Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:56, 28 February 2006

Page archive: 1

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/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/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/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/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:

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.

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.

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/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/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 Misplaced Pages is that it's the encyclopedia that anybody can edit. If you see an error, just fix it. Easy peasy. · Katefan0/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

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 Misplaced Pages, 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

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, anybody can edit its pages. · Katefan0/poll 00:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's the beauty of Misplaced Pages. It's also the worst thing about Misplaced Pages (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/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/poll 15:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean? Are you saying, as a Misplaced Pages 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/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 Misplaced Pages, 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 ."). 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages-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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 "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)

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 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 , 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".

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.

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 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 :

"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.

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 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.

Blanche Barrow:

Oh, what a horrible sight to see a human body torn apart like that by shotgun bullets. 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."

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.

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.

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 Misplaced Pages editor though.

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)

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)