode is called "Regionklok", this is not correct as it is called "Religionklok". You can see this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metalocalypse_episodes, it is season 1 episode 15. Could someone please correct this? Thanks 41.240.9.161 (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson is not seeing Evan Rachal Wood
The relationship has ended between Brian Warner and Evan Rachal Wood, even though they reconciled this year the two have split and she is currently seeing Jamie Bell and Brian Warner is currently seeing a woman who's name will be disclosed for her privacy. According to sources related to Warner, he is " happily involved and is truly in love".

Spokespersonsteve (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Childhood molestation?
The article claims, under 'Early Life', that "The environment in his childhood made him vulnerable to further abuse and he was molested several times by a neighbor" -- there is no evidence of him being molested, let alone several times, in his autobiography, if this sentence follows on from the previous; and if not, then what evidence is there of him having suffered child sexual abuse? Citation needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.52.53 (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Born in the UK?
I have a feeling that this is just a random edit that someone made, so I'm going to go ahead and change it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.191.131 (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Awards
I added a short awards section. Anything else anyone has is welcomed. I think an artist should be noted for their awards/nominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xffactor (talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

eponymous
I think M. Manson, the individual person, is eponymous, not the band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jive Dadson (talk • contribs) 04:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Not his stage name
"Brian Hugh Warner, under stage name Marilyn Manson" this is not true. His name was legally changed to Marilyn Manson a long long time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.159.159 (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Genre
Marylin Manson isn't classic rock... he's Industrial Metal.
 * Yes, Manson isnt Rock, he is Metal, a lot of subgenres but Metal in general — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellspriest (talk • contribs) 05:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * He is as the article currently says, Industrial Metal, Glam Rock, Industrial Rock, it depends on his album really as the genre's differ from each one. Born Villain is Industrial Metal, and just to throw my opinion in is bloody fantastic. In this article here it claims that his genre is "suicide death metal" which is hilariously wrong. In my experience people who call it that usually have no knowledge of these genre's of music. I'm not even sure that's a genre name that's used. --Nikolai508 (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Politics
Entry should include a section on Brian's political views - namely his support for Republican candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.7.118.70 (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, it's so weird... He's got these (and I'm NOT being sarcastic here) ultra anti-Christian, anti-religion, anti-family, anti-fascist, anti-G-d, anti-racist ways so much so that you'd think he'd be a Social Democrat or even a Socialist, but no... Turns out he's like a hyper-ultra-mega-capitalist-conservative Republican! Ha! Who'd have thought? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.119.227 (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Relationships
Why aren't Rachelle or Missi mentioned under relationships/private life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.88.10.41 (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * On Dita von Teese: 'Though she was unable to, the two kept in contact.' doesn't make sense as a sentence, and 'On his 32nd birthday, in 2001, she arrived with a bottle of absinthe, and they became a couple.' whilst I get what it's driving at is clumsily written. I don't know about the subject to re-write either, but they should be. Phunting (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Josh Saviano
Maybe add a "see also" for Josh Saviano? Just to get a mutual linking. Ssredg (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Josh Saviano thing is nothing but a rumor from the 1990s. It would get a link if it were more notable (on the same level as, say, the Paul is dead rumor) or if there were some truth behind it (The 27 Club is a good example. Connection or not, all those artist did die at the age of 27). In any case, this would be something more reserved for a gossip magazine, or on a fansite for either person, not Wikipedia. Johnny338 (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Gothic Rock?
I see it's cited now, but I must question how reliable that source is. Many people confuse Gothic rock as a fashion and not for a musical style, and I suspect that's what's happened here. Does Manson look "goth" in terms of the associated fashion? Yes, to many people that's a goth look. But does he play it musically? His primary influences seem to be post-industrial and heavy metal when you listen to the albums. He does claim to be a fan of Bauhaus and such, although I personally wonder how much of that is just for goth street cred as I can't hear it in the albums. I do admit that's a personal opinion, but let's take him at face value. Let's say he is into Gothic rock. That doesn't mean he plays it, Skinny Puppy were influenced by Bauhaus too, but no one would say they play it. Let's look at radically different bands and genres too. New wave music was an influence on Barenaked ladies, but no one would say they play it. Punk rock was largely influential on Joy Division and their earliest recordings are punk, but it's not a large enough part of their work to place it in genres. Anyway, just something to think about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.250.197.229 (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Charles Manson: Murderer, or "leader of Manson family"?
My edit, calling Manson a murderer was reverted by. Manson was convicted of murder and is therefore legally a murderer. And I think that this is a more instructive way of describing him than "leader of the Manson family." (What does that mean?) &mdash; goethean 01:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * He wasn't "convicted of murder"; he was convicted of "conspiracy to commit murder" under the Joint-responsibility rule, and he was never charged with nor was it ever alleged that he himself murdered anybody. So it's misleading to simply say "murderer" without context to the conviction. If you want to be wholly accurate with use of the word, then the final sentence of the first paragraph should read: "and Charles Manson, who was found guilty under the joint-responsibility rule of conspiracy to commit the murders of seven people" or words to that effect. But then that would lead to WP:EXCESS detail about who those seven people were and the entire background to the conviction - which is material that isn't particularly relevant to Marilyn Manson (the person and his life) and is better left in Charles Manson. I think "Manson Family leader" is the way to go. It's accurate, concise, and not open to misinterpretation - which is what WP:LEAD is meant to be. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Manson was convicted of murder. That is perfectly accurate, and amply attested to. Your preferred wording, saying that Manson is the leader of the Manson family, hinders the reader. Readers who don't know what the Manson family refers to (presumable many, even most readers, since it is not obvious at all) must click on the link to discover - oh! it's a crime family, and Manson was convicted of murder - I see. Why force the reader to go to another article and search out a description when we can explain exactly what Manson was - convicted of murder - right in this article? "Leader of the Manson family" tells the reader nothing, and obscures the facts. Why do you want to do this? &mdash; goethean 01:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, Charles Manson was convicted of murder in the 1st of Hinmann in a separate trial. He was convicted of conspiracy in Tate-LaBianca.  So yes, he is a convicted murderer.  And yes, he was the head of the Manson Family.  There are no BLP concerns here. Don't give a crap what you say in this article, but please remember that this article is about the performer Marilyn Manson, not freeky ol Charlie.  Whatever version you choose, do not let it distract from the subject of the article. John from Idegon (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent claim of "Sioux" heritage - zero evidence, genealogy already done
A recent claim in a Rolling Stone promo is not a usable source for Native heritage. His genealogy has been done and this is untrue. The fact other sources suck doesn't mean we use a bad one for additional content. Diff: - Corbie V  ☊☼ 18:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I started out backing this claim as a claim (rather than in Wikipedia's voice) but I can see in the source that there's little credence given to this assertion. Let's keep it out. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I reverted the change only because the edit summary indicated that it was a less-reliable source than the others that were there, even though the others were of very low quality. Perhaps we should be removing all of those sources and the information cited by them? I don't really care if the information stays or goes, but I like your wording stating that he made the claim, rather than stating it as fact. Ry's the Guy  (talk&#124;contribs) 16:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also want to point out that the genealogy that is referenced has the disclaimer "The following material on the immediate ancestry of Brian Hugh Warner ("Marilyn Manson") should not be considered either exhaustive or authoritative, but rather as a first draft." and does not seem to cover his mother's side of the family, only his father's. Ry's the Guy  (talk&#124;contribs) 17:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not attached to whether we leave the claim in or cut it, only that if it's included it must be indicated as only a claim. FWIW, Manson is now being dragged on social media, and a few mainstream sources are starting to cover the controversy. Native folks I've seen talking about it are not pleased at this casting choice, nor for his sudden claim when no Native community claims him in return (that's the indicator - with or without enrollment, the Native community in question has to claim the person for them to be considered Native). If the situation and coverage continues, and the claim stays in, we might want to add (and source, of course) that there's been backlash to the claim and casting choice. - Corbie V  ☊☼ 20:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2015

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. The consensus is the current title is the most common name. Jenks24 (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson → Brian Hugh Warner – That is his actual name. Plus, Marilyn Manson kind of is the band himself, so I don't like it that there is a page called Marilyn Manson (band). The latter should just be called Marilyn Manson. It kinda makes me nervous the Brian Hugh Warner page is a redirect, but Twiggy Ramirez's page redirects to his actual name, Jeordie White. I wanna know what you think of this. Dan6233 (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Practically no one knows that this guy's birth-certificate name is Brian Hugh Warner. If you think he's not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Marilyn Manson", we can talk about moving the article to "Marilyn Manson (performer)" or "Marilyn Manson (singer)" or "Marilyn Manson (singer-songwriter)" or somesuch. But not "Brian Hugh Warner". —BarrelProof (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONAME and WP:STAGENAME. Most reliable sources do not use his legal name when referring to him. Furthermore, a Google search of "Marilyn Manson" yields significantly more results regarding him rather than his band, making him more the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. The thing is that to me, when people think of Marilyn Manson, they think of both the band and the artist at the same time. The best way, in my opinion, would be if the artist (the person) and the band were both in the same article Marilyn Manson. It is weird to think of Marilyn Manson as a band. However, I don't think that could work well. Well, maybe this wasn't a good idea afterall... Dan6233 (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Marilyn Manson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110903023539/http://www.marilynmansonimages.com:80/band-history5.html to http://www.marilynmansonimages.com/band-history5.html/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110714030442/http://www.mansinthe.com/?p=28 to http://www.mansinthe.com/?p=28
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/main.jhtml?xml=/fashion/2007/04/22/stdita122.xml&page=3

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 one external links on Marilyn Manson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160102001836/http://www.2violent.com/closing_argument.html to http://www.2violent.com/closing_argument.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060524090531/http://www.thedailycamera.com:80/shooting/23manson.html to http://www.thedailycamera.com/shooting/23manson.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090126133759/http://www.salon.com:80/news/feature/1999/09/23/columbine/index.html to http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/09/23/columbine/index.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080622150430/http://www.side-line.com:80/news_comments.php?id=15724_0_2_0_C/ to http://www.side-line.com/news_comments.php?id=15724_0_2_0_C/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071204203103/http://www.vh1.com:80/news/articles/620624/20000122/story.jhtml to http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/620624/20000122/story.jhtml
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070111072112/http://www.etonline.com:80/celebrities/news/38295/ to http://www.etonline.com/celebrities/news/38295/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080103233017/http://www.spin.com:80/features/news/2007/01/070105_marilyn/ to http://www.spin.com/features/news/2007/01/070105_marilyn/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080206105331/http://www.upi.com:80/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2007/12/28/manson-von_teese_marriage_ended/2173/ to http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2007/12/28/manson-von_teese_marriage_ended/2173/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130219032913/http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org:80/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil to http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080429205740/http://www.side-line.com:80/news_comments.php?id=25024_0_2_0_C to http://www.side-line.com/news_comments.php?id=25024_0_2_0_C
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090108013345/http://www.side-line.com:80/news_comments.php?id=P28015_0_2_0 to http://www.side-line.com/news_comments.php?id=P28015_0_2_0
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130827224033/http://www.biography.com:80/tv/celebrity-ghost-stories/videos/marilyn-manson-ancient-text-2079152366 to http://www.biography.com/tv/celebrity-ghost-stories/videos/marilyn-manson-ancient-text-2079152366

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Marilyn Manson. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marilynmansonimages.com/band-history5.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

trademark issue
I'm a new user and I keep trying to add some information to this page, but it keeps getting rejected and I'm not sure why. Manson has mentioned this information in several interviews. I can keep piling on the sources, but I am a bit confused about why a Larry King interview from his official Youtube channel and registration documents from the United States Trademark and Patent office aren't being considered legitimate. I provided links to increase the chances of my edits being approved, but it is my understanding that links are not required by Wikipedia to legitimize the information. It is my understanding that I could just give enough information for readers to look up the information themselves (something that, I believe, giving the date of the interview, the name of the person performing the interview, and also giving the serial number and registration date of Manson's trademark would allow anyone to do). I thought everything was collaborative, so I assumed if my citations were wonky (which is definitely the case since I don't know html very well) that someone would help fix it. I am getting very discouraged by the fact that my edits keep getting rejected in full without much comment. I understand that you are probably busy, but I would appreciate a bit more feedback on how to fix my proposed edit so that it will not be rejected. I assume you are rejecting it based on something I am doing wrong, not based on the nature of the information itself? After all, it is a verifiable fact that Marilyn Manson is a trademark held by Brian Hugh Warner. It is not very productive for me to keep trying to guess what I could do differently. I was under the impression that Wikipedia espoused postmodern conceptions of knowledge acquisition and dissemination. However, I can provide my credentials to you if that would allow me to participate in this community. Just let me know if that is necessary. For your reference, here is the edit I am trying to make:

"Marilyn Manson" is more than a stage name. As the musician himself noted in a June 2013 interview with Larry King, "Marilyn Manson... is trademarked, much like Mickey Mouse."[37] According to trademark registration records held by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Brian Hugh Warner registered the trademark on February 24, 1998 and renewed the trademark on March 11, 2008 under serial number 75248374. The registration records indicate that Warner's trademark protects his body of work, that is, his "series of musical sound recordings and prerecorded videotapes and videodiscs featuring music." The trademark "does not specify a living individual." [38] This suggests that "Marilyn Manson" may be a character invented by Brian Warner.

JessamynSwan (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)JessamynSwan

No reply to this thread or the one posted on Govindaharihari's talk page, despite recent activity on the Marilyn Manson Article. Submitted the following edited version without receiving further guidance. Just to be clear, this means that any improvement in the below entry is due to my own guesswork, not from any communication I have received from Govindaharihari, who keeps rejecting my edit without much feedback

'''Brian Warner has mentioned on at least two occasions that the name “Marilyn Manson” is actually a trademark, not a stage name. In a 2015 interview at the Cannes Lions Festival, the musician said “I trademarked the name Marilyn Manson in the same way as Walt Disney and Mickey Mouse. It’s not a stage name. It’s not my legal name. Marilyn Manson is owned by Brian Warner.” [37] Manson also mentioned this in a 2013 interview with Larry King.[38] Trademark registration records held by the United States Patent and Trademark Office show that Brian Hugh Warner registered the first of four trademarks on “Marilyn Manson” on December 20, 1994, protecting "entertainment services; namely, live musical performances of a solo musician and/or musical group; and fan club services." Three subsequent trademarks, issued between 1995 and 1999, give Warner exclusive branding rights to “Marilyn Manson." In both the Larry King and Cannes Lions interviews, Manson reports using these trademark registrations in order to secure a cease and desist order to silence media who were wrongly blaming him for the Columbine High School shooting after one journalist erroneously reported that one of the shooters was wearing a Marilyn Manson T-Shirt. [39]'''

Govindaharihari previously rejected my edit on the basis of "original research," so I have attempted to make sure there is nothing remotely interpretative about the above information. He/She also rejected the previous edit on the basis of the legitimacy of the sources. However, the Larry King interview I referenced is actually used elsewhere in the extant Marilyn Manson article, except whoever posted that reference used the Manson Wiki. I used Larry King's official YouTube channel. which qualifies as a primary source. I thought a primary source would be preferable to a tertiary source like Manson Wiki. i am certain it would be elsewhere, but clearly I am not versed in all the rules and practices of wikipedia. At any rate, I made sure that both interviews I cited came from Manson Wiki since this appears to be a source that has been accepted as valid in the past. As far as the records from the United States Patent and Trademark office, I am unsure how to make those more acceptable. The Untied States Patent and Trademark Office is a federal agency required to keep official documents. If you could share with me why you have concerns about the legitimacy of this source, perhaps I can do something more.

If you reject my edits again, please give me detailed feedback on how you would like them fixed or explain to me why it is not relevant to Marilyn Manson's wikipedia page that he has trademarked his name. If you do not have the time or ability to address these concerns, please direct me to someone who can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessamynSwan (talk • contribs) 12:16, July 5, 2016‎ - This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources" - none of your sources imho reach that level standard
 * Hi there, thanks for your comments, I will have a look and reply, please give my 24 hours to respond, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't access any of the three links, although that is not a required position on references, but imho the detail still falls short of the requirements for citeing content in regards to living people. I also do not get it, M Manson is his stage name, the name that he is known as, he can trademark that possibly but he is still well known and reported as M Manson, not the trademark M Manson is he? - the WP:BLP policy states, "Notice about sources
 * 1- In 2015, Marilyn Manson participated in The Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity. Tor Myhren (2015). Marilyn Manson. Grey’s 9th Annual Music Seminar. Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity. Cannes, France. See it on []
 * 2-"Video Interview:2013/06/03 Larry King Now Marilyn Manson Interview". Mansonwiki.com. Retrieved July 4, 2016.
 * 3-[| TESS (Trademark Electronic Search System)]
 * I have found this ‘When Columbine happened it shut down my career’ – Marilyn Manson on why not all PR is good PR and this MARILYN MANSON: Media Storm After Columbine 'Really Shut Down My Career Entirely'
 * not sure how reliable they are as sources but at least they are accessible and worth additional comments here - If included I this a much smaller comment would suffice. Anyone else wishing to comment please do Govindaharihari (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorted in this edit - Govindaharihari (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Manson a Satanist or not
Re this, the same rationale governs content as per the BLP policy. The first reference used is from 1996 at the height of the Manson controversy, and is by no means recent (and possibly not even serious), which means that it should not be used unless re-worded. It could possibly be reworded as "In an interview conducted in 1996, Manson stated that he was a Satanist". The second reference has no source for their claim. Did Manson state that in an interview? Or is it just based on his image? Either way, it is not a good reference for a religious claim, as Manson is not the source. Nymf (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I support your comments User:Nymf, regarding,.... It could possibly be reworded as "In an interview conducted in 1996, Manson stated that he was a Satanist".... I still need to look at that link - in the recent CBS link after the Christian organizations complaint in Switzerland Manson was reported as per this detail...The rocker rejected the accusations, Scherrer said. Manson cited artistic freedom and said his act was meant to provoke a debate about violence and religion, the official added. I checked the link, apart from the book as I have no access to it and in final opinion, it is undue, weak sourcing to use for the current claims and certainly requires a rewrite, I don't really with a separate section, as he has no apparent religious views, also I am not seeing  good sources for honorary priest in the church of Satan and no statement from himself to support that Govindaharihari (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I consent the proposed rewording. I also don't insist a section dedicated to it, if there is a consensus. The second source which dates 20 July 2016 writes "...it has self-identified satanist Marilyn Manson’s face...", so it can also be attributed to a reliable reference per WP:VER, no matter the reference has sourced the subject for their claim or not. If Vanity Fair is considered a tabloid (frankly I'm not sure about the reliability), that's another case and we can discuss it. This is another source that I think should be regarded. The original source for being a honorary priest in the church of Satan is Associated Press which is highly reliable, moreover it has been confirmed by the church's highest-ranking official. There are also other sources. If you want to see him admitting to hold the title, here's the transcript of his interview with Bill O'Reilly. We can consider adding these to the article. This is the referenced part of Modern Satanism: Anatomy of a Radical Subculture, which is published by the Greenwood Publishing Group, a reputable academic publisher and thus a WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I look forward to hear you opinion. Pahlevun (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Marilyn Manson. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302131153/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com:80/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=78000 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=78000

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

RAPPER OR NO???
I've seen like 5 or 6 revisions claiming Marilyn is or is not a rapper. None of them are going to be accepted by me until sufficient proofs are wheeled out starting with today's. Got it? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 16:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marilyn Manson. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302131148/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=76734 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=76734
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606063711/http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/1997/072497/cover.html to http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/1997/072497/cover.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Marilyn Manson. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021101210/http://www.nme.com/news/marilyn-manson/3082 to http://www.nme.com/news/marilyn-manson/3082
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.side-line.com/news_comments.php?id=15724_0_2_0_C%2F
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150201111444/http://allwomenstalk.com/7-facts-on-marilyn-manson/4/ to http://www.allwomenstalk.com/7-facts-on-marilyn-manson/4/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Ffashion%2F2007%2F04%2F22%2Fstdita122.xml&page=3
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=78000

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Have sending Msg to mm (I love you3) Mohamadreza esmaeilpor (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Manson's mother last name
Hey I appreciate if you add your citation for this edit. Because the citation it already has, and lots of other sources, say that his mother's last name is "Wyer". Obzord (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Check the source again. It's never given a last name for his mother, it just says Barbara Jo Warner. That's why I added it. Homeostasis07 (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible merge suggestion
Is there any reason to keep the entries of the singer and the band as the separate things? (I may be wrong with this question, then.) Gleb95 (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Lawsuit section seems possibly to place undue weight or be imbalanced
The coverage of lawsuits may place undue weight on these lawsuits or be imbalanced. There are a lot of details for each lawsuit. Arguably article is about musician/artist first, with lawsuits being secondary. In place of the details, we could have a summary of each lawsuit: "X sued Marilyn Manson for Y on [Date]. Court Z ruled in favour of Q, awarding $XX,XXX to Q". I await comments on this proposal. Note: WP:UNDUE says that there should not be undue weight in Wikipedia articles. The "Balance" section following "undue weight" says "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 15:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Is Manson an Anti-Christian Satanist? He says otherwise.
I'm not going to fight for this as I'm not a Manson fan, but from what I've seen of him in interviews, he really doesn't seem anti-Christian in particular. He's not a Christian himself, doesn't like aspects of how the Church is run and a lot of what it does, but he has plenty of good to things to say about Christian ideals, values, and messages. He doesn't seem to be a practicing Satanist either as far as I can tell. Like with Christianity (and other religions too), he seems to view it as a place he finds certain wisdom, but just takes what he considers to be the good ideas he finds in all religions and leaves what he considers to be the bad ideas. Moreover, his role of minister in the Church of Satan seems to be title more than anything, which accepted mainly because he considered Anton LaVey a friend. Honestly, he even seems to have spiritual beliefs of some kind; he doesn't seem to be an atheist like LaVeyian Satanism would dictate. Right now, the section on Manson's religious views seem to either have been written by a Christian who wants to demonize him or by someone with anti-Christian beliefs looking to confirm that Manson is on "their side." Perhaps we should try to find some more balance in that section and reflect what Manson actually has to say on the subject? And I'll just leave these below for you guys to discuss and perhaps properly cite if you think what I had to say is reflected in 'em...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujSiIUJHG-M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WENtxp3vqyc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUdF2CbKIa8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whAs5cbIozs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.74.67.15 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the "Beliefs" section? Your argument seems valid, but I'm not sure it currently looks as biased as you suggest. Unfortunately we can't use those YT clips as sources as it isn't clear they have been published with the permission of the copyright owners. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * That's what I meant. I'm aware we can't use these specific YouTube clips as sources, but I'm sure someone could find the same information in other sources or find out what the original copyrighted sources of these clips are and then cite those. If it were up to me, I'd just delete the Beliefs section entirely until those citations are added or find out what the currently cited sources listed are actually saying, which I suspect probably differs from what the Beliefs section currently implies they're saying. But as it's not up to me, I'll leave it to you guys to decide what the best course of action is. I just felt like someone should bring this up, regardless of what's ultimately decided.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2019
Please replace "If you take all the basic principals of any religion" with the correct "If you take all the basic principles of any religion". Please check the definition of "principal" vs "principle" if you are unsure about it. 68.14.158.165 (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Goth metal
I added the genre "goth metal" because they are listed on the "list of goth metal bands" page with a citation. The Mo-Ja&#39;al (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Manson’s second marriage
He married Lindsay Usich in the spring of 2020, in a private ceremony. She later confirmed it with a picture she took of him wearing his wedding band. MansonGirl15 (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

early life
Marilyn Manson confessed that he had Polish-German roots thanks to his father's family and the same you can read in his book: The Long Hard Road Out Of Hell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.7.80 (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

TV Show appearance
Starred on Season 3 Episodes 1 and 4 of American Gods on Starz. Nrd0527 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021
Remove this man from the world wide web please. NotAbuser (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ We don't delete people just because we don't like them. That's why Jimmy Savile is not a redlink. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Ambiguity
At § Abuse allegations, it says: "[...] they were investigating allegations of domestic violence against Manson." This is ambiguous, because of the 'violence against Manson' bit. I suggest changing "against" to "involving". (Or otherwise rewriting the sentence, however you see fit, to get rid of the ambiguity.) --143.176.30.65 (talk) 08:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Good call. I think I cleared that up. Look good to you? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

“Smells Like Children” is NOT in the discography.    Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2021
2600:100E:B009:D70B:DC05:65D8:560A:37BF (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Smells like Children is not in the discography
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  03:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE
I believe, as the story is developing, the inclusion of the allegations of abuse in the lede are currently WP:UNDUE for now. I held back from reverting 's edit in favour of generating discussion. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for starting discussion. To elaborate a bit on my edit summary, the general pattern I've observed at other pages of men accused of sexual misconduct is that, when the allegations are severe and well-substantiated, they almost always end up in the person's lead, whereas when they're less severe or less well substantiated, the result is more variable. In this case, there are tons of substantiating factors: multiple women coming forward, a long history of them talking about their experience anonymously or disclosing to friends, statements from Manson himself, etc. And the allegations are of severe psychological and sexual abuse, not just sexist remarks or uncomfortable shoulder touching. I don't want to WP:CRYSTALBALL anything, but it seems all but certain that this will affect his reputation in a way lasting enough to warrant mention in the lead. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with leaving it out of the lead—for now. The story is still on-going. Wikipedia is not an active news source, we're here to summary style describe long-term events. I'm also concerned about the tabloid-ish tone of the "Abuse allegations" section. Per WP:BLP, we need to be very careful about how we describe on-going issues. Despite protestations by above user, these claims are not "substantiated". Suggest everyone source facts without any editorializing. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The allegations do not go into detail on the severity of the abuse, with only one anecdotal corroboration from the former employee. This could range from "bad relationship" to sexual, physical, mental abuse etc. My proposal would be to keep the section in personal life, adding updates as it develops, before deciding whether the mention in the lede is warranted which is supposed to be a summary of the artist's life and major life events. I would point to Johnny Depp as an example of having an extensive section on his relationship with Amber Heard, none of which mentions the abuse allegations in the lede. Also a story which shifted in tone, severity and fault over the course of it's news cycle. Homeostasis07 is 100% correct - wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with all this. Suggest Sdkb self-revert until consensus is reached here for inclusion in the lead. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made at WP:BOLD edit and removed the information from the lede, it was being added to and bloating. We should really be following the WP:BLP rules when it comes to the information in the article. It cannot be WP:Libel. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think this is the right decision for the minute. If there is sustained coverage for Manson's physical and sexual abuse charges, and it leads to him being disgraced in a manner akin to Gary Glitter, that would be the time to put it in the lead. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we can't do it at this time. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * [EDIT: Please note that the comment that I wrote this in reference to has since been removed by the editor who left it] Isn't this comment against BLP and should be speedily deleted? It's making baseless claims and twisting the truth to try to make Evan Rachel Wood (as if she were the only person making these allegations) look bad. She has not made false allegations against Bryant, Bryant's accuser has never stated that he didn't rape her. Wood's also saying that her C-PTSD is the result, directly, of Manson's abuse. The article on C-PTSD clearly states a symptom is "variations in consciousness, such as amnesia or improved recall for traumatic events", not impaired memory in the sense that people would falsely recall events that didn't happen. No idea what this person above thinks depersonalization means and how that makes Wood's claims "dubious" (but I'm going to bet top dollar they don't actually know what it means). Also, I would like to point out that Wood does in fact discuss her symptoms in her two testimonies, and they fall more on the side of improved recall, constant re-living of the events and extreme fear. In summary, this comment makes grossly false and libelous claims about a living person in the interest of trying to argue for Manson.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I'm sorry but I have to ask that you take a step back from editing any article pertaining to abuse allegations regarding "pop culture" figures, at least until you fully digest WP:BLP. After reading what you wrote here, I believe you are editing this article – and others – to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which isn't ideal in these sorts of controversial areas. Our duty as experienced Wikipedia editors willing to maintain articles in times of upheaval must be to adhere to BLP at all costs, and remove the crazy – from both sides – as soon as possible. This story first broke on February 1, during which time commentary has moved from "Marilyn Manson is an abuser" to "Marilyn Manson is a Satanic cannibal white supremacist human trafficking paedophile". I don't know about you, but I have absolutely no desire to be named as a defendant in a defamation lawsuit when all this MeToo-meets-Pizzagate stuff hits the fan, which it inevitably will. Until the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department finalized report is released, there really is no reason for anyone to edit this section of the article. I could have written a lot more here in response to your various edit summaries and comments made about me elsewhere, but I think this should suffice. I hope you keep well, and find more productive areas to spend your time. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Homeostasis07, this is quite a statement considering the types of changes you've been making to the Evan Rachel Wood article (e.g. the Kobe Bryant addition, worded in a misleading way and then edit warring when another editor pointed this out; your insistence on editing Wood's statements and adding scare quotes simply because you insisted that you know better – please also see your edit summaries, they have been quite aggressive rather than constructive). Here, I'm simply pointing out that the comment made by an IP above is in no way constructive and is against BLP rules, and as such, should be deleted speedily. Given that ordinary editors should never delete other people's messages on talk pages, I cannot do so myself, but hoped that by commenting perhaps another editor with admin rights would. Why you feel the need to attack me personally and make baseless assumptions about what I think about this case tells volumes about you. If you have an issue with me personally (as it seems you do), please leave a message on my talk page and we can discuss. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * You made your own, arguably libelous interpretations based on information in the article, and made false, potentially libelous claims about a living person. Now you are also misrepresenting what I have said in another discussion. As for Heard/Depp, you're free to join the discussion on those articles' talk pages (or the gender bias discussion, for that matter). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I have never claimed to "know better". I have always included sources for my edits. On the other hand, you made this comment, which was entirely inappropriate, especially since I'd already included a reference (The Independent, I believe), which said Manson and Wood met for the first time in the autumn of 2006, when Wood was 19 and while he was married to Dita Von Teese. Then you seemed to use your edit summary as justification for linking child grooming to both this and Evan Rachel Wood's article. I intentionally waited 24 hours for you to remove this linkage, but you didn't. This is absolutely not the kind of behaviour expected of experienced Wikipedians when articles like this experience a massive amount of traffic.You do realise Wikipedia has been sued several dozen times for libel? Regarding Bryant, what I added to Wood's article was a reference to the fact that he was never convicted of rape, which, despite your arguing over semantics, is accurate. You made mention of the low conviction count for these types of allegations in your "Countering systemic bias" thread. These sorts of comments were, as well, entirely inappropriate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for one to propagate personal beliefs. All I can really do at this point is direct you to the DS notice SlimVirgin posted to Evan Rachel Wood's talk page: this is not a gender issue. I hope you take this to heart, and step back from this kind of activity. Kind regards, Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: Kobe Bryant, you added this, containing the erroneous claim that Bryant was never charged. When another editor corrected the error, you reacted to it with "Semantics". Regardless of what you think about Bryant and the case, it's quite clear that never being charged and charges being dropped are not the same thing. Especially as in this case they were dropped because the alleged victim refused to testify (i.e. to go to trial) and therefore it was settled out of court. Regardless of whether this controversy should be added to the Wood article, it's interesting that you chose just this time to add it, and to word it specifically that way, and then react in that way when your error was pointed out to you.
 * Once that was corrected, you begin editing the part about Wood filing a police report on Lindsay Usich, changing what Wood stated (see here what the source says), here. Sure, we can state she was intoxicated, but Wood isn't just stating that, but that she was given drugs and alcohol, which has a very different connotation. The way you worded it makes it seem as if Wood is just pissed off that her party pics are leaked online, when in fact what she was saying is that they are not simply that. You also added scare quotes to "underage", and gave a year for the party, although the source nor Wood's tweet do not date it, other than saying she was underage (it is unclear if she means underage as in sexual consent or drinking). In your next edit, you again claim to know when this party took place. When the scare quotes are taken off, you add them again and also delete any mention that they were taken when Wood was in Manson's presence (you're correct that it isn't stated that it was at a party thrown by him, but the entire point of Wood's tweet is that she was with Manson during this time and was manipulated to wearing this get up). When I point this out by asking you not to add your POV to the article, you do not accept this (and here seem to think it's a personal insult rather than a comment on your actions), instead delete the entire word underage (though it's the one Evan Rachel Wood highlights in her tweet), and then apparently the fact that they started dating when she was 18 should be enough to negate a statement from Wood herself, where she doesn't say they were yet in a relationship. This is what I mean when I say you claim to know better than sources or Wood.
 * As for the edit summary you lifted up, I'd like to point out that someone who leaves edit summaries like this should not be the one to point fingers. My comment was in reference both to your claims of knowing the timeline of Wood's association with Manson better than her (as exemplified above), and to the edits made by IPs like this.
 * As for the grooming link, could you show me where I have added this? Apart from Wood's statement, where she indeed does state she was groomed, I don't recall adding any material related to grooming? I actually even went through my edits to these articles trying to find this, but did not spot this?
 * I have never added any material to either of these articles that did not come from reputable sources. I am well aware of BLP criteria, but of course at times make mistakes, which help me learn more about editing when corrected. You are claiming that I make libelous claims, but it is not clear what these are? As for gender bias, you are choosing to cherry-pick parts of what I wrote and misrepresent it — in the process making it even clearer that these are issues that definitely need more discussion. What I'm calling for is discussion and additional codes of conduct/MoS guidelines on these issues given how tricky they are in many respects, and that controversial articles perhaps need more monitoring due to this pattern of editors and fly-bys frequently breaking BLP criteria. As always in WP, you are welcome to take part in the discussion where it was started. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Wow. Where does one even begin with a soapbox like this? Other than to, of course, categorically deny these claims. The mental gynmastics on display here are quite astonishing. There's a modicum of truth to a couple of points, but everything has been so twisted and distorted beyond the actual events that it's impossible to know where to begin responding. Which I genuinely believe was the objective, so kudos. The only thing I'd like to respond to is your point regarding Kobe Bryant: I made a mistake saying that Bryant was never charged with rape. That was a typo, for which I apologize. What I meant to write was he was never convicted of rape, which is true. We can argue on why this was, but that would not be helpful. You alluded to the difference between the two yourself here. And for the record, a section on Wood's Bryant controversy was included on her article quite some time ago, but was removed for no particular reason.And please be aware that there's so much I'd love to spill my guts about right now, but there is god knows how many people reading this, so I can't. Maybe we could e-mail, but I doubt that would even make a difference in the long run. Let's just say, did you notice how Wood removed the scan of the police report she filed against Lindsay Usich from her Instagram? This is why Wikipedia BLP articles need to be as neutral as possible: things change, even from the perspective of the accuser. It's all pretty damn interesting, when you delve into it—no way in hell I'm posting links to it all, though. Hope you keep well, and kind regards. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Let's just say, did you notice how Wood removed the scan of the police report she filed against Lindsay Usich from her Instagram?" This is exactly the kind of speculation that I have little interest in, and which has no space in Wikipedia. [Edit: Lolcow most certainly falls into this category as well (please see the edit Homeostasis07 made to his original response for this to make sense). These Reddit/4Chan/Lolcow 'detectives' demonstrate the worst of the internet, i.e. "idiocy loves company"] However, I do agree that this discussion is going nowhere, and that it is in both of our interests to let it go for now. You are welcome to discuss this or related issues on my talk page anytime. For the record, I'm happy with the current versions of both Evan Rachel Wood's and Marilyn Manson's articles. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I've only now just read this response. I'll point out first that I too have no interest in continuing this discussion. But for posterity, I'd also like to point out that my Lolcow comment above was in reference to Wood taking a screenshot of a Lolcow discussion between two purported Marilyn Manson "fans" to the LAPD, and later posting on Instagram as evidence that Marilyn Manson's wife Lindsay Usich was "conspiring" to release "underage" photos of Wood wearing a "Nazi uniform". So, no, I'm not a "Lolcow detective". Woosh. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2021
Esmé Bianco has sued Marilyn Manson. Can the details at this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56951794 web page be added to the article. 2A00:23C6:3B82:8500:20F8:D8CC:ADCE:2D8F (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2021
Since many people are confused of his gender, I think that we should note it under his date of birth, my only suggestion. SandboxThrowaway123214 (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I'm not sure what you mean by "under his date of birth". Reading the first two sentences in the article seems to give his gender, plus it's implied by the name Brian. Also, if you're talking about the infobox, note that it doesn't support a field for that.  Bsoyka  ( talk &middot;  contribs ) 23:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Abuse allegations in the lead redux
In the section above, the consensus seemed to be to wait on the question of whether or not to add the allegations to the lead. In the months since then, the headlines have very much continued (recent example from Rolling Stone: "Fourth Accuser Sues Marilyn Manson for Rape, Human Trafficking, Unlawful Imprisonment"), and there are zero signs that Manson will just skate by this, or indeed that his reputation will ever recover. I assert that mentioning the allegations is at this point unquestionably due. If others agree, someone more familiar with the story should try out some wordings and we should discuss refinements as needed. If others still disagree, I will be inclined to start an RfC to assess the broader community's consensus on this matter. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, at least a brief sentence at the end of the lead is probably due now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree that it's WP:DUE for the lead. Some1 (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Some1, thanks for the ping; I had forgotten about this. I'll consider three of us here, with plenty of time elapsed, enough of a consensus to go ahead and restore the mention. I wish it hadn't taken this long (this feels to me like a pretty major WP:DEADLINEISNOW failure), but I'm glad we're belatedly addressing it. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The point of this is? Your contention that "there are zero signs that Manson will just skate by this, or indeed that his reputation will ever recover" is your own conjecture, and blatantly UNDUE. Plus, using this brief and uninvolved discussion to add loaded text like "In 2021, multiple women accused Manson of psychologically and sexually abusing them.", without giving any WP:DUEWEIGHT to the counterargument and the gathering multitude of evidence to the contrary is telling. I'm reverting your edit. I suggest you either wait for genuine consensus, or initiate the RfC—if this is your attitude to editing controversial topics such as this – read WP:BLP – collaboratively. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It has been a little more than a month and a half, and only four editors have commented so far. I think starting an RfC (on these two changes: abuse allegations in the lead and the title of the section) is a good idea. Some1 (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a bad idea to start one RfC on two separate questions; that just muddles things. I've opened the RfC on the lead question below. As for your attempt to rename the "Abuse allegations" section "Controversy", I'm reverting back to the status quo, as I think that's a deleterious edit that introduces vagueness rather than being direct as we ought to be. Some !voters from below are likely to see this discussion and can weigh in on the section name, but please do not change the status quo again unless there is consensus for it. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting the section title back, Sdkb; changing 'Abuse allegations' to 'Controversy' seems like whitewashing to me. Some1 (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (allegations in lead)
Should the lead section of this article mention the allegations of sexual abuse against Manson? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. There was initially some question over whether or not the allegations would stick enough to become a significant part of Manson's reputation, but a few months out, it is very clear that they have (see sources like or just read the section in the article). We have a fully due section on the allegations in the body, and per WP:LEAD, that section ought to be concisely summarized with a sentence or so in the lead. This is the same thing we do for plenty of other biographies in similar circumstances. &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the allegations against Manson are very WP:DUE and are still being reported in the news even after February ; and the lead should summarize the body of the article. Some1 (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC) Some1 (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong No – edited from soft yes – based on the trajectory of this discussion. There probably is a need for this, but not in the way these users are suggesting. The WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and nominating of templates for deletion, the use of ESSAYS in lieu of genuine policies and potential manipulation of those essays to suit the RfC initiator's own POV, the overall lack of any kind of WP:NPOV, the edit warring, the deliberate misquoting/misinterpretation of statements both here and from external sources. So much left to be desired with all this.For posterity, and to preserve the integrity of this discussion, I'm leaving a portion of my original response here: I'd also appreciate genuine consensus on this matter, since both of these users above have been edit warring and WP:TAGTEAMING this article over the past 48 hours. I've tried to assume good faith on the part of these two users, but considering the comments on Evan Rachel Wood's Instagram account these past two weeks about "weaponizing" Wikipedia, much like she did on Instagram back in February, I can't help but have genuine suspicions as to why this RfC is taking place right now. So, yeah... would appreciate all uninvolved commentary before any further changes are made to this article. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not aware until you just brought it up that Wood has mentioned anything about this, but I'd be interested to see the link to that just so we can be on the lookout for any issues. Regarding uninvolved, your userpage has multiple stars for Manson albums, so you seem by far the most invested in the topic of anyone here so far. Please remember that two editors who agree with each other and disagree with you isn't automatically tag-teaming. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * More to the point, the original edit was In 2021, multiple women accused Manson of psychologically and sexually abusing them. If you have neutrality concerns about that, now would be a good time to raise them so that others can comment. It seems to me like a pretty straightforward description of the situation; including Manson's denial in the short mention in the lead would not be appropriate per WP:MANDY. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * MANDY is not a WP:POLICY, but an essay written by a random user which has not been vetted or approved for use by the wider community. An essay that completely misinterprets WP:FALSEBALANCE, by the way. False Balance refers to "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories [which] should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." False Balance – ie, giving 'the world is flat' conspiracy theories equal precedence alongside genuine evidence to the contrary – does not apply here. These remain allegations only, are not proven, no convictions or admission, developments clearly ongoing, etc.
 * What does apply however is WP:BLPBALANCE, an actual policy which says "Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." and "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." Any reasonable editor could conclude both sentences refer to the lead once any proposed addition is properly sourced in the body.
 * And my fandom – or former fandom – has nothing to do with my interest in doing what's best for the project. You can point to some stars on my userpage, but they are not representative of the entirety of my 15 years of activity on this site. I've either created or substantially improved around 500 articles over those years, and only 20, maybe 25 of those relate to Marilyn Manson. You bringing those stars up in such a dismissive and derogatory manner speaks volumes. I've said what I want to say: balance is clearly necessary and important. That's the only point I ever wanted to bring up here. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would remind Sdkb of WP:AGF, just because an editor has worked on works by a subject it is does not mean the editor is unable to apply the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines when it comes to the said subject, even if negative.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 22:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh - you cherry-picked "weaponizing" from the Variety article and then replaced Instagram with Wikipedia? Wood has not yet granted any interviews about her allegations. But for now, she is weaponizing Instagram to great effect to keep them front of mind. She has used the platform to damningly recontextualize articles written about Manson in which he expressed violent thoughts toward her — and it was just seen as part of his shock-rocker schtick. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No. That isn't what I said above at all. Run before you can walk much? You've clearly read what you wanted to read, voted below, then edit warred at the section of the article currently in discussion. This is exactly the kind of WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour I was calling out before. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No. That isn't what I said above at all. Run before you can walk much? You've clearly read what you wanted to read, voted below, then edit warred at the section of the article currently in discussion. This is exactly the kind of WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour I was calling out before. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

*Yes. It should be in the lead as it is being done for other biographies. Sea Ane (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. They're certainly significant and I can think of many other cases where major controversies involving living people made it to the intro. FelipeFritschF (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. This isn't just a case of one person, this is multiple people accusing Manson of genuine sexual assault. This should be in the lead. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 06:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But we do not know the long-term impact these allegations will have on his career yet, i.e. WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 22:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That was a plausible argument when it was discussed in February. It's really not now. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether a single person or multiple persons, we still do not know what, and if, to what extent, these allegations will have on his long-term career. Thus should be excluded in the lead per WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:RECENTISM, etc.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 23:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong No – they are unconfirmed allegations. Wait until there is something confirmed before adding something like this to the lead. Sea Ane (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because it something is being done in one article, it does not mean it is correct to do the same in another (see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS).  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 22:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No - they are unfounded allegations and do not belong in the lead, and in my opinion, also don't belong anywhere in the article.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black">(talk)</b> 17:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not like this. If the allegations have had a long-lasting impact on Manson's legacy or career, then that's what should be explained in the lead, rather than a passing mention of tabloid drama that may or may not stick. See the lead of John Kricfalusi for an ideal reference point. It hasn't even been a year since these accusations became publicized. We're way too soon on this. ili (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No (at least not yet). Considering these allegations only started late last year, and have continued with some more allegations this year it is impossible to determine what the long-term impact this will be on his career. At the moment, it seems like recentism, until we can determine the legal verdict/long-term impact on his career. For all we know, these could blow over, or they could have a detrimental impact but we simply do not know at this point. "Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events" (WP:BLPSTYLE, policy), and I believe they are too recent for inclusion right now. Also I think this is also relevant to mention here: "The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article 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:BLPBALANCE, policy). Moreover, we are not in a rush, we are not a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWS).  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 22:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Our policies/guidelines absolutely do not mean that we have to wait for a legal verdict before covering allegations of sexual abuse (especially highly credible ones). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oversimplifying my argument to just requiring a "a legal verdict". That is only one part of my argument. It is more to do with how much these allegations will impact his career in the long-term. The legal verdicts, assuming anything is arrived, will likely help us in guiding what his long-term impact will be. But we simply do not know yet. For example, say Manson's allegations still linger over the next 10 years with no progress with what happens in courts. If say throughout this 10 year period it has a significant long-term impact on his career per RSs, even if nothing legal verdict is concluded one way or the other, it will obviously be worthy to note in the lead. But we simply do not know what impact (if any) or the scale of said impact this will have on his career in the long-term, yet. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 22:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * His record label dropped him. So did his talent agency. So did his long-time manager. His TV appearances were cancelled. Seven months after that, it's not like he's returning to normal—rather, he's facing criminal penalties. Even if he avoids jail, I really don't see how you can look at those facts and still wonder whether or not this is going to be worthy of mention in a lead-sized summary of his life. We will never know with 100% absolute certainty whether any given thing is going to impact someone long-term, but we don't wait years before adding every development in someone's life to their article. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Abuse allegations are clearly an emotive topic in 2021. But Wikipedians need to check their emotions at the door before editing any article related to the subject. This is not a social media site or venue for editors to propagate their own particular opinion of a subject. Editors must always adhere to the 5 PILLARS. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with adhering to the five pillars. With this in mind, including allegations of sexual abuse is appropriate in this article as it a significant event and has been widely reported by reliable sources. Jurisdicta (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as we know, Manson could already have a new record deal, a new manager, and a new talent agency. He could drop a new album tomorrow. And would anyone be surprised if his career went on as normal? I don't know much about Manson, but if the answer is even "well, maybe it wouldn't be that surprising", then we're definitely too soon. ili (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I am aware of these things happening. For brevity, all the things he has been dropped/cancelled from (like his being from dropped from a record label, talent agency, manager, and his mainstream TV appearances were cancelled, etc) I will refer as his 'shutdown'. But right now in this moment in time, we simply do not know how long this 'shutdown' will last. For all we know he could be cleared of everything and he could resume back to 'normal', i.e. 'shutdown' lifted. Obviously, if this 'shutdown' continues for say the next 5 years, i.e. demonstrating long-term impact on his career per RSs then it is of course worth noting in the lead. Seven months after that, ..., see this is the core problem with your argument, this thinking is too much in the short-term in this case leading to WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE weight in covering the subject.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 21:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You guys have hit the nail on the head here. Everyone knows exactly what happened between Chris Brown and Rihanna in 2009. As of 2019, he's still releasing music and getting platinum sales awards. That entire situation has one single sentence in his current lead. But cue some edit warring there. I see the template I added to the top of this talk page on August 22 was nominated for deletion just two hours later by the same editor who initiated this RfC, who by the way also added an inaccurate "nutshell" description to the MANDY essay, which they went on to cite during this RfC. This is tendentious editing on a level I've never seen before.
 * Regarding any long-time impact these short-term events may have had, I agree that it's impossible to say at this point. Social media posts from people associated with the band have been circulating since 2017 – long before these allegations surfaced – that We Are Chaos would be their last album anyway. But if they were to release another album, could they not sign up with a different label or tour promoter? It should be noted that only the US record label "dropped" the band. No mention of – or comment from – Concord Music Group, their international label. Plus, the long-time manager is a co-defendant in one of the civil suits – the one that's on the verge of being thrown out of court – so who knows what will happen there in the long-run. And only one TV appearance was "cancelled". He still appeared in the other one. There has been no update regarding any criminal investigation since February—just four civil lawsuits looking for money. Read into all that how you will. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You certainly make valid points and other things I had not considered. Though I will ask, most of your comments seem to suggest to oppose including it in the lead whilst your !vote is a "tempered" yes, how so? Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 23:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed it now. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously so IMO. They're a major part of his notability at this point. Loki (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And what about a future point, per previously linked RECENTISM? Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and absolutely like this, neutrally stating that he was accused by four more than a dozen women. Manson is a public figure, the accusations were and are widely covered in the news, and were believable enough for his record company, manager, and talent company to drop him immediately. He doesn't even deny what happened, he just says it was "consensual with like-minded partners". The partners disagree. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Correction: Per USA Today, more than a dozen women accused Manson. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by he doesn't deny what happened, per BBC News Manson, real name Brian Warner, has now filed to dismiss the case, saying he denies "each and every" allegation..   Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 21:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is worthy of inclusion, based on points provided by Sdkb. Idealigic (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I think this classes as a 'Prominent controversy' as per WP:MOSLEAD but... Not in the way it was done before. I think it must include, 1. Why these allegations are notable (impact on career) 2. that he has vehemently denied these allegations. e.g. "in 2021 Manson was dropped by his record label and removed from a number of scheduled TV Appearances in response to domestic abuse allegations by a number of women, which he has strongly denied" or something along those lines.. JeffUK (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (allegations in lead)
Please assume good-faith editing instead of accusing another editor, who edited the article for the first time, of edit-warring. As I explained when reverting your revert, the RfC is about the lead, not the body, and the content was sourced from a reliable source that was already in the same section but whose content (paragraph just above Manson's photograph) had apparently been overlooked. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Answering your question above: I'm referring to the quote from a Manson Instagram post, as cited by CNN, in the second paragraph of [Marilyn_Manson#Abuse_allegations]. these recent claims ... are horrible distortions of reality. My intimate relationships have always been entirely consensual with like-minded partners. His lawyers also wrote that they were stories to turn what were consensual friendships and relationships with Warner from more than a decade ago, into twisted tales that bear no resemblance to reality. To me that does not sound like denial of the violence, merely of it being non-consensual but that's my opinion which I haven't added to the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I genuinely want to AGF, but that's pretty difficult when a user has just misinterpreted several statements to suit their own opinion. It should be clear to any neutral reader of your quoted fragments that even those are denials of the allegations. But here's a lawyer saying the claims are "untrue". Is that categorical enough verbage? Also, please self-revert the article back to where it was. None of the content you're adding was ever "overlooked"... perhaps only by you. All your edit does is repeat information included later in those paragraphs. Read: "Following Wood's allegations, several other women made various allegations against Manson on Instagram." and "In the months that followed, four women filed civil lawsuits against the vocalist...". The section's content before your edits was in chronological order, and isn't long enough to merit this repeating of information or for a summarizing statement. Your edit simply doesn't add anything to the article that wasn't already there. I don't really want to make a big stink about this, so am providing you with an opportunity to sort this out amongst ourselves before I take this further. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The text was POV, taking Manson’s side (implying that, starting in September 2020, the women concocted a story, and then went public to destroy him). What I gathered from the cited sources is that Wood going public in 2016 (without naming Manson) on social media and elsewhere led to other women going public and eventually to them meeting in September 2020. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Space4Time3Continuum2x I think that is a bit of a stretch. Manson (and his team) empahsised the claim that according to him his relationships were consensual ("My intimate relationships have always been entirely consensual with like-minded partners"). But to jump from there to say Manson did deny not violence only that the violence was consensual (masochism ?) seems a bit far. I know you did not add it do the article (as that would ORish), but as argument for including allegations in the lead is weak IMO. In regards to the remainder of your arguments, I would refer to other comments I have made above, how has this affected his long-term career and how is this not UNDUE, RECENTISM.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 23:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Abuse (domestic or otherwise, whether it involves sex or not) is about power. I have the power, you’re powerless, so you do as I say. Sounds as though Manson had a type, e.g. Bianco: long-time fan, model and actor with Hollywood aspirations, in need of work visa, unsure about a lot of things. There are also a number of witnesses.    The info is reliably sourced, and whether or not the allegations will have a long-term effect on his career is WP:CRYSTAL and shouldn't be our concern. Whether or not the allegations belong in the lead is for the consensus to decide. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems a lot like OR to me. It is also not CRYSTAL at all. At the current time of these allegations being around 9-12 months it has not affected his long-term career becuase obviously long-term is greater than a year. Moreover, it is not currently and especially critically important part of him as a person or careere for us to include it in the lead per MOS:LEAD as this period has only lasted 1 year. If you personally think this will affect his career (say 5 years) and that to be a reason to include it in the lead that would be WP:CRYSTAL.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 16:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ^ Genuinely nasty misinterpretation of sources and WP:SYNTH to bolster your own completely UNDUE spiel about domestic violence. All you've done here is confirmed your own POV, prove that you're not paying close enough attention to this article's content or the content of the links you're referencing, the case in general, or that you've even read the 'Abuse allegations' section the whole way through. WP:Competence is required to edit Wikipedia, especially when it comes to controversial subjects. It's obvious to me that you shouldn't be anywhere near controversial subjects at this time. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Aside from the personal attacks on me (and other editors, e.g., here), seems to me that it's you who should stop editing this article at least until you have cooled down and examined your own POV for neutrality. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Abuse allegations in the lead section
I propose the following change to the abuse allegations text from the end of the lead section:

I think this is a good compromise for those who think a counter claim is necessary and those who think Manson's denial is undue. The fact that he has yet to be charged with anything seems more important than him just denying it. –– FormalDude  talk  11:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I do agree somewhat. But proposing an amendment to your close summation so soon? Wouldn't it be more beneficial if you perhaps undid your close and relisted the original RfC in order to achieve broader consensus, i.e., input from people other than those who currently have this page on their watch list? I propose the first sentence of the text be amended to stipulate that the allegations against him are just that—allegations, but that he has repeatedly denied these allegations and has called them a "coordinated attack", and that as of September 2021 he has not been charged with any crime related to sexual or domestic violence. So something along the lines of:

Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You're trying to make the RfC solve everything when the scope of it was rather limited. All my closure of the RfC did was determine that there is a consensus to include one sentence about the "Abuse allegations" section. How we can best represent that section via a sentence in the lead is a separate question that still needs to be addressed. If this question needs broader consensus than what we can achieve in a talk page discussion, a new RfC can always be created. Hoping we can work it out on the talk page though. A lot of the people who participated in the RfC are likely watching the page anyways. –– FormalDude  talk  06:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It does not really seem like an improvement at this point.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 14:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect vocabulary in beliefs section
Somebody has written "Crowley's esoteric subject matter forms an important leitmotif in much of Manson's early work.[137]". Whoever has written this does not understand what leitmotif means, which is a musical phrase that is repeated and associated with a certain subject matter (like the Darth Vader theme). There is no leitmotif in the music of Marilyn Manson associated with Crowley. Perhaps the author meant 'theme'. 203.166.232.254 (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've rephrased this per your suggestion. I'm not all that familiar with Aleister Crowley's work, to be honest. I believe what the author was trying to explain here was that some of Manson's early lyrical work can be ascribed to the beliefs of the Church of Satan. This connection has been hyper-sensationalized in the current climate, of course, and is being especially misinterpreted considering the Church of Satan is a humanist organisation that doesn't believe in the existence of God, or even Satan for that matter. As far as I can make out, the only explicit reference to the Church of Satan in Manson's work is a reference to the Abbey of Thelema in the lyrics to "Misery Machine". There may be more, and I will research this topic further in the future. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Citation and wording in lead
, I stand corrected on the citation, wasn't aware of the first paragraph of MOS:LEADCITE. I don't agree with this edit. "Repeatedly" is not neutral, it's op-ed (well, duh!). He denied the accusations, period. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree "repeatedly" should be removed for neutrality. –– FormalDude  talk  22:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't foresee this posing any issue to neutrality. The "repeatedly" statement was sourced to the NBC reference. At this point, it may be helpful to casual readers to include references to each specific denial in the body. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think "In 2021, multiple women accused Manson of psychologically and sexually abusing them," can be rephrased to the more neutral, less singular "In 2021, multiple women accused Manson of being psychologically and sexually abusive,". Thoughts? Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Please know that Rolling Stone can not be used for abuse allegations
As per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS (the shortcut link has a bad name; none of the false allegations in A Rape on Campus were political in nature), we can not use Rolling Stone to make serious allegations of abuse (such as the soundproof glass chamber allegation which is currently viral online right now). The allegations need to be confirmed by an actual reliable sources before they can be included in the Wikipedia. Samboy (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Was unaware of this, thanks for the information. 90.246.212.113 (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Thanks for the heads up. From what I've read, there was no "soundproof glass chamber" as the accuser is claiming. It was a shower room, with one of those light-weight see-through plastic doors. It couldn't be "locked" at all, like every other shower door in existence. It could just be slid open with the gentle push of a finger. Whole thing is falling apart on social media. Will be interesting to see where this goes. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a source RE: the 'shower room' thing? I read that it was a vocal booth. Lemonpip (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Harassment allegations
Along with the reporting on Manson's alleged domestic abuse of female ex-partners, there have been reports that Manson has engaged in sexual harassment, e.g. of Charlyne Yi (Yi's accusations were first reported on in 2018, but they've been reported again recently in articles discussing the recent lawsuits for alleged rape, abuse etc). Particularly given Charlyne Yi is notable enough to have her own article, I feel like there's an argument for including a brief mention of Yi's claims in Manson's article somewhere in the 'personal life' section? 90.246.212.113 (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And how would you propose phrasing that? From what I remember, Yi alleged Marilyn Manson visited the set of House one day and jokingly asked an actress "Do you scissor or rhino?" End of story. He has denied this ever happened, and no other cast or crew member of House has ever confirmed this. It should be noted that Yi's Twitter account – where she made this and other claims, about Marilyn Manson and others – has been suspended indefinitely for "gross privacy violations" and violations of their terms of use, including, I hope, her posting of yours truly's Wikipedia/Twitter username to her several hundred thousand followers . I'll never edit her Wikipedia page, but I hope all Wikipedia users will take everything she says with a truck load of salt, whether it be about David Cross, James Franco, or Marilyn Manson. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Something like this: "In 2018, it was reported that Charlyne Yi had accused Manson of sexual harassing her and female colleagues on the set of House. These allegations were denied by Manson, and have not been confirmed by other cast or crew members of House." ?? Also, I have no idea how posting someone's Twitter username is a 'gross privacy violation', perhaps need more context there (or maybe not since it seems pretty irrelevant to my suggestion). Making jokes of a sexual nature is also a pretty commonly recognised form of workplace sexual harassment... Lemonpip (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Descent
It was English-German-Polish not Irish 2001:1C01:2BCA:3D00:A10C:1193:AE88:F7A3 (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news
While I don't believe consensus is needed to bring a BLP article in line with the policy, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS, I would rather discuss than revert. As explained in the edit summary, Wikipedia is not a news source, and the running commentary currently included in the article clearly constitutes WP:EXCESSDETAIL, i.e. "lawsuit dismissed on September 16" ... "judge gave the complainant 20 days to refile an amended complaint" ... "denied motion to dismiss on October 10" ... ordered Manson to respond within two weeks". The edit I made removed these WP:TRIVIAL details while leaving intact the information that four different civil suits exist. Content should only be included if subject to WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Is it important to the casual reader's understanding of this topic that a lawsuit was temporarily dismissed on September 16? Another user had previously removed the names of the accusers, as three of them are WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURES and one of those is anonymous. This is all in line with WP:BLP, and should have been uncontroversial, but would appreciate feedback from and others before reverting. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE refers to "(m)aterial that may adversely affect a person's reputation". That does not apply to the accusers, and Manson is a public figure (one of the accusers, Bianco, is arguably a public figure, too). You left intact the statements of Manson's legal team as kind of the last word in the matter but deleted all information on the pending lawsuits, including the reliable sources, and that Manson's request to dismiss one of them was denied. That is neither trivial nor indiscriminate detail. As for sustained coverage, lawsuits often take a long time. If there's nothing new to report, there won't be anything in the news. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Space4Time3Continuum2x, for politely breaking this down. I completely agree and second everything you said. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 11:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing said here changes the fact that the removed content was not the subject of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The argument that "lawsuits take a long time" so WP:TRIVIAL week-by-week details should be included doesn't make sense. The WP:NOTNEWS policy is crystal clear. These details are not relevant to the big picture. I don't even know what was meant by the "last word" comment. Is that really how you view Wikipedia editing? Please defer to policies and guidelines when editing. It makes it a lot easier for a collaborative editing environment to develop, especially in controversial areas.With that being said, "all information on the pending lawsuits" was never deleted, but instead summarized within the sentence "Four women filed lawsuits against Manson...". Lawuits filed and dismissed and refiled; Manson "ordered to respond within 20 days"; unencyclopedic, tabloidish verbiage like "a woman who claims to be an ex-girlfriend of Manson who has chosen to remain anonymous"... unless a convincing, policy-based argument can be made for the inclusion of this material, it needs to go, per the WP:BLP policy. Suggest one of you do it, if you're genuinely interested in improving this article. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 19:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you give people some time to reply, buddy.
 * The first problem is with your removal of the third paragraph to only read "four women filed civil lawsuits against Manson seeking financial compensation." All of that content should stay; it provides context and facts, and it's certainly not a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. When the accusations and lawsuits occurred and the names of the accusers are both relevant.
 * As for the rest of your removals, they appear to be cherry picking (which I believe is what Space4Time was trying to tell you politely).
 * This sentence that you kept in is at least as trivial as the other content you removed:
 * And you removed that a federal judge later denied the motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Either both go in, or neither go in. In my view, it should be the former, which is how it was before you started this dispute. But to include one and not the other is against WP:NPOV. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 12:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And you removed that a federal judge later denied the motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Either both go in, or neither go in. In my view, it should be the former, which is how it was before you started this dispute. But to include one and not the other is against WP:NPOV. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 12:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment: For context, these are the changes Homeostasis07 is proposing:

I'll say more about why cutting this content is not the right thing to do as soon as I have some more time. –– FormalDude  talk 07:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a dispute, at least not from my end. Just a discussion to help improve the article. I probably won't be online for the next few days anyway, so it's not like there's a rush. Anyway, happy gregorian new year to everyone. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 15:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, so 6 weeks is more than enough time for talk page stalkers and watchers to chime in here. Per WP:BLPUNDEL, "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." No effort has been made to address the issues currently found on the article, and I'm not seeing any legitimate counter-arguments to the policy-based concerns I raised here, specifically WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SUSTAINED and WP:TABLOID.With this in mind, I've edited the article again, but I've taken this discussion on-board and made minimal content removal this time. All I've done is rephrase the tabloid verbiage "a woman who chose to remain anonymous and says she is an ex-girlfriend of Manson." to simply "an anonymous woman.", and removed descriptors of the complainants, e.g., "model" and "Manson's former employee", as these are the kinds of descriptors people read on the Daily Mail website and serve only to decimate the overall tone of the article. I've additionally WP:SUMMARYSTYLE truncated the proceeding details of the lawsuits, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip site. The only content technically removed are the dates events occured ("On October 10, 2021,", etc.) and the sentence fragment "and allowed the case to proceed.". The latter is tautological; if the "federal judge denied Manson's motion to dismiss Bianco's lawsuit" – previous portion of sentence, still there – then it's redundant to say the case was "allowed to proceed". I've also removed the sentence "The judge ordered Manson to respond to Bianco's allegations within two weeks.", since – all things considered – that will hardly be remembered as a significant case development. Important updates (i.e., long-term, subject to sustained coverage) regarding the lawsuits can then be neatly added to the end of the paragraph in future.Hope you both find this an acceptable compromise to this discussion which, again, I don't consider to be a dispute in any form... merely an attempt to remove unencyclopedic tabloid language and details. If required, I hope this discussion can continue in a respectful and productive tone. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Kanye west
Add to associated acts column 2600:1003:B868:DFA7:A1F7:82BA:6344:7C00 (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)