Talk:Ted Hinton

Now

Why would anyone want to delete this? It meets or exceeds all of the ambiguis vague rules of "criteria for speedy deletion".

I put it back, if anyone can do any better, lets see.

Ambush as only account of, um, ambush

Ambush was the only book written about Gibsland, but five of the six posse members wrote (or at least went on the record) detailing their own views of the goings-on that day. Sheriff Jordan wrote a by-lined account of the incident, which the Associated Press placed in hundreds of newspapers, including The New York Times, on May 24, 1934. Deputy Alcorn penned a by-lined account the same day in The Dallas Morning News. Captain Hamer and Deputy Hinton both contributed multiple quotes to the Morning News coverage that day. Deputy Oakley went on the record later, though I've only ever read about his remarks, never saw them in original form. Deputy Gault is the only posse member whose account I haven't seen, though that's not to say he didn't leave one.

Some would say that the immediacy of the 1934 material trumps the 40-plus year old material in Ambush, but that's all part of the evaluation process, isn't it. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry. Thanks for agreeing to help with this. Let me answer your note on "arguing" by saying (please do not faint!) that I have come to agree with you. I am not interested in arguing. When I bring up a point in discussion - such as the warrant issue - it is not to "win" but simply because I think it is interesting. Much of those points are simply not appropriate for the articles, because, as you pointed out, time has changed both the law, (The Supreme Court put restrictions on use of lethal force by police officers, for instance, which would have probably meant a murder trial for Hamer and Hinton today), and the social perspective we, as a nation, bring to events such as those surrounding B & C. I asked you to help with this simply because you have mastered the nuances of citation, etc., and I have not. I want to improve this article in a balanced way - and I know you can help with that.

Okay, for anyone who is interested, we are going to expand this article. If anyone has any information they feel is salient to the article, your help would be appreciated! As I noted to Harry above, I am not interested in arguments, or tilting the article one way or the other; I just want to make it a better article.

As to the issue of whether or not materials from papers circa 1934 trumps Hinton's first hand account of the ambush, what do you think, a section pretty much devoted to that issue? Guinn certainly comments on Ambush rather scathingly, for instance. Pv86 (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For my money, I think the changes in attitude — and the changes in statutes — between 1934 and today are fascinating and would make a great section, even at the main article. Hamer, Hinton, Jordan, et. al. may well have faced brutality accusations if they ran that operation today; at the same time, changes in statutes would probably have put warrants on Bonnie for accessory to murder. The statute changes cut both ways. The challenge, though, in creating a section about this is what the hell sources do you cite? I don't recollect having seen this discussion (at least in citable form) anywhere. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry - that is indeed the challenge, finding a citable source. I am writing friends at the University of Virginia, (at the Law School), and seeing if there are any articles or books they know of that we could use as source material. I also have some friends in the History Department, and will write there as well. You are right it would make a great section, but we need citable sources! Pv86 (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important resource: On The Trail of Bonnie and Clyde...

This is the most important resource book you can have for Bonnie and Clyde. It is a comprehensive timeline, and tells its story through contemporaneous newspaper stories — so lots of sources for terrific, 1933/4 cites.

http://www.rzm.com/books/atb/bc.cfm

It is pricey, though, at $65, but worth every nickel. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just groaned, and took your word it is important, and bought it! Pv86 (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If sixty-five is what you paid, you did better'n I did — I paid seventy-five for mine, back five or so years ago. Still worth every nickel — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]