Talk:Bonnie and Clyde

.

Split out popular culture section?

I believe the best thing to happen to this article now would be to split the popular culture section here into a new article, probably Bonnie and Clyde in popular culture fits best with naming convention. The reasons I believe this should happen are:

1) The article is currently 55 Kb long, far longer than the notional limit for article size. Obviously in certain circumstances there are reasons for exceeding this limit, but I do not believe this article constitutes those circumstances. As far as I can tell, that section is the section which can most easily be removed while retaining the coherence and nice structure of the rest of the article.

2) The rest of the article is of quite high quality, but the popular culture section is unreferenced and scruffy, and at points goes rather off-topic in the minutae it details. Putting it in a separate article would allow that article to be worked on intensively while protecting the overall quality of the parent article. As someone who knows little about Bonnie and Clyde, but has experience of pruning "in popular culture" sections, I'd be happy to collaborate on this with anyone, but I think that, because the thrust of that section is slightly different to the historical and biographical information in the rest of the article, that section should be split out.

Anyone have any thoughts? Jdcooper (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I aggree. You could leave the opening statement, and move the bulk of the section to a new page. Mytwocents (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that I would support a break out trivia page. I'm in favor of cutting a huge amount of this section, leaving only the items that specifically relate to the pair or their depiction. Items that are only "make reference to", "named something/someone after them", "characters similar to", which fairly much rmoves all of the TV items, and in the film section, leave only the films about them:

• Hollywood has treated the pair's story several times, starting with You Only Live Once, a 1937 film loosely based on Bonnie and Clyde directed by Fritz Lang starring Henry Fonda and Sylvia Sidney.
• Dorothy Provine starred in the 1958 movie The Bonnie Parker Story, directed by William Witney.
• In 1967, Arthur Penn directed a romanticized film version of the tale. Bonnie and Clyde, which starred Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway, was critically acclaimed and contributed significantly to the glamorous image of the criminal pair.
• In the 1992 TV film, Bonnie & Clyde: The True Story, Tracey Needham played Bonnie while Clyde was portrayed by Dana Ashbrook.

The music section maybe (depending on whether the songs were more than just named as them) would only have:

• In 1967 Serge Gainsbourg recorded his song "Bonnie et Clyde" as a duet with Brigitte Bardot. The French lyrics are based on Bonnie Parker's poem "The Trail's End". This song would be covered in the 1990s by the bands Stereolab, Luna and MC Solaar. In 2006, pop singer Belinda Carlisle recorded a cover with Fiachna O'Braonain on her 2007 Voila CD.
• In 1968, Merle Haggard had a hit single with his song "Legend of Bonnie and Clyde", and Georgie Fame and the Blue Flames had a hit on both sides of the Atlantic with "The Ballad of Bonnie and Clyde."
• In 1997 a Russian rock band Splean (Сплин) includes a song "Bonnie and Clyde" ("Бонни и Клайд") into their album "Black eye" ("Фонарь под глазом").
• The German punk band Die Toten Hosen have a song entitled "Bonnie und Clyde" that details their exploits.
• "Bonnie & Clyde" is the title of the song by Havok in Hollywood in their 2007 Album "The Dawn of Addiction"
• In 2007, Mike Jones and Kelly Rowland released a song titled "Bonnie and Clyde"

I'd then change the section, using something to the effect of "Selected references in pop culture" or "Selected references in media", such as was done for Black Dahlia. When the list was pared down, I would then insert a hidden note in each section cautioning contributors not to continue to add new items, such as "Selected" is meant to prevent an exhaustive listing of mention in popular culture. Please do not continue adding to this section unless the reference is major. Don't add without proper citation. Thank you. This practice of creating a new entry everytime someone or something says a name can get to be beyond tiresome, not to mention it being unencyclopedic. Those are my thoughts! Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly this would be a solution - I would prefer not to spin off the entire section, but we have to find a way to trim the number of references. I agree absolutely that every time someone mentions the duo in a song it should not be listed. In any event, someone should trim the section - Wildhartlivie (talk) would you be willing to do so, and can we reach consensus that this would be a solution that is acceptable? The remainder of the article is in good shape. JohninMaryland (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to do so and I do agree this is the best option. In fact, today, someone added a new item mentioning that Meryl Streep played Bonnie Parker in a play-within the film Stuck on You. This is a good example of trivial reference which is simply a passing mention in a film which otherwise does not impact on the plot or outcome of the film, one which I firmly believe needs to be removed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support your trimming the section as you have suggested - and the newest addition is indeed a good example of all that is wrong with the section currently. Does anyone else have an opinion, so we can achieve consensus on this as the best remedy, which both Wildhartlivie (talk) and I believe it is, (and thank you for being willing to do the work!) Thoughts anyone? JohninMaryland (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've given this nearly a week, and since there has no opposing comment regarding this, I will start to work on this section. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do, we certainly tried to elicit other opinions, the work needs to be done - and you have the right ideas. I am trying to address the issues on the introduction. JohninMaryland (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is done. Let me know what you think! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you did an excellent job, and it looks 1000% better, and flows well. The article is vastly improved with your work. I added a sentence to the introduction, and made a couple of minor changes otherwise, (please let me know what you think) because I do believe that the editor was correct that the opening needed to clarify that Clyde was not simply a robber, that he either killed, or participated in the killing, of nine peace officers and several other people. On your end, great work! JohninMaryland (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It reads very well to me. I saw what you'd added, and only removed a duplicated sentence. I also adapted the infoboxes, as someone had come in and put in a manually created infobox which was space consuming and would be easily messed up. I couldn't get them to connect, but I think they are okay as they are, at least until someone writes a script for infoboxes for multiple persons. I didn't quite realize how young they were until I did that. I guess I had always thought they were in their mid to late 30s. In any case, good work! Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I think the addition makes for a much more balanced article, as the critique was on the mark that the intro as it was made the uninformed reader believe Clyde was only a robber. The work you did on the media section is terrific, and the article is vastly improved as a result. As to their age, it has always saddened me that they both were so young. Of course, fairness requires me to also say many of Clyde's victims were also young. Great job on your part, at last that section finally makes sense!JohninMaryland (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

POV

Half of the intro is dedicated to testimony that Bonnie Parker never fired a gun, while no mention is made of the numerous murders associated with the duo. The intro gives readers not familiar with the two the impression that they only carried out robberies, not murders. The killings of law enforment officials are buried in the middle of the article, and typically given only a sentence or two of description each, while a lengthy section is devoted to deaths of Bonnie and Clyde, mostly chastising the actions of the posse of officers. --96.52.132.224 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention the "Conclusion" section. Possibly the most laughably POV article I've ever seen.--96.52.132.224 (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, let me address your issues, one at a time:

• I don't claim to be a Bonnie and Clyde expert, but the available research pretty much confirms Bonnie was merely a supporting player. No weapons fired, no murders, no murder charges - possibly the most important fact. Given the public fascination for over 70 years with this pair, it is legimate, I believe, to address her real role, against her perceived role.
• In studying the history of this article, it had a peer review, and a great many people worked very hard on it. People still are, as the removal of the Supreme Court case - a good edit - and the questions about the popular culture list show.
• As to the question of whether or not the opening paragraph misleads people into thinking Clyde - because Bonnie was never charged in any jurisdiction - was not involved in the ten or so law enforcement murders he committed or helped to committ, that is a legitimate question. Should the opening paragraph add a statement that Clyde was responsible for numerous murders?
• On the final issue you raise, I disagree with your perception of the conclusion. It attempts, out of expert research, to explain why the duo has had such a fascinating hold on the public imagination all these years.

So I disagree with your perception of the article except in that you do raise a very interesting question on whether or not the opening paragraph should add a sentence that addresses the fact Clyde was charged - and the history shows he committed - numerous murders. Does anyone think the opening should be amended as noted? As to the popular culture section, Wildhartlivie (talk) you should begin to edit it, since no one seems to object. JohninMaryland (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and consideration of the issues that I had raised. I agree with you that the extent of Bonnie's involvement, including the more-or-less established fact that she did not fire any weapons, should be included in the article. It is an important detail that is extremily relevant to the controversy over the police ambush. I took issue with the way in which this relevant informantion was presented in the article. It should not take up half of the introduction; that is just plain taking sides in the article. Also, providing logistical support in a murder isn't exactly nothing, and the article's tone is defensive and apologetic towards Bonnie.

I appreciate that you believe that my concerns over the introduction have some warrant. I believe that the murders need to mentioned in the opening paragraph. They are a very important detail that drastically alters the context of the subject matter. Simply referring to them as "robbers" does not convey that any murders were committed by them. I would edit the intro myself, but I am not familiar enough with the quantity and circumstances of the killings to be comfortable doing so.--96.52.132.224 (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I do think you have a good solid point on the intro. I will make an edit to the intro emphasizing the murders which Clyde committed, as I do believe your point is extremely valid. I also agree with you that it is essential to point out Bonnie's real role - as opposed to perceived role - in the gang. (Much of the public believes, and believed, that she was an active participant in the murders and killing, whereas, under the laws in effect at the time, she was not) I agree with you that loading weapons used in gun battles is certainly real involvement in criminal acts, but the situation was complicated. Unfortunately, or fortunately, (depending on your perspective!) at the time Bonnie was acting out the law did not have the conspiracy, accessory, and/or aiding and abetting statues which would have permitted charges on her for Clyde's actions. Though the law in effect at that time did have accessory statues, for instance, the witnesses were not able to link her loading to specific killings, etc. The broader criminal statues would have eliminated that necessity, probably, but they were decades off. In any event, I am going to make some edits to address the issue of identifying the duo "only" as robbers, not mentioning the dozen or so murders Clyde committed. I think you are dead right on that issue. Let me know, please, if you think what I do is enough. Thanks! JohninMaryland (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for performing the edits we discussed. I believe that the intro is significantly improved and the article is more balanced as a result of your revisions. Good work! --96.52.132.224 (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)