Talk:John Dillinger/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about John Dillinger. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Questions

UHM HUM... I Tried to edit the information but was LOCKED out ! So just in case that there are some people who want to know who the lead agent was that J.E. Hoover appointed ... it was Melvin Horace Purvis, Jr. Personally I think if your gonna try and learn things about a story, be it true or not.. you might as well have all the facts .. unlike the person who LOCKED editing on this information. It would be wise to have this information introduced into the John Dillinger Section.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.61.59 (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The article seems to indicate that the events of late March 1934 ocurred in Chicago (the shootout in which Dillinger was injured, and the back-door escape). I believe they occured in Saint Paul, MN @ 93 Lexington Avenue?

Why Feb 23rd?

The Public Enemies List was released by the Chicago Crime Commission, not the FBI. The FBI has a "Most Wanted" list, but it was not created until 1950.

Why were his fingers scarred with acid?

They scarred with acid because he didn't want to be indentified by the FBI. --Comrade Nick 02:56, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

What year was he born? The top says 1903, but the bottom says 1902.

I've added the poem at the bottom which is supposedy where the lady in red story comes from.

Read "The Dillinger Dossiers" By J.Robert Nash for a good angle as to how Dillenger set up "Jimmy Lawrence" to effect his own escape. According to Nash, Dillingers finger print files were missing from the Cook County (Chicago) files for over twenty years, and now the F.B.I. has them? And wha about the open cuts on the face of the body -the result of having been shoved to the ground and fired upon from above-which the F.B.I. describes as "scars, as a result of inept plastic surgery? randazzo56

It is too bad that the original authors did not attempt to distinguish between the members of the "first Dillinger gang" and members of the "second Dillinger gang." As a result, the piece forces one to conclude that the author(s) know very little about Dillinger and his gangs.

The article states he was/is celebrated by some as some kind of hero or modern Robin Hood, but nowhere does it explain why. Did he give the money he robbed away? --Cromas (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't take that too literally. Some of the higher profile outlaws during that period were legendary/fabled/romanticized simply because it was the depression era and most people were in dire financial straits. That there was someone going around robbing banks was a source of amusement and probably inspiration for the public. That continues to some extent even to today. Bonnie & Clyde were also viewed this way and that article contains a fairly good explanation of that charm. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you can take it fairly literally due to the fact that even though Dillinger didn't rob from the rich and give to the poor, he and his gang did burn mortgage notes on occasion, and since there were no computer records at the time, that was as good as turning ownership of homes/farms from the banks over to those living and working on them. ViperNerd (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There's three lines on the men his ex-wife married after they divorced (below). Why is this relevant? I recommend taking it out.

"Beryl Dillinger remarried in July, 1929 to Harold McGowen, with the pair divorcing in July, 1931. In 1932, she again remarried, this time to Charles Byrum and they had one child. Beryl Hovious Byrum died November 30, 1993 at Millers Merry Manor, Mooresville, Indiana and is buried at Mt. Pleasent Cemetery, Hall, Indiana." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.66.162 (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I've taken it out (and fixed the refs to the best of my ability, not having one of the books on hand). Charles (Kznf) (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Was the Man Shot that Night Dillinger? & What colour were Dillingers eyes? This is one of the major outlining factors that shroud his death in mystery.

I've seen sevral documentary's that question the authenticity of Dillingers death (I can't reference any except the book mentioned below). "Questions have been raised as to whether the man killed that night was actually John Dillinger. Respected crime writer Jay Robert Nash contends that the dead man was actually a petty criminal named Jimmy Lawrence. In 1970 Nash along with Ron Offen wrote a book, Dillinger: Dead or Alive which explores in depth this theory. The corpse of the man shot that night bore some discrepancies to Dillinger’s physical description. The corpse had a different eye color than Dillinger’s, appeared to be shorter and heavier, and lacked some of his known scars. The dead man also had a chronic heart condition, while Dillinger was very athletic." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.198.140.210 (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Was it Dilinger?

Are there any sources for that section? I'm adding a factual accuracy dispute tag to it 199.126.137.209 05:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This section needs to be replaced there are many valid questions concerning the events of the night of July 22 1934. As for citations, most of the information can be found in Jay Robert Nash's Dillinger: Dead or Alive, later republished as The Dillinger Dossier. The Autopsy report and DIllinger's Naval and prison records also present many contradictions and could be cited.

Townsend Darcey?

Why are most of the edits changing the name of the mug shot? Why is it Townsend Darcey and not Dillinger?

I'd just take it out. This is an encylopedia, supposed to be FACTS. People can go elsewhere for Conspiracy Theories or whatever the hell you concider stuff like this. (-Kid. 12:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

Wooden and/or potato gun?

According to series D episode 11(Deprivation) of QI, and this page, Dillinger carved a potato into the shape of a gun, blackened it with iodine or bootblack, and used it to escape. According to the article, he painted a wooden gun with bootblack. Which is true, or did he try the same trick twice? In Take the Money and Run, Woody Allen's character carves a gun out of soap and blackens in with bootblack, which according to QI was inspired by Dillinger's escape. boffy_b 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Illuminatus trilogy written in the mid '70s definately say it was carved of soap, I'll check some more credible references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.251.65 (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The Illuminatus trilogy is a work of fiction. It doesn't really much matter what it says. The link above is no longer valid and we generally don't base article changes on answers to TV quiz shows. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In the "Death" section it says:

"Earlier in the day, Sage had called Purvis and told him that Jimmy Lawrence was going to the movies that night and might even go to two seprate shows just to avoid the murderous heat that was smothering Chicago that week. "

Is this factual, or is it attempting to imply the conspiracy theory that Jimmy Lawrence was killed instead of Dillinger?Ormaybemidgets 21:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Family Background

Isn't the biographical section a bit inadequate? What sort of family was John Dillinger from? (I know they were Quakers, but I don't know any more than that.) What were his parents' names, and what did they do for a living? Did he have a middle name? Did he have any sisters and brothers? What was his childhood like? Tom129.93.29.149 04:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know his mother's name, but his father's name was also John Dillinger. He had a sister named Audrey, and a half brother named, I think, Wilbur. His father was a grocer in Dillinger Jr.'s early life, but moved to a farm when he was a teenager. I got this info from the book Public Enemies by Bryan Burrough. Wylde kaarde (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

St. Paul Escape

I read an excellent account of Dillinger's escape from the St. Paul apartment on March 30, 1934 that is different than what is described in the article. The book is "John Dillinger Slept Here" by Paul MacCabee, pages 218-214. The differences I see are:

No mention of address, 93 South Lexington Parkway, St. Paul, Apartment 303.
Article makes it sound like entire gang lived in apartment, when only Dillinger and Frechette lived there.
No mention that is was Homer Van Meter who happened to show up while the FBI was knocking on Dillinger's door. Van Meter escaped after shooting his way out of the building and hijacking a garbage collector's horse! Dillinger escaped in his own car that was in a garage near the apartment building, not a truck as in the article.

Pahcal123 (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Band Dillinger escape plan

This guy inspired the name for the band dillinger escape plan, would someone like to add a section? Preferably with a reference to a quote from the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.98.253 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no trivia section currently in the article and there really is none needed. The only reason a band would be added would be if it were Dillinger's own band. This sort of content isn't supported by WP policy and is extraneous and irrelevant to Dillinger himself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

I added self-contradiction warning: Jimmy Lawrence is given both as the alias Dillinger used in Chicago and as the name of a different person who might have been killed by the FBI in his place. I don't know which one is true. jdevries (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a contradiction, though that can be clarified. Jimmy Lawrence is the name given for a man who dated Dillinger's girlfriend and resembled Dillinger. It may be exact reason why Dillinger used that name when he went to Chicago. I'll add that clarification. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Legends

I don't think that reference 11 is sufficient enough to say that there is a legend that J. Edgar Hoover kept Dillinger's penis in a jar. Rbritt518 (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, source not seem to be very authoritative. Charles Edward (Talk) 03:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Lady in red

"The artificial lighting distorted the true color of the dress leading to the enduring notion of the "Lady in Red" as a betraying character."

I didn't think article authors could just make up things. This is really awful - ignoring thousands of years of Judeo-Christian literature and derivative modern astrological themes. I would like to delete the sentence - any objections? Yankoz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.20.50 (talk • contribs)

Say what? Judeo-Christian literature and derivative modern astrological themes? The sentence may need to be revised to say the street light made the orange dress to appear red, thus misidentifying the color, but it doesn't need to be deleted. It's also bad faith to simply say someone was making things up. We try to avoid doing that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Yankoz means that centuries of religious symbolism and superstitious associations have led the idea of a woman wearing red being a dark and untrustworthy (not to mention predatory and highly sexualized) character. The idea that just a lighting issue led to the development of the idea of Dillinger being betrayed by a woman in red -- not any of that history -- does seem a little simplistic. Maybe the sentence should be revised so that it doesn't imply that Dillinger's life is the origin of the woman-in-red associations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.20.34 (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming Movie, article views

I am currently working on a draft of this article to add new expanded information and give the article a thorough copy edit, and probably attempt to get it past a GA review. I rather expect that the article should get quite a bit of attention due the upcoming movie on Dilligner, and could certainly benifit from a good cleanup. Any one interested is welcome to help out. :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't attempt to do too much until the movie has opened and the hype around it dies down. Since GA criteria also requires stability, that would probably effect a GA review. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a great deal of the history reported here to have taken place in Chicago actually took place in St. Paul MN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.204.66.129 (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

remove vandalism from legacy section

The first line of the Legacy section is very clear vandalism. It should probably be removed. Jps0611 (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this falls into, but it states on here that John Dillinger's mother Mary Ellen "Mollie" Lancaster was born in 1860. I have visited the grave site and noticed that this is inaccurate she was born in 1870. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonysfan (talk • contribs) 23:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Gun drawn, at death

The civilian eyewitnesses to his death said he did not draw a gun. The FBI agents who shot him say he did. That discrepancy should be mentioned under the Questions section, which would also affect the lead and death narrative which states it as fact. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That would be great with supporting citations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What 1963 letter?

The third paragraph of the section Questions under the subhead Legacy discusses the Discovery Channel documentary of 2006. A reference is made to "the 1963 letter" as if this is a well-known historical piece of evidence/? But it is not common knowledge. I came to this page wanting factual information after seeing Public Enemies. This kind of undeveloped reference is not helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed8r (talk • contribs) 04:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a lot of vandalism on this page following the premiere of the recent film. At some point, some of that paragraph was removed. You've been around Wikipedia for while, you should know this. Please assume good faith. This is what happens when anyone can edit. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. It's not a question of "good faith." The purpose of my post was to bring it to someone's attention who could explain further. Sorry if my tone "sounded" off. Ed8r (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and in return. There once was a quite extensive section in the article that addressed questions, which was trimmed to the most overt, best supported and more easily researched. Things get tampered with so quickly, especially when a huge film like Public Enemies comes out. "It takes a village" is sort of apropos to describe maintaining the stability of articles then. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Misattribution to FBI website

This article is in a fairly regrettable state right now; I've tried to improve it somewhat by removing the most questionable and poorly sourced material, but it does seem to attract wild, unsourced claims on a regular basis. I would ask other people watching this article to keep an eye in particular on misattribution of claims to the FBI summary, which unfortunately right now is the main source this article relies upon. I've removed a couple of these, but there are probably more left. The FBI site does have good primary source information, none of which is however directly referenced in the article right now (and which generally should be treated with caution as it's the FBI's official record, not a secondary source providing context and background). Notably, the list of bank roberries in the middle of the article doesn't seem to match anything in the FBI source either, and if it's not sourced, it should be removed, as it's likely to be another attraction point for random insertions.--Eloquence * 06:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote and reworked a large part of the article using the FBI source about a week ago. I am currently still looking through a couple books on Dillinger and hope to expand the article and using them for sourcing. However, before the FBI source was used, the article was nearly devoid of inline citations so it is somewhat improved from its original state. I also removed several unsourced paragraphs. I do agree with you though that more sourcing is needed, and more reliable secondary sources are needed. My though with the FBI source was that somethign is better than nothing. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I should have left a note here, but I had posted with Eloquence this morning about this. [1] I had gone ahead and returned the gravestone vandalism and refined those sources and was going to address the other specifics (besides the legacy and questions section) this evening. It does need better sourcing, but like we've talked, right now, the preponderance of our job is to keep the article stable until the film hullabaloo is over. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching this article for well over a year, and it seemed fairly good - if at places poorly sourced - for a while... and now that the movie's opened, I agree with the sentiment expressed by longtime watcher Wildhartlivie about keeping the article stable. [And thanks! for the effort.] I was disappointed to see the penis section removed - not for prurient reasons, mind you - but because there has always been a snickering penis folklore aspect to the Dillinger story. It was in this article that I learned that the corpse photo was the cause of the scandalous stuff. And even though, as Eloquence wrote, some of the material is an "unreferenced hodgepodge," every American schoolboy takes as gospel the urban legend that JD's penis is in the Smithsonian. It was nice to see it acknowledged, at least for a time... Seduisant (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that those sections need to be considered gone forever, they are just in need of a thorough reworking and proper referencing be found to put it in context. I don't think legends and controversies need to be gone, just fixed. There actually is a lot that was removed that I haven't put back yet, mostly concerning what happened with his body after he died, the multitude of death masks, curiosity seekers and their behavior, and yes, if it can be supported, his penis. ;) I love Johnny Depp, I am quite anxious to see this film, but curses on what it brings in with vandalism! Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Film inaccuracies"

A notation that the film, Public Enemies, has historical inaccuracies has been put in this article 3 or 4 times now. There are several issues with such content. First of all, there has been no sourcing offered with this observation. Secondly, such content more properly belongs in the article about the film, and not in this biography and is well beyond the scope of this article. They are screen depictions, not documentaries. Thirdly, the question that arises from this is what difference does that make? Film depictions are not obligated to be historically accurate, they are fictional films based on stories about such persons as Dillinger that take artistic license for whatever reason to produce the film in the filmmaker's perspective. They aren't documentaries, there are no claims made that such Hollywood productions are obligated to conform to historical accuracy. Take for example Titanic, Troy, and the list goes on. None of them are put forth at any time as being historically accurate, they are made for entertainment. It is beyond irrelevant. Does anyone actually think any of the film portrayals listed in the Film depictions section are accurate historical portrayals? If so, that's a bit troubling. In any case, without proper sourcing, original research gleaned from watching the film and drawing conclusions cannot be used. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, source has been provided, so that takes care of that issue. And the first film on the list of movies in this article mentions an inaccuracy, so I fail to see how MAJOR historical inaccuracy in the most recent film dealing with the subject of this article is not relevant when that statement has been left unchallenged. Not to mention the most recent film is based on a NON-FICTION book. I think people might expect a higher standard of accuracy when that is the case. ViperNerd (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's unsourced, it needed to come out and it has. That other stuff exists is a fairly poor argument to put forth to justify the insertion of anything else. This is content for the film article, not for the article about the film subject. Again, the film is not a documentary and you said it best: "the most recent film is based on". Do you seriously go to major Hollywood films expecting it to be a history lesson? Artistic license it taken when a filmmaker makes a film. Unless it is released under the claim of an accurate historical depiction, it's much too naive to expect it to be a history lesson. The main article for the film doesn't even address historical inaccuracies and it is beyond the scope of this article to start that exploration. People might expect a higher standard of accuracy, but what does that have to do with the biography article of Dillinger the real man and not Dillinger as Michael Mann decided to portray him? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, those are all fine opinions, and you're indeed welcome to them, but the fact is that many people who view the most recent film about a historical figure might just turn to Wikipedia to learn something about the subject afterwards if their curiosity is aroused, especially if that film is not merely a dramatic retelling, but based on a non-fiction account of history. I think it's more than relevant to inform those people that much of what they might have taken away from the theater as factual isn't always so. That is the role of an encyclopedia, to better inform people about the factual truth of things. As you've neatly pointed out, that the article about the movie doesn't address these issues is quite irrelevant to this article. I don't think anyone who views a movie like Public Enemies necessarily expects a "documentary" as your carefully crafted strawman asserts, but it's not unreasonable that they might expect little details such as when key figures in the movie lived (and died) to be more or less accurate, and Wikipedia can help point out when this is not the case. ViperNerd (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As one of those who came here to help sort fact from fiction after seeing the movie, I have to agree with ViperNerd. I knew I hadn't watched a documentary, but since it was based on nonfiction, I expected a certain level of accuracy. Ed8r (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The name of the sheriff in Lima when Pierpont, Makley and Clark broke Dillinger out of jail was Jess Sarber. He was killed in the escape attempt.

Pierpont and Makley were sentenced to die in the electric chair. Clark received life inprisonment. Harry Pierpont was the only Dillinger gang member to die in the electric chair. Makley was killed in an escape attempt with Pierpont. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.31.26.226 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wildhartlivie. Wikipedia is not a truth squad. Adding text that points out inaccuracies of film depictions runs into the solid wall of WP:SYN, unless sources specifically note the inaccuracies, and then only can be included in proper weight, which I would insist is zero. Movies never are historically accurate. If you think Public Enemies is bad, take a look at the Lawrence Tierney version. Tierney was a better Dillinger, at least in my opinion, but that movie has absolutely no historical fidelity. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Misconceptions"

I say this without looking at the editing or sourcing of removed text. In general, information about films and their accuracy belongs the article about the film. However, it may be useful to put a section here that details a few damning errors (from any film depiction) that are popular misconceptions, and any inaccuracies that are common to multiple films. This isn't unheard of, and there are good and bad examples of this treatment on other biographies. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I concur, we don't need any information on the film in this article, other than that there was a film. Specifics about the film need to be placed in the film article. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think that is the general practice. I can't think of a single movie made about a historical figure that hasn't been rife with inaccuracies. So unless we want "inaccurate film" references in articles about Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan, we need to be consistent and keep it out of this article. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If that's indeed the case, then why bother mentioning film depictions at all in the biographies on Wikipedia? If all such films are no better than fiction, then they aren't factually notable in a biographical sense, and have no place in an encyclopedic article. I seriously doubt Britannica mentions film depictions in its biographical articles. And if depiction in Hollywood dramatic films are notable enough to be listed in a Wikipedia biography, then that should open the door to lists of books that depict the subject (which would quickly become cumbersome). What's the difference? I say delete the entire section if its content is indeed as trivial as represented by some editors in this discussion. ViperNerd (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, someone, clear these dates up

The article says that after Dillinger's divorce, he robbed a grocery store and served 8 and a half years in prison. It says he was divorced in June 1929 and released from prison in may 1933...which is less than 4 years, not even close to 8 and a half. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.170.68 (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That occurred because someone moved that entire paragraph down to the section from the one above it and added the words "After the divorce". I've corrected that error. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Article style

The first paragraph of the article contains a subjective view-point:

He was a dangerous criminal, who was responsible for the murder of several police officers, robbed at least two dozen banks and four police stations, and escaped from jail twice, but some people idolized him as a modern-day Robin Hood.
I believe it is not true that John Dillinger was "reponsible for the murder(s) of several police officers. I believe John Dillinger is credited with the murder of one police officer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.102.249 (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

x

Dillinger was never convicted of killing anyone, and only accused of one murder on circumstantial evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pissedfluffy (talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

X

I would have to agree, I know of only one death of a police officer, based on FBI Fingerprint Data and he was not convicted of that crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadaway (talk • contribs) 05:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

if a person is murdered by someone in your group during the commission of a crime, you are as guilty PER THE LAW as the person who actually pulled the trigger. Are you saying no one was murdered during any of the robberies he participated in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.241.28 (talk • contribs)

Rumors of Survival

There is significant evidence that the person the FBI killed was not in fact John Dillinger. Perhaps some reference should be made to the books on this subject by Jay Robert Nash. A short summary of the evidence and theory can be found at: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090803/COMMENTARY/908039997 <--Palo Alto Lawyer-->

While I'm not convinced of any of this, the rumors of Dillinger surviving are a significant part of his legend, and influenced pop culture (I recall particularly an episode of Simon & Simon called "The Dillinger Print"); I was very surprised to find no mention of the theories in the article. Surely they deserve a line or two? - ShinyAeon

Vollrath Tavern

The Vollrath Tavern was a speakeasy and brothel in the 20's to which after the repeal of prohibition become a tavern still known for being a brothel and gambling house in the large multi room basement. It was a well know hang out for John Dillinger in Indianapolis. There are quite a few links on the Vollrath Tavern page to local news articles with respect to John Dillinger and he having frequented the Vollrath Tavern so I believe that the Vollrath Tavern's page should be added as a linked page. Can someone with edit / admin powers do so please? Thank you. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaGaffo (talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Right now, because there's a copyright question about that page. Please bring the question back when that page is settled. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

German or Jewish

Dillinger is clearly a German surname. But was he of German or German-Jewish heritage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.204.26 (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

name comes from Dillingen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, as I said, it is clearly a German surname. Kissinger also comes from Bad Kissingen, but Henry Kissinger is German-Jewish. That's why I asked. Is he of German or German-Jewish heritage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.204.26 (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Dayton & Ohio Connections

None of my changes will stick, so perhaps someone will check. There is an inconsistency in the Bluffton Ohio robberies mentioned. I believe Sept 22, 1933 is when Dillinger was apprehended by Dayton police. His first bank robbery was one month out of prison on June 10, 1933 in New Carlisle Ohio. He had a girlfriend, Mary Longnacker, in Dayton who was coerced to help trap him. Also, name on tombstone is "John H. Dillinger Jr." He is not a junior, his father is "John W. Dillinger". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.68.113.71 (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have sources for the dates? That is why the changes are being reverted. The tombstone is the one at his burial site, regardless of the name on it. The burial site was confirmed by Crown Hill Cemetery when I visited there and took the photo of the stone. Perhaps there was an error made at some point when the stone had to replaced because of vandalism (specifically the compulsion to chip away pieces of it by visitors). Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The robbery in New Carlisle, OH is a fact. I was born in Springfield and lived in New Carlisle for 16 years. There is a plaque on what is now a candle shop on the corner of Main (Route 235) and Jefferson (Route 571). It is indeed one of Dillinger's first, if not the first, robberies. Someone please get these facts checked and submitted on the mainpage. Headknocker81 (talk) 05:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be why I'm asking for a reliable source. Unfortunately, we can't put a reference on the article page that says "Headknocker81 has seen the plaque" and content needs a reliable source to be put in. Perhaps you could provide the source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No gun drawn.

By most accounts Dillinger did not pull out his gun the night of the shooting at the Biograph. Even the FBI only claim that he reached for it but was not quick enough to draw it before he was shot. I have tried to edit this, but it keeps going back to the bit about him pulling his gun. People with a pro-law enforcement bias seem intent on obstructing the facts in this article. There is no mention of the failure of the police to identify themselves before they fired. Also,saying that one of the bullets went through Dillinger's face, killing him makes it sound as if he were facing them when he was shot. The bullet entered through his neck, severed his spine, and exited through his right cheek. He was shot from behind. I have tried to change this as well, but it keeps getting changed back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pissedfluffy (talk • contribs) 03:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what keeps getting changed back is the change in the level of involvement you keep putting in the lead. You remove any mention of any deaths related to Dillinger and his gang, enter extremely qualifying language which minimizes any appearance of threat from them, and quite frankly, makes it sound very apologetic in regard to Dillinger's activities. Dillinger was implicated in the deaths of others directly and in combination with others in his gang and omitting those facts from the lead is misleading. You apparently did not look to see if the lead was corrected in regard to Dillinger's death, but it no longer reads the way you quote above. There is no reason why the wording cannot be changed to indicate he reached for his gun, but it is not acceptable for you remove the language that indicates Dillinger was, indeed, implicated by direct action or by being involved in incidents that resulted in the deaths of other individuals. You included language such as "set up" which is a colloquialism that should not be used. Finally, the lead cannot include content that isn't covered in the main body of the article. If you have reliable sourcing that supports that there was a requirement that the police identify themselves and did not do so, then it first must be added, and sourced, in the main article and not simply introduced in the lead and left at that. Meanwhile, please do not make bad faith suggestions that anyone is involved in obstructing facts or that reversions made based on Wikipedia guidelines and policy has anything to do with a "pro-law enforcement bias". That is not acceptable, it is presumptuous and unfounded. You garner nothing by being accusatory. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would it matter if there was a requirement that the police identify themselves? The fact is they did not. I have no desire to ignore that he was "implicated" in any murders, but I think saying "He was a dangerous criminal responsible for the deaths of police officers" exagerates the point and makes it sound as if he had gone around shooting down men in cold blood. --Pissedfluffy (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Pissedfluffy

It matters because if you insert that they did not identify themselves, you are implying that they were required to do so, therefore failing to follow requirements. It's a bit like saying they didn't read him his rights before Miranda warnings were required by law. Meanwhile, the lead does not say he was responsible, it says "He was considered to be a dangerous criminal who was involved in the deaths of several police officers." There's a qualitative difference between saying he was directly responsible for them and that he was involved in some capacity in those deaths. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the "considered to be" Before that it read, "was a dangerous criminal." Saying he was "involved" can mean different things to different people. It would be right to say he was involved in the death of Saber since that death resulted when his gang broke him out of jail, but he himslelf did not kill Saber,and was angered by the crime since he had got on well with the man.^[1] To just say he was involved leaves too much room for conjecture on the part of the reader without stating the extent to which he was involved. Perhaps qualifying it by saying "involved to some extent" would be better. As for the police not identifying themselves before shooting,while there was no law I could find that stated they had to do so,they would have had to have made this clear to him in order to tell him that he was being arrested, and what he was being charged with. That they did not begs the question that there was any intent to take him alive. It was standard procedure, and it was even noted at the time that to walk up and shoot someone without informing them that they are under arrest is an execution. --Pissedfluffy (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Pissed Fluffy

And again, the wording regarding "considered to be" has been changed, so much like the complaint you made about the wounds, that point is moot. Why are you still complaining about it? The entire article is involved in describing how he was involved in various incidents, some of which resulted in the deaths of people and details for what he was charged. He was charged in two deaths and was wanted for those charges, amongst others. The lead is not supposed to repeat the article. The wording is completely valid in describing Dillinger as being involved in deaths. I'm not going to debate the rights or wrongs of the police/FBI actions. Dillinger was a wanted man, he was considered dangerous, he was hiding from the police, it was a different era, the era that covered public enemies and like it or not, at that time, it was not likely that police/FBI was going to stop and have a little talk with a wanted person of the notoriety and public perception of John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Bonnie & Clyde, etc. It is totally beyond the scope of this article to explore the intent of the police. This borders on original research and is thus inappropriate. He was wanted for murder, you simply cannot ameliorate the lead to avoid that basic fact. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the intent and methods of the police at the time are beyond the scope of the article in that they make up an integral part of the subject's history. While one does not want to go off on a tangent, behavior that might be at odds with current behavior,but was the norm at the time, might need to be noted so that modern conceptions do not distort the perception of the facts presented in the article. I would also consider the notoriety and public perception of Dillinger you mention was in part shaped by the FBI (or rather what would soon come to be known as the FBI). Hoover, who kept one of the Dillinger death masks on display until his death,used his considerable influence to make sure Dillinger was depicted as much more dangerous than he was. For decades Dillinger was depicted in the media as a murderous psychopath,and was even presented as an axe murderer in one film. For many years Dillinger was what the FBI wanted him to be, so their actions and motives carry more weight when recounting the history of the man.--Pissedfluffy (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Pissedfluffy

Dillinger murderer?

Considering that he was never convicted of murder, and that his family still wins lawsuits against people who say he was a murderer, we should stick to the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pissedfluffy (talk • contribs) 15:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We tell what WP:RS provide that can be WP:V not WP:TRUTH sorry. Please read the sourcing and if you don't want the bot chasing you around like it is, sign your posts which is a click away on the tool bar when you open an editing box. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, he wasn't convicted, he was charged. You are going to have to cough up proof that his family still wins lawsuits against people who say he was a murderer. The facts are that he was charged directly with the murder of William O'Malley and charged with the murder of a police officer in East Chicago. He was directly involved in incidents where others were killed as well. The lead says clearly that he "was involved in the deaths of several police officers". This is completely accurate. Your change to once again absolve him of any blame involving deaths - saying he was involved "through his association with murderers" not only excuses him from culpability, but directly denies any involvement that resulted in the death of anyone. It is misleading and incorrect. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to a story that involves one such lawsuit. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/arts/artsspecial/19dillinger.html?pagewanted=2 His family is very protective about his reputation,and is active in establishing The Dillinger Foundation to help troubled youth. --Pissedfluffy (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)pissedfluffy

For clarity's sake, the New York Times article is quite clear that a settlement was reached and the suit did not go to trial, so it's deceptive to claim that the family is "still winning lawsuits". I'd also note that mentioning lawsuits with the veiled implication that the family might sue Wikipedia falls under the realm of the no legal threats policy. Meanwhile, what is covered in this article is sourced to properly vetted sources and that absolutely follows rules governing publication. Just out of curiosity, are you connected to the Dillinger family in any way? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few more links detailing the matter. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-120488610.html http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/jan/30/local/chi-dillinger_sw_zone_30jan30 I am not connected to the Dillinger family, so I am in no position to make threats on their behalf. While the article is sourced, the way it was formerly worded, stating not that Dillinger was "involved in," but rather was "a dangerous criminal responsible for" the deaths of several police officers could have caused a stir, besides being much too subjective for the scope of this article. --Pissedfluffy (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Pissedfluffy

I read several articles about it after you posted. I mentioned the legal threats policy because someone could most certainly come in and mistake what you said as a direct threat to file a lawsuit and you would be blocked with basically no questions asked. I've seen it done, which is why I felt it needed to be mentioned. In some of those cases, the legal threats were only of the "you will be sued if you don't stop" variety. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

if a person is murdered by someone in your group during the commission of a crime, you are as guilty PER THE LAW as the person who actually pulled the trigger. Are you saying no one was murdered during any of the robberies he participated in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.241.28 (talk • contribs)

Regardless, Dillinger was not convicted of murdering anyone, he was only charged at the time of his death. You lose credibility as a neutral editor when your first edit summary is "Removing idolitorious and fawning of a true scum bag." He was a bully? How inconsequential that is in a listing of what he did. Meanwhile, you citation to the New York Times does not support the change you made to the lead about his death. It mentions nothing about dying face down without speaking a word, so therefore that edit is incorrect and unsupported. The lead of the article is a summary of the rest and there are valid citations to the description of his death as "He pulled a weapon and attempted to flee, but was shot three times, with a bullet which entered through the back of his neck and exited from his face, killing him." The content you copy and pasted from the Ana Cumpănaş is more detail than is necessary for this article, if people want to learn more about her, they can click the link to her article. Plus, you didn't move the actual sources from that article, so no one knows in this article where those sources come from. "Berlioz-Curlet, p.158. See also Goodman, p.169" mean nothing in the absence of to what that refers. At present, if you revert the lead again, you'll be in violation of 3RR, so I would recommend you take a step back, find some neutrality regarding issues that have been discussed here numerous times and stop edit warring to use the word bully. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

!!!What do you mean "regardless"????

You agree that he is a murderer PER THE LAW but you choose to ignore it???

The guy was a whore-mongering adulterous diseased fecal-greaseball. Don't whitewash him or apologize for his choices.

By your logic, Jack the Ripper wasn't a murderer because no one was ever convicted for his crimes?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.220.24 (talk • contribs)

Not going to argue with you, dude. Your post speaks for itself. You miss the point. Wikipedia cannot post that the man was a murderer because he wasn't convicted and saying that specifically puts Wikipedia at risk for liable lawsuits, which the family has actually done to other things and won. It can't be done without the project, and by extension you possibly being sued. Your IP can be traced to you, family interested in suing can find you if they want to sue. Meanwhile, do not call other editors "lying". The "name, page number" sources you added have no corresponding reference material so no one knows what you're referring to. Besides that, the rest of the Ana Cumpănaş content isn't relevant to the story about Dillinger, and she has her own article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"The guy was a whore-mongering adulterous diseased fecal-greaseball." ???? While I find such comments unproductive and ill founded, I am curious as to how an outlaw, dead for three quarters of a century can elicit such a response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pissedfluffy (talk • contribs)

Grrr? Aaargh

I've heard he preferred it pronounced "grr", rather than "jer". Can anybody substantiate it? An add of the preferred pronounciation might be apt, if the com one is wrong. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 00:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Dary Matera and several other authors, the family pronounced it with the hard g so it sounded more like "Dil-ling-ger" However,I don't believe John Dillinger pronounced it that way. I cannot recall the source, but I can recall reading that he liked the now more famous pronunciation because he thought it brought to mind the derringer pistol. If true, he may have been right as I have heard several people refer to him as John Derringer. Unlike other outlaws of the era, such as Machine Gun Kelly or Baby Face Nelson, he needed no special nick name. "Dillinger" was good enough. --Pissedfluffy (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

#1 with a bullet

"and bullet proof vests" I removed this, pending a cite. How common were vests then? Not very, I'll bet. Also, I'd change it to "bullet-resistant vests", since "bulletproof" is factually wrong in any event, especially in the '30s. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 19:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Not uncommon for law enforcement. See the FBI report, here and various books on the subject. They were called bulletproof vests in all the sources. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Joseph P. Moran

That article says Moran was possibly the last to see the mortally wounded Dillinger, which doesn't seem to fit with the account of Dillinger's death in this article. I suspect the other article should refer to John Hamilton (gangster). Can someone confirm/deny? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is incorrect as far as it pertains to Dillinger himself. He may have treated Hamilton, but I don't know that he was the last to see or treat him either, since Moran refused to treat him, who knows. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Father Was Raised by an Amish Family

Is it true that Dillinger's father was raised by an Amish family in Ohio until he was 18 years old? 174.88.19.4 (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC) yes it is

Film depictions

Since a couple of folk have raised the issue here, I'll provide my own view. These profit-seeking contrived entertainments have only a remote bearing on this article about 1933-34 events. The movies are subjects on their own and have their own articles, in which their relevance, fictions, misrepresentations, etc, can be spelt out. I'd rather not have such a section at all. Since that's too much to hope for (in our broad WP community context), I say we should limit entries to the bare bones, e.g.,

Dillinger (1945) starring Lawrence Tierney

Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistencies 2

There are a couple of issues with this article: 1. "He had, in fact, drifted into Chicago and went under the alias of Jimmy Lawrence, a petty criminal from Wisconsin who bore a close resemblance to the bank robber. Taking up a job as a clerk, Dillinger also found a new girlfriend named Mary Evelyn "Billie" Frechette, who was aware of his true identity and even served two years in prison for harboring a criminal." While Dillinger certainly used the alias "Jimmy Lawrence", there is no substantiated proof that there existed a petty criminal from Wisconsin under that name who resembled Dillinger. 2. Dillinger didn't take up a job as a clerk - he supposedly told people that he was a clerk for the Chicago Board of Trade. 3. Polly Hamilton was Dilliger's new girlfriend at that time. Billie Frechette was at the time (July 1934) in prison. 4. Dillinger was in fact shot FOUR times, not three (read the autopsy report): two grazing shots to the left side of the face, one superficial wound to the left chest, and the fatal shot through the neck, exiting under the right eye. Dukeford (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Jay Robert Nash's books on Dillinger are full of inaccuracies, faulty conclusions, and outright fabrications (in other words, Nash's Dillinger books are garbage, although they're entertaining). The gun Dillinger was carrying when killed is a prime example. At the time (1934), the FBI noted that the Colt .380 had NO SERIAL NUMBER, as it had been ground off. Contemporary photos of the pistol reflected that very fact - the SN had indeed been ground off. The pistol Nash saw in the FBI display did in fact have a later serial number; however, it has been recently shown that the original Dillinger pistol was misplaced for many years, and a different pistol substituted for it in the display. Dukeford (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, we go by reliable sources that are verifiable. If you have references for all that you say bring them here to this talk page to be discussed. You can't put in origianal research like what you are saying above. Sources are needed to make the changes you talk about. Nash's book is considered a reliable source. If you want to counter what he says in his book find a source to say so. Sorry but that's how it works here. HTH, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But here is one genuine inconsistency:

(In the intro) He pulled a weapon and attempted to flee but was shot three times and killed. (not cited)
(Under Biograph Theater) reached into his pocket but failed to extract his gun (cited)

At the very least we should make it clear there are wildly conflicting accounts and points of view in the literature. Can someone access the aforesaid autopsy report on the number of bullets? That's more like the sort of fact-based citation we want. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand "how it works here", sweetheart. It's not original research - when I have some time, I'll provide published, verifiable references. And who considers Nash's books on Dillinger a "reliable source"? Just because someone has had a book published doesn't mean the info contained therein is reliable - or even factual. There have been numerous Dillinger books published since Nash's that completely refute his fictional concepts. Dukeford (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

inconsistancies 3

As John Dillinger served in the US Navy his induction medical details are still on file. One researcher claimed that the navy medical file lists Dillinger has having "blue eyes", the body later shown had brown eyes.

Alternatively the recent History Channel computer reconstruction expert had no doubt that the body on show was Dillinger.

Will the complete truth ever be known?AT Kunene (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Murderer?

The very first line of the article is presently: "... an American bank robber and murderer of German descent in Depression-era United States. He was charged with, but never convicted of, the murder of an East Chicago, Indiana police officer during a shoot-out. This was his only alleged homicide" (emphasis mine). Later in the article, referring to this incident, we have: "Dillinger was officially charged with the murder although the identity of the actual killer was debatable, and it is in question whether Dillinger participated in the robbery at all." I don't see any other references in the article to Dillinger killing anyone.

I have done zero research into Dillinger's biography, but taking what's stated in this article at face value, it seems inappropriate to have "and murderer" in his first-line description. It would seem to me at most this would warrant describing him as an "alleged murderer", although honestly, the fact that he committed so many armed robberies without himself ever fatally pulling a trigger is so remarkable that I think striking it entirely would be more appropriate, which is what I've done. Hythlodayalmond (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

From Here To Eternity

In chapter 36 on page 527 of James Jones' novel "From Here To Eternity" it's mentioned that John Dillinger spent time in the post stockade at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii. Is this true or just something in the novel? 108.237.241.88 (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Nash theory

Shouldn't be there if it's not going to present the "evidence" - which makes it look like it might actually be plausible. There's nothing to it, no actual evidence, and doesn't belong in an article in what its editors like to think of as a legitimate encyclopedia. 174.91.7.172 (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

He didn't pull a gun when the FBI showed up. The gun they claim was found on him hadn't been manufactured until after the date on which he was killed. It's speculated that it wasn't him that died, but possibly an acquaintance that favored him greatly. His father, upon viewing the body, exclaimed "THIS IS NOT MY SON!" It's not for certain, but neither is his murder at the hands of the FBI.

This article has an obvious bias, which needs addressing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.1.54 (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The real bias I see here is the one that supports the notion that Dillinger was not killed, I'd say. The article doesn't say he pulled his gun at the Biograph Theater, it is sourced in the article that he apparently reached for a weapon, which is not identified in the article anywhere, so there's nothing here to state what kind of gun you are disputing. Don't believe urban legends. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

While it may be an urban legend that Dillinger did not die that night,it is a fact that the gun the FBI claimed Dillinger attempted to use that night was a fraud. http://www.crimemuseum.org/library/bankHeistsRobberies/johnDillinger.html http://www.crimemuseum.org/blog/?tag=john-dillinger 71.81.32.165 (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And just where in this article is there any claim about a specific gun being made? Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"It's also odd, to say the least, that the feds made no real attempt to apprehend Dillinger before shooting him down--the story is he reached for a gun, but the weapon supposedly taken from the body wasn't manufactured till after his death." http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2462/did-john-dillinger-really-die-outside-the-biograph-theater http://oklahombres.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2876036794/m/51710428241 "Among other things, Nash checked with the Colt factory and learned that the .380 automatic displayed in Hoover's office as the gun Dillinger was carrying had not left the factory until five months after the outlaw was reported to be dead. That discovery raised the suspicion that the man shot outside the Biograph had been unarmed, despite the FBI report to the contrary." http://www.jcs-group.com/oldwest/peoples/dillinger3.html Pissedfluffy (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And again, where in this article does it say otherwise? Unless it has something to do with what is in this article, none of this is helping the article, which is what this page is for. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Samuel P. Cowley contacted (...) in the death day of Dillinger .. but he was killed before, according his bio. //?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.61.177.172 (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"Both he and the other agents reported that Dillinger turned his head and looked directly at the agent as he walked by, glanced across the street, then moved ahead of his female companions, reached into his pocket but failed to extract his gun,[4]:353 and ran into a nearby alley.[25] Other accounts state Dillinger ignored a command to surrender, whipped out his gun, then headed for the alley. Agents already had the alley closed off, but Dillinger was determined to shoot it out.[28]"

I believe this is the root of the issue. While no SPECIFIC gun is mentioned, the article makes clear that Dillinger WAS armed. Why display a proven-fraudulent gun if a real one were available? I think the above-mentioned cites call into question whether Dillinger was, in fact, actually armed at the time of his death. Therefore, they have a bearing on the content in this article. If the cites are in question, then they are to be disregarded, but this DOES have "something to do with what is in this article." Jororo05 (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Trivia

Should we open a trivia section referencing mathcore band The Dillinger Escape Plan? They obviously borrowed their name from John Dillinger, and I consider them famous enough to be included here - their latest album, 2013's One of Us Is the Killer hit #25 on the Billboard 200. Moreso, Jello Biafra and the Guantanamo School of Medicine released a song titled "John Dillinger" on their 2013 album White People and the Damage Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.134.45.184 (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Article issues

This article is very, very long. It goes into unnecessary detail when describing every single event following Dillinger's escape.

The length, density, anachronistic wording, and run-on sentences strongly imply that many sections are copied directly from the FBI Dillinger File 62-29777. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LightStruk (talk • contribs) 21:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sections of the Dillinger file were quoted, not copied. I disagree that the article is too long. Most Dillinger buffs/researchers will welcome the detail. For the neophyte, or if someone is bored, I'm quite confident he or she will be familiar with the scroll button. bluesfog Bluesfog (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It's way too long. For example, there are paragraphs upon paragraphs about his plastic surgery. Wikipedia is for a general audience, not just "Dillinger buffs/researchers." --Holdek (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

As someone who's not interested in editing the article, and only coming here to have a read after watching the Johnny Depp movie to see how accurate it is, I have to say this article is ridiculously long. I know less about Dillinger than I do about any bio on wilikpedia I've ever read because it's too long to read unless you're really interested in going into deep depth. Maybe those who wrote the article and are really interested in Dillinger will think this is very lazy of me, but I wanted an encylopedic article on Dillinger's life, not a book (there's more info in this article than a book would have included in some parts).

Respectfully, the scroll button is not a solution because you scroll past useful information which you'd have read if it had been summarised. I looked at the Plastic surgery section and am still none the wiser as to whether he got it or not. I'm not reading what seems like a minute by minute account (pasted it into a word counter: 3517 words 19721 characters) to find out what could be said in a sentence or two. I'm not saying get rid of the info. Just summarise and link to subpages that go into more detail for those that are interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.248.158 (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've split off the weapons and the Cars section to subpages with links to them in "See Also" section. A lot more work of this kind would seem to be needed Aldaden (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Aldaden has made a very good start on reducing this grotesquely long article to a readable length, and further possibilities are discussed at the peer review. I would be in favour of reverting to the manageable April 2014 version and starting afresh from there, if anyone is valiant enough to undertake the task. Tim riley talk 22:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yikes, bluesfrog says this detail is welcomed by Dillinger fans ... buy his biography if you want to know what his plastic surgeon ate for dinner the 4 nights prior to the plastic surgery! This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. Imagine you didn't know who Dillinger was, picked up the volume "D" at your local library and wanted to know what plastic surgery he had performed upon him. It would be impossible to determine because there are 15 paragraphs of crap in that section. Crazy. --Hutcher (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Article perspective

The narrative reads like it was copied from J Edgar Hoover's archives reflecting the perspective of a federal agency surveillance of criminal behavior. This is prejudicial as the agency primarily sought to build a case for prosecutors in court. Jonodavidson (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Little Bohemia

There's no coverage here at all of the famous shootout at Little Bohemia? Maybe there was some, and it got deleted, either by accident, or as vandalism? Actually, given that both Dillinger and Baby Face Nelson were there, to avoid duplicating content, that should have an article of its own which both articles could link to, with only basic details left in each article. Noel (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Too long

As mentioned in the Talk archive page, this article is far too long, with WAY too much trivial detail. Dukeford (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. The level of trivial detail recorded in certain sections of this article is way beyond what is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Article on this very notable (or notorious) figure really should be in better shape. 81.152.224.68 (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. I enjoy the length here. And length shouldn't be confused with too much trivial detail. In other settings, Wikipedia editors (undoubtedly not the same group who have criticized this entry for being too long, or for relying "too much on primary sources") complain about, and downrate, entries for being too short and NOT relying on primary sources. Are we really saying the best entries are really short and rely on secondary and further removed sources? I hope not. DBK (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I also agree; too much detail. (Who needs the license plate numbers in an encyclopaedia article, for goodness' sake!) Noel (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Tucson?

For all its detail; why doesn't it mention the Tucson capture of Dillinger at the Congress Hotel? Dillinger got away while being transported back to Chicago, but We got him!

The dates in this article are all wrong. Dillinger was captured Jan 22, 1934, in Tucson. This article has him robbing an Indiana bank and being in an Indiana jail at that time! Sure, maybe, after he escaped Tucson, but not during:

"Dillinger was finally caught by Matthew "Matt" Leach, the Indiana police state chief, and imprisoned within the Crown Point jail sometime after committing a robbery at a bank located in East Chicago on January 15, 1934. The local police boasted to area newspapers that the jail was escape-proof and posted extra guards to make sure..[13]"

This chapter goes on to describes his famous soap-gun escape on March 3--so, he was in Indiana from Jan. 15 to March 3 of 1934?

http://hotelcongress.com/history/john-dillinger/

65.129.175.110 (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on John Dillinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Dillinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101211957/http://germerica.net/tolzmann-dillinger-germerica to http://www.germerica.net/tolzmann-dillinger-germerica
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thedeathofjackhamilton.com/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Dillinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320062028/http://www.justonebadcentury.com/chicago_cubs_celebrity_fans_15.asp to http://www.justonebadcentury.com/chicago_cubs_celebrity_fans_15.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Is the infobox photograph of John Dillinger actually a mug shot?

I'm not 100% certain that the infobox photograph of John Dillinger is a mug shot. He is wearing a white shirt with a suit and tie. I have NEVER seen a mug shot of this nature. The term "mug shot" as used in the caption is unsourced speculation. When a potential criminal is arrested by the police, he or she is usually photographed in less formal attire. Anthony22 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Exhumation and DNA testing of corpse

Sources say the exhumation will be in September 2019. https://www.wbaa.org/post/john-dillingers-grave-be-exhumed#stream/0 https://www.wric.com/news/u-s-world/body-of-1930s-gangster-john-dillinger-to-be-exhumed/

Dan Bollinger (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Norman?

"Norman" is mentioned twice in one paragraph under "Return to Mooresville", but those are the only mentions on the page. The only "Norman" on "Dillinger Gang" is a sheriff. Who is "Norman" supposed to be referring to? The citation is simply an FBI file, which is over 100 pages long, extremely hard to read, and no page numbers are given in the citation. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

^ Matera p.106

[1] Matera p.106

[1]