Talk:Bonnie and Clyde/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Refocusing

What are the substantive content disputes on this page? While I appreciate both of your positions, WP talk pages are for discussing article content, and not anything else. ARE there any content disputes? Please try to be concise, and don't comment on other editors. Comment on content. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Folks,Katefan0thinks I brought trupatriot, and Mr. Dorsen, ScrdBldTtd5982, in to say nice things about me. As both of you know, I never talked to either of you (by email or otherwise) in my life. With Kate in charge of this page, it is best for me to not be involved. I am tired of being libeled, adn that was libel. Hope someone reads this, before she removes it too, while she let Pig say wikipedia sucked for months. Sorry Kate, you were dead wrong on this/

Both of you were out of line, but it's done. Over. So let's try to put it behind us and let sleeping dogs lie. It does nobody any good to keep whinging on about it. If nobody can articulate a content dispute, I'll assume there aren't any. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 17:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No Katefan0Kate, I am sorry. You wrote that I had two people write in here, and write notes of support, when I have never talked to either in their lives. You are a very bright person, and have access to top attorneys, so ask them: that was plain libel. As to Pig, I was wrong only in that I let myself be part of misusing this page. I should NOT have wasted space in defending myself. I should have let management handle it. But for weeks you did not handle it, just as you let him put up insane remarks like "why wikipedia sucks." And you were plain wrong in what you said about me this morning, it was an open libel and a lie. I am sorry, but I don't like that. I have treated you with the utmost respect, and if you think for a second that trupatriot, and Mr. Dorsen, ScrdBldTtd5982 knew me, had talked to me, were brought in by me, that is just crazy. There are plenty of content disputes, which i articulated as least as well as you or anyone else could, but frankly, you are too biased against myself to adjudicate them, by what you did this morning. oldwindybear

I wasn't even watching this article when this stuff happened, so there's no way I could have tried to mediate when I didn't even realize it was happening. If you think accusing me of ignoring something I wasn't even aware of is "treating me with the utmost respect," I respectfully submit that you are mistaken.

Outline whatever your content disputes are if you like, but this is enough. SaltyPig has stopped and so should you. If you want to take further actions against him, you are welcome to open a requests for comment at WP:RFC or a request for arbitration at WP:RFAr. But the constant recursive whining on this talk page, given that SaltyPig stopped commenting almost a week ago, needs to stop. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 17:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Then you should have the decency to admit that I did not bring in anyone to comment on my behalf, and I will gladly drop the matter. You have a double standard, you get to libel me, but when I object, you complain it is whining. As for Pig, since he has stopped, I see no reason to harrass him. You addressed every issue but the one that mattered: that you claimed you removed material from this page because I brought people in -- people I have never spoken to in my life -- to write nice things about me. That is wrong, period. If you did not know about the "wikipedia sucks" and other craziness, then i was wrong, and I humbly apologize. I am big enough to admit when I am wrong. Are you? That comment on my bringing people in was a really low blow. oldwindybear

I'm glad to hear that you didn't. Please, let's turn to content now. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 17:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Folks, the issues I had researched and were asking for comments on before attempting the article rewrite have been arhieved; if anyone is interested in really attempting to rewrite this article -- with it's present many glaring holes and inaccuracies -- i would be glad to send you my notes and research. in the interim, the issues that had been posted are archieved. Take care! oldwindybear11:26pmEST1/12/06 BATTERY ACID? These articles are supposed to represent some sort of accuracy, how can any one who has read any of the many books written on this subject keep insisting that Bonnies' leg was injured by battery acid? According to historical fact she was trapped beneath a burning auto and suffered third degree burns to her left leg.Randazzo56

NPOV?

Notwithstanding the issues between users, I have an NPOV concern with these two statements: "However, he appears to have been the only posse member bothered in any way by his actions." AND "Most of these souvenirs were later sold, rendering even more disgraceful the conduct of Hamer and the posse who killed Bonnie and Clyde."

These two statements seem to display a blatant opinion, and I think they need to be removed. In the spirit of good faith, I'll hold off until we can discuss them further. I also gave the controversy and aftermath it's own section, since the events leading up to the shootings don't seem to be in dispute. Joe McCullough | (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Joe McCullough The statement on " However, he appears to have been the only posse member bothered in any way by his actions" is based on his being the only posse member to have ever expressed regreat and remorse for his actions that day, and his quoted statements, see The Strange History of Bonnie & Clyde by John Treherne, and I can also refer you to three other books that make similar claims. I reworded it so it simply states the facts: he was the only posse member to publically express regret and remorse for his actions that day. I also reworded the sale of souvenirs, but the blunt fact is they were sold, 3 officers of the law were left to prevent people from doing things like cutting off pieces of Bonnie's hair and dress - which people did, and then sold! Or a man trying to cut off Clyde's finger and ear! Most people find that pretty appalling. I was extremely caerful to cite direct quotes from sources on the death scene, and I think you will find, as will anyone who checks, that it is correct and fair. Frank Hamer was in charge, and allowed it to happen till the coroner made himstop the people from doing these horrific things. I reworded so the facts are presented, not as an op-ed, but the facts, sourced, and people can make up their own mind as to whether it was disgraceful conduct. HOWEVER, you were right that it was not correctly worded, and I thank you and have tried to use dispassionate language thatlets people examine what happened, and reach their own conclusions. If you feel it needs more, just let me know. I have EVERY book on this couple in existence, and studied it from sea to shining sea. But you can always learn! Thanks for pointing out the language needed to be more dispassionate.old windy bear 14:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

just say... according to¨(source), he appears to have been the only posse member bothered by his actions. as for the second there appears to be a lot more sugestive information of perhaps a conspiracy? Why not just say, according to some historians the sale of of these souvenirs rendered the conduct of Hamer and the posse, who killed bonnie and clyde, "questionable". (put your source... and if you have a counter argument put it right after). Such as I dunno (I'm making this up)... "The police and general population's percepetion (at the time), however believe that this conduct was fair?"

The thing is there can be millions of POV's on wikipedia. (is that apple red... or is it "rouge vin" with some little freckles). Both should be mentioned. If you don't like the way it's worded thank refrase it.--CyclePat 21:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Rephrased is fine, my only point there is that those sentences read more like an op-ed piece than an encyclopedic article. Joe McCullough | (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The thing with wikipedia, is that it should always be based on the accounts of someone else (reliable source of course!). If it's the way the original editor wrote it... I sugest you find out if this was a POV or if it was based on his sources. And even so, the sources should be indicated. NOw if you are wondering about the relevance of this information to be included that may be something else. Is it important that we know "he was bothered by his actions?" or that the conduct was "disgraceful."... I think you're right about the disgraceful. Definatelly the last be reformated. Simply stating what happened and allowing the reader to figure out for themself might be best!!! (ie.: Hitler doesn't even have the word bad or awful). So, personally I would keep the first one (adding the source)(if this subject is important), and edit the second one (removing the last parts). (But that's just me... and I haven't even read this article) --CyclePat 21:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

CyclePat HI Pat! I think I have addressed Joe's concerns, and reworded, carefully, citing actual sources. Actually the public was more appalled by the way Bonnie and Clyde died than they were delighted, though certainly a large number were happy the duo were gone. I have reworded the statements Joe was concerned about, reflecting what the sources actually said. NO source supported the sale of the souvenirs, which was plain robbery -- the Texas Department of Corrections, or Frank Hamer, lacked the authority to authorize the seizure of other people's weapons, or Bonnie and Clyde's few personal possessions, and have them sold. As for the horror of the scene after their death, with a man trying to cut off parts of Clyde's body, and people cutting pieces of Bonnie's hair and dress, check The Strange History of Bonnie & Clyde by John Treherne, generally regarded as the best sourced and researched book on the duo. Frank Hamer was in charge, and allowed it to happen, as did the posse members left on the scene -- all of whom took souvenirs of their own, again well sourced as noted. (I quoted directly from the coroner's horror upon arriving at what was happening - with Hamer not stopping it until the coroner asked him to do so. It is now worded literally from the direct source, and people can make up their own mind as to the disgrace, or whether it is just spiffy that an officer of the law let someone cut a dead girl's hair off and sell it. old windy bear 14:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

accuracy schmaccuracy

it's good that the historians and scrupulous researchers are minding this article:

[1] Ironically, though they are remembered as bank robbers, they were not. Clyde preferred small stores or even gas stations.

even were the not-bank-robbers claim true (which it's not), how is that, by any definition, relating to, containing, or constituting irony? weren't bank robbers? see Twenty-first Century Update, Appendix Four, listing 10 banks known or suspected of being robbed by clyde barrow, some with the indirect participation of bonnie. clyde and his associates admitted to robbing some banks, and there were piles of witnesses corroborating that they did rob some banks -- facts not disputed except at wikipedia. if the point is that bonnie didn't rob banks, well she didn't rob stores or gas stations then either. the new version, as the old, treats them as a pair, so that's not obviously not the issue (though one never knows with the slippery). the "bank robbers" claim (added very early on) was never changed before the historians arrived, because it was neither misleading nor inaccurate. the article was edited further in (before the arrival of the historians) to state clearly that clyde preferred small stores and gas stations, and that he hit them far more than he did banks; didn't need to be addressed in the intro, and it still doesn't. they were bank robbers; elaboration can wait.

[2] In her book about her year with Bonnie and Clyde Blanche Barrow also claimed Bonnie never shot anyone.

My Life with Bonnie and Clyde, page 66 (blanche barrow writing): Clyde laid one of the rifles across Bonnie's lap, with the barrel sticking out the window. He told Bonnie to hold it up and shoot. She did. We heard later that a woman was wounded in the arm. [editor's footnote: Two women were wounded during the shooting spree in front of the Christian Church in Lucerne. Doris Miner, twenty-two, was dressing in the bedroom of her parents' home nearby when she was struck in the shoulder and grazed on the cheek. Ethel Jones, also twenty-two, was standing outside the house next door when she was wounded in the right arm. Other slugs became embedded at various points in the neighborhood around the church, one drilling straight through a telephone pole. Pharos-Tribune, May 12, 1933.]

only the start of how this article's gone downhill. we blame the ***PIG*, and remain: TruPatriot173 & ScrdBldTtd5982. 63.28.34.13 05:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Pig did some of the damage, but the one source you cited is contradicted by at least 5 other accounts of the duo which are better sourced - Blanche's was personal memory, written in prison, self serving, and she hated them both for what she considered getting her husband killed and her imprisoned. (Blanche forgot she made her own choices!) The article is consistent with the following sources, which all agree on Bonnie not shooting or killing anyone, and Clyde, while havnig robbed some banks, preferred smaller stores and gas stations, by a ration of 10 to 1 or greater!

• Treherne, John (2000). The Strange History of Bonnie & Clyde. Cooper Square Press. ISBN 0815411065.
• DeFord, Miriam Allen (1968). The Real Bonnie and Clyde. Sphere Books.

Hinton, Ted; Grove, Larry (1979). The Real Story of Bonnie and Clyde. Shoal Creek Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0883190419.

• Shelton, Gene (1997). The Life and Times of Frank Hamer. Berkeley Books. ISBN 0425159736.
• Matteson, Jason, 'Texas Bandits: A Study of the 1948 Democratic Primary"

Cartledge, Rick "The Guns of Frank Hamer,"

• Milner, E.R. The Lives and Times of Bonnie and Clyde"
• Steele, Phillip, and Scoma Barrow, Marie, The Family Story of Bonnie and Clyde

Topeka Capital-Jopurnal

• Ted Hintonand and Alacorn justifying ambushing Bonnie and Clyde with no warning in the "Took no chances" article, Hinton and Alcorn tell Newspapermen Wednesday Night's Extra, Dallas Dispatch.
• See also Geringer, Joseph BONNIE & CLYDE: ROMEO AND JULIET IN A GETAWAY CAR downloaded from the Crime Library Online at http://www.crimelibrary.com/americana/bonnie/main.htm

A genuine effort has been made to make this article consistent with the facts as they are known. For instance, there were no warrants for Bonnie for murder, though Clyde had at least 10. John Treherne actually went to the counties, cities, parishes (Louisiana) and searched the old records! As to the laws, I went to the Library of Congress and checked the statues of the states involved, following up on Treherne's work, I was curious, and he was correct. If your biggest quarrel is that they robbed some banks, that will be added because it is the truth. But the facts on Bonnie not deliberately ever shooting or killing anyone is extremely well sourced, and the best historical record we have. I don't see how this could be Kate's fault? People for some reason either want to believe Bonnie was totally innocent, (she was not, she was riding around with a psychopath while he killed people!), or totally villianous, which she also was not. As pointed out repeatedly, the law was different then, and she could not be charged for a murder Clyde committed while she sat in the car outside. At any rate, read some of the sources listed - Gerringer's online account BONNIE & CLYDE: ROMEO AND JULIET IN A GETAWAY CAR is actually pretty well sourced and accurate -- and you will see the article reflects what is generally conceded to be the truth.old windy bear 13:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

sofixit · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

you're in charge, katefan... 63.28.48.232 17:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

error

despite multiple protestations of how horrid and error-ridden the article was before the historians arrived and "cleaned" it all up (ha!), there still remains a blatant error the ****PIG* inserted by mistake. can't find it? ted hinton's son saw it immediately when *PIG*** asked him to read the article last fall. it's been sitting there for months now. such scrutiny! bet it's there next year too. as ever, we stand in awe. TruPatriot173 & ScrdBldTtd5982 63.28.92.146 10:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

TruPatriot173 HI Tru, I am genuinely trying to clean this article up, based on the legitimate sources available. If I have missed something - though I question Ted Hinton's son as the best source, given the controversy over his claims after his father's death about what happened on the night and morning of the ambush - please let me know, and I will fix it at once. You are nice people, and I would appreciate your help. If something is genuinely wrong, please let me know, and I will fix it. I have added the note that Clyde participated in up to 10 known bank robberies, even though the vast majority of his criminal activity was not robbing banks. I am honestly trying to clean up the mess Pig made, so your help would be appreciated.old windy bear 14:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

sofixit · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

...you fix it. use your admin key. hit somebody over the head. threaten the article into compliance! 63.28.48.232 17:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

... as opposed to whining/trolling it all better, I guess. The great thing about Wikipedia is that it's the encyclopedia that anybody can edit. If you see an error, just fix it. Easy peasy. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

charming. kinda like walking around all day picking up litter. creates a market for litter. nah, you jangle those keys loud enough, and i'll bet the article will fix itself. jangle jangle jangle! jangle! i mean, it hasn't worked yet, but it's bound to. stay the course. 63.28.48.232 18:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as the historians arriving and correcting some of the errors you are misciting Blanche Barrow's book, which is not even regarded as the best source on the gang. Whether you like it or not these are the facts: Gang members W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults claimed Bonnie was strictly "logistical support," see John Neal Phillips book,"Running with Bonnie & Clyde: The Ten Fast Years of Ralph Fults." Also, in the book Riding with Bonnie and Clyde" W.D. Jones made the statement (as he had under Oath to the authorities) "Bonnie never packed a gun, out of the five major gun battles I was with them she never fired a gun." Writing with Phillip Steele in The Family Story of Bonnie and Clyde, Marie Barrow, Clyde's youngest sister, made the same claim: "Bonnie never fired a shot. She just followed my brother no matter where he went." The same accounts of Bonnie never shooting anyone is carried in The Real Bonnie and Clyde. by Miriam Deford, which is generally regarded as a good and thoroughly researched book on the duo. Probably the best source is John Treherne's work The Strange History of Bonnie & Clyde. (2000) which also stated that after exhaustively traveling the country and interviewing anyone left alive who remembered the events, studying all the police reports, "Bonnie never killed or shot anyone."

As to the issue of bank robbery, the point was not that they never robbed a bank - 10 is a high number, most historians put it at 5-8, but 10 is possible, but it doesn't compare to the literally dozens of small gas stations and Mom and Pop stores that Clyde preferred. However, I changed the article to reflect that Clyde did rob some banks, so it is more accurate, while preserving the point the vast bulk of his criminal endevors, such as they were, (Dillinger, for instance, considered Clyde a bumbling amataur and Bonnie a love struck fool that gave criminals a bad name!) Your statment that Bonnie was with him is also incorrect. Bonnie was in the car during virtually all of the crimes Clyde committed, which under the law at the time did not make her guilty of those crimes. In 1934 the states of Louisiana, Texas and the federal government lacked the laws we have today on accessory in the first and second degree and conspriracy which would have allowed charging Bonnie for Clyde's crimes. Ted Hinton's son is not the best source for asking about Bonnie and Clyde either, since he and he alone makes the claim that his father helped Frank Hamer tie Methvin's father to a tree all night the day before and during the ambush -- a claim Ted Hinton never made in his lifetime, but his son released after his death, when no one could ask him! Blaming Kate for this is ridiculous. old windy bear 13:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, she didn't shoot/kill anyone, we get it.

Granted, the common perception of Bonnie Parker as a murderer on par with Clyde Barrow is clearly wrong. And granted that the bulk of the evidence, including the most credible sources, would indicate that she never even so much as shot someone. And granted that she was never explicitly charged with or wanted for a murder, regardless of wether she committed one. Even taking all of that on faith, is it neccessary to repeat this fact FOURTEEN TIMES in this one article? It's repeated so much, sometimes copying the same quote from the same source multiple times, and often inserted out of nowhere at the end of some other paragraph, that it sounds like you're trying to convince the reader of something that's not true.

I don't personally own any of the source material, so I'm not going to attempt to edit the article, but I would suggest that the editors that do have access to the sources:

1. Clean up the citations a bit; since you refer to the same sources multiple times, I'd suggest the more typical academic citations like "..... (Butler 2003)" as opposed to footnotes.

2. Move all of the stuff about Bonnie's killing/not killing anyone to the "controversy" section, which seems to be the best place for it. Also, if it's true that Blanche Barrow claims she saw Bonnie shoot someone, you SHOULD mention that as a counter-argument; along with any information that would assist the reader in judging her credibility. e.g. "Blanche Barrow, claims that Bonnie ...; this claim comes from her book ..., which was written from jail many years after her brothers death, which she has publically blamed on Bonnie Parker." Or whatever the case may be. A sensible reader will be able to compare 3-4 unbiased sources vs. one potentially biased source and make up their own mind.

Kutulu 20:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Kutulu Some of your ideas are good ones, such as using the standard sourcing type wikipedia generally uses. I also think some of the references to her not shooting anyone could be limited.

1) As to the reference to Blanche Barrow's book, first, it was written in prison, it was extremely bitter, (which she had a right to be), it contradicts all other evidence and statements -- under Oath in court -- by members of the gang, and finally, Blanche claimed that shooting was an accident, in which someone was grazed accidently, and not during a crime. The distinction is important -- all Blanche claimed, in contradiction to virtually all other evidence, was that Bonnie accidently discharged a weapon that grazed someone, while at home,and not as a criminal act during a Barrow gang crime.

2) I think it is important to make reference to this during the section devoted to Bonnie, simply because the general perception is she was Clyde's equal, and that was wrong. It is mentioned again in the ambush, because it became a very important question, was shooting her without warning, when she had not committed murder, a crime in itself? Again, this issue arises in the aftermath.

But you are right, there are too many, and the citation format needs to be changed, and will be. Some already have been made, several of the references to Bonnie's not killing anyone have been removed, as have repeated uses of the same book name, and Blanche Barrow claim that Bonnie fired a rifle Clyde put in her lap out a window has been added. Still, the bottom line is that public officials fired 130 rounds, shooting a girl to pieces who was not wanted for any capital offense, and was committing no crime at the moment. Then the same public officials let people cut her hair off for souvenirs, and let her clothes be stolen for souvenirs. I think that pretty much speaks for itself. old windy bear 22:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As to the reference to Blanche Barrow's book...

if the book is such a poor source, why was it misrepresented as a source until it was pointed out that it disagreed quite explicitly with the claim? the book was good enough when it was incorrectly assumed to fit a pet thesis. now that precision has been added, however, enough disclaimers can't be found (including a highly questionable, blanket "under Oath in court" claim -- uncited as usual) to discredit the same source, covering the same subject.

all Blanche claimed, in contradiction to virtually all other evidence, was that Bonnie accidently discharged a weapon that grazed someone, while at home,and not as a criminal act during a Barrow gang crime.

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong (literally 5 false claims in that single sentence), and the choice of the benign word "discharged" above is just more evidence of a crusade. the section of barrow's book cited above (page 66 and context) makes it quite clear that blanche barrow claimed bonnie parker shot a rifle, intentionally, from a car window, during a getaway from an attempted bank robbery, and striking, according to the editor's notes re a newspaper article, one woman in the shoulder and "wounding" another in the arm. the grazing mentioned in the book footnotes was in addition to the shoulder and arm wounds of the two victims, respectively. that was clear from quotes from the book on this very page, but through selective transmission it has now been converted, quite erroneously, into a grazing. when does this fantastic approach end?

contrary to distortion, significant evidence corroborates blanche barrow's account as perhaps being mild, and places the incident in lucerne, indiana, 12 may 1933. some witnesses reported seeing both women in the car (i.e., blanche and bonnie) using guns, from the car, in front of the Christian Church, firing "about forty shots toward a crowd of people who had poured out of their homes to see what the excitement was about." (pharos-tribune, 12 may 1933, via the footnotes in blanche's book.) the implied claim of opponents of these facts is that the moral difference between murder and peacefulness is somewhere around 5 minutes of arc, while shooting into a crowd of innocents from a moving car. absurd.

the article is now riddled with presumptuous, selectively cited, POV such as that refuted above. the new version is quite obviously on a mission to sanctify and protect bonnie parker, a woman who routinely aided murderers and thieves, living with abandon and without remorse off the proceeds of stolen wealth and lives. this is a woman who quite probably in march 1930 (with her cousin mary tagging along) burglarized a home, stole a gun, and smuggled it into jail for clyde's breakout. obviously, the key piece of info there is that clyde was in jail. she was the principal actor. good luck painting her a non-participant/saint upon a full examination of evidence. where is this burglary and direct role in a jailbreak mentioned while minimizing her role all through the article?

what about her participation in the planning and execution of the 1934 eastham prison break? is this just play material -- something the average woman does? is supporting operations in which people are killed somehow a complete separation of moral culpability? it just goes on and on. she was an accomplice to murder, more than once. this is lost entirely in the new fantasy. nowhere in the article edits has there been anything, even against clyde barrow, approaching the vitriol piled on hamer and the rest of the posse. if bonnie parker was shooting a rifle indiscriminately into a crowd of presumably innocent, unarmed strangers, how is that much different from what hamer did, except perhaps worse? the case against bonnie parker goes on for miles, but it's all denied actively in the "historian" version. where in the article is the voice of the many innocent victims of the barrow gang to counter the pained fretting over somebody trying to cut souvenirs from the corpses of criminals? the solution is to zap 'em both from the editorializing side, and report facts dispassionately.

there must be accurate neutrality in any attempt to explain that the murder of parker by the state was questionable. the article did have this neutrality, and did correct common misunderstanding clearly and objectively -- get in, get out. it was thrown away so that a biased author could hold forth from the pulpit, attempting to correct decades of misunderstanding by essentially painting bonnie parker as a helpless victim, and using misleading and inaccurate techniques (primarily selective inclusion/exclusion, but including outright false claims) to do it. the debunking above is only the start of demonstrating how far off the article is now. but why should anybody else bother correcting it when somebody on a mission has a submit button that works overtime? no reason. the article will now stay a disaster, unless somebody wants to spend 5 unpaid months handholding and arguing against zealotry in POV and sloppy edits. what competent adult has the patience for that? 63.28.4.130 21:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

answering 63.28.4.130

63.28.4.130 First of all, I sign my name, so you know who you are talking too, you are merely an im who drifts in and out -- it sort of diminishes your credibility. As to the Bonnie Parker article, there is only one source that claims she fired a gun at someone, and that was Blanche Barrow, who wrote it in prison, for profit, while extremely bitter. It is disputed by every other member of the gang who TESTIFIED UNDER OATH that Bonnie never shot anyone. Now you can like it, or dislike it, but historically, their testimony under Oath carries more credibility than Blanche's recollections in prison, while not under Oath, and recollections which dispute every other member of the gang, 3 of whom put those claims -- that Bonnie shot no one -- under Oath, to the authorities!

Further, while you talk about misleading and inaccurate techniques (primarily selective inclusion/exclusion, you fail to mention that BONNIE WAS NOT WANTED FOR MURDER. Clyde was. Does the article paint her a saint? Lord, no! Nor does it try to sanitize her stupidity in following and assisting a psychopath while he committed crimes! But you miss the basic point, or selectively refuse to address it, which is that NO RELIABLE SOURCE -- and sorry, but Blanche Barrow's account, not under Oath, not sworn, does not stand up legally or historically to W.D. Jones, Ralph Fults, Hnery Methvin's, all of whom swore under oath that Bonnie shot no one.

If you feel you have sources, then edit the article and cite your sources, instead of crying how the article is a crusade. The article attempts to list every source available -- including Blanche Barrow's, (which did claim Bonnie never killed anyone) -- rather than selectively source. You want it both ways. You cry if it is mentioned, cry if it is not. If you dislike the article so much -- rewrite it! That is the joy of wikipedia! Rewrite it! If it is so poorly written by those of us you claim selectively wrote it, then rewrite it, and source it yourself! You cannot dispute the plain facts, so you try to nitpick.

It is the duty of this encylopedia to give the BEST EVIDENCE AVAILABLE. And it has done so. I went back and reread Blanche's claim, and reworded to reflect that. But your constant harping does not change the facts. Do you really think that Bonnie Parker was a murderer? That she deserved to be ambushed and have her clothes and hair cut off for souvenirs? Then say so, and source it! If she was wanted for murder, state where and when!

The same thing with the incident you refer to in firing into a crowd - was there a warrant issued? That episode conflicts with most accounts. Where is your evidence??? Source it, and rewrite it, if you have it! old windy bear 02:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

as usual, heavily straw man argument. the only person who was pushing blanche barrow as a reliable source was you. has that totally escaped your view? when you thought her book backed up your theory, you pushed it. now that the inaccurate summation of her claims is debunked, you disparage her book. you obviously haven't read it thoroughly, because you say little that's accurate about it. you claim that it was written for profit. okay, how much did she get for her book, considering the manuscript sat undiscovered in a box for 12 years after her death in 1988, and the book wasn't published until 2004? according to its editor, the only person before 2000 other than blanche barrow to know of the manuscript's existence was a woman she didn't meet until 1951. doesn't sound like much of a "for profit" deal to me, considering it was written in the mid '30s. she had a deal with a publisher while in jail? document that. maybe you know something i and the editor of the book and the woman who was executrix of her estate don't. maybe you have inside evidence of why the reporter for the pharos-tribune, which published its 12 may 1933 paper completely independent of this source you claim is so tainted by profit, quoted eyewitness as claiming that the two women in the car were both shooting at bystanders. i guess you know better than the eyewitnesses, and that you can explain how this newspaper report being included in the footnotes by the editor of blanche barrow's book suddenly becomes tainted simply because it's in the book (though she had nothing to do with writing the footnotes).

tell ya what -- why not give us all a laugh and document your claims that WD jones, ralph fults, and henry methvin all "swore under oath that Bonnie shot no one." cite 'em. and when that's done, maybe you can tell everybody how that relates to the eyewitness accounts from lucerne, indiana, when only 4 people composed the barrow gang that day: bonnie parker, clyde barrow, buck barrow, and blanche barrow. are you asserting that WD jones, ralph fults, or henry methvin was an eyewitness that day in lucerne? if you aren't, your whole argument goes out the window. you probably won't understand that, because you're a man on a mission. NPOV, however, requires that this newspaper report be included with any claim that bonnie never shot anybody. quoting the editor of blanch barrow's book, "If the statements of the eyewitnesses are true, this is the only known hard evidence that Bonnie Parker ever fired a weapon in anger, much less wounded someone. It is also an indictment of Blanche's assertion that she never handled a weapon."

i wasn't there. i don't know if their claims are true, and neither do you. that's a fact. it is, however, highly notable, and should not be discounted merely because the newspaper report happened to appear in a book mostly written by blanche barrow. to imply that blanche barrow persuaded the witnesses or the newspaper to lie is ludicrous. it also should be noted that blanche's story on the matter is corroborated by the witnesses, except with regard to her shooting a gun as well. in other words, it fits nicely with the common opinion of B&C historians that blanche's story is mostly flawed only in that she paints herself as a cream puff. much of her information otherwise is well respected, and, keeping in mind the obvious flaws, makes her book one of the more valuable B&C references there is. combined with the scrupulous footnotes (which document the flaws in her story), it's a heavy hitter. regardless of what you say about the book now, even you can't seriously pretend that this edit doesn't exist. it's not going away either. 63.28.21.32 07:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

refuting 63.28.21.32 rant on Blanche Barrow

Blanche's book was cited because EVERY book that we could find on the duo was listed. If, as you claim, that newsaper article is "proof" that sworn statements by gang members were wrong, why weren't charges filed? Where are the warrants? If you have historial evidence no one does, cite it, put it in the article, instead of babbling about it back here! Blanche was with the gang one year. She was desribed in every other book on the duo as extremely bitter against them -- read The Strange Lives of Bonnie and Clyde, or any other reputable source. As for the sources that Bonnie never shot at anyone, see Gang members W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults claiming Bonnie was strictly "logistical support" (John Neal Phillips book, Running with Bonnie & Clyde: The Ten Fast Years of Ralph Fults) Fults was adamant Bonnie never fired a shot in any of the gunbattles the gang was a part of. Also, in the same book , W.D. Jones made the statement (as he had under Oath to the authorities), "Bonnie never packed a gun, out of the five major gun battles I was with them she never fired a gun." BOTH of them made those claims under Oath, see Phillips book! Writing with Phillip Steele in The Family Story of Bonnie and Clyde, Marie Barrow, Clyde's youngest sister, made the same claim: "Bonnie never fired a shot. She just followed my brother no matter where he went." John Treherne made the same claim in his well-sourced book The Strange History of Bonnie & Clyde (and he went to every place such incidents occurred, and searched for warrants -- newspaper articles are fine, where are the warrants for her if that occurred?) where he essentially found that Bonnie was madly in love with a psychopath, and followed him to her death. She herself never killed anyone.

The incidcent you refer to is denied by the other gang members, and to the best of anyone's knowledge, no charges were filed against either woman allegedly involved! You obviously don't have a clue about good history, or how to write it. John Treherne traveled America visiting every jurisdiction -- including that one -- where Barrow gang crimes had allegedly been committed, and no warrants were filed on that day on two women. Th editor of her book was right, if true, this debunks Blanche's claim that she herself never fired a weapon - but the newspaper article does NOT explain why neither woman was charged for that alleged incident! Where are the warrants? Read Running with Bonnie & Clyde: The Ten Fast Years of Ralph Fults if you want his statements and W.D. Jones, and if you want the most meticulously researched book on the duo, try Trehearne's, where he actually travelled the country investigating every alleged incident involving the "Barrow Gang." And again, we come to the real question: if everyone else is doing such a poor job on this article, why don't you rewrite it? Source your rewrites, as we have the article in it's present state, and see what comes of it? If you have information on warrants we don't, or criminal charges placed we don't, bring them forward! Yes, Blanche's manuscript originally sat in a box, but it was written from prison, by an extremely bitter woman, who had hoped to make money on it! If you wish to change the article, source your changes and write away! Go read, if you know how, instead of whining, if you feel something is wrong, change it, and source your changes! old windy bear 12:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

deleting my comments in discussion by 63.28.10.16 and breaking all editing and discussion rules, making unsupported allegations by a sock puppet of someone

Katefan0Kate, I did not touch 63.28.4.130comments in editing -- I did challange them, not abusively, but factually, and that person (or whoever did it for them, 63.28.10.16 is not an editor, with the power to edit out my comments, or post personal attacks on the history page! If they feel they are improper, bring them to the attention to an editor, and ask them! Don't delete my comments -- which were clearly written in answer to theirs. They cannot debate facts, so they try to delete the responses! Again, if they have feel I violated policy, my goodness, complain to an editor like you! What they cannot do, and did, is delete my comments because they offend their particular agenda or political viewpoint. This page is precisely for the purpose of discussing issues related to this article. Because they don't like the facts, they cannot edit them out. But I tell you what, let us have an editor decide, Kate, please look at what [[User:[[63.28.10.16|63.28.10.16 did tonight in deleting my response to him/her, and please tell me which was wrong. I answered the factual allegations 63.28.4.130 made, and did go back, reread Blanche Barrow's book - I have it, as I do virtually all the Bonnie and Clyde books, and responded. (and edited the article, because the wording did need changing! They did not like the response, because it basically refutes their agenda, and deleted it. That is wrong, and I ask you to look at it. They claim I interfered with an edit - but I did not touch a word of anyone's, just responded to it! If I am wrong, please tell me, but I think they need to understand the point of a discussion page is to discuss, not for them to delete the discussions they disagree with! old windy bear 05:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

will you please tune in to reality, just once? you repeatedly put people in a position where they either have to clean up your mess, or, in an effort to try to get you to be a responsible, competent user, simply revert your disasters and let you try again. how long have you been editing here? news flash: everybody who edits here is an "editor". here's absolute, incontrovertable proof that you edited my comments, once again (probably unintentionally this time, but definitely by not paying proper attention to how wikipedia editing works). then when i once again restore my comments to their original state (by reverting to the version prior to your interference), once again you make the laughable claim that somebody's messing with your comments! it's just too ridiculous for words. all i did was return my comments to how they were before you reverted them (you probably still don't realize you did it, even now).

you've been here plenty long enough to have figured out how to sign/timestamp your comments (which you just figured out last month, apparently), and be able to read an edit history (still don't know). how you can spit out all the verbiage without checking the history is a real mystery. please stop responding to arguments and situations which nobody made and which don't exist. what a waste. if you haven't yet figured out that nobody is threatened by your words, you're not paying attention. nobody likes his comments messed with, and that's the issue at hand -- not some threat that your straw man argument poses. i will no longer clean up after you. i did it for weeks when you first got here, and that's plenty long enough. at least learn the basic technical aspects of wikipedia please, regardless of your edit content. if you don't understand what i'm talking about, please take a moment to figure it out before launching into yet another straw man argument. figure out what's going on here, because it should be obvious to any competent 14-year-old. respond to the relevant issue, or just let it go. and please stop screwing with other editors' comments and then playing the victim. nobody should have to clean up after you, or explain these basics to you yet again, considering how long you've been at this. 63.28.21.32 05:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

63.28.21.32 I refuse to endlessly use a discussion page to argue with someone who refuses to sign their name, makes no positive edits in the articles, and merely attacks other users. To paraphrase you, how you can spit out all this verbiage without checking the history is a real mystery -- I checked your history, you don't edit articles, you merely sit back and attack the users who write the articles, with this artifical veneer of scholarship as though you are some sort of brilliant master historian who disdains to actually work and write an article -- way too much work sourcing the work! You prefer to sit back and moan, and complain about the articles. I don't see in your list of edits a lot of work in articles, just complaints, complaints, complaints, and whine, whine, whine. You cry more than my 3 year old grandchild, and are about as articulate, when you strip away the attempt to verbiage us to death. On this im address, you sock puppet others, you have no edits at all in articles, just an attack on me. In what I suspect are your other sock puppet ID's, same pattern -- no edits in articles, just attacks on users who write articles. See a pattern there? You claim to be such a superb historian, edit the ARTICLE, and source it, instead of crying about how bad it is! If this article is so bad -- fix it! Go in there and brilliantly show us how it is done! But you never do that, you hop from im to im -- library or a school --and complain. For instance, you actually made an intelligent point that Bonnie cheerfully smuggled a gun into a jail - and perhaps that should be more emphasized (though she certainly was not severely punished for it, which you fail to mention; she was not charged with the felonies she could have been!) I could add this, but why don't you add it? Just once, in all your various disguises, (again, probably a school computer lab) you have never made ONE edit in an article, not one! Okay, show us you can actually do something constructive, instead of spit out vindictiveness or (mis)using all the multisylable words in the dictionary -- put in something in the article! Actually edit something other than a talk page where you anonymously attack the people who actually are trying to write the article -- try just once to actually improve an article, instead of crying endlessly; (you talk about edit histories; in all of yours, not ONE edit of an article, just endless attacks on talk pages!) old windy bear 12:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

it can be said very safely that you like my contributions to at least one wikipedia article. i know that with well-founded confidence. still, irrelevant comments about my IP addresses, lack of a login, edit history, whatever, have no bearing on the issues of accuracy i've raised here. rather than expecting others to fix your mistakes, maybe you could notice things like, for example, a single sentence with 5 errors, re a book you claim to own, and a situation for which the page number was handed to you ahead of time. even the page number handoff didn't keep out of the article a conjured, "window of a home" version of the story, utterly unverified. long as you have a submit button and require that all changes go through the version of history in your head, i'll just sit here shaking my head.

among the many sloppy errors in the current article, it states, "In her book about her year with Bonnie and Clyde, Blanche Barrow also claimed Bonnie never shot anyone during any of the gangs crimes. The only accusation that Bonnie ever even fired a gun that hit anyone was made by Blanche Barrow". obviously, that's ridiculously, demonstrably false in both assertions, even without getting into the questionable eyewitness from the grapevine, TX shooting. does it not bother you that you're inserting such inaccuracy into the article? (beyond the factual inaccuracy, "fired a gun that hit anyone"? c'mon.) i'm not going to fix it. period. it simply allows you to keep doing what you've been doing. here's a tip: don't make an edit you're not sure about and can't point directly to a reliable source for. accuracy matters. another tip: you and i aren't acceptable sources. everything put into the article must be either cited explicitly, or defensible with immediate, appropriate citations on request. most of the recent article changes don't meet that criterion. unidentified folklore and opinion do not an encyclopedia make. does it really escape you that the statement "This claim is denied by all other members of the Barrow gang that survived" makes no sense in the article's context? fact: you cannot cite a single definitive sentence from a barrow gang member other than blanche pertaining to the lucerne shooting. the other three members present all died that year or the next, without leaving any solid record on the subject that's been published. far as is known publicly, blanche was the only surviving barrow gang lucerne witness to have done so, and her story is corroborated and further enhanced (adding her as a shooter) by eyewitness reports. this is undeniable. stop pretending these facts away.

still waiting for someone to cite specifics backing up the repeated "under oath" claims re general statements of bonnie not shooting anybody in the presence of the 3 barrow gang members you named. who? to whom? what, specifically, was said? when? where? citation? all that's been done is you mention a quote or two, or simply assert a general claim, then say something about "under oath". playboy interviews with decrepit, retired gangsters aren't usually held under oath. and when the average gangster is under oath, it doesn't really mean much, does it? sadly, for your goal of bonnie protection, none of that's relevant to the shooting in lucerne, indiana, since none of those people was on the road with the barrow gang at the time. do these details really miss you, or do you just pretend them away for fun? read that again: none of those people was on the road with the barrow gang at the time of the shooting in lucerne. therefore, scruples require that anything they have to say on the subject be prefaced by, "in my time with bonnie..." if they didn't think to include the caveat themselves, it must be added indirectly by any honest researcher. you operate under a false premise that any member of the barrow gang is an expert on what happened when he wasn't there. every time you say "under oath" with regard to those 3 barrow gang members who weren't in lucerne, it's a vacant, overt straw man. you're rebutting strenuously a proposition that hasn't been put forth. fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. smoke. it means nothing to the matter of the lucerne shooting. why? they. weren't. there.

and when there's nowhere else to run to defend the pet thesis, you posit a theory that any crime for which a warrant wasn't known to have been issued probably didn't occur. okay, then apply that same requirement to the posse. warrants weren't issued for them, so they didn't break the law. if that's how things work in your world, then stick to it. i'm sorry if this is all too complicated for you to understand. i realize it isn't the information your grandmother, noted historian and investigator, laid out for you -- the silly reason we have to sit here and watch a solid article start POV'd into dust. you don't let stick any reversion of your edits without 27 hours of shoving facts in your face. again, who has the energy to go through that without being paid? my only possible enjoyment under the circumstances is watching you screw the thing up, then pointing out how it was done (have only scratched the surface so far). until wikipedia restricts access to articles, that's about the best option. Jerry R. Dorsen, Esq 16:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

response to Jerry Dorsen - the same Jerry Dorsen who previously, when I was writing what he wanted, said I was the greatest thing since sliced bread!

Jerry R. Dorsen, EsqJerry, at least you signed your name, so I give you credit on that. I am sorry that you felt it necessary to personally attack me - I will try not to attack you personally, but your attacks are so personal and pointless that it may not be possible. Any person who states they get their "enjoyment" from anonymously attacking people, instead of making an effort to help, is a sick puppy. Your statement that these issues are "too complicated for you to understand" is amusing, considering your own words on my work, which I will get too shortly. As to intelligence, I would put my academic credentials against yours anyday, to your disadvantage -- though Essjay is right when he says academic credentials are much overrated! Facts are what matters, and you have none, as I will shortly demonstrate. As to my ability, you yourself put it best: Your work is sound and respected, and you must carry on. (see below for quote from Jerry Dorsen) As to the errors in the article, we can debate the issues all day, and you would lose all day. John Treherne literally went to each jurisdiction and studied the court records for the times and places in question, and found no warrants or complaints - you have to admit that if forty people were fired on, that someone might have filed a complaint? The best records a historian has to go on, and I should not have to tell you this, since you are an attorney, is literally, the record. By that, I mean court records, warrants, in the case of crimes alleged against a person or persons, or at least complaints! You certainly cannot rely on newspaper articles!

By the way, while you babble about my grandmother, my intelligence, etc. I guess you forgot writing this about my work on this article:

"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)

That was you, Jerry, telling me "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." Talk about forgetting things! This article would be a shambles without my leadership and demonstrated acumen! Remember writing that Jerry? I do. Please explain how my demonstrated leadership and acumen departed -- oh, it was when I disagreed with you! Boy, what a short memory you have, old hoss! Don't write how great I am, then try to write how terrible I am, it just makes you look sillier than you already do.

Back to the facts! Jerry, you, as an attorney, should know at least as well as I do, that the lack of a history of warrants, or even verified complaints from citizens, does negate such claims as the one on the lucerne incident. You simply ignore this, in order to launch personal attacks. Pitiful. YOu know full well if Bonnie Parker had shot someone, there would be SOME record of it somewhere! But there is none, no sworn complaints, no warrants. Period. Unless you have forgotten the basics of legal research - if you have, let me know, and I will send you some insructions on how to do same -- or is deliberately trying to steer people away from the truth. Historical research depends on FACTS, DOCUMENTED FACTS, not speculations and insults. And here are the facts that Jerry does not dispute: he alleges Bonnie and Blance fired on 40 people, and NOT ONE FILED A COMPLAINT??? NOT ONE??? His ability to deattach fact to reality is simply demonstrated in this latest "rant." He would have you believe that two women fired high powered rifles at forty (40) people, and NOT ONE COMPLAINED???? NOT ONE WARRANT WAS ISSUED???? This defies logic, and obviously is a joke. He claims newspaper articles are to be our sources here, not court records -- I guess then Jerry the National Inquirer is a source? not the public records? Please....

I am sorry that you feel the best you can do, is sit and laugh at people who are trying, as best they can, to work on the article. I suggest you POV anything you don't think is supported solidly by facts. I am sort of surprised that you would make this such a personal attack on me, on a discussion page for issues in a wikipedia article. You could have emailed me, and I would have been delighted to discuss this personally - but instead you prefer first anonymous attacks, then finally signing your name as though your "esq." trumps all. It doesn't. Neither does your sarcastic references to my grandmother, or any of your other bile. You cannot defend the lack of any records to substantiate your stance, so you attack the person rather than the issue. You asked about the statements W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults made, that information is carried in John Neal Phillips book,"Running with Bonnie & Clyde: The Ten Fast Years of Ralph Fults." If you want the page number, please, go look it up. It is there. Also, bluntly, you constantly attack people, myself, Kate, but never offer anything constructive for people who are volunteering their time to try to work on these articles. When genuine issues of fact and law are raised, you use a fine vocabulary to hide the plain blunt facts: the best way we can determine whether or not Bonnie Parker shot anyone is the presence of records on same, a warrant for the alleged assault, or at least a verified complaint from a citizen (not my grandmother, or your rather viscious opinions!). In other words, RECORDS, verifiable, real, records, that still exist from that era! John Treherne went searching this country for such records, to try to verify some of the newspaper reports, and could find none. In the absence of these, it has to be concluded that the statements of other gang members, like Jones and Fults, are accurate, and she was a star struck fool who followed around a psychopath.

Finally, you utterly ignore the ultimate question of whether Hamer had the right under the law as it existed at that time to kill a girl not wanted for any capital offense. You ignore that he stated openly that he intended to fire without warning, and had no regard for the nicities of the law. And then, until the coroner stopped him, let people cut off her bloody clothes and hair for souvenirs. You want a quote? Here is a quote from E. R. Milner's book: The coroner, arriving on the scene, saw the following: "nearly everyone had begun collecting souvenirs such as shell casings, slivers of glass from the shattered car windows, and bloody pieces of clothing from the garments of Bonnie and Clyde. One eager man had opened his pocket knife, and was reaching into the car to cut off Clyde's left ear." Quoted from "Death Came Out to Meet them, from The Lives and Times of Bonnie and Clyde, by E.R. Milner. The coroner realized he could not even do his job in a "circuslike atmosphere," and asked Hamer for help. Only then did Hamer order people away from the car, and to stop tearing bloody clothes, et al. Page 147 of Milner's book. You obviously think this conduct is great, I do not. Perhaps if it had happened in Stalin's Russia it would have been legal, but not here.

Thing is, you have a political agenda, a very right wing one. It is okay in Jerry's world to kill someone without any warrant on them for an offense justifying use of lethal force as long as the newspaper articles say she fired a weapon! Never mind that no record exists showing that any citizen actually complained to the police about that, something one might expect them to do! And when people disagree with Jerry's opinions, he attacks them personally, rather than discuss the issues. I should not have to educate you on the law, but obviously I do. The best record is the record; in this case, court records, witness statements, et al.

Despite being an attorney, you are still a Marine, so you may have actually fought for this country. I served during Vietnam, and I fought for a country where due process means more than being shot down in the street without a warrant out on you. Perhaps you think that standard is obsolete, but I do not.

You have at least identified yourself, and I am sorry you are so viscious in your language, and attacks on any user, let alone another veteran. Perhaps that also means nothing to you, it does to most of us. I actually feel sorry for you. You remind me of Clarance Darrow's famous saying, if you have the law, cite it, if you have the facts, recite them, and if you have neither, shout and call names. Having no law, and no facts, and no court records, you shout and call names.old windy bear 19:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. I am done editing the Bonnie and Clyde page. I am working on the Military project for Kirill, (i took my "leadership and demonstrated acumen" as you, Jerry, wrote, and went away from here!) and have no time to bother with arguing with you endlessly. To quote Kate, when you were in one of your anonymous attack modes, fix it yourself if you feel it is so poorly done. I am working on the Mongol Empire, and thank God you are not over there attacking people! If you feel there are errors, correct them. If you attack me here, I will respond, but arguing with you is useless. Like most attorneys, you seize on a tiny error to try and avoid the real questions, such as the absence of records to substaniate the sensationalistic newspaper clippings you use as "proof." Oh, but I forgot: you are depending on ME to tell the "truth about Frank Hamer and Bonnie Parker needs to be gotten out there, and... (I am) just the man to do it... at THIS article." Remember writing that Jerry? You did. ON that same link you so happily display to mock my grandmother. Give this one up Jerry, and go do something positive. Leave this one to my "demonstrated leadership and acumen", as you yourself wrote! Given your own high words of praise for my work, your later bile is particularly silly. You look particularly silly. Is what Hamer did what you served your country for? So that a man could slaughter a girl wanted for no capital offense, committing no crime, and then allow people to cut off her bloody hair and rip her bloody dress for souvenirs? I certainly did not fight for that. I fought for our american way, due process, equal protection -- remember them? Give up jerry, in a battle of wits with me, you are unarmed, and more importantly, without facts, and damned by your own words of effusive praise for me. Sad truth: you have no facts, just an agenda. Sad...old windy bear 19:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No!

Pig, you are smart enough to make a positive difference -- instead of this silliness, why not do so? I won't dignify your insults by replying -- I proved my manhood long ago, in places you would have run screaming from. But seriously, why not use that mind of yours to make a difference, instead of endless insults??? You don't hurt my feelings, but you waste a lot of time, yours and mine, and Kate's, on what? Stupidity? You are smarter than that! Email me if you want to talk, and we can, but use wikepedia for facts and education! old windy bear 02:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

no Jerry Dorsen

Turns out, alas, there is no "Jerry Dorsen, Esq." who is a retired lawyer and administrative law judge. No one in Texas, where he claims to be such a respected figure, knows him. He appears to be a sock puppet of Salty Pig. old windy bear 21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

challange to tag by 65.129.187.156

CyclePatPat, since Kate has been challanged on this previously, I thought I would ask you to review. First, anyone who tags without identifying themselves is usually a sock puppet of someone under bann, in this case, I suspect, Salty Pig. If that person challanges the veracity of this article, they did to do so with a scholars accuracy, not the old "all through the page." This article has been worked on for a year, and unless that nameless im identifies, specifically, what sections deserve resvision, and why, i trust the editors will remove their tag. They should not hide behind the false personna of Jerry Dorsen -- a non-existant attorney -- or a nameless im, but specify what is wrong, why, and what sources they cite, or the tag removed until they do. You know better than I what is happening -- vandals such as Pig attack the articles, without legitimate credentials or sources, and expect these tags to stay. I am not an editor, but appeal to one, a darn good one, to judge whether such a tag can be placed by a nameless im without specific allegations of wrong fact, and sourcing for same...thanks Pat! The tag is not only wrong, but without specific allegations and sources. If we allow this, we allow endless chaos, which I believe is their ultimate objective...old windy bear 22:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

User: Katefan0(scribble) I am challanging the tagging of this article with specifics of fact and law, or sourcing of same. it is more of Pig's shenanigans...old windy bear 22:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

User:65.129.187.156 User:216.8.14.51 Until you specify what exactly you are tagging, (not the old Pig "whole talk page" but rather specifics), i will not engage in a revert war, but have asked the editors to decide whether an unknown, unsigned, im, from a banned user can tag an article. This article was the result of a great many people working a lot of hours - if you wish to challange it, do so with a REAL name, not the phony "jerry doresn" trick, or some other sock puppet, but real facts, real sources, et al. old windy bear 03:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

User:65.129.187.156 I have asked Cycle Pat and Kate to look at your challange, made without any specifics, sourcing, or references, which I suspect is another of Pig's sock puppets -- the editors will decide. I believe your vandalism well known, let us let the editor's decide - in the interim, this is moved to discussion page - if I erred, Pat or Kate will straighten me out -no tag is removed by me or anyone else which is backed by sourcing, facts, or references -- you do none of these, but simply once again vandalize the article. As I said, let the editors decide, if I was wrong, they have no trouble telling me}old windy bear 03:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I gladly accept the challenge. May I sugest you do not do anymore reversion because of WP:3RR. If you have a problem it may be a good idea to report it to the vandalism. However, I may sugest just keeping it cool. People will try to do many things to an article. I know you have been having a heated debate about much issues on the talk page. I haven't paid much attention to what the issues are. Asside, Thank you for the invitation Old Windy Bear. I will read over the article to see if I don't see anything for myself. Hopefully in the mean time, the person that nominated this article will stand up and explain. It only seems logical. Simply saying or putting on the dipute tag because of some discusiong that maybe have previously occured, in my eyes, is not the best way to do it. I hence must partially agree with Old Windy's comment and thoughts... that this may be vandalism. Please stand up when you nominate something. We will wait and see what happens. I'm sure we can wait a little, right? In the skeem of all things you only grow stronger from your experiences. (plus you don't want to be blocked because of some technicallity, do you Old windy?) I think that if we assume good faith and trust in God's good will we can only be building a temple of goodness within this article! Let them speak up and throw the first stone. Otherwise allow me and or Katefan to take down the cross the seem to have set up! --CyclePat 03:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks Pat, let 'em stand up and cite new specifics, instead of old arguments

CyclePat Hi Pat! Glad to see you. I believe your intervention is good and fair -- i certainly have no trouble waiting, and seeing if the person offers a valid explanation for the tag. Someone else rewrote part of the article last night, but actually did a nice job, removing some redundencies, and cleaning up some loose ends. Anyway, thanks for coming, thanks for accepting the nomination to mediate this, and hopefully the unknown tagger will explain the tag. The article has been argued to death, on this page, and the current article reached by a huge amount of compromise by everyone except Pig, who never compromises on anything, lol, but as Kate will tell you, appears in a variety of sock puppets, many of them just internet addresses, others, like Dorsen, fake names, and always attacks, never actually works on an article. Like you say, we will wait and see! Thanks! old windy bear 11:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have left a response on my user talk:CyclePat page to the nominator. We should give him some time to rebute that comment. --CyclePat 17:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

CyclePat the more he writes the more it is obvious it is Pig, under one of his many anonymous internet addresses. But you proposed an excellent solution - which he will not do. He simply wants to cause trouble, annoy people, and generally disrupt wikipedia. He has not made one good edit since I have been here, just constant viscious nastiness on the talk pages, trying to distress any and everyone. Kate has banned him under several of his nom de plumes, but he is back again, like the plague...But I liked your comment!old windy bear 19:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

216.8.14.51

CyclePat come now,216.8.14.51, CyclePat has given you an opportunity to list your issues, line by line, sourcing your differences with the article as it exists. Katefano has given you leave to edit the changes you think need making - you can list the issues on Cyclepat's page, and begin editing at once! Come now, for once, instead of merely whining, correct these egregious errors you claim exist, but fail to list! I will observe, as Pat has instructed, while you show us all how it is done! Instead of making up false credentials as non-existent Jerry Dorsen, actually do some editing! Your time is here!old windy bear 04:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

CyclePat KatefanoI am removing the tag at midnight tonight, unless of course you or Kate tell me not to, lol! You gave Pig ample opportunity to air his issues, and Kate gave him ample opportunity to edit changes he felt were needed. As usual, he preferred to just attack, attack, attack. I have sought further direction from you, but if I don't hear, will assume it is okay to remove the tag, as all remaining users, except for Pig in his myriad aliases, have reached a consensus on this article. Take care, and hope you are still feeling better!old windy bear 21:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

TotallyDisputed

Note

[This article talk page was un-semi-protected within the last 12 hours or so. Thus, any attempts to imply that there was a procedure failure with regard to offering even a brief note on this page cannot reasonably be deemed serious. Please get off it and concentrate on content.]

Tagging

I added the TotallyDisputed tag to this article because many of the issues raised above, by at least 3 different editors (Joe McCullough, SaltyPig + socks, and Kutulu), have not been addressed fully (or in some cases at all), either here or in article editing. Neither has there been a consensus reached regarding these problems. The article should have been tagged weeks ago. There are more issues plaguing the article than those mentioned above and in this comment. They will be fully addressed no later than tomorrow evening (ET), along with demonstrations of why the article was tagged for cleanup. This comment is offered only to comply with a reasonable request from one editor (finally) for further comment regarding the tags. However, another editor continues to operate under the pretense that if he makes an arbitrary demand for x, not only should the demand be met, but it should be met by an arbitrary, rushed deadline as he apparently sits by his computer screen hitting refresh. That is unreasonable on its face, and not in any way evidence of good faith. Neither is the snide attitude (here and on user talk pages), begun in ignorance while this page was locked to IP users, contributing to anything but further hostility.

Cart and horse

Perhaps the most interesting reaction to my tagging of the article was the claim (as the article talk page was locked to IP users) that support for the tagging was not offered. This is entirely false. What happened here, apparently unnoticed by some, is that the tag went on late, not the backup. At least an NPOV tag should have been added weeks ago, along with the notifications above re POV and inaccuracy. One need only look above this comment to see paragraph after paragraph documenting inaccuracy and POV in the article. Those issues, in large part, remain.

"Consensus"

It may be tempting to ascribe consensus when an article is not being edit warred, but decreased edit wars may simply be the result of one or more editors throwing in the towel. That is the case here. Contrary to Oldwindybear's assertions on other talk pages, rather than there being agreement for recent edits, this talk page shows primarily opposition to them. Claims of consensus, given the documented history on this page, have no basis in fact. Joe McCullough's last signed comment indicated dissatisfaction. SaltyPig + socks gave up and refused to edit the article further. Kutulu stated from the beginning that his (her?) negative comments were as an observer. Where was Kutulu's follow up?

It's the old tactic you get at a bad restaurant: "Nobody has complained, sir." Really? Well, I'm complaining. Other people have as well. "Consensus"? Where?

Oldwindybear's edits in the article appear to be supported by one editor on the talk page: CyclePat. From this evidence can be made no serious claim of consensus. It is only through lack of recent opposition in article editing that the claim's made, and that is irrelevant given the strong opposition on the article talk page, extending back for months, and previous edit wars which Oldwindybear "won" simply because the opposing editor gave up (see RfC in archives, with no comments). That also is not consensus. I will not edit this article, nor is anybody required to edit an article in order to tag as I did. Anyone making further claims to the contrary will simply be referred to the previous sentence.

POV / Inaccuracy

Outweighing the explicit inaccuracy and formatting/writing problems of this article is a clear bias. From WP:NPOV:

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for having a predilection to one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.

That is precisely what has happened with the mantra of the page, infecting many other areas: Bonnie Parker "never shot anyone". The evidence presented already on this page, in almost excruciating detail, shows that such a claim is in more serious doubt than the usual inherent problems of asserting a universal negative. According to one editor, the primary evidence exculpating Bonnie Parker from having shot someone on 12 May 1933 is that 3 people who weren't within miles of her that day allegedly said that she never fired a shot in anger (or whatever description heads in that direction). This approach, from one angle or another, has been applied repeatedly in an attempt to refute 1) the direct statement of a member of the Barrow gang present in the car during an alleged shooting by Bonnie, 2) the testimony of multiple witnesses (via newspaper reporting), and 3) the offering of full names for two women allegedly shot in the incident (perhaps by Bonnie or Blanche). The full clarity of the bias shows through in that Blanche Barrow, a known, interested criminal, is shot at here and in the article. And what of the "opposing" "witnesses" (who, I repeat, weren't there)? They, also interested criminals, not only ran with Clyde Barrow as did Blanche, but did much worse. And because an editor has a story to tell, they temporarily have angel wings and halos installed for the purpose of rebutting another criminal with a lesser criminal record (albeit very bad), and demonstrated coherence in the relating of facts which don't tend to implicate her as an actor. This is overt bias, and it has no place at Wikipedia. Clearly, an editor has taken control of the article, and crafted the elements to fit a version of history he announced as the truth upon his arrival.

No one has claimed that Blanche Barrow's book is to be accepted as truth. It is evidence, easily the equal of much other evidence used in the article, and it is backed by independent witnesses and a victim list. It is significant, and must not be pooh-pooh'd because it contradicts the version one editor prefers. All significant evidence should be presented, and relevant citations/caveats for that evidence offered dispassionately. The article is not the place for case making, on this explicit subject (Bonnie shooting anybody) or any other.

New evidence arose in 2000 (via the re-discovery and subsequent publication of Blanche Barrow's manuscript), leading to independent investigation and documentation by a respected author. This cannot be negated by pointing to any number of people who weren't there, and claiming that they said, under oath or not, "she never shot anybody." They are not credible witnesses to an incident they didn't witness. This must be explained, ad nauseam? Something is wrong here. And still, the many errors stemming from this bias permeate the article.

That's only one aspect, but it's major, and multifaceted. No later than tomorrow night (ET), I will have posted a complete criticism of all erroneous and faulty areas of the article, including verbatim quotes, detailing and demonstrating in further detail, the inaccuracy, fluff, and POV now in the article. Until then, perhaps the following, just as it did at Frank Hamer for far longer (well over 10 days), will suffice for the personality-based nitpicking that has met the tagging of the article, here and on user talk pages:

Many, MANY assertions of fact in this article need specific citations.

That is essentially how a Wikipedia admin, revered explicitly by Oldwindybear, accompanied a TotallyDisputed tag with previous discussion on an article talk page. That "standard" has been far exceeded here already. As explained above, the complete case will be made, in full detail, by tomorrow evening. Until, I invite all those interested in the accuracy of the article to review the evidence which was in place before I tagged the article, and weigh it against the article's present state. 65.129.196.215 00:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Mmhmm. Well, feel free to fix whatever you see that needs fixing; that's the beauty of Wikipedia, anybody can edit its pages. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's the beauty of Wikipedia. It's also the worst thing about Wikipedia (anybody can edit its pages). I will not edit the article under the current circumstances, anymore than I'd buy a can of paint to "fix" a NYC subway car for 19 minutes. But thank you; always enjoy seeing variants of the "so fix it" fallacy. 65.129.161.155 01:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As you like. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 01:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring of "Totally Disputed" and other sections (just above):

user:65.129.161.155 express discontent about semi-protection of the articles talk page and not being able to leave a response. He express' discontent about having a deadline on explaining the articles tag. He then explains that he taged the article because of previous unresolved issues already discussed further up. User:65.129.161.155 talks about previous discontent users. He claims that I CyclePat support Oldwindybear's edits. He alleges there is an RfC that had no concensus. (source) And he refused to edit the article so it may be up at par.

I wonder if that means he does agrees with the content that is already there?

He alleges NPOV. One issue is the wording of the fact that "Bonnie Parker "never shot anyone"."(source required). He has indicates that his information refutes at least 3 other key points (or facts).

may I sugest you simply state this discrepency!

He is arguing and trying to contradict fact the fact that are there however he doesn not cite any sources. Asside:He express his discontent about an editor taking control of the article. Blanche Barrow's book needs consideration. We need to reword the article In particular the fact that "they said," under oath or not, "she never shot anybody." They are not credible witnesses to an incident they didn't witness. This must be explained, ad nauseam? Something is wrong here.

perhaps simply saying that so a so states that she never shot anyone would suffice. --CyclePat 06:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Though I disagree with some of the "refactoring" above, I appreciate your effort to summarize the detail. However, considering the vast amount of material scheduled to hit this page today, I have a suggestion and an opinion. I suggest that other users hold off today on commenting with regard to the tags. Of course, that's only a suggestion, and any other comments won't interfere with my post, which will be in a new section. However, I think stepping in right now might just serve to confuse issues which are soon to be elaborated in far more detail, and potentially set up the dangerous assumption that what I've mentioned above constitutes some sort of grand summary of the relevant issues. It doesn't. I was basically letting interested parties know that the tag has not been planted on the page and forgotten, as sometimes happens.

My opinion: Summarizing this vast detail offers no benefit right now. It is the detail which must be debated, not the summary. Refactoring is typically something done for later viewers of talk page debates. The debates themselves cannot occur at the summary level. And I'll warn you -- what's coming is quite a bit of detail. Anybody pretending to weigh in on these matters as a whole, without understanding the detail, probably won't be contributing much. I know it's tempting to provide an "executive summary" for difficult material, but... they are terribly overrated in the business world, and in my opinion not applicable at all to the matter at hand on these pages for the next few days. Later? Sure, as long as the refactoring is done by somebody who understands the detail well. It's a very difficult job to do properly.

Your comment on your talk page about arguing about arguments is important, as ever. I am keeping that in mind for my presentation, and also attempting to put things in more coherent sections, for ease of analysis. It should be a big improvement to much of the argument above, although the number of details has grown considerably, since I am going to do what I said, which is to include everything I believe falls under the general umbrella of the tags. You may be surprised by the full documentation, only hinted at before today. 65.129.197.72 09:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free, as long as that commentary is accompanied by edits to the articlespace itself. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 15:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean? Are you saying, as a Wikipedia admin, that I may not comment re the tags if I don't edit the article? If so, please back up that statement with an appropriate reference to authority. Thanks. 63.153.201.148 21:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC

You can comment if you like (and indeed, you have been). However, if you start spamming the talk page without actually improving the article, that may or may not be okay. My appropriate reference to authority is that you are an indefinitely banned user, and as such administrators may blindly revert any of your contributions, whether to an article or to a talk page. For the moment you're contributing constructively, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a good idea. 65.129.188.43 01:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

====ANOTHER VIEW==== another interesting book on this subject is "The Family Story of Bonnie and CLyde" by Phillip Steel and Marie Barrow Scoma- written shortly before Marie died. Check out the intersting graveside photos!.Randazzo56 ===ANOTHER ERROR=== Its a shame that someone keeps insisting that Bonnies leg was injured by "battery acid" in the crash at Wellington Texas. Every account written on this subject indicates that she was trapped beneath a burning auto and as a result suffered third degree burns to her left leg. By printing this nonsense in the article, you are defeating the purpose of Wikipedia, which was intended to be a factual scource of informatonRandazzo56

Maybe you could be more careful before using the phrase "every account written on this subject". From Twenty-First-Century Update (James Knight), page 87:

The coupe rolled over a couple of times, and Clyde was thrown clear. As he ran back to the car, the now wide-awake W. D. Jones was freeing himself, but Bonnie was pinned in the right front seat. To make matters even worse, sulfuric acid began to leak from the battery onto Bonnie's right leg. It quickly turned into a nightmare—Clyde frantic to get Bonnie out of the car, and Bonnie screaming at them to do something or shoot her so she wouldn't burn.

Yes, there are versions from reputable sources that claim the car was on fire. Keep in mind though that they are not necessarily exclusive facts. I don't know if one or both are right. A purported pic of the car does show what could be a burned out door. This web site (with pics) states:

The woman who had treated Bonnie after the accident, had claimed that Bonnie's burns, were caused by battery acid which had spilled onto Bonnie while she was pinned under the car. Bonnie's immediate treatment of bicarbonate of soda, would have been a good thing, as this would have neutralized the effect of the acid.

That unsourced version is countered by footnotes from John Phillips in Blanche Barrow's book. However, at least one eyewitness and Barrow gang shooting victim (Gladys Cartwright) was still alive in 2003 (according to Knight, page 88); perhaps the texashideout guy spoke with her directly. He replies to emails, so maybe you can ask him.

As a solid reminder of how details re Bonnie and Clyde are routinely muffed via the repetition of old misunderstandings, note at texashideout the pic of the 70s era sign installed at the Red River by the Texas Historical Commission. It has a gross misidentification, alleging that Buck Barrow was there and shot the daughter of Sam Pritchard (Gladys Pritchard Cartwright). That was WD Jones, not Buck Barrow. Buck and Blanche were planning to rendezvous with the others across the Oklahoma border.

Difficult to know what to believe, since two notable historians (Phillips, Knight) apparently disagree on this one, and citations are scarce. Knight cites accident coverage in the Amarillo Daily News, 12 June 1933. Maybe you can track down that paper and have a look. I'd like to know what it says. He also cites Fugitives, which of course is not known for its accuracy. Probably the best course is to include both versions in the article, well attributed, and not state either as absolute fact. 65.129.188.43 00:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

TotallyDisputed and cleanup tags

The Bonnie and Clyde article suffers from imprecision, sloppiness, magazine-style writing, and POV. In the guise of legitimate historical revision, it has been hijacked to propagandize. Rather than informing readers by representing with balance and objectivity the arguments and evidence of others (WP:NOR), the article attempts, through illogic and the selective piling on of falsified evidence, to convince a reader that...

• Bonnie Parker was generally an innocent victim.
• Frank Hamer and the ambush posse were worse than Bonnie and Clyde.
• Bonnie Parker was murdered by government officials under color of law.

In forwarding these propositions, more effort is directed toward criticizing the posse members, especially Frank Hamer, than Clyde Barrow. Bonnie Parker is protected from the start, to set up the later favorable comparison to the posse. It is not subtle.

Perhaps less obvious to those not familiar with the often vigorously contested history of Bonnie and Clyde is the further infestation of editor bias through a technique of positing original assertions, sometimes with manufactured quotes, then mentioning somewhere in the vicinity the title and author(s) of a book. It puts those new to the subject in the position of trusting what they're told, because there is no easy verification of the claims -- particularly where there's nothing more offered by the claimant than the title and author of a book (often in the form "See [title] [author]."). Much of the time now that these references appear in the article, they are partly or totally bogus. That is demonstrated in detail below.

The trust of visiting readers has been abused, and they should be warned via the prominent tagging of the article until the errors and propagandizing are removed.

[In the following sections, there are elements that overlap. Because of the complexity, I have somewhat arbitrarily tried to assign items to single sections only. There is some limited redundancy of article text.]

NPOV -- Bonnie Parker as victim

The case making begins early in the article:

Bonnie never shot anyone, nor was she wanted for murder when she died.

[...]

There is no reliable evidence that she ever shot anyone, nor was there any warrant alleging she committed any murder at the time she was ambushed and killed.

It has been shown already on this talk page that an authoritative "never shot anyone" claim is dubious. Blanche Barrow's book, published in 2004, holds significant evidence re the Lucerne, Indiana shootout (primarily in the footnotes compiled by noted Barrow/Parker historian John Phillips). The evidence is denounced in the article, simply because it contradicts the long held position of an article editor.

The oft-repeated claim that Bonnie Parker wasn't "wanted" for murder is probably technically true. However, this point is driven to the point of absurdity while highly relevant practical matters, including the words of Bonnie Parker (making the point unequivocally that she foresaw being killed by law enforcement alongside Clyde Barrow), are ignored. The false premise is established that if a criminal is not wanted for murder, there can be no circumstances under which apprehending that criminal with lethal force is justified. However, all inclusions of this premise must be sourced, in a verifiable manner, to something other than original research (prohibited by Wikipedia policy). They are not. Notable opposition to the premise must be included, even if it disagrees with the bias of an editor. It has not been. POV claims are made, then a book is named without specifying content or rough location. The biased premise is hammered relentlessly, while nothing is offered to represent the other side. This is done quite unabashedly by a single editor, under the theory that Wikipedia is the ideal avenue for original, monocular historical revision, with which to redress decades of mistaken public perception. As admirable as the isolated intent may be, Wikipedia isn't the place for it.

Falsified or misleading quotes/citations

Note in this excerpt the piling on to make a case:

Gang members W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults claimed Bonnie was strictly "logistical support" (see John Neal Phillips book, Running with Bonnie & Clyde: The Ten Fast Years of Ralph Fults) Fults was adamant Bonnie never fired a shot in any of the gunbattles the gang was a part of. Also, in the same book , W.D. Jones made the statement (as he had under Oath to the authorities), "Bonnie never packed a gun, out of the five major gun battles I was with them she never fired a gun." Writing with Phillip Steele in The Family Story of Bonnie and Clyde, Marie Barrow, Clyde's youngest sister, made the same claim: "Bonnie never fired a shot. She just followed my brother no matter where he went." John Treherne made the same claim in his well-sourced book The Strange History of Bonnie & Clyde where he essentially found that Bonnie was madly in love with a psychopath, and followed him to her death.

Now examine the claims for veracity and NPOV.

Gang members W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults claimed Bonnie was strictly "logistical support" (see John Neal Phillips book, Running with Bonnie & Clyde: The Ten Fast Years of Ralph Fults)

Who is the editor quoting there, with the term "logistical support" in quotes? another Wikipedia editor, basically. The word "logistical" does not appear in the book Running with Bonnie & Clyde. "Support"? Yes -- in the forms "as if to support", "drum up support", "his wife's support", and "first bank to support". "Support" appears those 4 times in the book.

Fults was adamant Bonnie never fired a shot in any of the gunbattles the gang was a part of.

Please quote him. Surely it won't be too lengthy a quote to provide here. What constitutes "adamant"? More important, how many Barrow gang gun battles did Fults witness with Bonnie Parker? Why is it not disclosed that Ralph Fults was arrested on 19 April 1932, and remained in prison until 1935 (after Bonnie and Clyde were dead)? That is the bulk of their escalating crime spree. Far from disclosing it, this "fact" is trundled out in a sequence of "facts" as though Ralph Fults spent a lot of time with Bonnie and Clyde. He didn't. I request full documentation, including verbatim quotes from references, of the allegations re Ralph Fults and how he serves in any way as a witness to anything Bonnie Parker did with guns between 19 April 1932 and 23 May 1934 (her death).

Also, in the same book , W.D. Jones made the statement (as he had under Oath to the authorities), "Bonnie never packed a gun, out of the five major gun battles I was with them she never fired a gun."

Neither that statement nor anything like it appears anywhere in Running With Bonnie and Clyde: The Ten Fast Years of Ralph Fults. It's interesting, however, that the following quote, not included in the article, comes from WD Jones in the famous '68 Playboy interview: "As far as I know, Bonnie never packed a gun. Maybe she'd help carry what we had in the car into a tourist-court room. But during the five big gun battles I was with them, she never fired a gun. But I'll say she was a hell of a loader."

The qualifier "As far as I know" was deliberately left out of the quote, because it did not serve the bias of the editor who added it to the article. The immediately following claim, "But I'll say she was a hell of a loader" also was deliberately omitted to suit the bias of whoever excluded it -- a blatant NPOV violation, without any excuse other than the manufacturing of a story to suit the purpose of somebody on a mission. Depending on circumstances, WD Jones claiming that Bonnie "was a hell of a loader" might even approach implicating her as an accomplice to murder (she knew what the loading was for). That was excised from a quote, along with other material (resulting in a run-on sentence which I assert existed only in the mind of the editor who inserted it), to express an editor's POV as if they were the exact words of an eyewitness. For what it's worth, googling the snippet "Bonnie never packed a gun, out of" returns only Wikipedia-based pages -- the Bonnie and Clyde article and the Frank Hamer article.

In the article it is claimed that Jones stated "under Oath to the authorities", that "Bonnie never packed a gun, out of the five major gun battles I was with them she never fired a gun." I'll wager that there is no published evidence that that sentence was ever uttered by WD Jones, regardless of venue. If that is to remain in the article, an explicit, verifiable citation should be provided, documenting that WD Jones made the precise statement, and the conditions/location under which it was transmitted (including whether under oath as claimed). I aver that there will not be found a single citation demonstrating that WD Jones said under oath what the article claims.

Writing with Phillip Steele in The Family Story of Bonnie and Clyde, Marie Barrow, Clyde's youngest sister, made the same claim: "Bonnie never fired a shot. She just followed my brother no matter where he went."

The same claim of a fabricated quote? It is of no value. Whoever stands by that assertion, please document how many incidents were witnessed by Marie Barrow in which Clyde fired a gun in anger in the presence of Bonnie (or similar). Far as I know, Marie Barrow only witnessed Bonnie and Clyde being fired upon at the Sowers ambush, and both Clyde and Bonnie were probably too busy dealing with the leg wounds they both got from Bob Alcorn's BAR. There's a word for this sort of "evidence": hearsay. And perhaps Marie Barrow told two friends, and they told two friends, etc. Why not add all that in there? One retelling of a story is as good as another when no eyewitnesses are doing the telling. Again, this is meaningless piling on, attempting to persuade through quantity -- POV through bias and inaccuracy.

John Treherne made the same claim in his well-sourced book The Strange History of Bonnie & Clyde where he essentially found that Bonnie was madly in love with a psychopath, and followed him to her death.

He made what "same claim"? Quote it. How does Bonnie allegedly being madly in love with a psychopath prevent her from firing a gun at somebody?

Blanche Barrow evidence misstated

In her book about her year with Bonnie and Clyde, Blanche Barrow, while confirming that Bonnie never shot anyone during any of the gangs crimes, [...]

This has been demonstrated as an outright falsehood. Page 66 -- please read it. Read the context. Then note how an explicit allegation that Bonnie fired a shot out a car window while escaping from a bank robbery, suffixed with the statement that they heard later a woman was wounded in the arm, becomes in the article Blanche Barrow "confirming that Bonnie never shot anyone during any of the gangs crimes"? It is the opposite which is true.

[...] does make the only accusation that Bonnie ever even fired a gun that hit anyone, when she claims that Clyde "laid a rifle across Bonnie's lap, with the barrel sticking out the window". Blanche claimed he told Bonnie to hold it up and shoot. She did. She claims "we heard later that a woman was wounded in the arm." This claim is denied by all other members of the Barrow gang that survived, and it has to be noted that their claims that Bonnie never shot anyone were made under Oath to authorities, whereas Blanche's allegation was unsworn, made in a book written in great bitterness from prison. The only substantiation for Blanche's story is a newspaper article which ostensibly claimed two women were involved in shooting during a robbery; however no charges were ever filed on Blanche or Bonnie for for this alleged incident.

In this insidious example of case making, the editor can't let the evidence speak for itself, because that goes against ingrained bias. After a pile of falsehoods, one opposing detail is let out of the bag, then immediately the protective editor arrives to "debunk" it, using loaded terms such as "ostensibly", and "the only substantiation". That is an editor delivering POV in the encyclopedic voice, without foundation, and omitting an important statement from a reputable historian that has already been relayed verbatim on this very talk page: "If the statements of the eyewitnesses are true, this is the only known hard evidence that Bonnie Parker ever fired a weapon in anger, much less wounded someone. It is also an indictment of Blanche's assertion that she never handled a weapon."

More evidence of Bonnie and guns

Instead of simply passing on that dispassionate, accurate assessment from John Phillips (supposedly cited elsewhere as it suits bias), the article must run interference for the theory that Bonnie Parker was dragged along by the ear during a multi-year spree of murders and robberies. Note that the Phillips quote above doesn't claim Bonnie Parker shot anybody; it simply allows that it may have happened. And yet neither it nor anything like it appears in the article.

If one turns two pages later in the footnotes of the Blanche Barrow book, to a bank robbery in another town (Okabena, Minnesota), on 19 May 1933, he finds cited not the Pharos-Tribune (a newspaper "discredited" without evidence on this talk page), but the Minneapolis Journal, the Fairmont Daily Sentinal', and Jackson County History, vol. II as sources for: "Before leaving Okabena, however, the bandits made a loop around the square, spraying the town with machine gun fire. Some shots reportedly 'went straight through the hotel.' Witnesses saw a man and at least one of the two women handling weapons in the car."

There is no allegation there of anyone being shot, but it is further evidence indicating the possibility that Bonnie Parker was an active participant in a pursuit shooting. In this case, "handling weapons" may be limited to handing over fresh guns, or the like, but such limitation was not the alleged in Lucerne the week before. Both instances are noteworthy in any discussion of Bonnie Parker's level of activity in the Barrow gang. The more this issue is examined honestly, the more the attempt to sell Bonnie as a wallflower falters. It also ably points out the futility of, once again, the repeated attempts in the article to assert universal positives or negatives. When one claims something along the lines of "it is the only piece of evidence", are all those footnotes in Blanche's book being screened? What about the footnotes in other books? It is not the place of a Wikipedia editor to make such claims in articles, and it's foolhardy for even a career Bonnie and Clyde researcher to publish such a statement without caveat.

Scope of witnesses

This raises the logical issue of proving a negative existential (e.g., "there is no case where bonnie shot somebody"). Does this really need to be discussed yet again? If WD Jones states that he never saw Bonnie fire a shot in a gun battle, that's important evidence. It's a negative existential in a limited domain, and worth serious consideration. It belongs in the article as a documented claim which he may have known to be entirely accurate. However, it only shows one thing: exactly what it says. All it supports is that WD Jones said he never saw Bonnie fire a shot in a gun battle. Based on his language in the Playboy interview, I believe that he said it, and I believe that he was speaking the truth. I don't know for sure, but it's my opinion. When the article goes beyond that line, and attempts to inflate the claim into more than it is, the article fails. WD Jones cannot logically claim to witness a negative existential for a domain beyond his scope. Put another way, he cannot accurately claim with authority that something never happened when it was impossible for him to have witnessed something if it did happen. In other words, he wasn't there in Lucerne, Indiana, so his statement about what didn't happen outside his scope bears the same weight of any similar hearsay witness: little, to worse than little. As courts around the world have found, hearsay can have worse than zero value; it can be a strong negative. That very situation is where the article lies now, with all the hearsay claims of people whose testimony might not be any different if a thing did occur; they have no way of knowing.

The article includes the alleged testimony of one "witness" after another who wasn't in Lucerne, Indiana with the Barrow gang on 12 May 1933, while attempting to minimize the documented testimony -- corroborated by others -- of someone who was! Even if one groups together all of the published statements from all Barrow gang members from 1930 through the ambush in 1934, an important fact cannot be ignored: The only published statement of a Barrow gang member present in Lucerne, Indiana on 12 May 1933 was from Blanche Barrow. Her statement with regard to Bonnie shooting a gun during a bank robbery getaway, far from being discounted, is corroborated by eyewitnesses. As we are not to insert original research, or our opinions, into the article, neither may bias drive the exclusion of the John Phillips statement on the matter to serve a desired outcome.

Bonnie not "much of a criminal"

Bonnie may not have been much of a criminal, but she certainly was good at being a celebrity, and manipulating the media.

Who's saying she wasn't much of a criminal? Nobody, apparently, because rather than stating such a claim directly, the article weasel words the implication in there with the jovial form "x may not have been much of an x, but..." It's inappropriate, uncited, and against the evidence. Bonnie Parker was on the road for years with a murdering robber. She participated, as a strong supporter, in many of the events that led to murder. For years she received and profited from stolen goods for almost her entire sustenance. How is that "may not have been much of a criminal"? How does that weasel phrase square with the solid evidence indicating that Bonnie Parker led her cousin Mary to a private home and burgled it, stealing a gun and smuggling that gun into the jail where Clyde was kept so that he could break out? She did that herself. That's a successful burglary and direct facilitation of a jailbreak -- all as the principal actor. Why is that not in the article? It's commonly accepted that she did it, but I don't recall hearing of a "warrant" for that either. The existence of a warrant is not an overriding condition for reporting as accurately as possible the history of Bonnie and Clyde.

Part of NPOV is actively presenting notable evidence, even when it goes against what we'd like to be true. How is the following incident not in the article, even indirectly, amid the Bonnie apologetics?

Twenty-First-Century Update, page 83:
"Clyde lost his temper. He jumped out of the car and knocked Darby down with a gun butt. Seeing how things were going, Bonnie ran to the car and dragged Miss Stone out, tapping her lightly on the head with a pistol also."

Blanche Barrow's book, page 61:
"Bonnie jumped out of the car. She wanted to show how tough she thought she was. Clyde made the man get in our car. Bonnie cursed the woman and told her to do the same. I couldn't help feeling sorry for the man and woman. They looked so frightened."

What do these accounts describe, when separated from a Bonnie-as-victim mind set? They describe Bonnie as a direct, active participant in assault and battery, kidnapping, and auto theft. She was a criminal through and through, yet the article paints her as the opposite -- as a victim whose death eclipses everything she participated in, actively, in the preceding 3 years. Biased denial has turned the article into a passive slap against victims such as Sophia Stone, whose "offense" against Bonnie Parker was to help HD Darby go after the car WD Jones had just stolen.

Why does the article, if excoriating Frank Hamer, not mention that Bonnie attempted to dissuade Clyde from continuing to harm innocent people? Is it because she didn't? And if she didn't, why does the article not take her to task as it does Hamer? He's criticized for not intervening to halt the allegedly barbaric scavenging of clothing from corpses at the ambush site, yet Bonnie gets a free ride as she saved her skin at the expense of innocents, and apparently didn't make any effort to prevent the rubbing out of more innocent lives. Appalling bias. Bonnie Parker ran roughshod with her boyfriend over the Central United States for years, leaving through her active participation and support a trail of wasted lives, orphans, widows, and untold property and wealth destruction -- all with her approval and support. What does the article convey? Poor Bonnie.

Posse as criminals

Though Clyde was wanted for at least 10 murders, Bonnie was wanted for none, and neither was committing any crime at the moment that Hamer ordered them shot and killed without any attempt at arrest, trial, or conviction.

Case making. The article is arguing, trying to convince the reader, through POV, that Hamer murdered Bonnie Parker, and didn't give Clyde Barrow a fair shake. Where's the balance? Clyde Barrow had been on a murdering spree for years, and had nothing to lose. Bonnie Parker had published a poem stating that they were going to go down together and be buried side by side. If one is charged with apprehending such people, that information cannot be discounted, nor taken lightly.

This is all moot though, because it's overt, prohibited, original research (see WP:NOR) making an argument. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to weigh the evidence and declare opinions. We may only relate the opinions of others. Either cite and attribute the explicit source(s) for this POV, along with the necessary balance from other non-original sources, or strike it. It is pure, unattributed POV, and has no place here. They weren't committing any crime at the moment? According to who? Cite explicitly or remove it. What is driving a stolen car, evading lawful arrest, with a car full of stolen guns, and on and on and on, if not a crime? Name the sources for the assertions. Except in very rare cases (which don't apply here so far), a Wikipedia editor cannot be the source of material for an article.

He was the only posse member to publically express remorse or regret for his actions.

More POV (w/typo). This strongly implies that a posse member had done something for which remorse or regret was obligated. According to who?

Bonnie unfortunately did not die as easily as Clyde, who died instantly with Oakley's head shot.

Again, who is saying that it was unfortunate Bonnie didn't die "as easily"? (easily? instantly? which one?) Is this needless intrusion into the encyclopedic voice worth it? Facts should be stated dispassionately, and external POV samples should be weighed and attributed, if not thrown out.

The posse reported her uttering a long, horrified and pain filled scream as the bullets ripped the car (and her) apart.

Where did this material come from? Ambush? The car didn't come apart, and neither did Bonnie. The same editor has claimed elsewhere that the Remington Model 8 almost blew Clyde's head off. It's easy enough to see photos of both Bonnie and Clyde immediately following the ambush, and in Arcadia before the bodies were cleaned up. They were messed up, but it was nowhere near the dismantling portrayed here. Further, the audibility of a scream "as the bullets ripped the car" is highly questionable if one has multiple rifle-caliber machine guns pounding away nearby. It should be cited accurately and attributed, or removed. According to Hinton, the scream was heard between an alleged order from Hamer to fire (disputed below) and the first shots.

There was no legal authority to kill Bonnie Parker, who had no warrants on her which would have justified lethal force in her capture,

Therein sits the big Kahuna of the POV crusade. This is what started it all. The solution is simple, thankfully. It either gets cited explicitly, or it gets removed. In months of hearing this claim touted, the only evidence forthcoming has been 5 pounds of POV wrapped in an original research bouillabaisse. This claim must come from an authoritative, non-original source, and it must be cited. Same with the "no warrants on her which would have justified lethal force in her capture".

Some of the posse, including Frank Hamer, took and kept for themselves stolen guns that were found in the death car, with the approval of Lee Simmons, "Special Escape Investigator for the Texas Prison System".

Lee Simmons was not "Special Escape Investigator for the Texas Prison System". Frank Hamer was. (Not Oldwindybear's error.)

Unfortunately, he lacked the legal authority to authorize seizure and sale of other people's property - even the stolen guns were the property of those they were stolen from, and no effort was made to return any of that property.

If only one victim of Bonnie and Clyde could have the miles of lamentation over how they were killed, how a man tried to cut off Clyde's finger, and on and on, and how bad Frank and the posse were. If only. However, the solution is not to add more lament, but to excise what exists already. The self-righteous tone only kicks in when the ills of Frank and the posse are discussed. How does that make any sense in an article about the murderer Clyde Barrow and his facilitating girlfriend Bonnie Parker? Why is there not the recriminating tone slung for them? No matter. It should be removed, because this is an encyclopedia article, not an opinion outlet. "Unfortunately", he lacked the legal authority? Why unfortunately? How was it unfortunate for Lee Simmons that he lacked the legal authority? What source is claiming that he lacked the legal authority?

Probably the most horrific thing about the ambush, afterwards, was that the men left to guard the bodies, Gault, Oakley, and Alcorn, allowed people to literally cut off locks of Bonnie's hair, tear pieces from her dress - a man was even trying to cut off Clyde's finger when Hinton returned.

"Probably"? "the most horrific thing"? Again, whence does this conjecture flow? Cite it or strike it. Who in his right mind is going to claim, after what she and her boyfriend did in this life, that for the corpse of the narcissistic Bonnie Parker to lose locks of hair, or for her dress to have pieces torn from it for souvenirs, is "horrific"? That is ridiculously over the top. "See The Strange Life of Bonnie and Clyde by John Treherne, and Ambush by Ted Hinton" doesn't begin to qualify as appropriate citation for what preceded.

Most of these souvenirs were later sold, conduct which many people found horrifying, see Treherne's book again, or The Real Bonnie and Clyde by Miriam Deford.

Same again -- over the top claims, blamed on a book -- "or" this book -- with no specificity.

Hamer: the real villain

The coroner realized he could not even do his job in a "circuslike atmosphere," and asked Hamer for help. Only then did Hamer order people away from the car, and to stop tearing bloody clothes, etc. Page 147 of Milner's book.

That is a different picture from what the book actually says. The biased recounting in the article swings against Frank Hamer. Here is the text: "Realizing that there was no hope of conducting an investigation in the circuslike atmosphere of the ambush site, Wade turned to Hamer for help. The lawman, who had been talking with some of the gathered citizens, agreed, and he instructed the deputies to keep spectators away from the car." The article version, making the biased case, uses the subtle but effective language "Only then did Hamer order people away from the car", with a flavor that he had been observing the mayhem and approved of it until held to the grindstone. According to the book though, he had been talking with some gathered citizens. I don't know, but it sounds like he was distracted. The article avoids this important detail, allowing the reader to fill in gaps with assumptions that aren't necessarily warranted, and carries a subtle air that perhaps Hamer needed to be convinced to do his job. According to the book, it was a simple matter of him being notified, and he agreed. Done. That's not what is conveyed by the article.

In his article "Romeo and Juliet in a Getaway Car" Joesph Gerringer writes of the ambush: "But, Hamer chose not to call out a warning -- not to Bonnie and Clyde...in a voice audible only to those around him, void of drama, void of malice, Hamer ordered, "Shoot!"

That will not stand. CRIMELIBRARY, which hosts the cited article, is a notoriously breathless CourtTV site where internet surfers may go for a 20-minute fix of crime hype. The articles are targeted toward the junior high set (e.g., "It was fast, sleek and accelerated like a rocket. They loved that car.). It's the same article that states, "By the time they arrived in Shreveport, Methvin was a bundle of nerves. Holing up at Iverson’s out-of-the-way cabin off Sailes Road, Henry confessed his fears to his father. While Bonnie and Clyde slept in an adjoining room, he rued his association with them. He wished, he told Iverson, that he could wake up and find himself pardoned of all his crimes and start life anew. This gave Iverson an idea."

The cited source doesn't even know that Henry Methvin's uncle was Iverson, not his dad. Ivy was not the nickname of Henry's dad, but his real name. Two different people. The article is riddled with date errors, claiming that the Methvins began talking to the posse on 22 May 1934. Embarrassing error. It is obviously concocting dialog and placing it in mouths at imagined meetings: "'But, how do we know your son won’t be with them?' asked Hamer."

And what does one discover when checking the source cited in the article, despite its questionable veracity? The full quote re Hamer, edited down for the article, is "But, Hamer chose not to call out a warning -- not to Bonnie and Clyde, who always escaped when given even the slightest advantage. There would be no advantage here. Instead in a voice audible only to those around him, void of drama, void of malice, Hamer ordered, 'Shoot!"

Bias strikes again, removing the part that implies that Hamer was concerned about Bonnie and Clyde escaping. If they killed again after, of course, that is Hamer's concern. The article version excises the escape concern, and the part about the advantage. A minor trouble with this whole version of events is that it conflicts with the much more reliable Twenty-First-Century-Update", which states that no command to fire was ever given, and that Prentis Oakley started the shooting, taking "the other posse members by surprise."

Rather than sticking with sources the instant editor has claimed at other times were superior, he searches until finding a section in a particular pulp article that fits the bias. That's the one that goes in the article. There are so many different accounts of the ambush that the best one can do is either vague the whole thing out, or present the principal versions together, identified as such.

Also in Hinton's book, the best source on the ambush,

Who says Hinton's book is "the best source on the ambush"? Cite it or strike it. James Knight (page 218) has a scrupulous footnote explaining that Hinton's version, in its accounting for Ivy Methvin's location prior to the ambush, is contradicted by testimony from a bus driver. Who is saying that Hinton's book prevails over this newly republished evidence?

The car was hit over 130 times, with the entry in the passenger, or Bonnie's, side.

False. The car was southbound, and the posse was on the east side (Twenty-First-Update, 164-165). The southbound lane was blocked by Ivy Methvin's truck, so Clyde pulled across to the other side, moving him close to the posse, exactly as they planned. It was Clyde's side that got hammered, and only toward the end did shooter(s) cross over and fire from the passenger side.

Hinton's book records Bonnie uttering one long agonized scream , saying in "Ambush," Hinton tells the rest: Hamer says Shoot! then "...Bonnie screams, and I fire and everyone fires!" At no point did anyone in the posse ever claim that they told Bonnie and Clyde to halt or surrender. Hamer himself admitted in I'm Frank Hamer that he intended an ambush where the duo would have no chance. In The Strange Life of Bonnie and Clyde John Treherne also records the ambush as having the posse simply opening fire on Hamer's command without warning. No reliable account of the ambush has ever claimed the posse called out a warning, or intended to, in fact, the opposite, all claim Hamer planned the ambush exactly as it happened. According to E.R. Milner, citing in his book as his source for that quote the Dallas Morning News of May 24, 1934, Hamer gave a press conference at 2:15pm on that day in front of the courthouse in Gibsland, with Tom Simmons of the Texas Department of Corrections, and described in detail the ambush. He stated flatly that they had planned the ambush with the intention of firing without warning, pointing at a bench in front of the Gibsland courthouse and saying "a few weeks ago I sat on that seat and mapped out the plan that was carried out this morning."

Again, this is overkill. Who's heavily disputing that they didn't warn Bonnie and Clyde? State the commonly accepted view, then get out. Too much protesting. The agenda is the real thing screaming. Please quote the part in Hinton's book where it states that Bonnie uttered "one long agonized scream". BTW, those are obviously direct snippet lifts from the Romeo and Juliet article, without crediting.

This despite the fact that Hamer knew that Bonnie Parker was not wanted on any captial warrant, and that lethal force should not legally be used against anyone not either involved in commission of a criminal act, or wanted for a capital offense.

Repetition, again entirely unsourced (w/typo). Cite or strike. Gobs of sermonizing, when there must be none.

Hamer had a reputation for not being concerned about the nicities of the law, and this was a fine example of that.

Close, but still too editorial and cutesy (w/typo).

Soapbox analysis

Increasingly, in recent years, as historians have questioned the legality of killing Bonnie without warning.

Not even a sentence. But assuming it were, please cite the increasing questioning by histories of the legality of killing Bonnie without warning.

In 1934 the states of Louisiana, Texas and the federal government lacked the laws we have today on accessory in the first and second degree and conspiracy which would have allowed charging Bonnie for Clyde's crimes.

Again, cite primary sources. This gets into several sloppy areas, including assertion of a universal negative, and several logical problems. Cite it or strike it.

It has been previously noted that in well researched books every gang member taken alive claimed Bonnie never was complicit in any killings. Hamer knew these facts, and yet, despite posse reservations about firing on the girl with no warning, went ahead anyway.

More sermonizing, with no balance, leaving out crucial details such as the real danger that Clyde was going to continue killing (with Bonnie's material help), and that if it came to risking a posse member's life to "save" Bonnie (who family members surmised long before was not necessarily to be spared a death sentence if captured), that's a laughable proposition given the circumstances.

In ascertaining Bonnie and Clyde's place in popular culture, one must realize that in 1932-34, during the years of their outlawry, almost a third of americans were out of work, and many people sympathized with Bonnie and Clyde, who they saw as striking out at the government that had failed so many families. See John Treherne's, The Strange History of Bonnie & Clyde. The duo struck a nerve, then and today, with the disenfranchised, and the wild at heart, and Trehearne believes much of their appeal lay with their essential revolt against a system that had failed so many. Rightly or wrongly, Treherne believes that people saw Bonnie and Clyde as being willing to strike a blow they themselves would have enjoyed striking. (this image of them forgets Clyde's murders, but again, it must be understood in the conditions in the 30's, and again in the 60's, where so many were questioning authority and all it stood for). Even today people glamorize the couple for refusing to accept authority, and poverty, without striking back, see The Lives and Times of Bonnie and Clyde by E. R. Milner. Rightly or wrongly, Milner was doubtless right when he states Bonnie and Clyde touched a nerve with those who also felt ambushed by an uncaring government...

Rabid POV analysis (a la Jerry Springer's "Final Thought"), peppered with "see this" and other name dropping for disguise.

Accuracy

Often portrayed as Clyde Barrow's equal in crime, Bonnie's role in the many robberies, murders, and auto thefts of the Barrow gang was apparently quite limited.

This was changed recently, without citation. "Quite limited"? According to what source(s)? She played an integral role on the logistics/support side. As with everybody who rode with Clyde, she took turns on lookout while Clyde slept at night. She was there to support Clyde in everything he did. That includes murder, whether he supposedly "had" to kill somebody or not. She was there when the murder weapon was delivered for the Eastham Prison raid. She honked the horn so that the escapees (including the murderer) could find the car through fog. She likely participated in more crimes with Clyde than any single other member of the Barrow gang.

All stories agree on one thing: it was love at first sight for them both.

That statement is obviously unverifiable. Please cite the claim that "[a]ll stories agree" that it was love at first sight for both of them. Through alternate language, this type of inaccuracy, however benign it may seem to some, needn't even be approached. If that specific claim was made by a noted authority, it should have been attributed directly, in quotes. That would be better, but still unacceptable. Shouldn't be in the article, since nobody, no matter how respected, can seriously be expected to verify it.

The only thing everyone agrees on is that Bonnie herself never killed anyone.

The statement is superfluous -- part of the "rehabilitate Bonnie" campaign. Could the crusade be any clearer? Who says that's the only thing "everyone" agrees on? There's even one witness who didn't agree Bonnie never killed anyone, though the testimony is probably best discounted.

She certainly loved pictures though, and writing the papers. It was her taking pictures of kidnapped lawmen or robbery victims, usually with them grinning sheepishly at the camera, [...j

Document that. What pictures of kidnapped lawmen and robbery victims are Bonnie known to have taken. Cite evidence, down to the pic, and the source for the claim. I claim this is exaggerated hoowah. Further, please state, for the purpose of this TotallyDisputed tag, where somebody might go to find pictures taken by any member of the Barrow gang of kidnapped lawmen and robbery victims.

Cleanup

Magazine-style writing

Ironically, though they are remembered as bank robbers, they generally were not.

As noted in a prior comment, there is no irony in Clyde Barrow being remembered primarily as a bank robber. Magazine-style fluff, and inaccurate -- the hyping of a factoid.

Their legend is far larger than their life.

What does that mean? What authority makes such quantitative proclamations? What source, specifically, did this come from? Being unverifiable, borderline-meaningless opinion, why was it not credited in the article text directly to the source? It's clearly the opinion of the editor who inserted it. One can easily present a good argument that, on the contrary, the lives of Bonnie and Clyde were bigger than their legend. Clyde's extraordinary driving, survival, and leadership skills are not so commonly known. Bonnie's artistic side, and her tenacity on the road under horrible conditions, also are generally not appreciated. What one will find cited, cogent evidence for is that their legend has been distorted. That is not necessarily a "size" issue, nor can anybody make a definitive statement regarding whether their lives were bigger or smaller than the Bonnie and Clyde legend. If I had to choose, I'd say that they were bigger than their legend. Should I put that in the article? No. That's the point.

The bullet-riddled Ford in which Bonnie and Clyde were killed is currently on display (February 2006) at the Primm Valley Resort in Primm, Nevada.

As in most cases with the word "currently", it is redundant and should be removed. In that context, the word "is" indicates currency sufficiently. The date makes it appear as though it's a traveling display of something, when it's there indefinitely.

Disorder to accommodate POV

A formerly (and properly) introductory paragraph for Bonnie now embroils the reader immediately in the propaganda effort. And what was a cohesive, tight section re the ambush has now been splintered into two sections so that an editor may hold forth, continuing the POV, original-research vilification of Bonnie Parker's killers. Articles must often be restructured with expansion. No exception here. However, most of the recent expansion needs to be removed.

Misc problems

Gang members W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults claimed Bonnie was strictly "logistical support" (see John Neal Phillips book, Running with Bonnie & Clyde: The Ten Fast Years of Ralph Fults) Fults was adamant Bonnie never fired a shot in any of the gunbattles the gang was a part of. Also, in the same book , W.D. Jones made the statement (as he had under Oath to the authorities), "Bonnie never packed a gun, out of the five major gun battles I was with them she never fired a gun." Writing with Phillip Steele in The Family Story of Bonnie and Clyde, Marie Barrow, Clyde's youngest sister, made the same claim: "Bonnie never fired a shot. She just followed my brother no matter where he went." John Treherne made the same claim in his well-sourced book The Strange History of Bonnie & Clyde where he essentially found that Bonnie was madly in love with a psychopath, and followed him to her death.

Why are all these book titles and authors, however fabricated (see above) mixed in with the text, rather than as footnotes? Note the missing/misplaced punctuation, including the supposed quote (with run-on sentence) debunked earlier.

Fellow inmate Ralph Fults said that it was Eastham where Clyde turned "from a schoolboy to a rattlesnake" (see John Neal Phillips' book Running with Bonnie & Clyde: The Ten Fast Years of Ralph Fults).

Another drawn out ref that should be converted to a footnote.

She certainly loved pictures though, and writing the papers. It was her taking pictures of kidnapped lawmen or robbery victims, usually with them grinning sheepishly at the camera, with a tale of how Bonnie and Clyde drove them all over the country, and then left them safe, usually with some money, that generated so much of the public appeal the duo enjoyed.

Wow.

[...] with a tale of how Bonnie and Clyde drove them all over the country, and then left them safe, usually with some money, that generated so much of the public appeal the duo enjoyed.

Already stated in the preceding paragraph. Redundant. Tone is frivolous ("duo", as elsewhere in the article now). Compare to original: "Between 1932 and 1934, there were several incidents in which the Barrow gang kidnapped lawmen or robbery victims, usually releasing them far from home, sometimes with money to help them get back. Stories of these encounters may have contributed to the mythic aura of Bonnie and Clyde — a couple both reviled and adored by the public."

That's the second example where a prior version was merely mimicked in editing, in the same paragraph as the original snippet, or immediately following it. 65.143.90.249 04:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hard facts

I may be stepping over the boundaries of mediation here but here are my comments for now: I just got in from some busy meetings. I find it quite difficult to sit down and read this. I also find it all the less motivating when I can't easily see what the sources are and where to go to get them let alone access them. When asking for changes, as I've indicated from the start you should try to be specific. Change A to B because. Or Add A after B. I also must say that I will eventually read every ones comments. I have received a couple emails. One request is that this subject be mediated. I will be happy to mediate via email as has been suggested. That way I may be able to give some nicer refactoring. For example "stating that something is wrong, erroneous, etc..." might not be the best way of dealing with things right now. Actually I find it a little insulting and I haven't even contributed anything to this article. What I'm saying is I think it is a little preliminary to start judging! My suggest, if you may please, be very explicit in your sources and facts. WP:CITE. The sources here are the key element that will, I believe, summarize the issues. My belief may be found by looking at my user page "Though du jour"... with that, and you may better understand the situation. In the mean time I will review the lengthy information you have submitted. You may see some red text appear within your comments asking for clarifications. It is clear that you are working hard at attempting to understand the minute details at hand of the article (ie.: Who? What? Where? When? How?) but we must look at the information in whole. (with WP:V for example) Throwing a large blob of information to someone that has been trying to remain about arms length is going to take a little time to digest. (Considering all I really wanted was a summary from you and now I have a 4 page essay I think I can say this is a little unnerving. In the sense that it may take me some more time to analyse. It doesn't bother me... I just hope you guys have the time and patience and I don't really want to make anyone wait to long! I haven't read through everything and I'm still reading into it. If my spidey senses start tingling I will ask you some questions. Perhaps you may want to start communication via email as Katefan and Oldwindy have seemingly, (as I inferred), agreed to do. --72.57.8.158 06:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how is it that you consider yourself the mediator of this dispute, CyclePat? Because one party "appointed" you? C'mon. I didn't approve of you as a mediator, nor would I. I used your talk page in an emergency when this page was semi-protected. That's it. Please do not consider yourself a mediator of any dispute in which I am a party. Thanks. 65.129.192.70 06:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

One reason I consider myself a mediator in this situation is because I have been able to keep the tone prety level up to this point. I may have prevented an edit war with the template at the top of the article. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong Katefan, that I was able to keep some comments from escallating and probably having a war begin and ecalating to a point where most likely it would have simply been you that would have suffered the consequence. I say that because you jumping into an article that appears to have one very knowlegble editor, Oldwindy that is supported (in quite a few circumstances) by an excellent and avide wikipedia administrator, Katefan. Anyway, I hope you realize that if I am not a mediator I will be able chose sides. I will also be able to give my opinion on this subject if it goes to mediation. I hope you know, and Katefan will be able to most certainly vouch that once I have an opinion, and if I'm not enforced by a loyal oath to remain at arms length, that I will voice that opinion as loud and as feroshiously as possible here on wiki. I will hence become an Advocate for one side. I highly recommend that if this is what you trully want, you obtain an advocate from WP:AMA. Previously I have attempted to refactor your comment. I'm not sure if that helped or not but it seemed to encourage you to write a lot more. Aside: another issue is having this published on WP:RFM. Until you clearly state that you are willing to have mediation I feel it is useless to continue on. You must first want to be able to negotiate. Seemingly, I would have thought that is the case because you have stated that you refuse to edit the article and secondly you seem to be placing many of your comments on this talk page. As you write down your comments I am currently receiving feedback via email from Katefan and Oldwindybear. This is privileged information at the moment. I am sure they would be willing to share some of their, soon to be refactored, comments and information with you if you accept to go into a fair mediation. I feel I can fairly represent both of you, however if you don't think that is the case then, again, I really highly recommend you obtain an advocate to help you out. You may want to think about this because this may be perceived negatively and if you don't explain yourself people may think you as trying to delay the (unavoidable) (whatever that is!) --CyclePat 00:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can't notice this, how do you expect to notice anything else enough to contribute to the article? I can only assume, based on your comments and more, that you're some mad genius having a laugh. It's very well done though, and my hat is off. Haven't seen anything like it in years. 65.129.160.191 03:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually did notice mediation at the bottom. Why do you wish to have a different mediator? My objectives are to mediate and facilitate a clear and effective communication. (Though currently I am adding more comments.) Knowing what is expected from me, from you, as well as everyone else is a key element for this to properly function. Thank you for your co-operation. --CyclePat 18:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not again suggest yourself as mediator here. It will not happen, and it's just cluttering a cluttered enough page. Thanks. Detailed reply here. 216.8.14.188 00:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

And frankly such comments like "it's just cluttering a cluttered enough page." are correct. The page is very much clutered. Amzingly you are the one that has added the most of the recent edits. Perhaps you should take your own philosphy and concept into practice. You could start by please summarizing your issues (as we suggested to you since the start, and perhaps then the page will be less clutered.) I also find this comment to be a type of of offensive attack. Frankly the more talk the more you contradict yourself. (ie.: you say I'm not a mediator, yet as I've indicate to you, I was able to keep the tone of this discusion prety level) Such attitude and ill faithed comments such as sugesting my edits are a type of cluter is not only insulting but ill conform to constructive criticism and may even be a form of harasement. I don't appreciate this. The next time you talk to me, I would expect some sort of appolgy for this mis-conduct and an expression of your will to change and adhere toward wikipedia's policy of assumption of good faith. Often the common man assumes the government is putting poison is his coffee and that he's out to get him, however the goverment, (Like me) want to help. The only thing is, they have to be held accountable. They must have what is needed to substantiate spending 20 million. Usualy they don't do the work. Usually it's the advocates. Right now you are lacking advocacy. Perhaps I might not be the best mediator but I may certainly be a fair advocate. I will also ask you once more, because you still fail to answer for the Xth time ask, please cite your sources as per WP:CITE. I really do want to help you, help us. However, if you fail to appologize for what I consider an insulting attitude and your sources cited don't appear, I will only assume that you are here to be a tyran on wikipedia. Wipedia needs more people to object to articles like you are doing, we just neeed it to be done properly. Think about how proud you can be to say to your next employer or future grand children. I would rather here something like "I was once considered a tyrant when I started wikipedia but now I'm the best NPOV debater around!" then "I'm the tyrant of wikipedia." --72.57.8.158 03:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent editing

Interesting strategy in reaction to a TotallyDisputed tag -- adding more false material. Not going to continue to expose every detail, but the last item is interesting, since contradictory evidence is readily found online, via a link that's been in the article for months. It's now claimed that Bonnie's "hand, for instance, was literally blown off, see The Strange History of Bonnie & Clyde."

Why cite some book, when the editor can link directly to a page with a picture of Bonnie's mangled right hand [NB: graphic photos] at the bottom, and another page with a description of the damage to that hand written on the postmortem fingerprint card? Probably because it would show that Bonnie's hand wasn't "literally blown off", and that other pics on the same page indicate, contrary to the article's previous claim, that Bonnie was not "ripped" "apart". Or one could continue at the same site [NB: graphic photos], reading the list of damage, which confirms the picture of the hand, in that she suffered: "small glass cut at joint, first finger of right hand", "gunshot wound, back of first finger", and "another wound, middle finger at bone, severing the member".

Comment: A book is a generally a published source of information that meets wikipedia standards for inclusion. A web may also be. Though web pages are often used, they may be considered less credible by many wikipedians. One of the reasons is the credibility of the publisher of the web site. Though I could easilly make make my own book and I could probably, a lot easier create a web page, with the same content and it may most like be considered a type of original research. This is because it may not be scene as a "proper form" of publishing and it may violate wikipedia policy. It is good faith to assume that an article that is sourced with a book is okay, unless you have other published documents that discredit that book. Again, in my opinion, a web site appear to be a bit easier to discredit. No mater the case, we should try to consider both angles. If Joe blow say... Her head was blown off... and then Jane Blow say her head wasn't blown off then I guess we should technically consider the comments. However it comes really down to is credibility. If little Tommy the paper boy (often in that time a type of [Sensationalism for news papers] said her head was blown off should that be included when the patitionner indicates that the head was still there? According to WP:NPOV, Human knowledge" includes all different significant theories. The differences may be subtle little changes. It can be the paper boy "knew" that her head was severed but today we know otherwise that... WP:NPOV furthermore says that "to avoid endless edit wars," or in our case endless debates on the subject "we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here." However "To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents." This dispute would then have to be characterized. Hence it is extremely important that we have a summary of the issue so we know later on in the future what we will do. --CyclePat 02:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

In other words, a finger on her right hand was blown off, and, as stated on the fingerprint card, the hand was "very badly mutilated". Not that it matters; being killed is being killed. One can sensibly argue that the more rounds fired during an uncontrolled gun killing (which the ambush clearly was), the more humane the outcome. One of the most humane execution methods, because of its extreme speed, is via high explosive (a real literal blowing apart). Selling projectile count and damage like a carnival barker is just melodrama, in line with the POV program of the last 5 months.

Comment:Now that would be a POV! It may even be part of another or it's own article.... --CyclePat 02:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hype does not become the article. The other recent edits are similarly flawed. Not going to bother battling a submit button of such power, or continue rebutting every disastrous new change, but... this page [NB: graphic photos] is interesting in light of the continued claims that the passenger side of the car was the primary side attacked. (BTW, bullet exit holes in metal generally aren't pushed in.) From Twenty-First-Century, 166-167 [my emphasis]:

"As the car came to rest, someone went around to the right side and put a finishing burst in the passenger window. [...] The left side of the car—mainly the driver's door—was riddled. When they looked inside, however, it was obvious that many of the bullets didn't get through. The Ford's door was double walled, and most of the soft lead hunting ammunition remained between the two layers of sheet metal, unless it happened to hit a place where an access panel was cut in the inner wall. [...] On the right side, the difference was even more pronounced. For the seventy-five to one hundred holes in the left side, there were less than twenty exit holes on the right."

The pictures confirm this account.

Comment:I've had this debate somewhere before. Can we use a picture to assume or infer information. I that because original research. As soon as you start counting start thinking about something from a photo it is probably WP:OR. It may however fall within an exception of WP:OR for something that is obvious. Evaluating ballistics may not be so obvious to everyone. What make you an expert ballistics officer? Why should we even believe you? I have many ideas I would like to post myself however I content myself with the fact that their are experts out their that may or should have done that. Analogy: if a photo of a clock that shows 4 p.m. was taken could I inferring that it was taken at 4? What about analyzing other elements like the traffic and the fact that the clock may be broken... I think inferring info from a photo is original research. If on the other hand I was to say the picture was taken at 4. (ref.:Joe Photographer) Then I think that would be acceptable. No mater the case, "Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all." But I say that naively because I feel like I haven't enough sources. (usually cited as per WP:CITE) Perhaps not right now, but soon we will need more verifiable sources, but before that, a SUMMARY. A summary which would obviously help in the future for similar situations and avoiding such lengthy debates which, ironically so I don't seem like an ass that is ignoring you or every one else, is taking up a lot of my time.. --CyclePat 02:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If manufacturing empathy, how about a little for the men who were charged with apprehending the extraordinarily skilled and lethal Clyde Barrow (far more successful gun battle experience than most experienced lawmen), and the woman who'd proclaimed to the newspapers [struck by author. reviewing timing, it's likely newspapers didn't publish her "end of the line" poem until after her death, though i don't have a date for it. was apparently given to her mother on 6 may 1934, and it seems she may have kept it until after 23 may 1934. 216.8.14.63 09:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)] that they were going to go to their deaths together? That's overt suicidal talk. Know what somebody talking suicide connotes? They have nothing to lose. Bonnie wouldn't have hesitated to shoot anybody in sight if it had come down to it, and everybody knows it. How about some understanding of the serious potential consequences of letting Clyde Barrow continue in this life even another day. How was he to have been captured? The naysayers won't explain. It's all utterly unbalanced, irrational Monday-morning quarterbacking (original research), as if they could have done it better. With all this complaining, not a single authoritative, external source has been offered suggesting how these two narcissistic jackasses were to have been taken peacefully. But you know who did get sorta blown apart? A man named Harry McGinnis.

Comment:The above comment seems to confirm a strong personal opinion of yours. Perhaps you may cite your sources. Who said she proclaimed to the newspapers. I don't know what newspaper you are talking about. Is it the National Enquire? Or is it the New York Times? You know I'm trying to understand here by remaining at arms lenght. Can you explain, by simply stating what the problem is within this article vs the facts that you have. A contradict B. A should be considered more recent information than B. A or B is considered the majority view point. That would be sufficient for us to move on to the next step. (As I'm sure some have been anxiously waiting). --CyclePat 02:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Blanche Barrow:

Oh, what a horrible sight to see a human body torn apart like that by shotgun bullets.[sic] I shiver now as I think of it and can still see the vision of a man lying there with what looked like his brains blown out and running down his shoulders and onto the ground. It looked as if one arm had been torn off by bullets. All this I saw and more in just one glance."

Comment:I don't see this in the article. But is it necessary for the development of bonnie and clyde?. --CyclePat 02:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Footnote of same book:

He was very popular and described as friendly and light-hearted. A widower, McGinnis was engaged to be married the following month. He was fifty-three.

Comment:I don't see this in the article. But is it necessary for the development of bonnie and clyde? perhaps this is a limited view point, I don't know because I don't know what the majority view point is. However I do question the sensationalism of those POV an important issue to look further into. I move that this be summarized in one sentence. Perhaps latter on we will decide if we want to work on it in a separate discussion page or not. --CyclePat 02:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to ask something of Oldwindybear. If that had been your friend, John, would you be defending Bonnie Parker as you have? She probably loaded up some of the ammo that killed him. She was the support crew for the murderers. She aided them for years -- never walking away, never stopping the killing. When anybody with any heart or morality would have found a way to stop Clyde Barrow, she did the opposite. She encouraged him, swearing loyalty to him all the way to the grave. She probably saw McGinnis lying there. She saw more car thefts, brutal kidnappings, threats, and other despicable actions than can be tallied. Bonnie participated in much of it. She, more than anybody, is directly responsible for him escaping from jail in March 1930 (stealing a gun and smuggling it into the jail), enabling the untenable slaughter of others that followed. Why? For herself. She placed, without exception, her life and Clyde'd above everyone else. And why wouldn't they just leave the country and spare everyone the heartache? Because they wanted to be near their families.

Comment:I think the best comment I could say it that in the article on Hitler never is the word "Evil" used. oops! I guess that changes... Well this is wikipedia after all. Oh darn! Anyway. I think this one warrant further investigation.. --CyclePat 02:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, somebody put this issue into de-romanticized perspective, and allow some little respect for those assaulted by Clyde and Bonnie. If the gore of the ambush is to be included at all (not in its hyped form), then surely it must be weighed against what happened also to:

• John Bucher — storekeeper
• Eugene Moore — undersherrif
• Howard Hall — storekeeper
• Doyle Johnson — grocery store employee
• Malcolm Davis — deupty sheriff
• JW Harryman — constable
• Henry Humphrey — town marshal
• EB Wheeler — highway patrolman
• HD Murphy — highway patrolman
• Cal Campbell — constable

If gore is to rule, the article can spare some room for the description of what was done to Harry McGinnis, at least. Were there any "warrants" out for Harry's arrest? Was he "wanted" for murder? I don't think so. Think his fiance was happy about what happened? Maybe we can find out and discuss the mental damage done to her so that Bonnie's royal highness wasn't captured. Those cops tried to do it peacefully. Didn't work out. And others paid attention.

Yes, the list above is of murder victims directly related to Clyde Barrow being out of prison after March 1930. Who got him out of prison? Bonnie Parker. I'd like for the defender of Bonnie Parker to sit down with the survivors of those men above and look them in the eye, selling to them the "horrible" details of her killing. And the worst part is that the true victim list of Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker extends into the thousands, when one considers orphans, widows, lovers, dads, moms, friends...

I do believe Bonnie Parker was murdered, according to the laws of those sworn to uphold law. But I'll tell ya what -- I don't think anybody with his head screwed on straight gives a flying handshake whether the posse threw her into a cuisinart, hit her on the head with a steel mallet, or dropped a bomb on that stolen Ford V-8. She put herself in a position where practicality and the survival of peaceful people demanded her immediate destruction, because Clyde and she were not likely to be apart for enough time to arrest one without the other slinging lead. That's a fact, and it's 100% on her head. She didn't want to come in peaceably, after the many previous attempts in which men were slaughtered? Like I say, they caught on finally, and nobody with any perspective can blame them. She is the one who chose her end. There was no other option, given her actions. She knew it. Her family knew it. That's not good enough for a single Wikipedia editor though.

comment: Please refrain from using insulting comments. Now you say you believe but then you say this is a fact. Can you provide some sources in regard to your POV (or as you say fact) that she put herself in a position...?.--CyclePat 02:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you want to have been the one approaching them daintily so Bonnie wasn't hurt? Just the image of it mocks the conceit of rallying for months to help Bonnie Parker, a dead scoundrel, be pitied by history. She got what she deserved. If Frank Hamer hadn't done it, there are plenty of people, "law enforcement" or not, who should have. I doubt I've seen anything quite so insane recently as the delusion turning this article and this subject into undiluted sludge, proclaiming concern for humanity by coddling a monomaniacal destroyer of it. 65.129.192.70 07:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

comment:You appear to have much opinions and a lot of time to develop and write them down. If you invested half as much time in developing the sources you would be modifying your internal environment. But doing so you would ameliorate the conditions of work satisfying the some of primordial elements of Maslow's Theory or something like that. Perhaps then will users, such as oldwindybear or Katefan will perceive this as a more constructive way of working together and making wikipedia a better place. Instead of complaining lets work together with a positive attitude. Our time in life to work on this can be time well spent. Sourcing is a key issue this is because I believe it lays out whether the information came out when? by who? etc.... --CyclePat 02:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I would accept any of the following 3 editors as a mediator for this article. Have not spoken with any of them about it, and don't know if any would accept the task: User:Mrfixter — Haven't worked with him much, and he's not very active right now, apparently. User:FCYTravis — Admin. Have edited one page briefly with him. Never talked with him, I don't think. User:The Ungovernable Force — Never heard of this user until today. However, here's a snippet he wrote on his talk page: "I can't beleive an anarchist would support the state's murder of someone, even someone who maybe deserved it."

If none of these is acceptable to Oldwindybear, I could pick some more. Or he could offer some. 65.145.193.249 11:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense

The ammunition used by the posse was not "soft lead hunting ammunition". The weapons used were as follows: three Remington model 8 rifles-35-20 Calibre, two Browning Automatic Rifles, Calibre 30-06, one Winchester model 94 30.30 carbine, any of which were capable of penetrating the doors of a 34 Ford. Your scource, "Twenty-First Century" is inaccurate, perhaps you should read up on the capabilities of these weapons as well as the construction of early 1930s Fords. randazzo56

That quote wasn't offered with regard to what kind of ammo they used, or if any of it went x layers of doors. It was offered only to rebut the assertion in the article that the passenger side was the one most targeted/shot. However, naming weapons doesn't in any way refute the assertion that "soft lead hunting ammunition" was used (nor the load specs), nor that they didn't all go through both doors (though it probably serves as an impressive and authoritative sounding diversion to somebody who isn't familiar with guns). The pictures show without question that most of the shots didn't make it through the car. You can talk weapons all you want, but it's irrelevant to what side was shot, and can't add (note the word "add") exit holes in the passenger side that aren't there. If you are planning to address such subjects in the article, have a better source than what you just offered, which was none.

BTW, I own 12 guns (rifles, shotguns, handguns), with thousands of rounds of widely varying ammo, and worked 3 years at a major american gun manufacturer, so don't even start with the "gun expert" posing; I know how that works when some guy wants to intimidate non gun owners with name dropping. It's smoke blowing when held against the many published pics of the car. I repeat: I am not advocating the addition of information in the article stating what bullets went through, how they went through, or whatever. I have in the past here requested repeatedly that such details (e.g., rounds fired) be kept fuzzy, or strictly attributed, because there is so little hard evidence. My quote was only to demonstrate evidence that the driver's side was the one primarily targeted. Please get the context before launching pointless rebuttals. This page isn't complicated enough? 216.8.14.188 02:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think it is complicated enough. Considering I'm not the first to say so I will begin a refactoring of all the major comments you have recently added. It may be found at talk:Bonnie and Clyde/Refactoring added in the next few days. --72.57.8.158 03:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there won't. I will revert anybody's refactoring of others' talk page comments. I would've done the same for CyclePat, but I wasn't paying attention that day. If you want to summarize comments on another page, go ahead, but peoples' comments should be left intact on this one. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Far as I know, CyclePat hasn't altered my comments here, and when he posted in between my signed paragraphs, he used a different color, which is appreciated. When posting such very long sections as I did, I don't have any problem with an editor doing what CyclePat did (not sure if that's what you're talking about, Katefan) -- probably an efficient method.

Reply to CyclePat: Apart from thinking it's pointless, and probably more harm than good, I have no objection to you refactoring elsewhere, as long as my comments are left intact here on the article talk page (before archiving after the tag issue is resolved). Go crazy. However, if the "refactoring" is as inaccurate and misleading as some other refactoring I've seen, I will note explicit objections to it should you attempt to refer to it in any debate over article content.

Want to make something very clear, because it hasn't registered though I thought it was obvious. Where I have left my opinions about the death of Bonnie Parker on this page, it was only for the purpose of attempting to get through to Oldwindybear, who has put his opinions all through the article. It was probably a mistake to try, and I'll be happy to go through and either strike over or remove most of it upon explicit request. Regardless, please do not spend time rebutting my opinions, because they are utterly, without exception, irrelevant to the article (where my opinion has not nor will be placed). What must be addressed for the tags to be removed is the rampant, unsourced speculation and argument in the article. I have documented this thoroughly above, prefaced by a summary stating exactly what my problems in general with the article are. If you don't like detail, then ignore the detail! You got the summary you asked for; it's right here -- five brief paragraphs summarizing my objections to the article. 216.8.15.56 04:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Soft lead hunting ammo

Randazzo56 has not returned to reinsert his assertion that "the only smoke blowing comes from anyone who suggests a B.A.R. [Browning Automatic Rifle] fires soft lead ammunition". In case somebody wishes to add to the article a cited claim that "soft lead" ammo was used in the ambush (as in Twenty-First-Century 2003, 167), no counter evidence has been supplied to doubt it.

Though most rifle bullets are primarily lead, high-velocity rifle bullets are usually jacketed entirely by a more durable metal (typically copper). It's this full jacket that Randazzo56 was apparently asserting must been present for BAR ammo. That is not correct. "Soft point" ammo, with an incomplete jacket where the soft lead is exposed at the tip of the bullet, was developed for high-velocity rifles in the late 1890s (at the legendary Dum-dum arsenal in India). The soft point contributes to quick deformation of the bullet on impact ("mushrooming" — sometimes with significant disintegration, especially w/hollow points), tending to dissipate more energy in the target instead of passing through it. Here are modern examples in .30-06 Springfield, the BAR caliber: 1, 2). Soft point ammo will function in a BAR, and, barring further evidence, fits nicely into the actual result noted in pictures of the ambushed car and the 1998 direct examination of it by Sandy Jones at Primm Valley.

Somewhat amusing that Randazzo56 criticizes the cited passage from Twenty-First-Century for it's lack of knowledge re "the construction of early 1930s Fords". Who is the owner of this car? James Knight. Maybe he'll put out the Randazzo56 version now. Doubt it though. 216.8.6.53 12:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hard Jacket Ammo

Military arsenals, which issued the B.A.R.s to the ambush party used hard jacket ammo, if you doubt this, check the National Gaurd armory records. although this does not account for all of the rifles used by the ambush party. A soft or hollow point load will generaly leave a small entrance hole and a larger exit hole in a human body, this was not the case according to the autopsy reports (as primative as those reports were-see texas-hideout) Not all of the officers were firing directly into the left front door, as they were positioned above and toward the rear of the car as well. This would account for the backrest of the front seat being torn apart and the eight bullet wounds to Clydes back, breaking his spine. Im glade you found my input amusing! Just as I find amusing your claiming to be a ballistics expert based on the fact that you own twelve guns. I never doubted the expertise of "Sandy Jones" or anyone else who claimed to have restored a '34 Ford, <<personal attack removed> randazzo56

Such comments are not constructive to the situation and you should remove them or be condoned. No one is dicrediting your expertise. Who knows maybe he is an expert. That is not really the issue here is it, right? Even if he was a ballistic mad genuis it wouldn't really matter, assides for maybe helping him out to know where to find sources... (his university books, his police training books, etc.) Because as long as it is not blatenly obvious or a well sourced POV (or fact) it really doesn't belong here. Personnally, it's been how long this template about neutrality and factual accuracy has been up. I haven't really seen anyone say they would read through the article to check it out and HIGHTLIGHT or SUMMARIZE the key areas that need work! --CyclePat 02:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Pay attention, Randazzo56. I never claimed any kind of ammo was used, nor did I claim to be a ballistics expert because I own guns. I simply am telling you that if you are going to try snowing people here with irrelevant and highly questionable gun list name dropping, there's at least one gun owner here, with professional experience in the field, who will call you on it. You attempted to refute James Knight's claim, not mine, that soft lead ammo was used, and you tried it by simply naming gun models. Now that you've been called on that one (and now that you apparently admit BARs will cycle soft point rounds), you want to refer me to "National Gaurd armory records". Okay, provide them to back up your claim. What guns came from a National Guard armory? Where did the ammo for each gun come from? Why no mention of the Colt Monitor? How come your list doesn't include any handguns? You're not seriously pretending that each of the posse only used one gun, are you? I interviewed Ted Hinton's son last fall, and he'd laugh in your face if you said that. However — and this is very important — I cannot include in the article anything from my interview with him. If you don't know why that's the case, perhaps you could pause and find out.

If you just want to be a jerk, I don't care. Go ahead. Unlike many people, I couldn't care less if there are "personal attacks" here, nor will I try to remove them. It's obvious that you're using them to attempt to disguise that your bluff was called yet again. You're new here. Wikipedia, and the requirements for articles, can be difficult to grasp quickly. The standards here are much different from almost any other writing a person would have done before arriving. Maybe you could back off for a while, read about WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc., then come out swinging when you understand a little bit more about what's required to make historical claims at Wikipedia, and — very important — when you're right more than you're wrong. Article editing can't be based on what you've heard, or your long held opinion. It needs to be cited. As you may eventually figure out, "check the National Gaurd armory records" doesn't begin to qualify. It's about as believable and authoritative as your proven false, "Every account written on this subject indicates that she was trapped beneath a burning auto and as a result suffered third degree burns to her left leg." <<personal attack removed>>216.8.15.39 04:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Responce from Fat Carl

I to am new here, however,one word is missing, ALLMOST every account. So what? just becouse some sap wrote an opinion about battery acid, that in no way makes it accurate by any assurance. Ill let the others provide the truth, I know its there...... Soon I will become a user-but perhaps you should have been in the backseat...

That misses the point. It wasn't "some sap" who wrote it. It was from a properly cited, respected source, apparently corroborated by other testimony. No, that does not mean it's true. It also doesn't mean (as explained above, and apparently ignored) that there weren't burns both from a fire and battery acid. Last fall I asked Ted Hinton's son about this specific subject in person, and he insists it was battery acid. I still don't know. I do know, however, that many of the early books about Bonnie and Clyde were flawed, and that revision has taken place and should not be disregarded merely because it disagrees with lore, however ingrained the lore may be. The reaction of Razzzinksi282 was disproportionate, inaccurate, and especially ridiculous since it didn't even specify the correct leg while trying to smite others for inaccuracy. I couldn't care less what version is included as long as it follows NPOV, NOR, etc., and is cited. And yeah, that includes the pointless argument over ammo. I'm the one who says "I don't know." Is it that hard to notice? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Lordy lordy. Oh, and also: I don't know. I wasn't there. Were you? Of course not. So lighten up, and don't take these sources personally when they're cited properly and have generally good reputations. I'm not the one fighting to keep either version in the article, but I sure don't accept as valid evidence the mere gainsaying of a recent book simply because it disagrees with the version you were told and believe. I heard long ago that she was burned in a fire. Repeatedly. I don't know though, and James Knight, though he may very well be wrong on this and the ammo claim, should not be sniveled at, considering the general excellence of his book. 216.8.15.3 01:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

response to improper language and personal attacks on another user by Pig

CyclePat Katefan0 look at the above remark, please, and bar Pig. he is not interested in discussing issues. Pat, I have summarized pithly the issues in dispute:

• the role Bonnie Parker actually played in the "Barrow Gang;" I have sourced my issues heavily, this is the crucial question;
• the aftermath of the ambush: again, I have I have sourced my issues heavily, this is the secondary major question;
• Pat, you asked me for sources on Bonnie's lack of warrants, literally John Treherne actually went to each jurisdiction and searched the records - from a court perspective, 1932-34 was not that long ago! Pig has conceded what we all knew, and is well sourced, that there were NO warrants, signed and sworn affidvadits, or even witneess statements, alleging murder by Bonnie Parker. Does this make her a saint? NO, and you know I have not tried to do so, on the other hand, I have not tried to impose my pecular morality on the article. As you and Kate taught me: just the facts! I moved the section on Bonnie and warrants from the intro, where you were right, it was inappropriate, to her section, where it is sourced and well placed.

Now I feel this is in your hands, as editors. But I ask you, look at the comment above, and the ones he made previously to myself and Kate - this is a not a productive user, just a vandal. What kind of responsible scholar would write about dreaming about a dead girl and ____with himself? I put this in your hands, I feel I did what you asked, reasonably, i might add, and unable to respond, he does his usual hateful and cruel comments. Pat, we have school kids, (including my grandkids!)who come to our site for info -- is Pig's comments what we want them to see?

• the article is in your hands and Kate's. I again stress I sourced and moved as you requested. Take care, and I am sure you will both be fair.old windy bear 19:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

PS I must say in randazzo56's defense, that military arsenals, due to the Geneva (and it's predacessors)convention, soft bullets were not used. Any military man knows that, and I can get you a source, if this is a big deal. old windy bear 19:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of how mediation is required. I never said that the posse used a particular type of ammo. Should I say that again? I never said that the posse used a particular type of ammo. James Knight did in his book, and I quoted it on a different subject which happened to have that claim in the middle. I wasn't advocating adding it to the article, though if the only counter evidence is what you and Randazzo56 have offered, I almost wouldn't care if it were put in there as a clear quote from Knight's book. However, the attempts to refute James Knight's claims expose very nicely that inability of some editors to refer to anything except anecdote. Now you have reframed the facts so that it's accepted that all ammo for the posse came from the war department or something, and that it was impossible for them to have used soft points. That's just silly. You don't know. You just assert. Pay attention: Other than some calibers, I have no clue what kind of ammo was used in the ambush, or where it came from. Hello! I'd like to know. Apparently though, I'm not going to find out from either you or Randazzo56, who haven't learned how to do anything except make a wild claim and then invoke some pretentious sounding entity or unconnected factoid. Once again you're just demonstrating that you'll happily focus on something that's not in the article instead of the piles of errors that are.

BTW, if you're so concerned about personal attacks, where were you when your new buddy Randazzo56 was repeatedly slamming me and implying I was a janitor at a gun company? Did you call for intervention? Where were you when he said that you and Katefan should go to an ambush reenactment and catch some bullets? Were you on this planet? Were you paying attention when he vandalized my comments to make it look like I said I was playing with myself? Don't think people buy into your restatement of history, whether regarding Bonnie and Clyde or Wikipedia behavior. Look inward for just once; that's where the problem lies. 216.8.15.3 22:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Im Out

If thats the way you guys feel, ill just take my ball and go home. 70.191.122.119

good night

im out, In the end, you guys take this way to seriously. Youv' got to admit some of the slams were amusing. Randazzo 56... 3-04-06:21:06

NPOV or citation required

Hello, I decided to sit down and read throught the article completely and do like any editor should try to do when they see a disputed sign. Start verifying the sources. I found in the intro something that I recently added a requires citation. I understand we state further down in the text, and even cite it nicelly,that "bonnie never shoot" anyone. Is this very important to have in the intro. If we do put it there shouldn't it be balance with the counter sujbect... Clyde. I think the idea that it is stated at the beginning and then again in the text might be a little of a POV! (it's more of an over saturation, proably from former disputes.) Concidering that the first occurance of "bonnie never shot" doesn't have a reference I suggest seeing as this is after all an "introduction" that it remains less specific. I would remove that sentence. However we may chose to source as an alternative. (footnote might be the best way in this instance). As a last resort (which I think would be wrong) is to remain at statuquo... Again, since it is nicelly stated further down I would take it out. I'll let you decide on that Oldwindy? Any comments? Those are my suggestions for the intro...

User:CyclePatHey Pat, I moved it, that was a good idea, and avoided any suggestion of POV in the intro. It is certainly well sourced elsewhere what Bonnie's role was, logitical, and that NO warrants, et al, exist to prove she was ever even charged with murder, or even shooting anyone. But you are right, and it needed moving, and has been!old windy bear 05:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

hi Pat

CyclePat KatefanOKate, Pat, I was asked to respond, so well... I am presently editing to remove that -- the statement on Bonnie not killing anyone --from the intro, and put it in the Bonnie section and later on. Even Pig has conceded that there is NO evidence whatsoever that there were any warrants for Bonnie for murder(there were not, according to Treherne, Milner, et al) and no evidence she shot anyone other than his beloved newspaper clipping from Lucerne (to believe that, you would have to believe that 40 people were machine gunned, (from automatic rifles, and not one, NOT ONE, ever filed a complaint, or sworn affidavit, let alone took out a warrant! I think this speaks for itself). I have refrained from responding to Pig's endless diatribe - but to sum it up, this is what he "admits"

• 1) there were no warrants, sworn complaints, or affidavits that Bonnie ever shot anyone, let alone murdered anyone;
• 2) the ambush, questioned by Gellinger, Treherne, Milner, and others, was simply not legal, then, or now;
• 3) the aftermath of the ambush was horrific, with Hamer allowing people to cheerfully chop off Bonnie's bloody hair and clothes as souvenirs.

Pig asked me what I would say to Clyde's victims: I would say in this country we have due process of law. If it is dispensed for scumbags, it is dispensed for all. Clyde was charged with multiple murders, and if captured, would have likely died by execution - deservedly so. The central issue in dispute is Bonnie's role in all this, and despite Pig's endless ranting, the evidence was that while she was one heck of a media manipulator, she simply was not a murderer. This is not my opinion, it is well sourced. Pig admits it repeatedly! Pig seems to think this implies some sort of campaign to champion her, nothing could be further from the truth! On the other hand, I don't indulge in heated speaches such as claiming people being shot to pieces is a wonderful way to execute people - if Pig had ever seen people shot to pieces, I doubt he would say that...

What did he admit? In his own words:

• "The oft-repeated claim that Bonnie Parker wasn't "wanted" for murder is probably technically true."

• I do believe Bonnie Parker was murdered, according to the laws of those sworn to uphold law. But I'll tell ya what -- I don't think anybody with his head screwed on straight gives a flying handshake whether the posse threw her into a cuisinart, hit her on the head with a steel mallet, or dropped a bomb on that stolen Ford V-8.

The central issue in dispute in this article is simple, despite Pig's attempting to make it complex. What was Bonnie Parker's role in the Barrow Gang? Even he concedes the overwhelming evidence is that she was, at most, a role player, logistical backup. He indigently proclaims this justifies her murder by Frank Hamer and his posse. I say in response it is our responsbility, as an encyclopedia, to state the facts, and let the users interpret them for themselves, not issue them self righeous speaches. What where his various speaches? These are my personal favorite, considering he holds himself forth as some sort of historical guru:

• "The oft-repeated claim that Bonnie Parker wasn't "wanted" for murder is probably technically true. "

• As far as I know, Bonnie never packed a gun. Maybe she'd help carry what we had in the car into a tourist-court room. But during the five big gun battles I was with them, she never fired a gun. But I'll say she was a hell of a loader."

• There is no allegation there of anyone being shot

I do believe Bonnie Parker was murdered, according to the laws of those sworn to uphold law. But I'll tell ya what -- I don't think anybody with his head screwed on straight gives a flying handshake whether the posse threw her into a cuisinart, hit her on the head with a steel mallet, or dropped a bomb on that stolen Ford V-8. (oh good, by this logic, anyone who consorts with a felon should be shot to pieces, with no warrant, just on GP!)

• The existence of a warrant is not an overriding condition for reporting as accurately as possible the history of Bonnie and Clyde. (really? court records are the most reliable records we have, and Pig concedes the records do not support his "case," so he attempts to deinerate them...)

In short, he admits there were no warrants, complaints, sworn affidavits, or other evidence other than newspaper clippings! Yet he claims the lack of court evidence should be ignored! While admitting

• "The oft-repeated claim that Bonnie Parker wasn't "wanted" for murder is probably technically true. " Guess what Pig? At least 4 major league historians have searched, and she was not, repeated, not, wanted for murder. Now you may think this is irrelevant, but I think it highly relevant, as to her role in the Barrow gang, and the editors will decide whether your ranting, or my facts, determine the structure of the article.

• I do believe Pat's observation that Bonnie probably did not kill anyone should be moved, and have done so. But just as Pig's case that soft jacket bullets might have been used in the ambush - when anyone familiar with military ammo knows (yes, I will find a source!) that they used hard jackets with their BARS -- the same BARS and ammo they issued to Hamer and company - he makes his whole case one long rant on POV. if there are errors correct them. Pig brags proudly of his 12 weapons - but did you ever fire them in anger Pig? Did you ever see someone blown apart, or torn up terribly? I would be surprised if you had. People who have seen war seldom take such a cavaliar attitude.

• finally, Pig claims that court records are not the best evidence - I could not dispute this in stronger terms. We have court records from 1932-34, the "Bonnie and Clyde" era. They show, by Pig's admission, no warrants, no signed compalints, no affidvaits, no statements, claiming she ever shot anyone, let alone murdered them. This, plus sworn evidence under Oath from the former members of the barrow gang, W.D. Jones, Fults, Methvin, et al, are the best evidence we have as to her role. Pig does not understand the function of historial research. it is not to rant, "she hung around with a killer, and I don't care whether they dropped a bomb on her!" It is our place to show by the best possible evidence, which we have, what role she played in that gang. To that end, I removed the statement she never killed anyone, as the editor asked, from the intro, and placed it more properly. He was right, it was more appropriately addressed elsewhere. Pig, if you see errors, correct them, if not, stop attacking those who are trying to write the article, and let those of us actually interested in writing a good article, do so. Your attacks on new users are sad. You intimidate some with your multisylable words, and minisylable edits. I recognize the "I have 12 firearms" rant, but I don't see "I served my country and used weapons." Easy to talk about people being blown apart, till you see them! Do you even realize you are advocating executions without trials? Without any form of due process? Might as well move to the PRC! This article is an accurate portrayal of Bonnie's role in the Barrow gang, well sourced, and well written. If you feel you can improve it, edit away! As Kate says, that is the joy of wikipedia! old windy bear 03:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I was afraid that would be the response. I'll try once again:

Oldwindybear, neither my opinion or what it's claimed I "admitted", nor your opinion, are relevant to leaving uncited claims and opinions in the article. Further, I have no idea how it's claimed that I said court records aren't good evidence. If they are supplied, cited (not just talked about and referred to as vaporous entities), and used within NPOV policy, I will cheer. Loudly. However, what you appear to be talking about yet again is your personal claim to have driven around the country (and yeah, the Library of Congress) looking for records that you didn't find. That is not includable evidence of anything (WP:NOR, for the 500th time). Can't believe this is still being discussed after Katefan's spent hours trying to explain it (and on the Texas Ranger talk page did a good job of it too).

The response is wholly inadequate. I am not to be used as a citation. Don't know why that's so difficult to understand. If the article is to use opinions, they must be the opinions of sources that meet basic Wikipedia criteria. I don't meet them. Far as has been shown here, nobody else on this talk page meets them. Therefore, our opinions are irrelevant. Quotes must be accurate, and, given the documented history of false claims here, must be cited down to the page number or some other way that allows independent verification. Then what opinions are eventually cited correctly may not be in the article out of proportion to NPOV. The article may not be a sermon.

Your word will not cut it. Stop trying to turn me into a source. I can't be one. Except for a mistake I already pointed out, to my knowledge I've not put a thing into the article I can't on request connect to an authoritative, independently verifiable source within 24 hours (as I've demonstrated recently). If I can't back it up within 24 hours, I support its removal. Stating opinion and then naming some author is not going to do it. It hasn't, it doesn't, and it won't. Please stop picking irrelevances to debate. It's just cover, and too obvious to be taken seriously. You want to keep rebutting my opinion? It's a waste of time. My opinion cannot be what the article's based on. And if I fail to provide some piece of evidence to counter your opinion (no matter how many authors' names you invoke in the process), that also is not evidence or a citation for use in the article. I ask that you seriously review Wikipedia policy against this mess of an article, and understand that ultimately I have not requested that anything be put in the article; I am only advocating the removal of errors and other violations of Wikipedia policy. 216.8.15.39 05:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Then correct it, as Kate has told you. I won't spend endless time debating with someone who goes in endless circles. Edit away, with your claims of soft lead bullets, non-existant warrants, et al! I am done debating with you. Your comments show nothing but contempt for other users, and wikipedia itself. If you have sources, heck, correct it. I stand by the article as well researched and written. (perhaps you will explain to me how your 12 weapons make you some sort of execution expert? I got asked to respond, adn did, if you don't like the article, edit it, and source the edits. You already admitted the issues in question are true - that Bonnie was not wanted for murder, nor was there a warrant for her. End of story. old windy bear 05:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion is futile — based on a false premise. I've seen this game being set up for days now. If I edit the article, the sham requirement is going to be launched that I provide a "citation" for the removal of uncited material. CyclePat has been trying that already. It's specious and impossible. You apparently forget that we have been down this road before. You arrived at the article last summer and quickly began shaping it into a POV editorial, without a single citation except your loud opinion. When I reverted and explained very calmly and gently both here and on your IP user talk page (it's there in the edit history if you want to dispute my characterization), you edit warred, completely disregarded Wikipedia policy, and I abandoned any hope of editing the article further while you remain. Nothing has changed. You will not allow your multitude of errors and speech making to be removed by anybody but Katefan or the like. I'll say it again; nobody can provide a citation to disprove an uncited claim of a negative existential. Everything you added to the article must be sourced properly, or 1) you're going to remove it 2) you're going to go away and relinquish permanently your insistence upon including disputed, uncited material, or 3) at least the TotallyDisputed tag will stay. If you think I'm going to edit war the article content with you, you're crazy. Been there before. That was the whole point of discussing it here — to avoid that. I'm not edit warring, and I'm not going to run to committees. However, those tags will be fought long and hard as long as they are true. Don't want to fix the article? Okay. Don't. 216.8.14.26 06:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me - <<baiting removed>> Edit if you chose, don't if you don't. I believe the article a fine example of first rate writing, and sourcing. Perhaps the imaginary Jerry Dorsen, or TruPatriot - two of your nom de plumes - can help us out. Leave the tag on, who cares? Anyone conversant with this site knows you have been banned so many times you have to hide under anyone else's name. (and you are inventive!) So, cya! old windy bear 06:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Um... I don't think I can say anything to that that somebody wouldn't immediately revert. Oh my. 216.8.14.26 06:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC) /

Delivery

I haven't really seen anyone say they would read through the article to check it out and HIGHTLIGHT or SUMMARIZE the key areas that need work!

Disingenuous. There's a word to describe any attempt to pretend that the problems with the article haven't been noted properly. I published a brief intro, responding to the dishonest attempts to rush and deny a serious, legitimate process, and letting everyone know that a complete, very detailed list would appear by the next night. I then kept my word, also including an executive summary at the beginning. In other words, you got what you said you wanted, and Oldwindybear got what he said he wanted. Neither of you could contain yourselves clamoring for your respective requests (you summary, Oldwindybear detail). Well, it's here. Neither of you has cause for complaint.

Yet now you say, "Personnally, it's been how long this template about neutrality and factual accuracy has been up. I haven't really seen anyone say they would read through the article to check it out and HIGHTLIGHT or SUMMARIZE the key areas that need work!"

You can't be serious. You just can't be. This is an explicit, highlighted, highly detailed listing of all of the reasons for which I tagged this article, prefaced by a summary. I've been waiting on you two since the morning of 27 feb when i posted the complete refutation of the article. You're pretending you're waiting on me? Why? It's in your court completely. What have you done? You and Oldwindybear got everything you asked for that could be given. You wanted A/B stuff, and I explained clearly that A/B doesn't apply when what someone's advocating is the complete removal of bilge. You want me to write this article? I already did. Figure it out. You're talking to the guy who made the major expansion of this article that can withstand scrutiny almost entirely. I put this article in shape before the Oldwindybear login made its first edit at Wikipedia. And the whole time you've been talking as though Oldwindybear rescued the article. The truth is exactly the opposite of that misapprehension. Here's what the article looked like before he graced us with his presence. Know what? It was better then. You want an A/B? There ya go. Interesting that just this morning somebody went through and Wikified the dates for the Bonnie paragraph. Well, what do you know? They were there back in June 2005. What happened? Hmmm, I wonder.

There are some important changes (not made by Oldwindybear) over the many months since that June 2005 version, but as far as meeting Wikipedia policy and being a tight article, it was far superior before Oldwindybear touched it. Go read it. And as you do, realize that Oldwindybear, the vaunted historian, didn't contribute a word of it. Not one word. There seems to be some manufactured illusion here that the article exists because of him. Obviously, that's not correct. Look at that article date, then look at the first Bonnie and Clyde edits for Oldwindybear and for his IP address of 68.50.125.89. Put that mouse in motion. Oldwindybear has clearly made far more edits here than anybody, but... I hope that frequency doesn't need to be explained to anybody who's watched it at work — one edit per minute. Contrast to one edit in 3 hours, and you see what edit count truly means to the improvement of Wikipedia. Zip. Why is this being brought up? Because both of you, in your way, have been slagging me left and right and trying to sell Oldwindybear as a historian and savior of this article. Enough. The record doesn't bear out your claims.

Every time you see an indent in that large section which is the primary documentation for the TotallyDisputed and cleanup tags, it's highlighting a section of the article which has a problem. Surrounding those highlighted (via indent) areas are explanations of my problems with those sections. Nothing has been left out. If you don't like my explanations, ignore them. If you don't like the detail, ignore it. It was posted in such a way that all users can get what they want/need from it. And here you sit pretending it doesn't exist. When it's convenient for your purpose of diversion and deceit, you claim that I gave too much detail. Just give it a rest. The only reason it's so large is because of the mind numbing amount of errors and slop it addresses. That's not my fault; I didn't screw up the article.

I have a question. What have you two been doing all this time since I posted the refutation? I heard repeated claims of secret emails ("privileged" communication!), and coordination with Katefan, blah blah blah. What do you have to show for it? No citations. No defense of the obviously busted fabricated quotes and misdirection. Nothing except some sloppy stabs in the article that probably created more problems than they fixed. Oldwindybear says everything's great. He thinks this article, complete with obvious typos, slop, and other clear formatting problems (never mind the TotallyDisputed tag) is "a fine example of first rate writing, and sourcing." Yeah? In what alternate dimension? You guys can't even correct the typos I noted? I swear you're just joking around with all this. There's no way two adults claiming to be serious encyclopedia editors could respond to the detailed denunciation of this article with nothing but piddling, boisterous denial. You want something to focus on? Go through this, one thing at a time. If you don't want to read my analysis of a particular error, simply respond to the many requests for explicit citations. Those problems are listed, and it's just laughably silly for you to say otherwise. It's on this page. Here. On earth. You were presented, on time, with clear documentation re the many errors in the article. <<incivility removed>> Address the allegations, or just say you're too lazy and don't care about this article or Wikipedia policies in the least. 216.8.14.224 12:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to the person who claimed to be Jerry Dorsen, the non-existent attorney

And this is Jerry Dorsen, the non-existent attorney, (you of course), who wrote of me" (this is a direct quote from Pig, writing as that non-existant attorney, Jerry Dorsen!) "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)

That was you, pretending to be Jerry, (maybe that really is your name, but you are no attorney if so)telling me "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." Talk about forgetting things! This article would be a shambles without my leadership and demonstrated acumen! Remember writing that whatever your real name is? I do. Please explain how my demonstrated leadership and acumen departed -- oh, it was when I disagreed with you! Boy, what a short memory you have, whatever your name is! Don't write how great I am, then try to write how terrible I am, it just makes you look sillier than you already do. That was you, telling me "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." Talk about forgetting things! This article would be a shambles without my leadership and demonstrated acumen! Remember writing that? I do.

Back to the facts! You should know at least as well as I do, that the lack of a history of warrants, or even verified complaints from citizens, does negate such claims as the one on the lucerne incident. You simply ignore this, in order to make a personal agenda. Pitiful. YOu know full well if Bonnie Parker had shot someone, there would be SOME record of it somewhere! But there is none, no sworn complaints, no warrants. Period. Treherne went to every jurisdiction Bonnie and Clyde ostensibly raided, and found NONE. You yourself admit it.

The facts are also that every member of the gang who lived testified that Bonnie never participated in the firefights, and even you have sourced that correctly, amazingly, though you wish to disregard their testimony. Again, that testimony, and the warrants adn court records which still exist, are the best evidence of her level of participation - the primary issue in dispute.

Just as you claim soft loads were used in the ambush - what source do you have? While Milner and Treherne do not specify the ammo, they state the weapons, and ammunition were obtained from the Texas National Guard and were military rifles. (you forgot to mention that) I doubt anyone can say for certainty what that ammunition was, but it was likely not soft loads, since, if you had been in the service, you would know that BAR's standard rounds were hard jackets. BUT, there is no way to know for sure, and your assessment of the car aside, it sure looks like hard load shots!

As for other errors, if you are so dissatisfied, edit. But frankly, for me, your credibility is non-existent when you lie and claim to be a non-existent attorney, and at least 5 other aliases that I know of on this page - that is one way of wrapping yourself in impressive sounding credentials - invent them! I called the Texas Bar, they never heard of Jerry Dorsen, you of course, in one of your aliases. I suppose that is one way to achieve a consensus, invent enough aliases so you have a majority! But while you attack me today, you certainly wrote differently then: 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.Talk about forgetting things! This article would be a shambles without your leadership and demonstrated acumen! Remember writing that? I do. Jerry, or whatever your real name is, I am done arguing with you. The editors have all the information, and Kate and Pat will probaby edit this as she did my article on Frank Hamer - I suppose you will claim credit for that also -- which is fine with me, I think you will find that they are going to rewrite, using the sources appropriately. In the interim, have you forgotten your real name, or are you merely compelled to role play? It does detract from taking seriously anything you say.old windy bear 12:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What does the fictional, obviously ludicrous Jerry Dorsen (well, obvious to somebody not trying to suck up to a fictional retired lawyer) have to do with the terrible shape of this article? Nothing — which is why you can't stop talking about it. Diversion. I don't think I've ever seen anybody run away from a task quite so tenaciously. What's next — more Jerry talk? Please, get back to the article, because I know you never mean it when you say you're done here. That's just baloney speak. You aren't leaving this article. I know it. You know it. Katefan knows it. If you left the article for real, and permanently, I'd have it in crankin' shape within 24 hours, including more recent additions — all cited, all verifiable as stated before. But you won't leave. You'd be back, preaching your mission for which you have nothing but your opinion leading the choir. You have hijacked this article, and have not once, since the tagging, made an earnest attempt in good faith to engage mediation, apply yourself to NOR/NPOV... anything. If you can't let Jerry Dorsen go, should I bring up every 2 minutes your despicable history, including the indefinite block for repeatedly threatening Katefan with some ridiculous libel suit which you would have lost at the first motions hearing (even if she'd retained a fictional lawyer)? What's the point? Back to the article. Please fix it or get out of the way and stay out. 216.8.14.224 13:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

responding to whatever alias Pig is using today

User:CyclePatUser: Katefan0 I am addressing the editors, because we have done our jobs, our differences are cited and referenced, and now it is time to let the editors edit. As to the fictional obviously ludicrous Jerry Dorsen, he is relevant because it was one of Pig's aliases, as are at least 5 others. (these show an element of contempt for the whole process i feel is important) Pig cannot explain the obvious discrepancies in his various personnas, (perhaps he was debating yourself when he could not find anyone else to argue!) so he - as usual - ignores the issue, and rants some more. As to the issues on the article, they have been laid out by both of us, now let Kate, Pat, and the other editors resolve it. My block was well deserved, I served it out - which Pig has not, technically he is still indefinately blocked, whereas I am not. It is unfortunately true that I made a stupid comment on libel - but when we begin to speak of despicable comments, any of the cursing, ranting, open threats that Kate deleted from Pig towards me, and Kate: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bonnie_and_Clyde&dir=prev&offset=20060208144010&action=history (Pig's words: stop coddling your overgrown bear bitch baby, katefan. key slapping numbskull.) Or any number of Pig's other threats, curses, and general violations of all wikipedia policy. All done anonymously, of course. that alas, is his style, to threaten and curse without standing up and naming himself. A friend who is a psychologist looked at this page, and his various antics and noted he is either a kid playing games, or a genuinely disturbed person...

• essentially the dispute centers on the level of participation by Bonnie Parker in the "Barrow Gang" crimes, and the ambush and it's aftermath. User:CyclePat I did source the section you referred to, and moved it to Bonnie's section. Treherne searched the country, as did Milner and others, and there are NO warrants in existence, or ever, for Bonnie for murder, which Pig has conceded. NOW,Pig has laid out his case; I have responded, it is now time for the editors to decide and I am certainly willing to abide by it. Is he? The cases are made, let the editors decide.
• therefore, i propose to all, if you indeed have faith in your work, as I do mine, that we both stand down, and let Kate and Pat take it from here, and decide this article's discrepencies.

I am proud of my work on wikipedia, and I actually identify myself. I feel at this point Pig and I should both step aside, and allow Kate, and Pat, both good editors with a proven track record of excellence, resolve this. Pig has made his case - mine is clearly made. I have faith in my work, but if Kate and Pat rule otherwise, I will go back to working on Rome. Working on wikipedia is an honor, not a priviledge, which I don't think Pig understands, nor is it a place for him to grandstand his opinions. No one here gets "their" article - I wrote the Frank Hamer article totally by myself - such as Kate thoroughly edited -- and somewhat rewrote and this is closely related. Pat and Kate were right that this would have best resolved by email summaries, and I did so until Pat asked me to respond to you yesterday. Now let the editors decide.old windy bear 15:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU

My Thanks to Oldwindybear for writting in my defense, although its interesting to see how "Pig" or whatever alias he chooses to use <<personal attack removed>> randazzo56 16:00 4 March 2006

you are welcome, please don't judge wikipedia by Pig

randazzo56 You are more than welcome -- any soldier knows you were telling the truth, that the military did not use, (unless on special missions, which this was not, they gave them standard equipment!) soft point bullets. Because of a plethoria of international agreements, the US army used hard rounds. i can obtain sources. I am sorry for you that a vandal choses to use porn to answer a legitimate question. Please don't think all of wikipedia is like Pig! Kate and Pat, they represent the truth of wikipedia, and I encourage you, without getting angry, to keep making positive contributions. old windy bear 20:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again...

...people are commenting on personalities instead of on article content. Fair warning: The next person who does it -- I don't care who you are (and there's been misbehavior on all sides) -- gets reverted and banned. And for those of you participating on this talk page who've already been banned, there won't be anymore leniency. I went back through the talk page and removed the worst of the attacking and incivility that's happened in the past few days. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, so that was the sting. Now here's the salve. The article does need a lot of work. There are many assertions of fact that are unsourced, including opinions, and writing that is not in encyclopedic style. So this is how things will happen from here: We all will go through the article. I will listen to both sides of the equation where a dispute exists, and then I will change the text in the manner in which it needs to be changed. For my part, I promise that I will be a neutral party in the content disagreements, incorporating all sourced views where a dispute exists. In the end, it's my goal that everyone be satisfied with the article, and we won't have this circus on the talk page anymore. We'll start with the first paragraph. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Bonnie and Clyde (Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow) were infamous robbers and criminals who traveled the central United States during the Great Depression. Their exploits, along with those of other criminals of the time such as John Dillinger and Ma Barker, were notorious across the nation. They captivated the attention of the American press and its readership during what is sometimes referred to as the "public enemy era" between 1931 and 1935, a period which led to the formation of the FBI. Ironically, though they are remembered as bank robbers, they generally were not. Clyde preferred small stores or even gas stations, though he may have participated in as many as ten bank robberies. Their legend is far larger than their life.

Taking out my red pen, I would copyedit it like this:

Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow were infamous robbers and criminals who roamed the central United States during the Great Depression. Their exploits, along with those of other criminals such as John Dillinger and Ma Barker, were notorious nationwide. They captivated the attention of the American press and its readership during what is sometimes referred to as the "public enemy era" between 1931 and 1935, a period which led to the formation of the FBI. Though they are remembered as bank robbers, they generally were not. Clyde preferred small stores or even gas stations, though he may have participated in as many as ten bank robberies. Their legend is far larger than their life.

Is there anything about this paragraph that could use improving? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Katefan, for good reasons, I do not accept you as mediator or arbitrator, and will not participate if you inflict this on the article. Please contribute to finding and encouraging an objective meditator acceptable to both principal disputants. I am not going to play this after I've already expressed, upon direct request from the other disputant, every objection with the article, in relative sequence. My objection already noted the statement, "Their legend is far larger than their life", which is unattributed opinion. If you are going to appoint yourself in charge of this dispute, I will counter. You are not mediating any dispute between Oldwindybear and me. You have announced arbitration; I am not going to cave to it. Please help find a mediator acceptable to both parties. 216.8.15.3 23:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not optional. I am not here as a mediator, I am here as an administrator enforcing policies. Remember, you're a banned editor -- if you don't want to participate in this process, I'll simply blindly revert your edits. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have thusfar not lived up to my trust. Now you may choose to participate in influencing the article's content in this manner, or I will enforce your ban. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you have to use "infamous". Isn't it Wikipedia style not to say someone is famous or infamous, but to explain in the opening paragraph why someone is famous with out using the word. No encyclopedia uses the word "famous" or "infamous". By being in the encyclopedia that is already self evident. Any thoughts? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I'd be willing to just strike it; how they're infamous is made amply clear later on. I also tend to agree with the anon's statement above about the "legend greater than life" statement; it's a nice turn of phrse but probably should be handled later and with someone else's voice. Anyone else? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 01:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

(scribble)Fine with me, good opening paragraph. Accurate and well written, and I do accept you as a fair and impartial mediator - anyone who claims you are partial to me, forgets you slapped me down when I deserved it, and rewrote my frank hamer article in toto. Anyway, past history, but just so new people now, you are fair. I am more than happy with the first paragraph, (though naturally I liked my verson better, lol!) The legand greater than life was mine, but I stole it from Milner and Treherne, both of whom used it. LOL! It is historically appropriate. Where it is placed, i leave to your judgment.old windy bear 00:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I second that. True, If they weren't famous technically they shouldn't be in the encyclopedia based on WP:BIO. So we'll have to think of rewording that. I also propose we continue on in this overview style fashion and place whatever we find in a TO DO list. --CyclePat 03:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Bonnie section

Bonnie Elizabeth Parker was born October 1, 1910, in Rowena, Texas, the second of three children. She married Roy Thornton on September 25, 1926, but the pairing was short-lived. Noted for homesickness throughout her short adult life, she longed to be near her mother, Emma Parker. Her husband soon drifted away in spurts — once for over a year — and in January 1929, she told him they were through. Although he was sentenced to five years in prison shortly thereafter, they never divorced, and Bonnie was wearing Thornton's wedding ring when she died.

I would copyedit it this way:

Parker was born October 1, 1910, in Rowena, Texas, the second of three children. She married on September 25, 1926, but the pairing was short-lived. Noted for homesickness throughout her adult life, she longed to be near her mother. Her husband soon drifted away and in 1929, they were through. Although her husband was sentenced to five years in prison shortly thereafter, they never divorced, and Bonnie was wearing his wedding ring when she died.

Comments? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

comment: Please place names back in. Please source the names as per WP:CITE or place {{fact}}. Usually we should try to give a little more information about them. Secondly I think the drifting apart is weird. Please reword the Katefan rendition to this sentence "The relationship between Bonnie and her husband was short lived. Once, for example, he disseapeared for over a year and in 1929, they were through.(citation required)" (did she visit her husband? did she start becoming a criminal during that time?) Secondly remove the sentence "Noted for homesickness throughout her adult life, she longed to be near her mother." place somewhere else and definatelly source. --CyclePat 03:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Her name is already mentioned in the first paragraph; subsequent references are only by last name. Citations for items like these that aren't disputed can be added later; as far as I know neither of these are being disputed. The homesickness sentence shouldn't go elsewhere, as the implication is that her homesickness contributed to her marriage falling apart; it could probably be clarified though. Anything else? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well... I would still would keep the names if possible however, I was going to say mine would look like...

It would now look like:

Parker was born October 1, 1910, in Rowena, Texas, the second of three children. She married on September 25, 1926, but the pairing was short-lived. Once, for example, he disseapeared for over a year. In 1929 they were seperated.(citation required) Noted for her homesickness throughout her adult life, she longed to be near her mother. Although her husband was sentenced to five years in prison shortly thereafter, they never divorced and Bonnie was wearing his wedding ring when she died.

b.t.w it it's not that obvious that the homesickness is linked to the issue of seperation. Can we please fix it.--CyclePat 04:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Aesthetics can be dealt with through the normal editing process. What we're doing at the moment is surveying and, where they exist resolving, substantive disputes. Try not to get bogged down in extraneous details that can be fixed through the normal editing process. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 05:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

poll Okay Kate, i know you did a good job on the Frank Hamer article, believe you will here - so unless you ask me for my input, I will shut up! old windy bear 05:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0CyclePat Where you place it is up to you, but the issue of her homesickness, and her adoration of her Mom are lifelong themes in every book ever written about her, especially the two regarded as historically best, Treherne's and Milner's. Wherever you wish to put it, something should be said about her devotion or attachment to her Mom and the effect it had in first ending her marriage, and later on, bringing her back, again and again, despite the danger, to see her Mom. Also, obviously, i feel this is the place to mention that despite at least several good historians searching, no warrants for murder were ever placed on Bonnie, and the various testimonies under oath by the gang that she never participated in teh shootouts. Good job, by the way! old windy bear 04:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right Kate. There are probably bigger fish to fry. However I think this may be a type of POV, only because I think we must not assume the obvious. (as per WP:POV#Assuming the obvious.) We've indicated in our discussion that Bonnie had a homesickness. We've indicated that this may be related to her divorce. I strongly believe that we should clearly state it. (I must say though, I don't strongly believe this though. This is only a lose suggestion) I think it is actually good as Kate put it. We can always agree to work on a different formating (or aestetics) latter on. This section doesn't really have any real POV's but information that we want people to infer sometime. Verification and other things. (meuh! my me-andering thoughts can be taken lightly for this... let's move on. Unless anyone else objects.) --CyclePat 01:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I am new to this article. It looks like we're going section by section? I renamed 2 of the sections as Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow. That's all I've done so far. I'll try to get into the flow of the discussion before doing anything else. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

hi to Woohookitty, and back to Bonnie

Katefan0CyclePat The issue was raised about whether Bonnie visited her husband in prison - she did not. Not only did she not visit him, she visited Clyde while he was incarcerated, and claimed to be his wife, while her real husband was in the same prison system during the same time frame! Virtually all the books verify this, Treherne does specifically, Milner too. Hope that helps, and hello Woohookitty, welcome, and good morning Kate and Pat! old windy bear 13:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes! Is she the fifth of seven or eight?

There has been a recent change to the article. One user says she is the fifth of seven another says she's the fifth of eight? (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bonnie_and_Clyde&diff=42480469&oldid=42386277) This information is not sourced and I will delete it. --CyclePat 23:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

She's the 2nd of 3 correct? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Seven or eight what?

Seven or eight Children? Unlike Clydes parents, It would appear Bonnies parents had the sense to use birth control. randazzo56

randazzo56 Yeah, at least there is no question that Bonnie was one of three children, whereas Clyde....who knows? (different sources say differently, and the Census is totally undependable, Sad isn't it! The links to Clyde's family geneology online all give different answers also) So Pat is right, until someone comes up with a definitive source, it has to remain as is.old windy bear 12:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's that uncertain, maybe it's better to just delete it. It's got nothing to do really with the pair of them as outlaws. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:17, 8 March 2006

(UTC)

reverted personal attacks

I discussed this wtih Kate earlier today. Pig is banned. I am going to revert attacks on me, and not answer them. Period. My response was deleted, as was the attack. None of it belongs here, which should be discussing the article. Wikipedia policy says: "Wikipedia follows the writers' rules of engagement: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Stay cool when the editing gets hot; avoid lame edit wars by following the three-revert rule; remember that there are 1,015,193 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith by never disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume the same of others in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. Don't use sockpuppets to do wrong or circumvent policy. Be open, welcoming, and inclusive." See wikipedia policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:5P

• in my case, I have raised the two issues I hope others will discuss; the level of participation by Bonnie Parker in the gang's crimes, and sourced it heavily. Even those critical agree there were NO warrants for her for murder;
• the horrific aftermath of the ambush, as described in the article, and amply discussed by E.R. Milner in his book, pages 145-147, and Ted Hinton's book Ambush.These two issues have been amply presented, it is time for everyone to form a genuine consensus.

old windy bear 03:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Enough, Enough, Enough! Jesus

I move that any useless comments that are not concerning the constructive discusion of this article or the subject themes of this article (Bonnie and clyde) be removed from this talk page. I also move that we continue on with the systematic reading/descending... from top to bottom, Of the article. Furthermore if you have any issues that you find requires fixing please place it in the To Do list. The format is:

Quote the problem section with " " and italicize, Link to the wikirules policy that is infringed. Cite the general reason according to wikipolicy (15 words). Add talk:Bonnie and Clyde/to do/Archive 1 (add one number at the end for new entries... ex.:talk:Bonnie and Clyde/TO DO/2. Sign your name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat (talk • contribs)