Talk:Bonnie and Clyde/Archive 2

message: 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. [editor's footnote: Two women were wounded during the shooting spree in front of the Christian Church in Lucerne. Doris Miner, twenty-two, was dressing in the bedroom of her parents' home nearby when she was struck in the shoulder and grazed on the cheek. Ethel Jones, also twenty-two, was standing outside the house next door when she was wounded in the right arm. Other slugs became embedded at various points in the neighborhood around the church, one drilling straight through a telephone pole. Pharos-Tribune, May 12, 1933.]
only the start of how this article's gone downhill. we blame the ***PIG*, and remain: TruPatriot173 & ScrdBldTtd5982. 63.28.34.13 05:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sofixit · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you're in charge, katefan... 63.28.48.232 17:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  accuracy schmaccuracy 

message: 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)
replies: text: sofixit · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...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)
replies: text: ... as opposed to whining/trolling it all better, I guess.  The great thing about Wikipedia is that it's the encyclopedia that anybody can edit. If you see an error, just fix it.  Easy peasy. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  error 

message: 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)
thread_title: refuting [[User:63.28.21.32|63.28.21.32]] rant on Blanche Barrow

message: Jerry R. Dorsen, EsqJerry, at least you signed your name, so I give you credit on that.  I am sorry that you felt it necessary to personally attack me - I will try not to attack you personally, but your attacks are so personal and pointless that it may not be possible.  Any person who states they get their "enjoyment" from anonymously attacking people, instead of making an effort to help, is a sick puppy.  Your statement that these issues are "too complicated for you to understand" is amusing, considering your own words on my work, which I will get too shortly.  As to intelligence, I would put my academic credentials against yours anyday, to your disadvantage -- though Essjay is right when he says academic credentials are much overrated!   Facts are what matters, and you have none, as I will shortly demonstrate.  As to my ability, you yourself put it best:  Your work is sound and respected, and you must carry on.  (see below for quote from Jerry Dorsen) As to the errors in the article, we can debate the issues all day, and you would lose all day.  John Treherne literally went to each jurisdiction and studied the court records for the times and places in question, and found no warrants or complaints - you have to admit that if forty people were fired on, that someone might have filed a complaint?  The best records a historian has to go on, and I should not have to tell you this, since you are an attorney, is literally, the record.  By that, I mean court records, warrants, in the case of crimes alleged against a person or persons, or at least complaints!  You certainly cannot rely on newspaper articles!
By the way, while you babble about my grandmother, my intelligence, etc. I guess you forgot writing this about my work on this article:
"Oldwindybear, I agree with the heartfelt and eloquent note from TruePatriot. You should know that many editors here have been discussing the malicious and utterly unfounded attacks against you, and we have your back. Saltpig will harass you further at his peril. You have my word on that, sir. Not only am I a retired lawyer and sometime administrative judge (with some limited prior work representing veterans, who were unfailingly bold and admirable men and women), but am quite active in several estimable historical venues upon which the penumbra, shall we say, of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow fall. You may have seen my work at the Dallas Historical Society. In my retired life I have, at one time or another, facilitated in the bonded transport of some notable--and rather surprising--documents pertinent to this great country's founders. Regretfully, I am not at liberty to elaborate. To your role at Wikipedia, the truth about Frank Hamer and Bonnie Parker needs to be gotten out there, and you are just the man to do it... at THIS article. It would be a crime if you were to leave these august pages. Your work is sound and respected, and you must carry on. The article would be a shambles if it were not for your leadership and demonstrated acumen. From one Grey Ghost to another, Oldwindybear: Semper Fi. Jerry R. Dorsen, Esq, etc. P.S I will write Katefan0! Believe that! ScrdBldTtd5982 16:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 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!

message: 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)
thread_title:  No! 

message: 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)
thread_title: no Jerry Dorsen

message: 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)
thread_title: challange to tag by 65.129.187.156

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: thanks Pat, let 'em stand up and cite new specifics, instead of old arguments

message: 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)
thread_title: 216.8.14.51

message: The Bonnie and Clyde article suffers from imprecision, sloppiness, magazine-style writing, and POV. In the guise of legitimate historical revision, it has been hijacked to propagandize. Rather than informing readers by representing with balance and objectivity the arguments and evidence of others (WP:NOR), the article attempts, through illogic and the selective piling on of falsified evidence, to convince a reader that...
*Bonnie Parker was generally an innocent victim.
*Frank Hamer and the ambush posse were worse than Bonnie and Clyde.
*Bonnie Parker was murdered by government officials under color of law.
In forwarding these propositions, more effort is directed toward criticizing the posse members, especially Frank Hamer, than Clyde Barrow. Bonnie Parker is protected from the start, to set up the later favorable comparison to the posse. It is not subtle.
Perhaps less obvious to those not familiar with the often vigorously contested history of Bonnie and Clyde is the further infestation of editor bias through a technique of positing original assertions, sometimes with manufactured quotes, then mentioning somewhere in the vicinity the title and author(s) of a book. It puts those new to the subject in the position of trusting what they're told, because there is no easy verification of the claims -- particularly where there's nothing more offered by the claimant than the title and author of a book (often in the form "See [title] [author]."). Much of the time now that these references appear in the article, they are partly or totally bogus. That is demonstrated in detail below.
The trust of visiting readers has been abused, and they should be warned via the prominent tagging of the article until the errors and propagandizing are removed.
[In the following sections, there are elements that overlap. Because of the complexity, I have somewhat arbitrarily tried to assign items to single sections only. There is some limited redundancy of article text.]
===NPOV -- Bonnie Parker as victim===
The case making begins early in the article:
:Bonnie never shot anyone, nor was she wanted for murder when she died. 
:[...]
:There is no reliable evidence that she ever shot anyone, nor was there any warrant alleging she committed any murder at the time she was ambushed and killed.
It has been shown already on this talk page that an authoritative "never shot anyone" claim is dubious. Blanche Barrow's book, published in 2004, holds significant evidence re the Lucerne, Indiana shootout (primarily in the footnotes compiled by noted Barrow/Parker historian John Phillips). The evidence is denounced in the article, simply because it contradicts the long held position of an article editor.
The oft-repeated claim that Bonnie Parker wasn't "wanted" for murder is probably technically true. However, this point is driven to the point of absurdity while highly relevant practical matters, including the words of Bonnie Parker (making the point unequivocally that she foresaw being killed by law enforcement alongside Clyde Barrow), are ignored. The false premise is established that if a criminal is not wanted for murder, there can be no circumstances under which apprehending that criminal with lethal force is justified. However, all inclusions of this premise must be sourced, in a verifiable manner, to something other than original research (prohibited by Wikipedia policy). They are not. Notable opposition to the premise must be included, even if it disagrees with the bias of an editor. It has not been. POV claims are made, then a book is named without specifying content or rough location. The biased premise is hammered relentlessly, while nothing is offered to represent the other side. This is done quite unabashedly by a single editor, under the theory that Wikipedia is the ideal avenue for original, monocular historical revision, with which to redress decades of mistaken public perception. As admirable as the isolated intent may be, Wikipedia isn't the place for it.
====Falsified or misleading quotes/citations====
Note in this excerpt the piling on to make a case:
:Gang members W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults claimed Bonnie was strictly "logistical support" (see John Neal Phillips book, Running with Bonnie & Clyde: The Ten Fast Years of Ralph Fults) Fults was adamant Bonnie never fired a shot in any of the gunbattles the gang was a part of. Also, in the same book , W.D. Jones made the statement (as he had under Oath to the authorities), "Bonnie never packed a gun, out of the five major gun battles I was with them she never fired a gun." Writing with Phillip Steele in The Family Story of Bonnie and Clyde, Marie Barrow, Clyde's youngest sister, made the same claim: "Bonnie never fired a shot. She just followed my brother no matter where he went." John Treherne made the same claim in his well-sourced book The Strange History of Bonnie & Clyde where he essentially found that Bonnie was madly in love with a psychopath, and followed him to her death.
Now examine the claims for veracity and NPOV.
:Gang members W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults claimed Bonnie was strictly "logistical support" (see John Neal Phillips book, Running with Bonnie & Clyde: The Ten Fast Years of Ralph Fults)
Who is the editor quoting there, with the term "logistical support" in quotes? another Wikipedia editor, basically. The word "logistical" does not appear in the book Running with Bonnie & Clyde. "Support"? Yes -- in the forms "as if to support", "drum up support", "his wife's support", and "first bank to support". "Support" appears those 4 times in the book.
:Fults was adamant Bonnie never fired a shot in any of the gunbattles the gang was a part of.
Please quote him. Surely it won't be too lengthy a quote to provide here. What constitutes "adamant"? More important, how many Barrow gang gun battles did Fults witness with Bonnie Parker? Why is it not disclosed that Ralph Fults was arrested on 19 April 1932, and remained in prison until 1935 (after Bonnie and Clyde were dead)? That is the bulk of their escalating crime spree. Far from disclosing it, this "fact" is trundled out in a sequence of "facts" as though Ralph Fults spent a lot of time with Bonnie and Clyde. He didn't. I request full documentation, including verbatim quotes from references, of the allegations re Ralph Fults and how he serves in any way as a witness to anything Bonnie Parker did with guns between 19 April 1932 and 23 May 1934 (her death).
:Also, in the same book , W.D. Jones made the statement (as he had under Oath to the authorities), "Bonnie never packed a gun, out of the five major gun battles I was with them she never fired a gun."
Neither that statement nor anything like it appears anywhere in Running With Bonnie and Clyde: The Ten Fast Years of Ralph Fults. It's interesting, however, that the following quote, not included in the article, comes from WD Jones in the famous '68 Playboy interview: "As far as I know, Bonnie never packed a gun. Maybe she'd help carry what we had in the car into a tourist-court room. But during the five big gun battles I was with them, she never fired a gun. But I'll say she was a hell of a loader."
The qualifier "As far as I know" was deliberately left out of the quote, because it did not serve the bias of the editor who added it to the article. The immediately following claim, "But I'll say she was a hell of a loader" also was deliberately omitted to suit the bias of whoever excluded it -- a blatant NPOV violation, without any excuse other than the manufacturing of a story to suit the purpose of somebody on a mission. Depending on circumstances, WD Jones claiming that Bonnie "was a hell of a loader" might even approach implicating her as an accomplice to murder (she knew what the loading was for). That was excised from a quote, along with other material (resulting in a run-on sentence which I assert existed only in the mind of the editor who inserted it), to express an editor's POV as if they were the exact words of an eyewitness. For what it's worth, googling the snippet "Bonnie never packed a gun, out of" returns only Wikipedia-based pages -- the Bonnie and Clyde article and the Frank Hamer article.
In the article it is claimed that Jones stated "under Oath to the authorities", that "Bonnie never packed a gun, out of the five major gun battles I was with them she never fired a gun." I'll wager that there is no published evidence that that sentence was ever uttered by WD Jones, regardless of venue. If that is to remain in the article, an explicit, verifiable citation should be provided, documenting that WD Jones made the precise statement, and the conditions/location under which it was transmitted (including whether under oath as claimed). I aver that there will not be found a single citation demonstrating that WD Jones said under oath what the article claims.
:Writing with Phillip Steele in The Family Story of Bonnie and Clyde, Marie Barrow, Clyde's youngest sister, made the same claim: "Bonnie never fired a shot. She just followed my brother no matter where he went."
The same claim of a fabricated quote? It is of no value. Whoever stands by that assertion, please document how many incidents were witnessed by Marie Barrow in which Clyde fired a gun in anger in the presence of Bonnie (or similar). Far as I know, Marie Barrow only witnessed Bonnie and Clyde being fired upon at the Sowers ambush, and both Clyde and Bonnie were probably too busy dealing with the leg wounds they both got from Bob Alcorn's BAR. There's a word for this sort of "evidence": hearsay. And perhaps Marie Barrow told two friends, and they told two friends, etc. Why not add all that in there? One retelling of a story is as good as another when no eyewitnesses are doing the telling. Again, this is meaningless piling on, attempting to persuade through quantity -- POV through bias and inaccuracy.
:John Treherne made the same claim in his well-sourced book The Strange History of Bonnie & Clyde where he essentially found that Bonnie was madly in love with a psychopath, and followed him to her death.
He made what "same claim"? Quote it. How does Bonnie allegedly being madly in love with a psychopath prevent her from firing a gun at somebody?
====Blanche Barrow evidence misstated====
:In her book about her year with Bonnie and Clyde, Blanche Barrow, while confirming that Bonnie never shot anyone during any of the gangs crimes, [...]
This has been demonstrated as an outright falsehood. Page 66 -- please read it. Read the context. Then note how an explicit allegation that Bonnie fired a shot out a car window while escaping from a bank robbery, suffixed with the statement that they heard later a woman was wounded in the arm, becomes in the article Blanche Barrow "confirming that Bonnie never shot anyone during any of the gangs crimes"? It is the opposite which is true.
:[...] does make the only accusation that Bonnie ever even fired a gun that hit anyone, when she claims that Clyde "laid a rifle across Bonnie's lap, with the barrel sticking out the window". Blanche claimed he told Bonnie to hold it up and shoot. She did. She claims "we heard later that a woman was wounded in the arm."  This claim is denied by all other members of the Barrow gang that survived, and it has to be noted that their claims that Bonnie never shot anyone were made under Oath to authorities, whereas Blanche's allegation was unsworn, made in a book written in great bitterness from prison. The only substantiation for Blanche's story is a newspaper article which ostensibly claimed two women were involved in shooting during a robbery; however no charges were ever filed on Blanche or Bonnie for for this alleged incident.
In this insidious example of case making, the editor can't let the evidence speak for itself, because that goes against ingrained bias. After a pile of falsehoods, one opposing detail is let out of the bag, then immediately the protective editor arrives to "debunk" it, using loaded terms such as "ostensibly", and "the only substantiation". That is an editor delivering POV in the encyclopedic voice, without foundation, and omitting an important statement from a reputable historian that has already been relayed verbatim on this very talk page: "If the statements of the eyewitnesses are true, this is the only known hard evidence that Bonnie Parker ever fired a weapon in anger, much less wounded someone. It is also an indictment of Blanche's assertion that she never handled a weapon."
====More evidence of Bonnie and guns====
Instead of simply passing on that dispassionate, accurate assessment from John Phillips (supposedly cited elsewhere as it suits bias), the article must run interference for the theory that Bonnie Parker was dragged along by the ear during a multi-year spree of murders and robberies. Note that the Phillips quote above doesn't claim Bonnie Parker shot anybody; it simply allows that it may have happened. And yet neither it nor anything like it appears in the article.
If one turns two pages later in the footnotes of the Blanche Barrow book, to a bank robbery in another town (Okabena, Minnesota), on 19 May 1933, he finds cited not the Pharos-Tribune (a newspaper "discredited" without evidence on this talk page), but the Minneapolis Journal, the Fairmont Daily Sentinal', and Jackson County History, vol. II as sources for: "Before leaving Okabena, however, the bandits made a loop around the square, spraying the town with machine gun fire. Some shots reportedly 'went straight through the hotel.' Witnesses saw a man and at least one of the two women handling weapons in the car."
There is no allegation there of anyone being shot, but it is further evidence indicating the possibility that Bonnie Parker was an active participant in a pursuit shooting. In this case, "handling weapons" may be limited to handing over fresh guns, or the like, but such limitation was not the alleged in Lucerne the week before. Both instances are noteworthy in any discussion of Bonnie Parker's level of activity in the Barrow gang. The more this issue is examined honestly, the more the attempt to sell Bonnie as a wallflower falters. It also ably points out the futility of, once again, the repeated attempts in the article to assert universal positives or negatives. When one claims something along the lines of "it is the only piece of evidence", are all those footnotes in Blanche's book being screened? What about the footnotes in other books? It is not the place of a Wikipedia editor to make such claims in articles, and it's foolhardy for even a career Bonnie and Clyde researcher to publish such a statement without caveat.
====Scope of witnesses====
This raises the logical issue of proving a negative existential (e.g., "there is no case where bonnie shot somebody"). Does this really need to be discussed yet again? If WD Jones states that he never saw Bonnie fire a shot in a gun battle, that's important evidence. It's a negative existential in a limited domain, and worth serious consideration. It belongs in the article as a documented claim which he may have known to be entirely accurate. However, it only shows one thing: exactly what it says. All it supports is that WD Jones said he never saw Bonnie fire a shot in a gun battle. Based on his language in the Playboy interview, I believe that he said it, and I believe that he was speaking the truth. I don't know for sure, but it's my opinion. When the article goes beyond that line, and attempts to inflate the claim into more than it is, the article fails. WD Jones cannot logically claim to witness a negative existential for a domain beyond his scope. Put another way, he cannot accurately claim with authority that something never happened when it was impossible for him to have witnessed something if it did happen. In other words, he wasn't there in Lucerne, Indiana, so his statement about what didn't happen outside his scope bears the same weight of any similar hearsay witness: little, to worse than little. As courts around the world have found, hearsay can have worse than zero value; it can be a strong negative. That very situation is where the article lies now, with all the hearsay claims of people whose testimony might not be any different if a thing did occur; they have no way of knowing.
The article includes the alleged testimony of one "witness" after another who wasn't in Lucerne, Indiana with the Barrow gang on 12 May 1933, while attempting to minimize the documented testimony -- corroborated by others -- of someone who was! Even if one groups together all of the published statements from all Barrow gang members from 1930 through the ambush in 1934, an important fact cannot be ignored: The only published statement of a Barrow gang member present in Lucerne, Indiana on 12 May 1933 was from Blanche Barrow. Her statement with regard to Bonnie shooting a gun during a bank robbery getaway, far from being discounted, is corroborated by eyewitnesses. As we are not to insert original research, or our opinions, into the article, neither may bias drive the exclusion of the John Phillips statement on the matter to serve a desired outcome.
====Bonnie not "much of a criminal"====
:Bonnie may not have been much of a criminal, but she certainly was good at being a celebrity, and manipulating the media.
Who's saying she wasn't much of a criminal? Nobody, apparently, because rather than stating such a claim directly, the article weasel words the implication in there with the jovial form "x may not have been much of an x, but..." It's inappropriate, uncited, and against the evidence. Bonnie Parker was on the road for years with a murdering robber. She participated, as a strong supporter, in many of the events that led to murder. For years she received and profited from stolen goods for almost her entire sustenance. How is that "may not have been much of a criminal"? How does that weasel phrase square with the solid evidence indicating that Bonnie Parker led her cousin Mary to a private home and burgled it, stealing a gun and smuggling that gun into the jail where Clyde was kept so that he could break out? She did that herself. That's a successful burglary and direct facilitation of a jailbreak -- all as the principal actor. Why is that not in the article? It's commonly accepted that she did it, but I don't recall hearing of a "warrant" for that either. The existence of a warrant is not an overriding condition for reporting as accurately as possible the history of Bonnie and Clyde.
Part of NPOV is actively presenting notable evidence, even when it goes against what we'd like to be true. How is the following incident not in the article, even indirectly, amid the Bonnie apologetics?
Twenty-First-Century Update, page 83:"Clyde lost his temper. He jumped out of the car and knocked Darby down with a gun butt. Seeing how things were going, Bonnie ran to the car and dragged Miss Stone out, tapping her lightly on the head with a pistol also."
Blanche Barrow's book, page 61:"Bonnie jumped out of the car. She wanted to show how tough she thought she was. Clyde made the man get in our car. Bonnie cursed the woman and told her to do the same. I couldn't help feeling sorry for the man and woman. They looked so frightened."
What do these accounts describe, when separated from a Bonnie-as-victim mind set? They describe Bonnie as a direct, active participant in assault and battery, kidnapping, and auto theft. She was a criminal through and through, yet the article paints her as the opposite -- as a victim whose death eclipses everything she participated in, actively, in the preceding 3 years. Biased denial has turned the article into a passive slap against victims such as Sophia Stone, whose "offense" against Bonnie Parker was to help HD Darby go after the car WD Jones had just stolen.
Why does the article, if excoriating Frank Hamer, not mention that Bonnie attempted to dissuade Clyde from continuing to harm innocent people? Is it because she didn't? And if she didn't, why does the article not take her to task as it does Hamer? He's criticized for not intervening to halt the allegedly barbaric scavenging of clothing from corpses at the ambush site, yet Bonnie gets a free ride as she saved her skin at the expense of innocents, and apparently didn't make any effort to prevent the rubbing out of more innocent lives. Appalling bias. Bonnie Parker ran roughshod with her boyfriend over the Central United States for years, leaving through her active participation and support a trail of wasted lives, orphans, widows, and untold property and wealth destruction -- all with her approval and support. What does the article convey? Poor Bonnie.
====Posse as criminals====
:Though Clyde was wanted for at least 10 murders, Bonnie was wanted for none, and neither was committing any crime at the moment that Hamer ordered them shot and killed without any attempt at arrest, trial, or conviction.
Case making. The article is arguing, trying to convince the reader, through POV, that Hamer murdered Bonnie Parker, and didn't give Clyde Barrow a fair shake. Where's the balance? Clyde Barrow had been on a murdering spree for years, and had nothing to lose. Bonnie Parker had published a poem stating that they were going to go down together and be buried side by side. If one is charged with apprehending such people, that information cannot be discounted, nor taken lightly.
This is all moot though, because it's overt, prohibited, original research (see WP:NOR) making an argument. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to weigh the evidence and declare opinions. We may only relate the opinions of others. Either cite and attribute the explicit source(s) for this POV, along with the necessary balance from other non-original sources, or strike it. It is pure, unattributed POV, and has no place here. They weren't committing any crime at the moment? According to who? Cite explicitly or remove it. What is driving a stolen car, evading lawful arrest, with a car full of stolen guns, and on and on and on, if not a crime? Name the sources for the assertions. Except in very rare cases (which don't apply here so far), a Wikipedia editor cannot be the source of material for an article.
:He was the only posse member to publically express remorse or regret for his actions.
More POV (w/typo). This strongly implies that a posse member had done something for which remorse or regret was obligated. According to who?
:Bonnie unfortunately did not die as easily as Clyde, who died instantly with Oakley's head shot.
Again, who is saying that it was unfortunate Bonnie didn't die "as easily"? (easily? instantly? which one?) Is this needless intrusion into the encyclopedic voice worth it? Facts should be stated dispassionately, and external POV samples should be weighed and attributed, if not thrown out.
:The posse reported her uttering a long, horrified and pain filled scream as the bullets ripped the car (and her) apart.
Where did this material come from? Ambush? The car didn't come apart, and neither did Bonnie. The same editor has claimed elsewhere that the Remington Model 8 almost blew Clyde's head off. It's easy enough to see photos of both Bonnie and Clyde immediately following the ambush, and in Arcadia before the bodies were cleaned up. They were messed up, but it was nowhere near the dismantling portrayed here. Further, the audibility of a scream "as the bullets ripped the car" is highly questionable if one has multiple rifle-caliber machine guns pounding away nearby. It should be cited accurately and attributed, or removed. According to Hinton, the scream was heard between an alleged order from Hamer to fire (disputed below) and the first shots.
:There was no legal authority to kill Bonnie Parker, who had no warrants on her which would have justified lethal force in her capture,
Therein sits the big Kahuna of the POV crusade. This is what started it all. The solution is simple, thankfully. It either gets cited explicitly, or it gets removed. In months of hearing this claim touted, the only evidence forthcoming has been 5 pounds of POV wrapped in an original research bouillabaisse. This claim must come from an authoritative, non-original source, and it must be cited. Same with the "no warrants on her which would have justified lethal force in her capture".
:Some of the posse, including Frank Hamer, took and kept for themselves stolen guns that were found in the death car, with the approval of Lee Simmons, "Special Escape Investigator for the Texas Prison System".
Lee Simmons was not "Special Escape Investigator for the Texas Prison System". Frank Hamer was. (Not Oldwindybear's error.)
:Unfortunately, he lacked the legal authority to authorize seizure and sale of other people's property - even the stolen guns were the property of those they were stolen from, and no effort was made to return any of that property.
If only one victim of Bonnie and Clyde could have the miles of lamentation over how they were killed, how a man tried to cut off Clyde's finger, and on and on, and how bad Frank and the posse were. If only. However, the solution is not to add more lament, but to excise what exists already. The self-righteous tone only kicks in when the ills of Frank and the posse are discussed. How does that make any sense in an article about the murderer Clyde Barrow and his facilitating girlfriend Bonnie Parker? Why is there not the recriminating tone slung for them? No matter. It should be removed, because this is an encyclopedia article, not an opinion outlet. "Unfortunately", he lacked the legal authority? Why unfortunately? How was it unfortunate for Lee Simmons that he lacked the legal authority? What source is claiming that he lacked the legal authority?
:Probably the most horrific thing about the ambush, afterwards, was that the men left to guard the bodies, Gault, Oakley, and Alcorn, allowed people to literally cut off locks of Bonnie's hair, tear pieces from her dress - a man was even trying to cut off Clyde's finger when Hinton returned.
"Probably"? "the most horrific thing"? Again, whence does this conjecture flow? Cite it or strike it. Who in his right mind is going to claim, after what she and her boyfriend did in this life, that for the corpse of the narcissistic Bonnie Parker to lose locks of hair, or for her dress to have pieces torn from it for souvenirs, is "horrific"? That is ridiculously over the top. "See The Strange Life of Bonnie and Clyde by John Treherne, and Ambush by Ted Hinton" doesn't begin to qualify as appropriate citation for what preceded.
:Most of these souvenirs were later sold, conduct which many people found horrifying, see Treherne's book again, or The Real Bonnie and Clyde by Miriam Deford.
Same again -- over the top claims, blamed on a book -- "or" this book -- with no specificity.
====Hamer: the real villain====
:The coroner realized he could not even do his job in a "circuslike atmosphere," and asked Hamer for help.  Only then did Hamer order people away from the car, and to stop tearing bloody clothes, etc. Page 147 of Milner's book.
That is a different picture from what the book actually says. The biased recounting in the article swings against Frank Hamer. Here is the text: "Realizing that there was no hope of conducting an investigation in the circuslike atmosphere of the ambush site, Wade turned to Hamer for help. The lawman, who had been talking with some of the gathered citizens, agreed, and he instructed the deputies to keep spectators away from the car." The article version, making the biased case, uses the subtle but effective language "Only then did Hamer order people away from the car", with a flavor that he had been observing the mayhem and approved of it until held to the grindstone. According to the book though, he had been talking with some gathered citizens. I don't know, but it sounds like he was distracted. The article avoids this important detail, allowing the reader to fill in gaps with assumptions that aren't necessarily warranted, and carries a subtle air that perhaps Hamer needed to be convinced to do his job. According to the book, it was a simple matter of him being notified, and he agreed. Done. That's not what is conveyed by the article.
:In his article "Romeo and Juliet in a Getaway Car" Joesph Gerringer writes of the ambush: "But, Hamer chose not to call out a warning -- not to Bonnie and Clyde...in a voice audible only to those around him, void of drama, void of malice, Hamer ordered, "Shoot!"
That will not stand. CRIMELIBRARY, which hosts the cited article, is a notoriously breathless CourtTV site where internet surfers may go for a 20-minute fix of crime hype. The articles are targeted toward the junior high set (e.g., "It was fast, sleek and accelerated like a rocket. They loved that car.). It's the same article that states, "By the time they arrived in Shreveport, Methvin was a bundle of nerves. Holing up at Iverson’s out-of-the-way cabin off Sailes Road, Henry confessed his fears to his father. While Bonnie and Clyde slept in an adjoining room, he rued his association with them. He wished, he told Iverson, that he could wake up and find himself pardoned of all his crimes and start life anew. This gave Iverson an idea."
The cited source doesn't even know that Henry Methvin's uncle was Iverson, not his dad. Ivy was not the nickname of Henry's dad, but his real name. Two different people. The article is riddled with date errors, claiming that the Methvins began talking to the posse on 22 May 1934. Embarrassing error. It is obviously concocting dialog and placing it in mouths at imagined meetings: "'But, how do we know your son won’t be with them?' asked Hamer."
And what does one discover when checking the source cited in the article, despite its questionable veracity? The full quote re Hamer, edited down for the article, is "But, Hamer chose not to call out a warning -- not to Bonnie and Clyde, who always escaped when given even the slightest advantage. There would be no advantage here. Instead in a voice audible only to those around him, void of drama, void of malice, Hamer ordered, 'Shoot!"
Bias strikes again, removing the part that implies that Hamer was concerned about Bonnie and Clyde escaping. If they killed again after, of course, that is Hamer's concern. The article version excises the escape concern, and the part about the advantage. A minor trouble with this whole version of events is that it conflicts with the much more reliable Twenty-First-Century-Update", which states that no command to fire was ever given, and that Prentis Oakley started the shooting, taking "the other posse members by surprise."
Rather than sticking with sources the instant editor has claimed at other times were superior, he searches until finding a section in a particular pulp article that fits the bias. That's the one that goes in the article. There are so many different accounts of the ambush that the best one can do is either vague the whole thing out, or present the principal versions together, identified as such.
:Also in Hinton's book, the best source on the ambush,
Who says Hinton's book is "the best source on the ambush"? Cite it or strike it. James Knight (page 218) has a scrupulous footnote explaining that Hinton's version, in its accounting for Ivy Methvin's location prior to the ambush, is contradicted by testimony from a bus driver. Who is saying that Hinton's book prevails over this newly republished evidence?
:The car was hit over 130 times, with the entry in the passenger, or Bonnie's, side.
False. The car was southbound, and the posse was on the east side (Twenty-First-Update, 164-165). The southbound lane was blocked by Ivy Methvin's truck, so Clyde pulled across to the other side, moving him close to the posse, exactly as they planned. It was Clyde's side that got hammered, and only toward the end did shooter(s) cross over and fire from the passenger side.
:Hinton's book records Bonnie uttering one long agonized scream , saying in "Ambush," Hinton tells the rest: Hamer says Shoot! then "...Bonnie screams, and I fire and everyone fires!"    At no point did anyone in the posse ever claim that they told Bonnie and Clyde to halt or surrender.   Hamer himself admitted in I'm Frank Hamer that he intended an ambush where the duo would have no chance.   In The Strange Life of Bonnie and Clyde John Treherne also records the ambush as having the posse simply opening fire on Hamer's command without warning.  No reliable account of the ambush has ever claimed the posse called out a warning, or intended to, in fact, the opposite, all claim Hamer planned the ambush exactly as it happened.  According to E.R. Milner, citing in  his book as his source for that quote the Dallas Morning News of May 24, 1934, Hamer gave a press conference at 2:15pm on that day in front of the courthouse in Gibsland, with Tom Simmons of the Texas Department of Corrections, and described in detail the ambush. He stated flatly that they had planned the ambush with the intention of firing without warning, pointing at a bench in front of the Gibsland courthouse and saying "a few weeks ago I sat on that seat and mapped out the plan that was carried out this morning."
Again, this is overkill. Who's heavily disputing that they didn't warn Bonnie and Clyde? State the commonly accepted view, then get out. Too much protesting. The agenda is the real thing screaming. Please quote the part in Hinton's book where it states that Bonnie uttered "one long agonized scream". BTW, those are obviously direct snippet lifts from the Romeo and Juliet article, without crediting.
:This despite the fact that Hamer knew that Bonnie Parker was not wanted on any captial warrant, and that lethal force should not legally be used against anyone not either involved in commission of a criminal act, or wanted for a capital offense.
Repetition, again entirely unsourced (w/typo). Cite or strike. Gobs of sermonizing, when there must be none.
:Hamer had a reputation for not being concerned about the nicities of the law, and this was a fine example of that.
Close, but still too editorial and cutesy (w/typo).
====Soapbox analysis====
:Increasingly, in recent years, as historians have questioned the legality of killing Bonnie without warning.  
Not even a sentence. But assuming it were, please cite the increasing questioning by histories of the legality of killing Bonnie without warning.
:In 1934 the states of Louisiana, Texas and the federal government lacked the laws we have today on accessory in the first and second degree and conspiracy which would have allowed charging Bonnie for Clyde's crimes.
Again, cite primary sources. This gets into several sloppy areas, including assertion of a universal negative, and several logical problems. Cite it or strike it.
:It has been previously noted that in well researched books every gang member taken alive claimed Bonnie never was complicit in any killings. Hamer knew these facts, and yet, despite posse reservations about firing on the girl with no warning, went ahead anyway.
More sermonizing, with no balance, leaving out crucial details such as the real danger that Clyde was going to continue killing (with Bonnie's material help), and that if it came to risking a posse member's life to "save" Bonnie (who family members surmised long before was not necessarily to be spared a death sentence if captured), that's a laughable proposition given the circumstances.
:In ascertaining Bonnie and Clyde's place in popular culture, one must realize that in 1932-34, during the years of their outlawry, almost a third of americans were out of work, and many people sympathized with Bonnie and Clyde, who they saw as striking out at the government that had failed so many families.  See John Treherne's, The Strange History of Bonnie & Clyde.  The duo struck a nerve, then and today, with the disenfranchised, and the wild at heart, and Trehearne believes much of their appeal lay with their essential revolt against a system that had failed so many.  Rightly or wrongly, Treherne believes that people saw Bonnie and Clyde as being willing to strike a blow they themselves would have enjoyed striking.  (this image of them forgets Clyde's murders, but again, it must be understood in the conditions in the 30's, and again in the 60's, where so many were questioning authority and all it stood for).  Even today people glamorize the couple for refusing to accept authority, and poverty, without striking back, see The Lives and Times of Bonnie and Clyde by E. R. Milner.   Rightly or wrongly, Milner was doubtless right when he states Bonnie and Clyde touched a nerve with those who also felt ambushed by an uncaring government...
Rabid POV analysis (a la Jerry Springer's "Final Thought"), peppered with "see this" and other name dropping for disguise.
===Accuracy===
:Often portrayed as Clyde Barrow's equal in crime, Bonnie's role in the many robberies, murders, and auto thefts of the Barrow gang was apparently quite limited.
This was changed recently, without citation. "Quite limited"? According to what source(s)? She played an integral role on the logistics/support side. As with everybody who rode with Clyde, she took turns on lookout while Clyde slept at night. She was there to support Clyde in everything he did. That includes murder, whether he supposedly "had" to kill somebody or not. She was there when the murder weapon was delivered for the Eastham Prison raid. She honked the horn so that the escapees (including the murderer) could find the car through fog. She likely participated in more crimes with Clyde than any single other member of the Barrow gang.
:All stories agree on one thing: it was love at first sight for them both.
That statement is obviously unverifiable. Please cite the claim that "[a]ll stories agree" that it was love at first sight for both of them. Through alternate language, this type of inaccuracy, however benign it may seem to some, needn't even be approached. If that specific claim was made by a noted authority, it should have been attributed directly, in quotes. That would be better, but still unacceptable. Shouldn't be in the article, since nobody, no matter how respected, can seriously be expected to verify it.
:The only thing everyone agrees on is that Bonnie herself never killed anyone.
The statement is superfluous -- part of the "rehabilitate Bonnie" campaign. Could the crusade be any clearer? Who says that's the only thing "everyone" agrees on? There's even one witness who didn't agree Bonnie never killed anyone, though the testimony is probably best discounted.
:She certainly loved pictures though, and writing the papers.  It was her taking pictures of kidnapped lawmen or robbery victims, usually with them grinning sheepishly at the camera, [...j
Document that. What pictures of kidnapped lawmen and robbery victims are Bonnie known to have taken. Cite evidence, down to the pic, and the source for the claim. I claim this is exaggerated hoowah. Further, please state, for the purpose of this TotallyDisputed tag, where somebody might go to find pictures taken by any member of the Barrow gang of kidnapped lawmen and robbery victims.
===Cleanup===
====Magazine-style writing====
:Ironically, though they are remembered as bank robbers, they generally were not.
As noted in a prior comment, there is no irony in Clyde Barrow being remembered primarily as a bank robber. Magazine-style fluff, and inaccurate -- the hyping of a factoid.
:Their legend is far larger than their life.
What does that mean? What authority makes such quantitative proclamations? What source, specifically, did this come from? Being unverifiable, borderline-meaningless opinion, why was it not credited in the article text directly to the source? It's clearly the opinion of the editor who inserted it. One can easily present a good argument that, on the contrary, the lives of Bonnie and Clyde were bigger than their legend. Clyde's extraordinary driving, survival, and leadership skills are not so commonly known. Bonnie's artistic side, and her tenacity on the road under horrible conditions, also are generally not appreciated. What one will find cited, cogent evidence for is that their legend has been distorted. That is not necessarily a "size" issue, nor can anybody make a definitive statement regarding whether their lives were bigger or smaller than the Bonnie and Clyde legend. If I had to choose, I'd say that they were bigger than their legend. Should I put that in the article? No. That's the point.
:The bullet-riddled Ford in which Bonnie and Clyde were killed is currently on  display (February 2006) at the Primm Valley Resort in Primm, Nevada.
As in most cases with the word "currently", it is redundant and should be removed. In that context, the word "is" indicates currency sufficiently. The date makes it appear as though it's a traveling display of something, when it's there indefinitely.
====Disorder to accommodate POV====
A formerly (and properly) introductory paragraph for Bonnie now embroils the reader immediately in the propaganda effort. And what was a cohesive, tight section re the ambush has now been splintered into two sections so that an editor may hold forth, continuing the POV, original-research vilification of Bonnie Parker's killers. Articles must often be restructured with expansion. No exception here. However, most of the recent expansion needs to be removed.
====Misc problems====
:Gang members W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults claimed Bonnie was strictly "logistical support" (see John Neal Phillips book, Running with Bonnie & Clyde: The Ten Fast Years of Ralph Fults) Fults was adamant Bonnie never fired a shot in any of the gunbattles the gang was a part of. Also, in the same book , W.D. Jones made the statement (as he had under Oath to the authorities), "Bonnie never packed a gun, out of the five major gun battles I was with them she never fired a gun." Writing with Phillip Steele in The Family Story of Bonnie and Clyde, Marie Barrow, Clyde's youngest sister, made the same claim: "Bonnie never fired a shot. She just followed my brother no matter where he went." John Treherne made the same claim in his well-sourced book The Strange History of Bonnie & Clyde where he essentially found that Bonnie was madly in love with a psychopath, and followed him to her death.
Why are all these book titles and authors, however fabricated (see above) mixed in with the text, rather than as footnotes? Note the missing/misplaced punctuation, including the supposed quote (with run-on sentence) debunked earlier.
:Fellow inmate Ralph Fults said that it was Eastham where Clyde turned "from a schoolboy to a rattlesnake" (see John Neal Phillips' book Running with Bonnie & Clyde: The Ten Fast Years of Ralph Fults).
Another drawn out ref that should be converted to a footnote.
:She certainly loved pictures though, and writing the papers.  It was her taking pictures of kidnapped lawmen or robbery victims, usually with them grinning sheepishly at the camera, with a tale of how Bonnie and Clyde drove them all over the country, and then left them safe, usually with some money, that generated so much of the public appeal the duo enjoyed.
Wow.
:[...] with a tale of how Bonnie and Clyde drove them all over the country, and then left them safe, usually with some money, that generated so much of the public appeal the duo enjoyed.
Already stated in the preceding paragraph. Redundant. Tone is frivolous ("duo", as elsewhere in the article now). Compare to original: "Between 1932 and 1934, there were several incidents in which the Barrow gang kidnapped lawmen or robbery victims, usually releasing them far from home, sometimes with money to help them get back. Stories of these encounters may have contributed to the mythic aura of Bonnie and Clyde — a couple both reviled and adored by the public."
That's the second example where a prior version was merely mimicked in editing, in the same paragraph as the original snippet, or immediately following it. 65.143.90.249 04:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TotallyDisputed and cleanup tags 

message: ====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)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: :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)
thread_title: Misc problems

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: One reason I consider myself a mediator in this situation is because I have been able to keep the tone prety level up to this point. I may have prevented an edit war with the template at the top of the article. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong Katefan, that I was able to keep some comments from escallating and probably having a war begin and ecalating to a point where most likely it would have simply been you that would have suffered the consequence. I say that because you jumping into an article that appears to have one very knowlegble editor, Oldwindy that is supported (in quite a few circumstances) by an excellent and avide wikipedia administrator, Katefan. Anyway, I hope you realize that if I am not a mediator I will be able chose sides. I will also be able to give my opinion on this subject if it goes to mediation. I hope you know, and Katefan will be able to most certainly vouch that once I have an opinion, and if I'm not enforced by a loyal oath to remain at arms length, that I will voice that opinion as loud and as feroshiously as possible here on wiki. I will hence become an Advocate for one side. I highly recommend that if this is what you trully want, you obtain an advocate from WP:AMA. Previously I have attempted to refactor your comment. I'm not sure if that helped or not but it seemed to encourage you to write a lot more. Aside: another issue is having this published on WP:RFM. Until you clearly state that you are willing to have mediation I feel it is useless to continue on. You must first want to be able to negotiate. Seemingly, I would have thought that is the case because you have stated that you refuse to edit the article and secondly you seem to be placing many of your comments on this talk page. As you write down your comments I am currently receiving feedback via email from Katefan and Oldwindybear. This is privileged information at the moment. I am sure they would be willing to share some of their, soon to be refactored, comments and information with you if you accept to go into a fair mediation. I feel I can fairly represent both of you, however if you don't think that is the case then, again, I really highly recommend you obtain an advocate to help you out. You may want to think about this because this may be perceived negatively and if you don't explain yourself people may think you as trying to delay the (unavoidable) (whatever that is!) --CyclePat 00:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't notice this, how do you expect to notice anything else enough to contribute to the article? I can only assume, based on your comments and more, that you're some mad genius having a laugh. It's very well done though, and my hat is off. Haven't seen anything like it in years. 65.129.160.191 03:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually did notice mediation at the bottom. Why do you wish to have a different mediator? My objectives are to mediate and facilitate a clear and effective communication. (Though currently I am adding more comments.) Knowing what is expected from me, from you, as well as everyone else is a key element for this to properly function. Thank you for your co-operation. --CyclePat 18:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And frankly such comments like "it's just cluttering a cluttered enough page." are correct. The page is very much clutered. Amzingly you are the one that has added the most of the recent edits. Perhaps you should take your own philosphy and concept into practice. You could start by please summarizing your issues (as we suggested to you since the start, and perhaps then the page will be less clutered.)  I also find this comment to be a type of of offensive attack. Frankly the more talk the more you contradict yourself. (ie.: you say I'm not a mediator, yet as I've indicate to you, I was able to keep the tone of this discusion prety level) Such attitude and ill faithed comments such as sugesting my edits are a type of cluter is not only insulting but ill conform to constructive criticism and may even be a form of harasement. I don't appreciate this. The next time you talk to me, I would expect some sort of appolgy for this mis-conduct and an expression of your will to change and adhere toward wikipedia's policy of assumption of good faith. Often the common man assumes the government is putting poison is his coffee and that he's out to get him, however the goverment, (Like me) want to help. The only thing is, they have to be held accountable. They must have what is needed to substantiate spending 20 million. Usualy they don't do the work. Usually it's the advocates. Right now you are lacking advocacy. Perhaps I might not be the best mediator but I may certainly be a fair advocate. I will also ask you once more, because you still fail to answer for the Xth time ask, please cite your sources as per WP:CITE. I really do want to help you, help us. However, if you fail to appologize for what I consider an insulting attitude and your sources cited don't appear, I will only assume that you are here to be a tyran on wikipedia. Wipedia needs more people to object to articles like you are doing, we just neeed it to be done properly. Think about how proud you can be to say to your next employer or future grand children. I would rather here something like "I was once considered a tyrant when I started wikipedia but now I'm the best NPOV debater around!" then "I'm the tyrant of wikipedia." --72.57.8.158 03:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hard facts

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: Randazzo56 has not returned to reinsert his assertion that "the only smoke blowing comes from anyone who suggests a B.A.R. [Browning Automatic Rifle] fires soft lead ammunition". In case somebody wishes to add to the article a cited claim that "soft lead" ammo was used in the ambush (as in Twenty-First-Century 2003, 167), no counter evidence has been supplied to doubt it.
Though most rifle bullets are primarily lead, high-velocity rifle bullets are usually jacketed entirely by a more durable metal (typically copper). It's this full jacket that Randazzo56 was apparently asserting must been present for BAR ammo. That is not correct. "Soft point" ammo, with an incomplete jacket where the soft lead is exposed at the tip of the bullet, was developed for high-velocity rifles in the late 1890s (at the legendary Dum-dum arsenal in India). The soft point contributes to quick deformation of the bullet on impact ("mushrooming" — sometimes with significant disintegration, especially w/hollow points), tending to dissipate more energy in the target instead of passing through it. Here are modern examples in .30-06 Springfield, the BAR caliber: 1, 2). Soft point ammo will function in a BAR, and, barring further evidence, fits nicely into the actual result noted in pictures of the ambushed car and the 1998 direct examination of it by Sandy Jones at Primm Valley.
Somewhat amusing that Randazzo56 criticizes the cited passage from Twenty-First-Century for it's lack of knowledge re "the construction of early 1930s Fords". Who is the owner of this car? James Knight. Maybe he'll put out the Randazzo56 version now. Doubt it though. 216.8.6.53 12:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soft lead hunting ammo 

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

message: Hello, I decided to sit down and read throught the article completely and do like any editor should try to do when they see a disputed sign. Start verifying the sources. I found in the intro something that I recently added a requires citation. I understand we state further down in the text, and even cite it nicelly,that "bonnie never shoot" anyone. Is this very important to have in the intro. If we do put it there shouldn't it be balance with the counter sujbect... Clyde. I think the idea that it is stated at the beginning and then again in the text might be a little of a POV! (it's more of an over saturation, proably from former disputes.) Concidering that the first occurance of "bonnie never shot" doesn't have a reference I suggest seeing as this is after all an "introduction" that it remains less specific. I would remove that sentence. However we may chose to source as an alternative. (footnote might be the best way in this instance). As a last resort (which I think would be wrong) is to remain at statuquo...  Again, since it is nicelly stated further down I would take it out. I'll let you decide on that Oldwindy? Any comments? Those are my suggestions for the intro...
User:CyclePatHey Pat, I moved it, that was a good idea, and avoided any suggestion of POV in the intro.  It is certainly well sourced elsewhere what Bonnie's role was, logitical, and that NO warrants, et al, exist to prove she was ever even charged with murder, or even shooting anyone.  But you are right, and it needed moving, and has been!old windy bear 05:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV or citation required 

message: :I haven't really seen anyone say they would read through the article to check it out and HIGHTLIGHT or SUMMARIZE the key areas that need work!
Disingenuous. There's a word to describe any attempt to pretend that the problems with the article haven't been noted properly. I published a brief intro, responding to the dishonest attempts to rush and deny a serious, legitimate process, and letting everyone know that a complete, very detailed list would appear by the next night. I then kept my word, also including an executive summary at the beginning. In other words, you got what you said you wanted, and Oldwindybear got what he said he wanted. Neither of you could contain yourselves clamoring for your respective requests (you summary, Oldwindybear detail). Well, it's here. Neither of you has cause for complaint.
Yet now you say, "Personnally, it's been how long this template about neutrality and factual accuracy has been up. I haven't really seen anyone say they would read through the article to check it out and HIGHTLIGHT or SUMMARIZE the key areas that need work!"
You can't be serious. You just can't be. This is an explicit, highlighted, highly detailed listing of all of the reasons for which I tagged this article, prefaced by a summary. I've been waiting on you two since the morning of 27 feb when i posted the complete refutation of the article. You're pretending you're waiting on me? Why? It's in your court completely. What have you done? You and Oldwindybear got everything you asked for that could be given. You wanted A/B stuff, and I explained clearly that A/B doesn't apply when what someone's advocating is the complete removal of bilge. You want me to write this article? I already did. Figure it out. You're talking to the guy who made the major expansion of this article that can withstand scrutiny almost entirely. I put this article in shape before the Oldwindybear login made its first edit at Wikipedia. And the whole time you've been talking as though Oldwindybear rescued the article. The truth is exactly the opposite of that misapprehension. Here's what the article looked like before he graced us with his presence. Know what? It was better then. You want an A/B? There ya go. Interesting that just this morning somebody went through and Wikified the dates for the Bonnie paragraph. Well, what do you know? They were there back in June 2005. What happened? Hmmm, I wonder.
There are some important changes (not made by Oldwindybear) over the many months since that June 2005 version, but as far as meeting Wikipedia policy and being a tight article, it was far superior before Oldwindybear touched it. Go read it. And as you do, realize that Oldwindybear, the vaunted historian, didn't contribute a word of it. Not one word. There seems to be some manufactured illusion here that the article exists because of him. Obviously, that's not correct. Look at that article date, then look at the first Bonnie and Clyde edits for Oldwindybear and for his IP address of 68.50.125.89. Put that mouse in motion. Oldwindybear has clearly made far more edits here than anybody, but... I hope that frequency doesn't need to be explained to anybody who's watched it at work — one edit per minute. Contrast to one edit in 3 hours, and you see what edit count truly means to the improvement of Wikipedia. Zip. Why is this being brought up? Because both of you, in your way, have been slagging me left and right and trying to sell Oldwindybear as a historian and savior of this article. Enough. The record doesn't bear out your claims.
Every time you see an indent in that large section which is the primary documentation for the TotallyDisputed and cleanup tags, it's highlighting a section of the article which has a problem. Surrounding those highlighted (via indent) areas are explanations of my problems with those sections. Nothing has been left out. If you don't like my explanations, ignore them. If you don't like the detail, ignore it. It was posted in such a way that all users can get what they want/need from it. And here you sit pretending it doesn't exist. When it's convenient for your purpose of diversion and deceit, you claim that I gave too much detail. Just give it a rest. The only reason it's so large is because of the mind numbing amount of errors and slop it addresses. That's not my fault; I didn't screw up the article.
I have a question. What have you two been doing all this time since I posted the refutation? I heard repeated claims of secret emails ("privileged" communication!), and coordination with Katefan, blah blah blah. What do you have to show for it? No citations. No defense of the obviously busted fabricated quotes and misdirection. Nothing except some sloppy stabs in the article that probably created more problems than they fixed. Oldwindybear says everything's great. He thinks this article, complete with obvious typos, slop, and other clear formatting problems (never mind the TotallyDisputed tag) is "a fine example of first rate writing, and sourcing." Yeah? In what alternate dimension? You guys can't even correct the typos I noted? I swear you're just joking around with all this. There's no way two adults claiming to be serious encyclopedia editors could respond to the detailed denunciation of this article with nothing but piddling, boisterous denial. You want something to focus on? Go through this, one thing at a time. If you don't want to read my analysis of a particular error, simply respond to the many requests for explicit citations. Those problems are listed, and it's just laughably silly for you to say otherwise. It's on this page. Here. On earth. You were presented, on time, with clear documentation re the many errors in the article. <<incivility removed>> Address the allegations, or just say you're too lazy and don't care about this article or Wikipedia policies in the least. 216.8.14.224 12:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delivery 

message: And this is Jerry Dorsen, the non-existent attorney, (you of course), who wrote of me"
(this is a direct quote from Pig, writing as that non-existant attorney, Jerry Dorsen!)
"Oldwindybear, I agree with the heartfelt and eloquent note from TruePatriot. You should know that many editors here have been discussing the malicious and utterly unfounded attacks against you, and we have your back. Saltpig will harass you further at his peril. You have my word on that, sir. Not only am I a retired lawyer and sometime administrative judge (with some limited prior work representing veterans, who were unfailingly bold and admirable men and women), but am quite active in several estimable historical venues upon which the penumbra, shall we say, of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow fall. You may have seen my work at the Dallas Historical Society. In my retired life I have, at one time or another, facilitated in the bonded transport of some notable--and rather surprising--documents pertinent to this great country's founders. Regretfully, I am not at liberty to elaborate. To your role at Wikipedia, the truth about Frank Hamer and Bonnie Parker needs to be gotten out there, and you are just the man to do it... at THIS article. It would be a crime if you were to leave these august pages. Your work is sound and respected, and you must carry on. The article would be a shambles if it were not for your leadership and demonstrated acumen. From one Grey Ghost to another, Oldwindybear: Semper Fi. Jerry R. Dorsen, Esq, etc. P.S I will write Katefan0! Believe that! ScrdBldTtd5982 16:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does the fictional, obviously ludicrous Jerry Dorsen (well, obvious to somebody not trying to suck up to a fictional retired lawyer) have to do with the terrible shape of this article? Nothing — which is why you can't stop talking about it. Diversion. I don't think I've ever seen anybody run away from a task quite so tenaciously. What's next — more Jerry talk? Please, get back to the article, because I know you never mean it when you say you're done here. That's just baloney speak. You aren't leaving this article. I know it. You know it. Katefan knows it. If you left the article for real, and permanently, I'd have it in crankin' shape within 24 hours, including more recent additions — all cited, all verifiable as stated before. But you won't leave. You'd be back, preaching your mission for which you have nothing but your opinion leading the choir. You have hijacked this article, and have not once, since the tagging, made an earnest attempt in good faith to engage mediation, apply yourself to NOR/NPOV... anything. If you can't let Jerry Dorsen go, should I bring up every 2 minutes your despicable history, including the indefinite block for repeatedly threatening Katefan with some ridiculous libel suit which you would have lost at the first motions hearing (even if she'd retained a fictional lawyer)? What's the point? Back to the article. Please fix it or get out of the way and stay out. 216.8.14.224 13:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to the person who claimed to be Jerry Dorsen, the non-existent attorney

message: User:CyclePatUser: Katefan0 I am addressing the editors, because we have done our jobs, our differences are cited and referenced, and now it is time to let the editors edit.  As to the fictional obviously ludicrous Jerry Dorsen, he is relevant because it was one of Pig's aliases, as are at least 5 others.   (these show an element of contempt for the whole process i feel is important)  Pig cannot explain the obvious discrepancies in his various personnas, (perhaps he was debating yourself when he could not find anyone else to argue!) so he - as usual - ignores the issue, and rants some more.  As to the issues on the article, they have been laid out by both of us, now let Kate, Pat, and the other editors resolve it.  My block was well deserved, I served it out - which Pig has not, technically he is still indefinately blocked, whereas I am not.  It is unfortunately true that I made a stupid comment on libel - but when we begin to speak of despicable comments, any of the cursing, ranting, open threats that Kate deleted from Pig towards me, and Kate:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bonnie_and_Clyde&dir=prev&offset=20060208144010&action=history (Pig's words: stop coddling your overgrown bear bitch baby, katefan. key slapping numbskull.) 
Or any number of Pig's other threats, curses, and general violations of all wikipedia policy.  All done anonymously, of course.  that alas, is his style, to threaten and curse without standing up and naming himself.  A friend who is a psychologist looked at this page, and his various antics and noted he is either a kid playing games, or a genuinely disturbed person...
*essentially the dispute centers on the level of participation by Bonnie Parker in the "Barrow Gang" crimes, and the ambush and it's aftermath.  User:CyclePat I did source the section you referred to, and moved it to Bonnie's section.  Treherne searched the country, as did Milner and others, and there are NO warrants in existence, or ever, for Bonnie for murder, which Pig has conceded. NOW,Pig has laid out his case; I have responded, it is now time for the editors to decide and I am certainly willing to abide by it.  Is he?    The cases are made, let the editors decide.
*therefore, i propose to all, if you indeed have faith in your work, as I do mine, that we both stand down, and let Kate and Pat take it from here, and decide this article's discrepencies.
I am proud of my work on wikipedia, and I actually identify myself.  I feel at this point Pig and I should both step aside, and allow Kate, and Pat, both good editors with a proven track record of excellence, resolve this.  Pig has made his case - mine is clearly made.  I have faith in my work, but if Kate and Pat rule otherwise, I will go back to working on Rome.  Working on wikipedia is an honor, not a priviledge, which I don't think Pig understands, nor is it a place for him to grandstand his opinions.  No one here gets "their" article - I wrote the Frank Hamer article totally by myself -  such as Kate thoroughly edited -- and somewhat rewrote and this is closely related. Pat and Kate were right that this would have best resolved by email summaries, and I did so until Pat asked me to respond to you yesterday.  Now let the editors decide.old windy bear 15:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: responding to whatever alias Pig is using today

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

message: ...people are commenting on personalities instead of on article content.  Fair warning:  The next person who does it -- I don't care who you are (and there's been misbehavior on all sides) -- gets reverted and banned.  And for those of you participating on this talk page who've already been banned, there won't be anymore leniency. I went back through the talk page and removed the worst of the attacking and incivility that's happened in the past few days.   · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, so that was the sting. Now here's the salve.  The article does need a lot of work.  There are many assertions of fact that are unsourced, including opinions, and writing that is not in encyclopedic style.  So this is how things will happen from here:  We all will go through the article.  I will listen to both sides of the equation where a dispute exists, and then I will change the text in the manner in which it needs to be changed.  For my part, I promise that I will be a neutral party in the content disagreements, incorporating all sourced views where a dispute exists.  In the end, it's my goal that everyone be satisfied with the article, and we won't have this circus on the talk page anymore.  We'll start with the first paragraph. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once again... 

message: Bonnie and Clyde (Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow) were infamous robbers and criminals who traveled the central United States during the Great Depression. Their exploits, along with those of other criminals of the time such as John Dillinger and Ma Barker, were notorious across the nation. They captivated the attention of the American press and its readership during what is sometimes referred to as the "public enemy era" between 1931 and 1935, a period which led to the formation of the FBI. Ironically, though they are remembered as bank robbers, they generally were not. Clyde preferred small stores or even gas stations, though he may have participated in as many as ten bank robberies. Their legend is far larger than their life.
:Taking out my red pen, I would copyedit it like this:
Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow were infamous robbers and criminals who roamed the central United States during the Great Depression. Their exploits, along with those of other criminals such as John Dillinger and Ma Barker, were notorious nationwide. They captivated the attention of the American press and its readership during what is sometimes referred to as the "public enemy era" between 1931 and 1935, a period which led to the formation of the FBI. Though they are remembered as bank robbers, they generally were not. Clyde preferred small stores or even gas stations, though he may have participated in as many as ten bank robberies. Their legend is far larger than their life.
:Is there anything about this paragraph that could use improving?  · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Katefan, for good reasons, I do not accept you as mediator or arbitrator, and will not participate if you inflict this on the article. Please contribute to finding and encouraging an objective meditator acceptable to both principal disputants. I am not going to play this after I've already expressed, upon direct request from the other disputant, every objection with the article, in relative sequence. My objection already noted the statement, "Their legend is far larger than their life", which is unattributed opinion. If you are going to appoint yourself in charge of this dispute, I will counter. You are not mediating any dispute between Oldwindybear and me. You have announced arbitration; I am not going to cave to it. Please help find a mediator acceptable to both parties. 216.8.15.3 23:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, this is not optional.  I am not here as a mediator, I am here as an administrator enforcing policies. Remember, you're a banned editor -- if you don't want to participate in this process, I'll simply blindly revert your edits. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have thusfar not lived up to my trust.  Now you may choose to participate in influencing the article's content in this manner, or I will enforce your ban. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 23:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Why do you have to use "infamous". Isn't it Wikipedia style not to say someone is famous or infamous, but to explain in the opening paragraph why someone is famous with out using the word. No encyclopedia uses the word "famous" or "infamous". By being in the encyclopedia that is already self evident. Any thoughts? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree.  I'd be willing to just strike it; how they're infamous is made amply clear later on.  I also tend to agree with the anon's statement above about the "legend greater than life" statement; it's a nice turn of phrse but probably should be handled later and with someone else's voice. Anyone else?  · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 01:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. True, If they weren't famous technically they shouldn't be in the encyclopedia based on WP:BIO. So we'll have to think of rewording that. I also propose we continue on in this overview style fashion and place whatever we find in a TO DO list. --CyclePat 03:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

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

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

message: There has been a recent change to the article. One user says she is the fifth of seven another says she's the fifth of eight? (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bonnie_and_Clyde&diff=42480469&oldid=42386277) This information is not sourced and I will delete it. --CyclePat 23:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She's the 2nd of 3 correct? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes! Is she the fifth of seven or eight? 

message: I discussed this wtih Kate earlier today.  Pig is banned.  I am going to revert attacks on me, and not answer them.  Period.  My response was deleted, as was the attack.  None of it belongs here, which should be discussing the article. 
Wikipedia policy says: "Wikipedia follows the writers' rules of engagement: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Stay cool when the editing gets hot; avoid lame edit wars by following the three-revert rule; remember that there are 1,015,193 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith by never disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume the same of others in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. Don't use sockpuppets to do wrong or circumvent policy. Be open, welcoming, and inclusive." See wikipedia policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:5P
*in my case, I have raised the two issues I hope others will discuss; the level of participation by Bonnie Parker in the gang's crimes, and sourced it heavily.  Even those critical agree there were NO warrants for her for murder;
*the horrific aftermath of the ambush, as described in the article, and amply discussed by E.R. Milner in his book, pages 145-147, and Ted Hinton's book Ambush.These two issues have been amply presented, it is time for everyone to form a genuine consensus.
old windy bear 03:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: reverted personal attacks