Talk:Bonnie and Clyde/Archive 1

message: two users in one day have changed the original "Epilog" heading to "Epilogue" without explanation. there is nothing wrong with "Epilog". please leave it alone. it was the preferred spelling of the original contributor, and there's no valid reason for altering it. i can understand changing it to another word, because however you spell it, it's not the best word for what's in that section, but changing something that's fine is just passive-aggressive hoowah. please contribute something to the article, or leave it alone. the spelling change doesn't improve anything. yes, i will make an issue of this, because i've had it with people varying words that are already spelled correctly. the article was originally written in modern american english, and the wikipedia style manual supports retaining that. "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another." SaltyPig 05:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epilog v. Epilogue 

message: Supposedly Clyde had something of a Sixth Sense.  There were several traps laid for them by the authorities, that Clyde
managed to avoid for no reason other than he just decided to.  I wonder if there is any discussion of that?
:what are some examples of what you describe? SaltyPig 23:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sixth sense

message: From searching on google I found a few articles that say there were 167 bullet holes in the car.  Someone else check and make a recommendation as to what we should do. 172.162.223.80 16:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: since it's a number that lends itself to exaggeration, i went with a mild number from a reputable source (Twenty-First-Century Update) for rounds shot (not bullet holes), and fuzzed it with the word "approximately". to claim that there were exactly 167 bullet holes is absurd (e.g., is 1 bullet through 2 things 2 holes?). BTW, it was apparently not only bullets that were fired at bonnie and clyde; the current text states rounds intentionally. thank you for bringing this up first on the talk page, because it's something that is easily hyped and screwed, especially if the claim doesn't allow for or include shotgun rounds. my opinion: don't worry about it unless you find a better source for number of rounds fired. as discussed above, most of the "details" about B&C are unverifiable, and the most accurate recounting is simply to state the multiple versions, who said what, and perhaps some material indicating credence levels for the differing sources. SaltyPig 19:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many bullet holes? 

message: i was surprised to see that somebody had redirected the roy thornton page back to this article. the page didn't exist when i wikified his name. anybody know if there's a policy/guideline on this sort of thing? i thought it was a good idea when editing to wikify any notable name, assuming that eventually an article would be written to plug the hole. but if stubs or non-existent pages are to be redirected back, seems that will mean a lot of work in the future re-wikifiying links that had been correctly zapped (as roy thornton in this article today) to avoid looping. barring a guideline or policy, i think redirects should be avoided in such cases. just based on looking at other articles other the years, i thought linking to nonexistent pages was preferred for future expansion. any opinions? SaltyPig 00:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect v. stub 

message: Does it strike anyone else how relatively little attention was paid to the fact that Hammer and his boys murdered Bonnie Parker?  Under the laws in effect at the time, she was not eligible for the death penalty for any of her crimes.  She had not personally killed anyone.  When they were ambushed, she was not in commission of any crime.  While certainly no angel, Bonnie Parker was executed in cold blood by men no better morally than many of the criminals they killed.   OldWindyBear
:OldWindyBear, i do believe that bonnie parker was murdered, and that the men who killed her were hypocrites and scumbags; in addition to killing bonnie parker, they pilfered stolen property that didn't belong to them, and the bienville rep went to great lengths to prevent the return of the death car to its owner (he lost in the end). however, i don't agree that parker would necessarily have been spared a death sentence had she been captured. she was involved in (supported) murder, and that's for sure. in any case, it's not true to say that she wasn't committing a crime when ambushed; almost all their "property", including the car, was stolen. she was evading capture. etc., and there are probably a hundred more technical charges that aren't necessarily crimes, opinions of cops notwithstanding.
:BTW, it's "hamer" with only one "m" — pronounced HAY-mer, and deliberately mispronounced in the B&C movie. SaltyPig 13:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the content of the article should have nothing to do with my feelings or yours. even if you're the chief justice of the U.S. supreme court, wikipedia doesn't want your direct opinion on the matter. wikipedia bans original research/analysis as official policy. i suggest you visit this page and further acclimate yourself with what wikipedia is (and how it works) before further analyzing the B&C ambush (in all caps, no less) on the article page. thanks. this isn't a contest of opinions here. SaltyPig 21:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: again, little of that is relevant, whether true or not, including the ridiculous allegation of a "tantrum" (whatever the size). personal talk is to be avoided on article talk pages, so i won't comment further on your "degree" issues. i encourage you though, if you've time, to consider reviewing the article history and perhaps noting who it was that first raised the issue of legality with regard to the killing of bonnie parker. if too busy for that, maybe you could at least revisit my comments above — especially the one in which i say that i agree with you that she was murdered. i'm confused by your apparent fabrication of a conflict here when none exists except with respect to what can be stated factually in the article. let me spell it out for you: as far as that goes, you're arguing a point with somebody who not only agrees with you, but has stated so explicitly from the outset. that's a good indicator that my problem with your edits is wikipedia-related, not opinion-related. please let the personality side go and concentrate on editing in an encyclopedic fashion. thanks. SaltyPig 00:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MURDER OF BONNIE PARKER 

message: The song "B&C" by Japanese pop singer Hikaru Utada names "Bonnie and Clyde" in its lyrics. Is this too obscure to be a relevant pop culture reference? Lyrics can be found here.
:nothing wrong with popping it in to see if it stays. i don't think it's any more obscure than other stuff there. Wbfl 23:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hikaru Utada song? 

message: it requires perpetual vigilance if your effort's not to be wasted. can't walk away from solid ground, job done. this article was stable, and it's now being degraded regularly by wannabe newspaper editorialists and overt point makers, using the "note insertion" method (do a POV jig here, thrust another there). it's like watching a dog wander a field to lift his leg whenever something catches his nose. inserting sentences here and there is the laziest, most worthless "editing" one can do. may as well use a red sharpie. but i'm not touching this article; have at it. convert the investment of many good editors into your pee ground, forcing them either to acquiesce, or follow some snot nose around with kleenex, preserving a precious syllable as able ("look, johnny, you pooped out a syllable that we kept!"), arguing for 5 hours with a dull gasbag in the process. idiocy.
and probably some officious prig will wipe this comment ("NPA! NPA!"), while leaving the infantile changes to the article intact. the usual wikipedia hack elevation story -- slackers welcomed and coddled, good editors slapped on the hand like ignorami for being pissed about the slackers and not pretending we're in a group therapy session. while that's the policy, official or not, the material's gonna blow. enjoy! wikipedia will either restrict access or fail. 63.28.75.180 03:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: please take the time to review this page's history, and notice that within two minutes of me leaving the comment above, an admin had swooped in, also leaving an inappropriate comment on my user page! too poetic. meanwhile, look at the article. aren't the articles the reason for the superstructure? correction to what i wrote above: the laziest, most worthless "editing" one can do is NPA/language babysitting and control-freaking. wikipedia admin culture is laughably inept. this article was hammered all month, and did you see admins fretting so? not a chance. what a disaster this place is. nanny-boo bureaucrats with jangly key rings. i'm the one who expanded this article from a good stub, with the aux help of probably 5-7 other editors (now gone), and i, not the vandals, am being told, quite paternalistically, to take my comments to the sandbox! unreal incompetence. did you see the admins jumping in on the RfC i started above? not one. but say "sucks" somewhere, and they're falling over one another to get in on the action -- wannabe cops, screwing the pooch while sporting supercilious smirks. where were you when we needed ya, admins? out treating intelligent adults as children, and pampering vandals (both the obvious and covert type). yeah, that's a plan for excellence. yet it's some mystery why wikipedia's getting slaughtered in the press these days. note to admins: i busted my ass on this article for days, getting the facts as straight and NPOV as they could be at the time (including verifying personally, while visiting louisiana, the ambush coordinates within 20 feet). if that's not worth something -- if that doesn't give me some soundoff leeway -- you're made of sludge. 63.28.75.180 04:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: why wikipedia ultimately fails

message: oldwindybear, i have removed all of my previous comments re plagiarism (which you, sadly, felt you needed to modify without marking your edits within my signed blocks); the point has been made.
FTR, it is very bad form at wikipedia to attempt to insert your comments within those of another user's, or remove comments from others simply because you do not like them. your comments here were only reverted temporarily by me, so that you would have an opportunity to repost them properly (not within my signed comment). please do not censor the talk page simply because material on it exposes things you don't want disclosed. this is not a personal attack; therefore, it is not liable for editing by anyone else. talk pages are not article pages.
should you attempt to once again claim wikipedia material as your own and publish it under your name, it will be exposed scrupulously. wikipedia history does not go away. please let this one go. please cease maligning the principal author of the material you saw fit enough to pass off as your own (you didn't take much that i didn't write, hence my ~90% estimate). criticism of the same material simply makes you look like you can't make up your mind. is it not the best material? i freely admit it. however, it's material you liked well enough to put your name to, so discussing the quality of it is, in the end, moot; it was good enough for you. please do not edit my comments, or place your comments within them. i consider this matter finished. SaltyPig 16:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of you need to take a deep breath and cut it out.  Focus on content, not contributors. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 17:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: plagiarism

message: From searching on google I found a few articles that say there were 167 bullet holes in the car.  Someone else check and make a recommendation as to what we should do. 172.162.223.80 16:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many bullet holes? 

message: _____________________________________________________________________
::Both of you need to take a deep breath and cut it out.  Focus on content, not contributors. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 17:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: plagiarism