Talk:Bonnie and Clyde/Archive 3

message: Archived. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean slate

message: I appreciated your coming and discussing this semi-rationally.  You paraphrased it one way, now here is mine:
Bonnie Parker was not wanted for any capital crime at the time of her death.  In fact, a study of the various jurisdictions the Barrow Gang committed crimes in showed no warrants for her at all for any of the major crimes committed.  The Posse which staged the ambush protested to Frank Hamer, in charge of the ambush, that it might be legally wrong, and they had serious reservations about shooting a girl from ambush not wanted for any serious crimes.  Frank Hamer did indeed have a reputation, one he himself bragged about, for not caring about the nicities of the law, like having a warrant before shooting people.  He then allowed people to cut the bloody clothes and hair off of a dead girl before a horrified cororner asked him to control the crowd, and to cap it off, held a news conference and bragged about it.  
The Posse took not only guns, but all the personal possessions in the car, many stolen from people, and not only refused to give them back, but sold them.
*you sarcastically imply it is just sporty to shoot a girl not wanted for a single major crime 130 times and then let people cut off her bloody hair and clothes for souvenirs, which they sold.  Golly, let's not talk about that!  You are right, let the editors decide.  I think your version a whitewash of what was an open disgrace to law enforcement.  I also invoke POV on your version, which I believe is just as biased, ignoring sources, and generally wrong.  I would avoid deleting what actually happened that day - the ambush - and instead whitewashing it with a POV that wants to hide the truth.  Kate and Pat, it is in your hands.  old windy bear 20:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversy lingers over whether Bonnie Parker should have been killed.  One sentence covers it. A extlink to a source for this statement is needed. As far as the death of Bonnie and Clyde goes, it was a brutal way to die, but it was a brutal time. I would encourage all editors to be bold in cleaning up this article.  Mytwocents 21:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: my response

message: Another look should be taken at the Ambush party as a whole. I believe it was Ted Hinton In "Ambush" that told of the position of each man, the order in which they stood when they fired. Law enforcement has progressed in the last seventy two years in that if the incident would have happed today, the posse members would have been skilled sharpshooters, a S.W.A.T. team of sorts. After the first shot into the side of the primary suspects head, the others might converge and arrest the hysterical woman suspect. Not so here, after the first shot was fired the others "reared back " and fired. The lead men in the group firing intentionaly at the face of the passenger. Today, this behavior would be seen for what it is/was, an illegal execution. randazzo56
Oakley did indeed kill Clyde with the first shot - and Hamer ordered firing on Bonnie anyway, thogh Ted HInton made clear in his book, as all other accounts of the ambush, much of the posse objected.  John Neal Phillips wrote a fascinating piece that makes clear that the death of both Bonnie and Clyde - with no trial, judge, jury, or even warrant on Bonnie - was part of a promise that a Texas prison official had made to the dying guard Joe Palmer had murdered during the famous Eashtam prison break.  He literally promised to get them, and had Hamer do so.  This story is in article form but is online at http://historynet.com/ah/bleastham/index2.html from an article  written by John Neal Phillips and originally published in October 2000 issue of American History Magazine.   This explains, as randazzo56 pointed out above, the cold blooded and illegal execution of Bonnie Parker.   Hamer himself bragged of this in the interview he gave the day of the ambush. (see the article for the sources) As randazzo56 pointed out above, this ambush does deserve a long and hard look in the Bonnie and Clyde article.  I also point out the aftermath scene as described amply before in Milner's book - again, while this may be long, it is vitally important to the history, which is why wikipedia exists, to enclyclopedia the historical facts.  I stress again that this does not make Bonnie some saint, but the fact she was not on any warrant, and we had due process in this country, even during the great depression, should not simply be whitewashed out.old windy bear 04:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting

message: Mytwocents I have requested, as you can see at the bottom of the page, arbitration from several editors who are not involved with this dispute.  You did the same wholesale deletions from the Frank Hamer article, which Editor Katefan0 had rewritten. I restored her version, and ask for arbitration on both these articles, since you are, in my opinion, simply POVing the articles with your own positions -- for instance, you do not dispute in any way the information on the aftermath of the ambush of Bonnie and Clyde, or the fascinating claims by Ted Hinton that Hamer traded a murderer a pardon for not being charged for kidnapping a citizen before the ambush, or the numerous sources outlining the specifics of Parker's involvement with this gang.  Given that, I have requested arbitration, and ask that you refrain from further deletions, as I will refrain from further editing, on either article, leaving Hamer's as Kate left it, and this article as is, until the other editors review this issue.  You have no right to inflict your POV on all users, ignoring history in the process, and deleting wholesale work done by an editor (Kate on Frank Hamer) just because you don't want people reading about the aftermath of the ambush.  Equally, I have no right to inflict my POV - so let us wait and let the requested editors examine the EVIDENCE and render a decision.  If you simply deep deleting, I will just mark it as disputed, and it will go on and on - this is not wikipedia's way!  Since you will not discuss the history - why should the Hinton revelations and the coroner's observations of the ambush scene not be in the articles?  Wh should Ralph Fults and W.D. Jones statements on Bonnie's involvement with the actual gunfights be striken?  You have never said.  What are your sources?  In the interim, I propose we wait for arbitration.  I feel very confident in the historial evidence - do you?  old windy bear 13:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: request for arbitration on this article and Frank Hamer

message: Mytwocents I added the information on the lucerne, Indiana, incident, because another user suggested it needed doing.  I rewrote that section so it was not much bigger to accomadate the suggestion from Ewulp -- a good one -- that the section needed source citing, which i did.  As far as condensing the information to two sentences, I will simply slap a POV dispute on your two sentences.  ANOTHER EDITOR - not you, who has shown that you don't care or understand the historical issues involved -- needs to check the article.  At no point have you disputed the information as being invalid, or historically wrong, you just want to get rid of it.   Wikipedia does not work that way.  Here things are done by consensus, and where, as here, you have a complete disagreement, editors NOT INVOLVED examine it, and resolve it.   Also, you have reverted twice.   these are the issues you are ignoring, or attempting to delete out:
*the limited involvement of Bonnie in real life as opposed to the public perception -- mY2CENTS leaves out all the sourcing, and pretty much eliminates the major controversy historians have been examining the past half century!;
*the incredible horror of the ambush scene, particularly well pictured by Milner on page 147 of his book, which mY2CENTS POV  deletes in toto;
*In addition, mY2CENTS in his POV version deleted all mention of the relatively new controversy about Ted Hinton posthumous revelations concerning the bargain Hamer allegedly made with Methvin's father.  (and considering Hinton's reputation, such charges have to be taken seriously!).
mY2CENTS will be in violation of the three revert rule shortly, and again, because he wants to present a particular point of view, not because he has any case that the information is historically wrong.  User:katefan0 help!  This person does not dispute the historical accuracy of the information in question, he merely wants to present a particular viewpoint.  NOT ONE USER has posted supporting him.   I have appealled to Katefan0, an editor who knows this page well, has edited my article on Frank Hamer, which is related, which my2cents also screwed up without any sourcing for his POV changes, and unlike Katefan0, is not interested in historical accuracy, at no point has he disputed the accuracy of the information he seeks to delete.  He simply wants to whitewash the ambush, and hide the horror of the aftermath fo that scene, and hide the research done on the extend of the involvment of Bonnie Parker in the Barrow gang crimes.  old windy bear 12:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: clarification

message: We cammot begin to attain historical accuracy concerning this artile until we begin to address, in detail, the circumstances of the death of the pair as well as the effects on the ambush party itself. Oldwindybear is right, there is enough here for a seperate article. One thing to avoid would be to try and  "sum-up" these details in one or two sentences, as if to shift attention elsewhere. randazzo56 3-19 2:50 P.M.
randazzo56 I could not agree with you more.  The absolute worst thing we could do to this article is what My2cents is proposing, which is try to sum up the ambush in a couple of sentences.   And all that kind of 2 sentence summing would do would be to whitewash the ambush - which as randazzo56 has also pointed out, could not been more of a mess.  The sharpshooter, Oakley, killed Clyde with the first shot.  The rest of them could have trotted down and arrested Bonnie with ease.  Or at least yelled "throw out any gun and get out with your hands up!"  What they should not have done, and did, was fire 130 rounds at her!  Then let people chop off her bloody hair and clothes.  But I could not agree with randazzo56 more that we need to reach consensus on the ambush - which brings me back to what facts does My2cents dispute?  Then we can talk about rewriting.  The WORST POSSIBLE THING to do would be to try to sum up as My2cents proposes, without ever saying what facts he would delete - and why! old windy bear 20:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HISTORICAL ACCURACY

message: Only someone with a real problem, and a complete lack of history, would have made some of the changes 82.114.74.96 made in the article.  For intance, " Both Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow were believed to have been bisexual, and although Bonnie is known to have been with other men during their relationship, it was usually in the company of Barrow" is totally unsourced, not recognized by historians on the subject, and the additional comment "However, whatever the outcome, Hamer did bring the crime spree of Bonnie and Clyde to an end. Regardless of how Hamer did it, the end result is that had he not taken matters into an unconventional manner, their crimes would have continued, and most likely more lives would have been placed at risk." is POV at it's worst. It isn't history, it is more appropriate to the National Enqirer. If he wishes to propose this kind of POV, he needs to do it on the discussion page, and if he can source it, then propose it. Otherwise it will be removed, which I did. It is POV at it's worst.old windy bear 21:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pig again?

message: It was actually a cover by the band Luna featuring the vocals of a member of Stereolab... Mr. Cat 06:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stereolab Cover, or not...  

message: User:oldwindybearPlease see my previous comment about this above--it would be just as legitimate to write that her verse has been critically derided, but I'm not pushing that POV. I think her poems are treated pretty kindly here, and I'm fine with it as is. Readers can always check them out for themselves.
What this section of the article sorely lacks is more info about her youth--It jumps right from her birth to her marriage. Was she a troublesome kid? Good student? This could use fleshing out. This is otherwise becoming an extraordinarily good article--a wealth of good information from all editors, and the tone is greatly improved from the rampant POV I and others sensed a month or so ago.
I share 100% your opinion of Wikipedia--it's the greatest invention of the last decade easily imo! Ewulp 22:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poetry 

message: Ewulp suggested the article sorely lacked is more info about Bonnie's youth--It jumped right from her birth to her marriage. This was fleshed out considerably answering the questions asked.    Ewulp's edits on her poetry were also left, despite numerous websites praising her poetry, and it being mentioned in Milner's book especially.  But that user was right - let people read her work, adn decide for themselves.  Given all the work, and various other edits by many other people, I echo Ewulp"This is otherwise becoming an extraordinarily good article--a wealth of good information from all editors, and the tone is greatly improved from the rampant POV I and others sensed a month or so ago."  Therefore if no one objects, I will remove the cleanup label tomorrow.  I think a number of people have put a lot of work in Ewulp among them, and this article is ready for removal of the cleanup notice.  old windy bear 21:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: removing the cleanup label

message: randazzo56 Greetings!  Been laid up, so it has been awhile!  Good point on the BAR - the Lucerne incident, which was the only recorded time anyone claimed Bonnie fired a weapon was a rifle, and supposedly AUTOMATIC FIRE - and the only rifle in the possession of Barrow at the time was a BAR, which, as you pointed out, was virtually impossible, (I would say plainly impossible, but i suppose a finite possibility exists!) that someone who was 4'10" and weighed 90 pounds could fire.  In reality, both you and I know NO WOMAN THAT SIZE could possibly have handled a BAR!  That adds to why no police reports were filed on the incident, and no charges, because it never happened...As to the issue of the number of Barrows, unfortunately, the problem comes because the various books list various numbers, and the census is not clear, as all the children were not living at home.  Since there is no definitive agreement among the real experts, Treherne, Milner, and even Ted Hinton, then we list 7 or 8.  But good addition and good point on the BAR.old windy bear 14:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Point on the BAR

message: :Mytwocents I will absolutely afford you the same courtesy I do everyone, which is not leavning messages on their talk page if they ask me not to.  As to your good faith, remember, when we, you and I, rewrote the Frank Hamer article, you specifically - if you would like, go look - agreed that these issues were appropriately sourced and aired here.  Now you want to go POV that.  I am not threatning to Wikistalk you, quite the contrary, I am pointing out that most of your contributions have been very controversial, not sourced, not referenced, but POV additions advocating a particular viewpoint.   And any review of your edits shows strong resistance to your arrogance in simply deleting information wholesale, with no effort to source your deletions as not factual, and no effort to follow the most basic of wikipedia tenets: discuss change, source the factual differences, and seek consensus.  You say "good faith" but frankly, your record shows none.  You always POV every article you have contributed to, without sourcing any but one.
 
:Good faith requires good acts.  If you really want good faith assumed, then:
Answer the questions on your unsourced deletions of vital information from this article: 
*what historical inaccuracies are there in the present article, and what source do you have for disputing the facts presented?
*why do you think your version, which deletes wholesale the most salient and important historical controversies surrounding the duo is anything but a puff piece for your religiously right wing writing - typified by your statement on Ted Hinton's posthumous revelation that Frank Hamer traded a pardon for Henry Methvin, who murdered two state highway patrolmen, because he had kidnapped and tied up Methvin's father - you stated you did not believe it - you lack any historical perspective, it does not matter what you believe, or what I believe, what matters is what history says!
*you seek to delete wholesale the following, which again, are the most important historical issues surrounding the duo:
:1) what was Bonnie Parker's true role in the Barrow Gang and their crimes?
:2) was Phillips right that Clyde's motives were never monetary, but rather some vendetta against the Texas Department of Corrections that ended up costing a dozen innocent people their lives, plus his entire gang, except Methvin, whose father got a pardon in return for not having Hamer jailed for kidnapping during the ambush;
:3) what really happened at the ambush site, and the horrific aftermath, where at page 147 of Milner's book he records the coroner's record as having to get Hamer away from bragging to a group of people to stop souvenir collectors who were busy cutting pieces off the dead bodies?
:4) what is the real role of Bonnie and Clyde in popular culture, and why has their legend so dwarfed that of far greater criminals like Alvin Karpis and Ma Barker and her gang of the same generation?
Further, NONE of your deletions or additions, on any article, have been discussed on the talk page, as is wikipedia policy, seek consensus and source changes.  Of course I will honor a request not to leave messages on your talk page - but I will go to whatever articles I find have been inappropriately edited, and correct those edits, with proper sourcing  Do not try to threaten me not to go to your favorite sites and rewrite what is plainly wrong.  You have NEVER followed any of wikipedia's policies for discussing, sourcing, or seeking consensus, so your taking the high horse amuses me.  If you wish to be taken seriously, then list your factual disputes with the current article, and source them, don't POV us to death with your unsourced opinions, such as your statement in talking about the ambush "it was a brutal way to die, but it was a brutal time"  Do you consider that in any way a professional or historical way to address these issues?  It is not. Your style is highhanded at best, certainly not in wikipedia's rules, and unfortunately, usually wrong factually because you are advocating instead of recording facts.  That is what an encyclopedia does, records facts.  If you want to demonstrate your mastery of this subject, answer the new user, who asked you flatly, what sources do you have for your deletion of valuable information?   ANSWER: YOU HAVE NONE. old windy bear 19:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no opinion on the merits of the two sides, but I would like to ask that you please ratchet down the yelling and bolding. That's certainly not helping you two find a resolution. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I always do what you say Kate, you know that!  All I am asking, seriously, is:
*1) that he list his factual disputes and source them before wholesale changes, and discuss those disputes here, appropriately, as the rest of us do, instead of wholesale deletion of heavily sourced relevant material;
I don't think that is unreasonable.  You know a LOT of people worked for the last year on this article, including that user, who agreed that the controversy around the ambush could be fully addressed here - and other users agreed - so it was left off the Hamer page.  Now he wishes to POV this page, without listing his factual disputes, sourcing them, or discussing them, as wikipeida demands.  That is all I will say, and I have ratcheted down as you told me too!  old windy bear 19:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: Woohookitty who is an editor whose skills I highly respect suggested that no question marks should be in the controversy section, and I have reworded that to remove them all.  The facts are indisputable, virtually all of them online, (such as the quotes on the ambush from Hinton and Alcorn, which are sourced to online quotes they made to newspaper articles posted online) and the ones that are not are very specifically sourced, (such as the coroner's horror at what he found going on at the ambush site, with Hamer allowing it) but a good editor felt it needed rewording, and I did so immediately. Any further suggestions on rewording of facts not in dispute to remove any suggestion of POV are welcomed. User:AndyZ is adding some links which are necessary, and which is greatly appreciated because my computer, for reasons known but to God and the cyberuniverse, will not do,old windy bear 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite on the Aftermath of the Ambush Section

message: :AndyZAndyZFor consensus: following Andy's suggestion, and Cherry blossom tree suggestions on the peer review page, I removed one section, the role of Bonnie Parker, and used part of that paragraph, plus part of a wonderful quote from noted B & C expert J. Geringer, and created the three paragraph opening that AndyZ suggested, while beginning to tighten the article as Cherry blossom tree suggested. I believe the opening paragraphs flow into each other, introduce the couple, define their role in american history and the times AS THE EXPERTS HAVE DEFINED IT, and lead into the rest of the article:
*who exactly were these people, 
*and what did they do, and why do the experts think they did it, 
*what victims occurred because of it, 
*how were they stopped, 
*what is the controversy surrounding the ambush, and the horrible aftermath, 
*and why their legend lingers even today, according to the best historians and experts alive. 
::I also, following Cherry blossom tree suggestion, combined the sections of Bonnie meeting Clyde with their relationship during prison, and the early days of what would be called, the Barrow Gang. I also combined 3 other sections, without deleting fact one. It tightens the flow of the article, without deleting any facts which are not in dispute, and virtually every person who has participated in this discussion wants the facts in, not out, they just want the article better structured, sourced, and written, which, with AndyZ's invaluable help, Cherry blossom tree excellent suggestions on combining sections without eliminating facts, it is being.
::Not one fact is wrong, the weasal words are gone, I agree absolutely with AndyZ when dealing with controversial material, direct quotes from expert sources are the best way to resolve language disagreements, and avoid weasal words or subjective interpretations. I believe this article is now 100% improved, and flows excellently to the issues involved. THANKS especially to AndyZ for doing what I could not, and linking the quotes and facts to the relevant sources, completely reworking the references, and generally being a great help, thanks to Cherry blossom tree  for a suggestion that remarkably tightened and improved the article.!old windy bear 01:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rewrite begun after suggestions from several outstanding contributors

message: Here is my re-write of the intro:
-----------
Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow were notorious criminals who operated in the central United States during the Great Depression. They captivated the attention of the American press and its readership during what has been referred to as the public enenmy era" — between 1931 and 1935, a period which led to the formation of the FBI. Though remembered as a bank robber, Clyde Barrow preferred to rob small stores or gas stations.
Bonnie was viewed at the time, as a full partner in the gang.  Gang members W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults said they never saw Bonnie fire a gun, but described her role as logistical.Phillips, John Neal. Running with Bonnie & Clyde: The Ten Fast Years of Ralph Fults 
On May 23, 1934, Bonnie and Clyde were killed in an ambush, in rural Louisiana, by an interstate posse, led by Capt. Frank Hamer, Texas Ranger.Hinton, Ted. "Ambush: Ambush: The Real Story of Bonnie and Clyde"  The bullet-riddled Ford, in which Bonnie and Clyde were killed, is in a museum display, in Primm, Nevada.
-----------
This covers the facts, and introduces the key people in the saga.  It avoids repetition and statements of opinion.
Mytwocents 04:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article intro

message: ::I will say this simply and once.  I completely oppose the proposed rewrite.  It is poor writing, and destroys the present value of having quotes, as AndyZ says above, in eliminating subjective interpretations, weasel words, and giving actual historical fact.  The present introduction is excellent, raises the issues in the article, and is a good lead-in.  Stillstudying 12:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose the Rewrite

message: I tried to make this a better page, but all it has gotten me is muddy. Here is the last edit I made on April 26, 2006 with the edit summary; (general cleanup, trimmed redundant statements, wordiness, POV pushing).  I have been shouted down for that edit. I have had good success on other wikipages, but not here. I hope the peer review process I started in good faith, will make this a better page. 
Shouting, personal attacks, assuming bad faith, slandering, threats, and a sockpuppet have achieved their purpose. They have made me walk away. So long.
Mytwocents 16:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another one bites the dust

message: Mytwocents You walked away because the majority of people who came here, and participated in the peer review process, saw the amended article, with heavy sourcing, use of quotes to eliminate subjective language and weasal words, and three outstanding introductory paragraphs which tapped into the real issues, and approved of it because:
The vast majority don't see the intro as a 5 fold emphasis on Bonnie's pacifism - It is not meant to be that, nor do I think most people see it so - but a vital and moving massively sourced introduction that lists the three salient encyclopedic issues to be addressed in this article:
*who were these two people that have held such an enduring hold in the public and especially american mythos, which led into;
*what was the real - as opposed to perceived - role of Bonnie Parker, (VERY controversial, thus needing 4 separate sources}, with quotes, leading into:
*why the presenece of a beautiful woman led a veneer of daring do to their antics, and appealled especially to the disenfranchised during the depression, and afterwards, also very controversial, and again, better off with direct quotes and historical facts from noted historians.
::The sad fact is that to the best of my knowledge, no sock puppet made you walk away.  Shouting, personal attacks, assuming bad faith, slandering, threats - you just did all the above in lying about another contributor.  Let us be clear on that - you called me names on an administrator's talk page - I never treated you so.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Woohookitty where you call me an "ape-over-asshole nut."  Slander?  Calling names?  You do it well and regularly to those who dare disagree with you.  I simply refused to back down from you.  I find you and your tactics pitiful, frankly, and very sad. Was AndyZ a sock puppet when he told you the quotes and lasting effects should stay?  I told you when you made that accusation, I don't use sock puppets, first, because they are unethical, secondly, because they are so easily traced and stupid.  I work at a law enforcement agency, (not that it is your business, but I would happily let Kate, or an editor I trust check that), and the internet addresses show it could not possibly have been myself - please make this accusation formal if you truly believe it, so it will be formally cleared, and you then appropriately disciplined for slandering someone in complete violation of wikipedia policy.  You repeat like a mantra, assume good faith, and lie openly about people, calling them names on other talk pages - a greater hypocrite I have not dealt with here.  My only offense is you cannot bully me as you do others.  I find it sad - but typical of you - that you repaid my kindness in asking the mediation against you be dismissed by lying about me - nonetheless, I stand by my request.  I feel that your actions, while typically highhanded, and meanspirited - I never called you names, as you did me on an editor's page, but nonetheless, though I could ask for your banning for that alone, and this further attack, I will not.  I won't stoop to your level.   This is not about you and I, it is about an encyclopedia article, and the best way to write it.
::Mytwocents, you walked away because when AndyZ told you to find facts to dispute, you could find none.  He, a great editor, went through, found all subjective interpretations, and weasal words, and they were removed, and replaced by quotes, and historically undisputed facts.  He supported the inclusion of the quotes, and lasting effect as an outstanding way to eliminate any possibility of subjective interpretation or language.  That was why you left.  You cannot dispute facts, and you cannot gain anyone's support to eliminate facts, quotes, and the truth.
::Mytwocents, you walked away because, though you cannot bring yourself to admit it, you were wrong.  Consensus is the voice of reason here at wikipedia, and you could not convince people that your truncated version, eliminating facts wholesale, substituting weasal words for actual historical quotes, not properly introducing the real heart of this article, was simply not good writing, not encyclopedic, and your version got zero support.  I reiterate to you that if you want to accuse me, please do it formally, not by innuendo, and we can have it formally resolved.  AndyZ has been invaluable in teaching me several things, first to link, (how to teach an old contributor, new tricks!), then that when dealing with controversial subjects, which lend to subjective interpretation, use direct quotes to avoid weasal words; and Cherry blossom tree for her brilliant suggestion to shorten the article, combine sections, which we did so without losing ONE SINGLE FACT.   I honestly did not write a pro anyone article - I went, as a trained historian and member of the law endorcement community, where the truth took me.  I stressed in the article, that Clyde's psychotic obsession with revenge against the Texas prison system directly resulted in at least 18 deaths, 11 of them totally innocent people.  But the truth also shows that Bonnie Parker was essentially a lovestruck girl who followed a charming, but deadly, psychopath to her death.  That is not my wording either, it is almost a word for word conclusion from John Treherne, John Phillips, and E.L. Milner, the three best Bonnie and Clyde historians, plus Jonathan Davis, the great depression era historian.  The horrific aftermath of the ambush has to be told - that is NOT american law enforcement, it is murder Hamer got away with, again, another historian wrote "today he and the posse would be tried for murder, and at the least, imprisoned for life."  I left that out, because I feft it, though historically correct, it did not help us achieve NPOV, which the current article has.  It is nuanced, balanced, sourced, and fair.  The difference now, which AndyZ in particular taught, is that all this is MASSIVELY sourced, and going to be more so.   It is sad that you would rather make unfounded and mean spirited accusations than accept consensus.  To everyone else, thank you, we have achieved consensus.  old windy bear 18:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: False Accusations are Sad

message: I am in partial agreement with My2cents, the number of concurring statements on Bonnie's non-use of guns is bound to strike some readers as overkill.  This rewrite helps without (as far as I can tell) cutting anything important:
Old version:  Gang members W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults testified that they never saw Bonnie fire a gun, and described her role as logistical.[1] In that book, Fults was adamant that Bonnie never fired a shot in any of the gang's gun battles. W.D. Jones stated 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."
Proposed rewrite:  Gang members W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults testified that they never saw Bonnie fire a gun, and described her role as logistical.[1]  Jones' sworn statement was that "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."
This way all the witnesses are still on record, but it no longer sounds like repetition of a mantra. 
If all agree feel free to paste it in. Ewulp 05:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though the public at the time believed Bonnie to be a full partner in the gang, the role of Bonnie Parker in the Barrow Gang crimes has long been a source of controversy. Gang members W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults testified that they never saw Bonnie fire a gun, and described her role as logistical.[1] Jones' sworn statement was that "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.".[2]
Bolded is your suggested rewrite, which is pasted in now.  old windy bear 11:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks oldwindybear, you are correct, this is what I intended. Ewulp 01:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ewulp No thank you!  You have made only good suggestions throughout this article, (back to increasing greatly the amount of information we should have on Bonnie's youth - all that is yours also, remember?)  And look how much better the article is!  Your paragraph was better than mine, thanks for your help! old windy bear 03:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ewulp Nice again, better arranged and worded, so that the reader who doesn't know them, better understands their enduring place in popular culture and the american mythos, when far more dangerous criminals like Alvin Karpis are long forgotten.  old windy bear 10:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragraph 

message: Here are a few more edits I will try in a few minutes, and the reasons:
*the material in parenthesis about Hamer in Final Run seems to me more detail than needed here, and is covered in the linked Hamer article for those interested
*There are some lines in the Clyde section that aren't needed because they're covered in the Final Run section
*Some adjustments for more a  more neutral tone in Buck joins the gang 
and old windy bear I'll be glad to take a look at your work in Military History Project, as time permits -- I'm currently writing an overhaul of a "neglected" page so WP is taking over my life a little--I'm sure you know that feeling! Ewulp 06:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is always a pleasure working with you, when you have time, I just rewrote the entire article on the Mongol Invasion of Central Asia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Central_Asia for the Military Committee - I would like your opinion on the general tone - there is no question I got the historial accuracy right, but your formidable editing and language skills would be a great help in assessing the overall rewrite.  It is interesting you mention the Italian-Ethiopian War, we lived in Addis Ababa for 3 years when I was young, and even in the late 50's and early 60's the impact of that war was quite great on the Ethiopians.  Let me say in closing I enjoy working with you, and I have considered carefully the consequences of my actions.  I truly believe the principles of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement are so vital that they must be preserved at all costs.  I enjoy working on wikipedia, and except for this person, Mytwocents, and one other, now permanently banned, have been able to work with everyone.  But this user, Mytwocents, is simply so violative of the rules, so arbitrary in his absolute refusal to abide by the 27 rules, that he must be halted, or this kind of chaos will spread, and what Jimbo has built so carefully, with our help, those of us willing owrk with others, will be destroyed.  I would go myself, provided this user goes also, in order to preserve the vital principles of post a proposed change, wait for reply, discussion, work towards agreement, and the other 23 rules mandated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement - all of which this user is simply ignoring.   old windy bear 12:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't know where to put any notes in the midst of all this flaming and soapboxing. Mytwocents 16:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some trims