Talk:Bonnie and Clyde/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Bonnie and Clyde. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Redirect from Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow
Someone asked about making Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow redirect to Bonnie and Clyde. You can do that by pasting in the text "#REDIRECT [[Bonnie and Clyde]]" (without the quotation marks) in each of the links above. My question, though, is that if they're going to redirect to Bonnie and Clyde, why have them linked within the Bonnie and Clyde article? Unless it's just so you can paste the #REDIRECT command in. Anyway, that's how you do it. --KQ
Thank you very much. I'll try to figure that out.
Here is what it looks like. --KQ
Epilog v. Epilogue
two users in one day have changed the original "Epilog" heading to "Epilogue" without explanation. there is nothing wrong with "Epilog". please leave it alone. it was the preferred spelling of the original contributor, and there's no valid reason for altering it. i can understand changing it to another word, because however you spell it, it's not the best word for what's in that section, but changing something that's fine is just passive-aggressive hoowah. please contribute something to the article, or leave it alone. the spelling change doesn't improve anything. yes, i will make an issue of this, because i've had it with people varying words that are already spelled correctly. the article was originally written in modern american english, and the wikipedia style manual supports retaining that. "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another." SaltyPig 05:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
revision
the more i read about bonnie and clyde, the less confident i am about any detail associated with them. there's a surprising acceptance of almost any historical account, and i suspect that much of what is called "history" is simply mass-embraced fiction. however, it seems to be far more prevalent with the bonnie and clyde story. supposedly authoritative and scholarly versions differ drastically, with many books stating as fact things that are disputed and likely perpetually unsettled.
i'm probably done working on this, but the subject of possible inaccuracy with bonnie and clyde details might warrant more warnings than are already in the article -- maybe even an introductory note about it. of the accounts i've read, i trust 2 ("twenty-first century" and the blanch barrow book, with their scrupulous footnotes) more than others, but it sure is strange to read the many versions of the history of bonnie and clyde. might be impossible to deal with the problem except in book form with tons of footnotes, giving the various versions and letting readers take it from there. might even be wise to trim the current article, rather than expanding it. SaltyPig 5 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)
You have a point, but the legal records are available to anyone with enough time and money to research them. These facts are indisputable: Bonnie was never known to even take a shot at anyone, let alone shoot them. She was not wanted for any offense which carried the death penalty or would have justified use of lethal force to apprehend her. Those things are legal and historical fact. The problem is that many people don't want to accept the ultimate logical, historial, legal and moral conclusion that those facts force: Hamer and his posse murdered a 23 year old girl.
You are certainly right that much of the "facts" surrounding the legend of Bonnie and Clyde are a combination of folklore, and Bonnie's own gift for playing the media. She may not have been much of a criminal, but she was a genius at self promotion. The goal of this article, whether it offends some folks or not, should be to present the facts, including the fact that when Frank Hamer arranged the ambush of a car with a girl not wanted for any capital offense, and who was committing no crime at the time of the ambush, he murdered her. But i think you make a very valuable point that this article, as it is, is more folklore than fact. I understand Wikipedia bans original research, but it does not ban existing research and known fact, and you are right that this needs some serious editing. OLDWINDYBEAR 10:48PM 12/26/05
Sixth sense
Supposedly Clyde had something of a Sixth Sense. There were several traps laid for them by the authorities, that Clyde managed to avoid for no reason other than he just decided to. I wonder if there is any discussion of that?
- what are some examples of what you describe? SaltyPig 23:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
How many bullet holes?
From searching on google I found a few articles that say there were 167 bullet holes in the car. Someone else check and make a recommendation as to what we should do. 172.162.223.80 16:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- since it's a number that lends itself to exaggeration, i went with a mild number from a reputable source (Twenty-First-Century Update) for rounds shot (not bullet holes), and fuzzed it with the word "approximately". to claim that there were exactly 167 bullet holes is absurd (e.g., is 1 bullet through 2 things 2 holes?). BTW, it was apparently not only bullets that were fired at bonnie and clyde; the current text states rounds intentionally. thank you for bringing this up first on the talk page, because it's something that is easily hyped and screwed, especially if the claim doesn't allow for or include shotgun rounds. my opinion: don't worry about it unless you find a better source for number of rounds fired. as discussed above, most of the "details" about B&C are unverifiable, and the most accurate recounting is simply to state the multiple versions, who said what, and perhaps some material indicating credence levels for the differing sources. SaltyPig 19:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
redirect v. stub
i was surprised to see that somebody had redirected the roy thornton page back to this article. the page didn't exist when i wikified his name. anybody know if there's a policy/guideline on this sort of thing? i thought it was a good idea when editing to wikify any notable name, assuming that eventually an article would be written to plug the hole. but if stubs or non-existent pages are to be redirected back, seems that will mean a lot of work in the future re-wikifiying links that had been correctly zapped (as roy thornton in this article today) to avoid looping. barring a guideline or policy, i think redirects should be avoided in such cases. just based on looking at other articles other the years, i thought linking to nonexistent pages was preferred for future expansion. any opinions? SaltyPig 00:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
MURDER OF BONNIE PARKER
Does it strike anyone else how relatively little attention was paid to the fact that Hammer and his boys murdered Bonnie Parker? Under the laws in effect at the time, she was not eligible for the death penalty for any of her crimes. She had not personally killed anyone. When they were ambushed, she was not in commission of any crime. While certainly no angel, Bonnie Parker was executed in cold blood by men no better morally than many of the criminals they killed. OldWindyBear
- OldWindyBear, i do believe that bonnie parker was murdered, and that the men who killed her were hypocrites and scumbags; in addition to killing bonnie parker, they pilfered stolen property that didn't belong to them, and the bienville rep went to great lengths to prevent the return of the death car to its owner (he lost in the end). however, i don't agree that parker would necessarily have been spared a death sentence had she been captured. she was involved in (supported) murder, and that's for sure. in any case, it's not true to say that she wasn't committing a crime when ambushed; almost all their "property", including the car, was stolen. she was evading capture. etc., and there are probably a hundred more technical charges that aren't necessarily crimes, opinions of cops notwithstanding.
- BTW, it's "hamer" with only one "m" — pronounced HAY-mer, and deliberately mispronounced in the B&C movie. SaltyPig 13:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I restored the part about her murder, but in respect to your feelings, said it was "probably" legally murder. Actually, it was plainly murder which legally at the time was killing without justification. Theyhad NO such justification under relevant law, state, (any of them), or federal! To the best of anyone's knowledge, she had NOT KILLED ANYONE and in those days, none of the crimes she had committed were ones that called for the death penalty. Further, (I have a paralegal certificate and have done research for the ACLU for years), she was NOT committing a crime at the moment of her death -- there was no need to use lethal force.
- the content of the article should have nothing to do with my feelings or yours. even if you're the chief justice of the U.S. supreme court, wikipedia doesn't want your direct opinion on the matter. wikipedia bans original research/analysis as official policy. i suggest you visit this page and further acclimate yourself with what wikipedia is (and how it works) before further analyzing the B&C ambush (in all caps, no less) on the article page. thanks. this isn't a contest of opinions here. SaltyPig 21:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I carefully researched what wikipedia is, and while they do not wish to be a sponsor or publisher for new research, this is a case of publishing FACTS. The Law at the time of Bonnie Parkers death did not allow for the death penalty for any of the crimes she was accused of, she was not even committing jay walking at the time of her murder, and historically she never even fired a shot at anyone! There was absolutely no legal justification for her murder by Hamer and posse, period, under any law in effect in the United States, state, or federal. This is not research, these are the facts, and that IS what wikipedia does, act as a repository of the facts...OLDWINDYBEAR12/27/05
My my, testy aren't we. You don't appear interested in the truth, or the law, but in exercising some sort of editing of the truth in order to espouse a particular viewpoint. The plain blunt FACT is that history says Bonnie Parker killed no one, to anyone's knowledge, and there was no legal basis to kill her. This is not an analysis, or research, but plain fact. You may edit history if you wish, but don't pretend to be doing otherwise. I am not analyzying anything, merely citing the facts as they existed. This is not a contest of opinions. I have a degree in history, another in law. I cite fact not opinion, facts easily verified, which all reputable historians and legal scholars accept. I will edit the comment to assure that it does not violate the bar on analysis. But your attitude is sad. People with knowledge come here in good faith to add facts, and find folks like you who espouse a particular viewpoint, at the cost of the truth, which I find sad. I have read the rules here carefully, and write only fact which can be verified by accepted historical and/or legal authority. It is FACT that Bonnie Parker was not eligible for the death penalty, recognized by every expert in this country. OLDWINDYBEAR
- again, little of that is relevant, whether true or not, including the ridiculous allegation of a "tantrum" (whatever the size). personal talk is to be avoided on article talk pages, so i won't comment further on your "degree" issues. i encourage you though, if you've time, to consider reviewing the article history and perhaps noting who it was that first raised the issue of legality with regard to the killing of bonnie parker. if too busy for that, maybe you could at least revisit my comments above — especially the one in which i say that i agree with you that she was murdered. i'm confused by your apparent fabrication of a conflict here when none exists except with respect to what can be stated factually in the article. let me spell it out for you: as far as that goes, you're arguing a point with somebody who not only agrees with you, but has stated so explicitly from the outset. that's a good indicator that my problem with your edits is wikipedia-related, not opinion-related. please let the personality side go and concentrate on editing in an encyclopedic fashion. thanks. SaltyPig 00:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Since I am back reediting this article, you are right, personality differences should play no role -- but facts should. Wikipedia exists as a limitless repository of facts, and the facts of Bonnie;s legal status are well known and need to be published. I think we agree on the facts, we just need to put this article in more professional form.OLDWIINDYBEAR12/12/05
I feel my edits are well and professionally done, in an encyclopedic fashion. As to the Bonnie Parker matter, we agree she was murdered, so it was merely finding language that was appropriate. I felt mine was, you disagreed, such is life. I still find your mode of discussion offensive, but frankly, we both have better things to do than bandy semantics, so have a nice evening. OLDWINDYBEAR
RfC discussion
Hikaru Utada song?
The song "B&C" by Japanese pop singer Hikaru Utada names "Bonnie and Clyde" in its lyrics. Is this too obscure to be a relevant pop culture reference? Lyrics can be found here.
- nothing wrong with popping it in to see if it stays. i don't think it's any more obscure than other stuff there. Wbfl 23:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
why wikipedia ultimately fails
it requires perpetual vigilance if your effort's not to be wasted. can't walk away from solid ground, job done. this article was stable, and it's now being degraded regularly by wannabe newspaper editorialists and overt point makers, using the "note insertion" method (do a POV jig here, thrust another there). it's like watching a dog wander a field to lift his leg whenever something catches his nose. inserting sentences here and there is the laziest, most worthless "editing" one can do. may as well use a red sharpie. but i'm not touching this article; have at it. convert the investment of many good editors into your pee ground, forcing them either to acquiesce, or follow some snot nose around with kleenex, preserving a precious syllable as able ("look, johnny, you pooped out a syllable that we kept!"), arguing for 5 hours with a dull gasbag in the process. idiocy.
and probably some officious prig will wipe this comment ("NPA! NPA!"), while leaving the infantile changes to the article intact. the usual wikipedia hack elevation story -- slackers welcomed and coddled, good editors slapped on the hand like ignorami for being pissed about the slackers and not pretending we're in a group therapy session. while that's the policy, official or not, the material's gonna blow. enjoy! wikipedia will either restrict access or fail. 63.28.75.180 03:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- please take the time to review this page's history, and notice that within two minutes of me leaving the comment above, an admin had swooped in, also leaving an inappropriate comment on my user page! too poetic. meanwhile, look at the article. aren't the articles the reason for the superstructure? correction to what i wrote above: the laziest, most worthless "editing" one can do is NPA/language babysitting and control-freaking. wikipedia admin culture is laughably inept. this article was hammered all month, and did you see admins fretting so? not a chance. what a disaster this place is. nanny-boo bureaucrats with jangly key rings. i'm the one who expanded this article from a good stub, with the aux help of probably 5-7 other editors (now gone), and i, not the vandals, am being told, quite paternalistically, to take my comments to the sandbox! unreal incompetence. did you see the admins jumping in on the RfC i started above? not one. but say "sucks" somewhere, and they're falling over one another to get in on the action -- wannabe cops, screwing the pooch while sporting supercilious smirks. where were you when we needed ya, admins? out treating intelligent adults as children, and pampering vandals (both the obvious and covert type). yeah, that's a plan for excellence. yet it's some mystery why wikipedia's getting slaughtered in the press these days. note to admins: i busted my ass on this article for days, getting the facts as straight and NPOV as they could be at the time (including verifying personally, while visiting louisiana, the ambush coordinates within 20 feet). if that's not worth something -- if that doesn't give me some soundoff leeway -- you're made of sludge. 63.28.75.180 04:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I am no offical, but will not stand by and let you insult thousands of people and their legitimate efforts, becuase they all refuse to yield to Dr. Pig -- you are as phd aren't you? You do have some academic credentials other than your opinions, most of which you liberated from old books? Edit and redit, I won;t let you say wikipedia sucks. Let us see who has the most willpower. oldwindbear ps i really have degrees in history,do you, or just wild opinions, with no room to discuss them rationally!
You are certainly excited about something. Which revisions have aroused your wrath so? The fact that people are beginning to question what happened to Bonnie and Clyde? They were murdered, by Frank Hamer (you should like that article) and the beauty of wikipedia is if you cannot back your revisions with sources considered reliable history, they can be struck. I get annoyed sometimes that amataurs foul up articles, but then I merely clean it up, or help, and go back to work. Part of the beauty of this, along with part of the pain, is the participation of anyone on the net who wants to help. I also visited the ambush site. I have fired Browning Automatic rifles, and know their penetration power. The ambush was plain murder. Yes, you get folks who do not know history, or have not researched (I went to the Library of Congress to verify that the law in effect, both state and federal, in 1934, had no charge that could have gotten Bonnie the death penalty) You get both good and bad with the solicitation for all to participate, but you encourage interest in history, a positive thing. Does that mean you have to constantly edit sometimes? Yes, but honestly, if it encourages at all real interest in history then it is worth it. (though I grant you it is annoying - but frankly, your moronic language lends no credance to anything you say regarding this or any other historical subject. if you wish to be taken seriously, act so)oldwindybear
_______________________________________________________________________I am honoring your request to leave your commment on it failign, thogh if i were an administrator, i woudl remove it. Pig, you waste a good mind on venom. Sad! You could contrbiute if you allowed others their opinions iwthout assaulting them personally. Are you so insecure that you cannot bear to hear the other side? I thinkr your heading wrong, but leave it intact at yoru requst...oldwindybear If you would just let other people have opinions, you could do much good, instead of constantly disrupting those less able to withdtand you than I. Hell Pig, if you thnk you are hard to withdrad, you should have had to learn to walk again after being shot to pieces! Think about it, and join the group instead of attacking it...oldwindybear
Wikipedia is a great effort, and it is people like you that try and ruin it. I am am allowing your current comment to stay, pending adminstrative review -- but why dont yyou learn to play well with others? You need to get psychological help. oldwindybear
plagiarism
oldwindybear, i have removed all of my previous comments re plagiarism (which you, sadly, felt you needed to modify without marking your edits within my signed blocks); the point has been made.
FTR, it is very bad form at wikipedia to attempt to insert your comments within those of another user's, or remove comments from others simply because you do not like them. your comments here were only reverted temporarily by me, so that you would have an opportunity to repost them properly (not within my signed comment). please do not censor the talk page simply because material on it exposes things you don't want disclosed. this is not a personal attack; therefore, it is not liable for editing by anyone else. talk pages are not article pages.
should you attempt to once again claim wikipedia material as your own and publish it under your name, it will be exposed scrupulously. wikipedia history does not go away. please let this one go. please cease maligning the principal author of the material you saw fit enough to pass off as your own (you didn't take much that i didn't write, hence my ~90% estimate). criticism of the same material simply makes you look like you can't make up your mind. is it not the best material? i freely admit it. however, it's material you liked well enough to put your name to, so discussing the quality of it is, in the end, moot; it was good enough for you. please do not edit my comments, or place your comments within them. i consider this matter finished. SaltyPig 16:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________________
I never plagerized one sentence from anything you wrote. I would be ashamed to do so. *I I will say once again I never plagerized anything. I will let your last comments stay, though they violate -- as you do repeatedly -- the ban on personal attacks on other people. You are pathetic. You have a well deserved reputation for personal attacks on people who disagree iwth you. You lack any credentials as a historian, so you attempt to attack everyone else's. If you find one article of mine that fails to adequately cite a source, be my guest to point it out. As for comments, don't put yours in the middle of mine, and you will find the same courtesy extended to you. You are no historian, and no writer, and the best that can be said about you is you are determined to see your point of viewe left as the only written record. It isn't. I have every right to use comments i put on wikipedia, and will do so. If you find something otherwise, point it out -- but violate the personal attacks policy and I will take it off until one ofthe administrators finally takes you off for good, which would be a blessing for all of us. I also consider this to be the end of this matter, though I would prefer that you just go away, and let those of us who want to do something positive, do it. And I am not alone! User after user complains of your nasty and unprofessional attitude -- can you take a hint! And please, don't lecture me on wikidpedia, you have the worst record on the site for unprofessional and nasty conduct, with no relevance to the issues in dispute.oldwindybear
- Both of you need to take a deep breath and cut it out. Focus on content, not contributors. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 17:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Kate, I agree with you. My problem is with his constant personal attacks, which you know, if you have reviewed his talk page, have been a problem before with at least 3 other users. I am a disabled veteran, from a war pretty much forgotten. I devote a lot of time here, trying to help. I don't want a "battle of words" but we, meaning wikipedia, have to have some rules on personal attacks. That is all I ask. If the guy feels I quoted him -- and I obviously feel i did not -- we should be able to discuss it intelligently. But with salty pig you can never discuss anything without his making it personal, and making it nasty. We ought to have as our goal working together, but we also have to have some rules on personal conduct,...I just want to continue to work on the project in toto to make it the best it can be. you cannot do that with constant personal harassment, which -- again, look athis talk page -- he is famous for. I will certainly abide by your ruling, but will he? He feels he is above wikipedia or anything else Look at his headline, "wiklipedia sucks" to my revison. Kate, he is discouraging students and peope starting ou in history from using the site, and that is WRONG. He doesn't understand how that discourages people who are trying to learn, and worse, doesn't care. oldwindybear
Redirect from Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow
Someone asked about making Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow redirect to Bonnie and Clyde. You can do that by pasting in the text "#REDIRECT [[Bonnie and Clyde]]" (without the quotation marks) in each of the links above. My question, though, is that if they're going to redirect to Bonnie and Clyde, why have them linked within the Bonnie and Clyde article? Unless it's just so you can paste the #REDIRECT command in. Anyway, that's how you do it. --KQ
Thank you very much. I'll try to figure that out.
Here is what it looks like. --KQ
revision
Sixth sense
Supposedly Clyde had something of a Sixth Sense. There were several traps laid for them by the authorities, that Clyde managed to avoid for no reason other than he just decided to. I wonder if there is any discussion of that?
How many bullet holes?
From searching on google I found a few articles that say there were 167 bullet holes in the car. Someone else check and make a recommendation as to what we should do. 172.162.223.80 16:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
MURDER OF BONNIE PARKER
Hikaru Utada song?
The song "B&C" by Japanese pop singer Hikaru Utada names "Bonnie and Clyde" in its lyrics. Is this too obscure to be a relevant pop culture reference? Lyrics can be found here.
wikipedia ultimately will not fail
plagiarism
_____________________________________________________________________
- Both of you need to take a deep breath and cut it out. Focus on content, not contributors. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 17:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
'''FOR TruPatriot173 and ScrdBldTtd5982''' ISSUES PENDING ON BONNIE AND CLYDE
I was retired from wikipedia Katefan0, but the number of emails i got, and teh comments i received may leave me to try again. I will stand on my record, and I thank those like Mr. Dorsen and TruPatriot173. God bless both of you, AND KATE TOO, and the 6 who emailed me.
1) We need to take a long look at the tactics Hamer used to catch Clyde -- Clyde tended to use the same route, a long swing through three states, skirting the border where possible, using the old border line theory (no hot pursuit allowed), visiting family along the way, and doing it the same way every time, so it was fairly easy for Hamer to literally draw a map of where Clyde had been, and where he would be going, based on his past patterns.
2) We need to look at the sources that claim that Henry Methvin claimed till his death that it was his father that betrayed Bonnie and Clyde, not him, and that he hated him for doing so.
3) Anothere issue is the fact that Clyde was killed IMMEDIATELY with the first shot fired, his blown literally blown mostly off by Preston Oakley, anyone who has seen what a Remington Model 8, can do, had no doubts as to Clyde's head being blown apart. (Interestingly, it was Oakley who alone of the posse would feel terrible remorse every day of his life after that). With Clyde dead, the car undrivable with his body blocking the driver's seat, and Bonnie's crippled leg not allowing her to drive under any circumstances -- how can ANYONE justify firing 130 more shots into the car, literally, according to the proud posse (except for Oakley), while Bonnie screamed with a long, pain filled and agonized wail? And they bragged about it the rest of their lives, except for Oakley!
I think these are issues that need discussion as how to be best worded!
4) Also, there were no warrants out for Bonnie for murder or any capital offense at the time of the ambush -- why then did the posse fire 130 shots at her after Clyde was unquestionably dead. (anyone who has ever seen someone hit in the head with a high powered rifle, and the results, could not have doubted Clyde was totally, thoroughly, completely dead, as was said on the Wizard of Oz!)
5) In addtion we need to look at the souvenirs commandered by Hamer and his boys, including snips of Bonnie's bloody hair, and even pieces of her dress, (or as they claimed, they let those souvenirs be taken while they just stole the weapons and other personal effects in the ambush car, msot of which were later sold!) If Frank Hamer was a hero, I am the Wizard of Oz! Anyone care to discuss these issues?
I really think we should use these talk pages to discuss issues, and reach some sort of basic consensus before i -- or anyone else - merely writes the article. Does anyone have any thoughts on this, especially in articles where there has been so much disagreement, as in this one, which was very poorly written to begin with. Before we straighten it out, I would like to ask everyone for input, and then, TruPatriot173 and ScrdBldTtd5982 I will give a shot at rewriting the entire article. But I would like some input on the issues I just raised, and any others anyone has in mind, prior to trying to incorporate them into the rewritten article.
Fresh start
Well, I tried to archive this page to give everybody a clean slate, but apparently SaltyPig didn't like that. So. I'm restoring my original comment, which he neglected to replace along with his revert.
I don't know all that's transpired between the two of you and frankly I don't really want to know, because it looks to have been fairly nasty. I'd like to ask both of you to please bury the hatchet and work together toward making the article better. Focus on content, not each other. Comment on content, not each other. If there are substantive issues each of you have with the article, outline them here, and I would be glad to try to mediate informally. But don't attack each other anymore, please. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 03:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
>User talk:Katefan0 for me, the past is past. I accept your kind offer to mediate. If Pig doesn't, it just shows he is unable to accept his is not the only "truth," and despite his rather abonmiable behavior, I feel rather sorry for him. I have written a number of issues i would like input on from other users before I rewrite the entire article. I believe a group effort, with input from anyone versed in, and interested in, this period, couple and incident, can only help turn out an article 150% better and more honest than the one now there. I have done what i could with the existing article, but every time I wrote, someone reverted. Hopefully that won't happen again! Anyway, I hope for input from everyone on the thoughts above, and by the weekend i will rewrite the article to reflect the truth, unpleasant as it is, (where it is well documented Kate, such as the fact Clyde died instantly, as all books state, and the posse officiall reported -- yet they then fired 130 rounds into the vehicle, a horribly dying and screaming Bonnie, and a very dead Clyde. oldwindybear
Removing comments...
Please stop removing comments, whether they're yours or someone else's. Archive them if you must (the link is up top), but don't just remove the comments. And ESPECIALLY don't remove other peoples' comments. From this point on, if I see someone removing another person's comments on this talk page, I'll block you without further warning. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 07:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Katefan0<Kate, I am sorry but i did not understand your ban on removing my own comments/ I ask you humbly not to block me for removing my own work, i was just trying to take my own work off. I am going to say goodbye to wikipedia. I wish you well, I think you are a good person who is trying to be fair. But I am not letting Pig post constant lying and negative comments about me -- and everyone else who irritates him == and if we delete the slanders, we get in trouble! Easier for me to find somewhere else to volunteer. I was just a disabled vet trying to help as matter of principle, honestly, but i won't let myslf be lied about, or other people attacked visciously, and let it sit there. it is just wrong. it discourages those who want to help it gets old. Pig just wears people down with sheer nastiness, and we either have a war of words, which wastes wikipedia space, or we have to put up with it. Better for me to voluteer elsewhere, which will probably delight the Pig, he delights in driving away users who disagree with him. And Kate, my goodness, i am about the 10th person who has made this complaint! Take care, I am sorry to go but on principle, i don't believe -- and know legally -- that the 1rst amendment does not cover Pig's libel -- and I simply did not feel up to serving wikipedia with a Subpoena just to get his real name, so i could file a bill fo complaint and motion for jugment on him to end these ceaseless personal attacks, so, i am gone, take caer,and I am respectfully, oldwindybear
I DO NOT KNOW WHO THIS "PIG" MAN IS BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE NAME SAYS IT ALL. THIS IS A DISCUSSION PAGE OF PEOPLES' THOUGHTS AND IDEAS-NOT A PAGE FOR SOME TYRANT TO MUCK UP. WINDY BEAR-YOU ARE SO RIGHT AND KEEP ON WRITING AND SHARING YOUR IDEAS-I WILL STAND BY YOU (YES BONNIE WAS MURDERED-I FEEL) 141.156.14.238 14:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Old Bear, please don't go!!! Over he last days I have watched the travesty at this article... It frankly sickens me. I willl no longer stay silent..... The *PIG* has done this to many people. *The blight of Wikipedia. You did not plagiarize. The history proves it... I enjoyed your histrical article so much, and... sorry but I am so angry right now. _Do not go_. Wikipedia needs you my friend. Come back!....... We cannot allow this noble enterprise to be disrupted any farthre. Sorry if this offends anyone but it needs to be said. Old Bear, you are badley needed at this great experiment. *PIG**** should be bannd permanently..... Again, I am sorry if this offends. Yestreday my poor husband said I was 'fit to be tied." That's the truth!!! I encourage yourself to seek justice against **PIGS* uncredential slanderous outbursts. Somebody needs to bring accountabilaty to this great land and end these offense agaisnt scholership AND scholers..... You must stay sir... I hope it is not to late and you can read my plea. Please fight this Bear. TruPatriot173
TruPatriot173 I just wanted to tell you that is the nicest thing anyone has written to me in a long time. I only wanted to make this article, and wikipedia, better. I really believed -- being in a wheelchair i had to have my son take me! --and went to the library of congress to check facts before posting. No, I did not plagerize, and I am glad that you -- and others, 6 people emailed me, bless your hearts, all of you! I just am tired. I was just trying to help what i believe to be a noble and great endevor. I thought Pig;s whole outlook was summarzied by his statement "why wikipedia sucks." I thought that so unprofessional, and negative, and discouraging, to the student, who comes here to learn, to the teacher, like me, who tries to help, and i understand Kate's problem with not being able to allow deletion. At the saem time, I can no longer stand by, and watch him abuse user after user and let them stand. I accept her ruling, and therefore must go. But God Bless you for your support, and hey, you and people like you are the reason I went into the army in 1969, instead of runnning to canada, and ended up shot to pieces! This is a noble effort, and if I stayed, all I would be doing, instead of putting research up that I did this am on The Mongol great raid around the Black Sea under Subutai, would be answering yet some other bizzare attack from Pig, or defending some other nice person he attacked for no sane reason. I deeply and humbly thank you, and Kate, please don't punish me for taking away my own work, The rude really do win some of the time. I don't think I have done well in descending to his level in answering his vitrolic attacks, but I felt compelled for instance, to answer his attacks on Kate, who tries hard to be a good administrator. ANYWAY, thank you, and God Bless,,,oldwindybear
PS I urge everyone who wrote me, (and I thank you) and those who expressed support, and those who have been previously victimized by saltypig to contact Katefan0who is a very competant professional, and a reasonable person, and ask her to bann Pig, or formally order him that the next nasty personal note that comes out of his mouth is his last on wikipedia. Tru, I again thank you so much. Over the past two years, I have worked about 20 hours a week on various articles allover this project. It is nice someone noticed and again, God Bless you. I wish I could stay, but as long as I say, this man will continue to try to turn this (and other pages) into personal attack forums, instead of intelligent talk pages for folks to discuss history! I don't want that. And while I understand Katefan0's ruling that i cannot delete his open libel -- and it is illegal -- I cannot stand by and watch him attack myself, her, you, the project, or anyone else he pleases. Better for me to go. I wanted to write about history, not debate personalities, or defend myself from open libel constantly, But again, thank you so much! Your note was kind and meant a great dealto myself and my Grandson,who is here with me today! Thanks again, and write Katefan0<
- Oldwindybear, I agree with the heartfelt and eloquent note from TruePatriot. You should know that many editors here have been discussing the malicious and utterly unfounded attacks against you, and we have your back. Saltpig will harass you further at his peril. You have my word on that, sir. Not only am I a retired lawyer and sometime administrative judge (with some limited prior work representing veterans, who were unfailingly bold and admirable men and women), but am quite active in several estimable historical venues upon which the penumbra, shall we say, of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow fall. You may have seen my work at the Dallas Historical Society. In my retired life I have, at one time or another, facilitated in the bonded transport of some notable--and rather surprising--documents pertinent to this great country's founders. Regretfully, I am not at liberty to elaborate. To your role at Wikipedia, the truth about Frank Hamer and Bonnie Parker needs to be gotten out there, and you are just the man to do it... at THIS article. It would be a crime if you were to leave these august pages. Your work is sound and respected, and you must carry on. The article would be a shambles if it were not for your leadership and demonstrated acumen. From one Grey Ghost to another, Oldwindybear: Semper Fi. Jerry R. Dorsen, Esq, etc. P.S I will write Katefan0! Believe that! ScrdBldTtd5982 16:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Dorsen: First, as a former airborne ranger, semper fi to you, Sir! (we never had a motto so meaningful, though I am PROUD OF MY SERIVCE TO MY COUNTRY) I am touched beyond words at your kind and generous note. I lived in Texas as a chlid, (I was an army brat), and my Grandmother lived there during the Bonnie and Clyde days. It was her anger and disgust at the horrible death of Bonnie Parker, and the disgraceful way that Frank Hamer let people - or did himself -- cut off locks of her hair, and dress, stole the guns and personal possessions in the murder car, and then sold them -- and for this was rewarded by the state and federal government who not only condoned this, but gave him a citation in congress, that began my interest in this event! Sir, as a paralegal, (though UMd has given me a scholarship at my advanced age to work on a degree in legal studies, to add to my paralegal degree), I have far less expertise than you have. (my history degrees and paralegal studies degree sort of paled beside your curriculum vitea!) But I was very careful to go the library of congress and check the law in force at the time before i wrote a word about Bonnie not being wanted for murder. (they lacked, as you know better than I, the accessory before and after, and conspiracy statues for non-actor co-defendants and every historian agrees she herself never fired a shot! Minus the accessory statues, she could not have been convicted of Clyde's crimes!) I read every book written on the ambush, and even though disabled since the war, went to the site. I have fired Browning rifles of the type used. I really tried to make sure that my presentation was not just legally, and factually right, but morally right. To be honest, I have been ill lately, and Pig's unending venon against not just me, but wikipedia, and anyone disagreeing with him, wore me down. No one should be allowed to write as a subtitle on a talk page for Bonnie and Clyde, "Why Wikipedia sucks." No one should be allowed to launch the increasingly viscious personal attacks on me that Pig did - and did on other people as well! I tried appealling to him to work with me on revising the article, submitting facts and evidence -- but he was simply more viprative. In any event, thank you beyond words for your kind and supportive statement. All I wanted was to see the truth told. For 72 years it has been hidden. My Grandma put it best: "they, (the posse) told the papers they got Clyde first shot, but they shot Bonnie to pieces while she screamed in agony, why aren't they in jail?" That says it all. Thanks again, oldwindybear
ISSUES: ISSUES TO CONSIDER BEFORE THE BONNIE AND CLYDE ARTICLE IS REWRITTEN KATEFANOContrary to the (now recanted) assumptions, the people who wrote supporting me were not writing at my beheast but more that the article is inaccurage and incomplete, and people want it changed and some, at least, liked my writing and conceptual ideas. There appears to be a consensus that the article needs rewriting, and I posted these issues for others to comment on before doing any rewriting. I think it is fairly obvious that they are valid issues for a talk page. These are issues that I would like other interested users to consider, and comment on, and since i cannot rewrite the article, hopefully someone else will that will factor in the greater historical konwledge of have of Bonnie and Clyde, especially in their deaths.
1) We need to take a long look at the tactics Hamer used to catch Clyde -- Clyde tended to use the same route, a long swing through three states, skirting the border where possible, using the old border line theory (no hot pursuit allowed), visiting family along the way, and doing it the same way every time, so it was fairly easy for Hamer to literally draw a map of where Clyde had been, and where he would be going, based on his past patterns. This is not discussed in any detail in the article, and is vital to what happened, so needs to be in the article. Hamer had a very specific plan to find Bonnie and Clyde, and he was every bit as good a manhunter as advertised. This plan, based on Clyde's past patterns of movement, needs to be fully explained.
2) We need to look at the sources that claim that Henry Methvin claimed till his death that it was his father that betrayed Bonnie and Clyde, not him, and that he hated him for doing so. This is not discussed in the current article at all, but is in many of the books on the subject. Given the importance of Methvin's father in the ambush, this is a crucial issue.
3) Anothere issue is the fact that Clyde was killed IMMEDIATELY with the first shot fired, his blown literally blown mostly off by Preston Oakley, anyone who has seen what a Remington Model 8, can do, had no doubts as to Clyde's head being blown apart. (Interestingly, it was Oakley who alone of the posse would feel terrible remorse every day of his life after that). With Clyde dead, the car undrivable with his body blocking the driver's seat, and Bonnie's crippled leg not allowing her to drive under any circumstances -- how can ANYONE justify firing 130 more shots into the car, literally, according to the proud posse (except for Oakley), while Bonnie screamed with a long, pain filled and agonized wail? And they bragged about it the rest of their lives, except for Oakley! This is not discussed at all, and 2 of the comments you deleted commented on Hamer and his tactics, which are NOT extensively discussed in teh current article.
4) Also, there were no warrants out for Bonnie for murder or any capital offense at the time of the ambush -- why then did the posse fire 130 shots at her after Clyde was unquestionably dead. (anyone who has ever seen someone hit in the head with a high powered rifle, and the results, could not have doubted Clyde was totally, thoroughly, completely dead, as was said on the Wizard of Oz!) Again, this is not in the current article, and needs discussion.
5) In addtion we need to look at the souvenirs commandered by Hamer and his boys, including snips of Bonnie's bloody hair, and even pieces of her dress, (or as they claimed, they let those souvenirs be taken while they just stole the weapons and other personal effects in the ambush car, msot of which were later sold!) Again, very little in the current article!
They are legitimate questions to ask interested users before i undertook to rewrite the whole article -- which I then have no trouble having you examine for content and quality as mediator before posting it!
trupatriot, and Mr. Dorsen, ScrdBldTtd5982, even though I don;t know either of you, both of you have expressed interest in this article being rewritten. I would welcome your input, and anyone else's!
Anyone else care to discuss these issues?
due to everything which has occurred, I am once again departing wikipedia. I hope whoever rewrites this really poor article on Bonnie and Clyde, addresses the issues above. Take care to all! oldwindybear
This page was last modified 22:21, 11 January 2006. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Randazzo56 20:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Who keeps insisting that Bonnies leg was burned by battery acid?
where do you get your information? In every account I have read the third degree burns she suffered were caused by her being trapped beneath a burning car, I have corrected this several times yet it keeps appearing. Its allmost as bad as calling Prentis Oakley "Preston Oakley".