Talk:Tate–LaBianca murders/Archive 1

Murder motives
Doesn't this article should have a mention of the motives (or lack of) of the killing?.
 * motiveless / senseless murders do not have motives, by definition. Real life is not a detective story. 2.31.162.59 (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Split from Charles Manson
On 25 January 2015, this page was created in a split from the Charles Manson page. Please help by editing the page to bring it into line with Wikipedia style. See: Talk:Charles_Manson 110.175.158.17 (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Tate murders. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20101119075221/http://aboundinglove.org/sensational/wydfm/wydfm-014.php to http://www.aboundinglove.org/sensational/wydfm/wydfm-014.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070405004745/http://aboundinglove.org:80/sensational/wydfm/wydfm-009.php to http://www.aboundinglove.org/sensational/wydfm/wydfm-009.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101119080347/http://aboundinglove.org/sensational/wydfm/wydfm-007.php to http://www.aboundinglove.org/sensational/wydfm/wydfm-007.php

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 21:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Steven Parent
Why was the article about Steven Parent deleted?--Exodianecross (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently there was a consensus to merge it into this article per this discussion: Articles_for_deletion/Steven_Parent --Muzilon (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Picture Description
Can we clarify the source of the picture of Sharon Tate used? It's a still from a movie she was in, but it's really not an ideal picture for an article about her murder. I thought it was a crime scene photo at first. So either a better description, or a less ambiguous photo? 2606:A000:DAC5:2D00:B490:B094:45DD:EDB9 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

No mention or connection to LaBianca murders??
This badly fails to connect to the LaBianca portion of the Manson murders. The word LaBianca only appears once, and it is not on a link. Come on; it's the Tate-LaBianca Murders.

Were the other murders before, or after?

Why does it say August 8-9 if they arrived after midnight? Surely they weren't there for over 23 hours. Was that to avoid saying "morning of August 9" since that would more suggest dawn or later, rather than the overnight period?

I'd step up to fix it but I do not have sufficient topic knowledge, protocol knowledge and HTML expertise to correct it, but know enough of the headlines to bring up this concern. One possibly useful action is to put a subheading (link) on the top of the article, such as This refers to the crimes committed by the Manson family in the early hours of August 9, 1969. For the ensuing murders later that night refer to {Murder of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca} and link to that hyperlinked section of the "Manson Family" article.

I'd also change the 8-9 language here to "morning of August 9".2600:6C56:6600:1EA7:B0ED:9B52:3CBC:413D (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Does no one have the knowledge to correct this?2600:6C56:6600:1EA7:694D:FA90:265A:6C39 (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You need to help us out by citing one reliable source that states what you want put into the article. Wikipedia only contains what WP:reliable sources have said about a subject. Wikipedia is not a reflection of what its editors "know". If all the reporting has used the dates you complain about, then we cannot put in what we "know" to be correct if it disagrees with the reliable sources. In other words, WP is backed up by sources, but it doesn't always say the absolute truth. That's our policy.
 * As for Wikipedia's account of the LaBianca murders, it's a part of the Manson Family article. Interest in this murder has apparently not led to an article (worth including in Wikipedia) about it yet.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I think nearly everything under "Formation" in Manson Family should be summarized at Charles Manson and that Tate murders should be merged to Manson Family.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that the way the subject of the Manson Family is divided creates much confusion.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I object since this article seems too detailed and well documented to be included in a broader article. I think this is the power of WP is that we can move detail to a separate article.  I don't get the attraction of overly compressing topics.  Are we trying to save paper?  Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Good Lord. It's the "TATE LABIANCA MURDERS" by almost every account - ever. For the love of God, at least LINK to it. Is there some problem with that? Can there possibly be some dispute over whether to go "This refers to the crimes committed by the Manson family in the early hours of August 9, 1969. For the ensuing murders later that night refer to {Murder of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca}" ? (You'll thank me not to try to do it myself. I'm just trying to encourage you people with HTML editors and expertise to act, in order to save waste of time by readers)2600:6C56:6600:1ECF:7C6A:B0CB:CBBA:FDF2 (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Rename the article and broaden its scope
The article should be named "Tate-LaBianca murders". And the article's scope should be expanded to include the LaBianca case. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * No reply in two months. So, I am changing the name of the article to include the LaBianca murders.  And I will add a section about the LaBianca murders to the article.  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I tried to rename the article. Wikipedia would not allow the move, due to "redirects".  So, I started a new section below, requesting the name change.   Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Aftermath
The article should also deal with the aftermath of the murders. Namely, the trials, incarcerations, death sentences, parole hearings, deaths, prison releases, etc., of the murderers. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , Looking through the Manson Family template on the list of articles in this series, I'd tend to agree; however, it could also potentially form its own article, potentially called Outcomes of the Tate—LaBianca murders, with a brief synopsis in the bottom of this article and a section hatnote to that main article? Doug Mehus (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I started to add some details in an "aftermath" section within this article.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Abigail Folger’s Wikipedia Articles needs to be recreated
I have found using the Wayback Machine that there was once an article for Abigail Folger, but it was deleted and then redirected into the Tate Murders article. Denying Abigail Folger her own article is to reduce her to a mere footnote in the Murder of Sharon Tate. I also noticed that her father Peter Folger has his own Wikipedia Article when he is of lesser importance then Abigail Folger. If anyone is interested the former article was well written and researched with all the necessary references. Please use the Wayback Machine to find it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_Folger This is not the first time I have noticed that women do not get the same coverage in Wikipedia as men. I had to fight to get Carol Jenkins her own entry. Jackie Martling's first wife Nancy had been deleted from the existence of his page. I had to add her back and now Peter Folger, a man, is given an article, while Abigail Folger has been denied one.Ty78ejui (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I definitely support you creating that page. I say just do it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know enough or want to spend the time to do it myself. Also even if I did do it, its very hard to start a new article. Any new article will likely be deleted in a few minutes or sometimes will not become created at all. It's not a new article, by taking the older information from Wayback it can be recreated. She did a lot more with her life then just being reduced to one of the victims. I support a simple recreation of the article. Ty78ejui (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Spoiler alert Once Upon a Time in Hollywood?
I just read the content guide about spoilers and apparently you should leave them be, but you are allowed to put it in the title in some way.

I think this would be very appropriate in this case as it hugely impacts the movie and there is no way you could know from the title that this would spoil some movie.

I myself however have never edited anything yet and everytime I tried it was rejected, so maybe someone else could fix it? Snorkop (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the film is a fictional story, it really has no place in this article. 50.111.50.200 (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 October 2019

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved per clear and unambiguous consensus. J I P &#124; Talk 21:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Tate murders → Tate-LaBianca murders – Please see discussions above on this Talk Page. Per "common name" Wikipedia naming conventions, this crime is referred to as the "Tate-LaBianca murders", not simply the "Tate murders". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – I am the nominator. There is a discussion above on this Talk Page, indicating a desire to change the title to add the "LaBianca" component.  (The title of the above section is: "No mention or connection to LaBianca murders??".) The "common name" of these murders is the "Tate-LaBianca murders", not simply the "Tate murders".  A "Google" search shows nearly five times as many search results for "Tate-LaBianca murders" than for simply "Tate murders".   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Strike support. Obviously. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly support, provided that the article will discuss both murders equally. You might also want to tag like this, too, since he/she helped you at the Help Desk. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Also, this is a really well-cited article. Not sure how much of this you have edited, but your efforts and those preceding you are to be commended. I like the separate infoboxes on each family murders. Some minor, technical citation coding errors present, but otherwise, I'd recommend or someone nominate you and others for a Good Article status, potentially. Seeing the murders are discussed equally, my vote is now an unqualifed strong support. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - clearly the COMMONNAME of the event. -- Netoholic @ 05:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also support use of en dash per BarrelProof. Good spot. -- Netoholic @ 13:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to ? Like the Epstein–Barr virus, should this have an en dash? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Oh, if it's just the em dash that is the concern? I'd have no problem with that—whatever is more common. I definitely think we should combine both family names, though. Whatever you guys decide to go with—a dash or an em dash, that is the question. ;)
 * May want to consult WP:MOS to see what's preferable for names of newsworthy events.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmehus (talk • contribs) 23:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, an en dash versus a hyphen is the question. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support with en dash – as a hyphen doesn't make sense in the context of our style that uses en dash where appropriate (see MOS:DASH). Dicklyon (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for that link. Yeah, I'm personally agnostic as to the hyphen or em dash, but agree it likely makes more sense. Nonetheless, I suspect the proponent, Joseph A. Spadaro will not mind the em dash caveat at all. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please, no em dash. En dash. Dicklyon (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. Apparently, the punctuation in between the surnames "Tate" and "LaBianca" should be an en dash, and not a simple hyphen.  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Tate–LaBianca murders. Common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with en dash. Everyone always remembers the Tate murders first but the LaBianca murders were also notable, and they are discussed in this article in equal detail. Most of the versions on other Wikipedias also include LaBianca in the article title. J I P  &#124; Talk 14:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, can an administrator please move this article from "Tate murders" to "Tate–LaBianca murders"? Please note that there is an en dash ... not a hyphen ... between the surnames of "Tate" and "LaBianca". There is some difficulty with re-directs, etc. So, I believe that an admin must do this move. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Also, "Tate-LaBianca murders" should be a redirect to "Tate—LaBianca murders". Joseph, you might want to use the Administrators' noticeboard to request closure, and let them know you require either (a) an administrator or (b) an editor with page mover permissions to perform the move to perform a round-robin page swap and suppress any redirects. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no, we don't need any version Tate—LaBianca murders with the em dash, thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2019 (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.

List of perpetrators of LaBianca murders
Should Leslie Van Houten really be listed as third and not first? Is her name alphabetised as "Van Houten, Leslie" or "Houten, Leslie van"? J I P &#124; Talk 11:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Good question. I placed the list in alphabetical order.  And I assumed that she would be alphabetized under "V" ... not "H".  In the "real world" -- outside of Wikipedia -- I can't imagine that people would search for her name alphabetically under "H" ... I'd think, they'd search under "V".   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, I will ask this question at the Language Reference Help Desk. See here:  Reference desk/Language.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth ... the Leslie Van Houten article contains the following "computer code":  .  This indicates that, for Wikipedia purposes, her name is alphabetized as "Van Houten, Leslie".   Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * So, the consensus over here (Reference desk/Language) and the Wikipedia policy over here (MCSTJR) both indicate that Leslie Van Houten is alphabetized under "V". Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, so the order used in the article is correct and does not need to be fixed. Thanks! J I P  &#124; Talk 07:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. Thanks!    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)