Talk:John Dillinger

remove vandalism from legacy section

The first line of the Legacy section is very clear vandalism. It should probably be removed. Jps0611 (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Gun drawn, at death

The civilian eyewitnesses to his death said he did not draw a gun. The FBI agents who shot him say he did. That discrepancy should be mentioned under the Questions section, which would also affect the lead and death narrative which states it as fact. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That would be great with supporting citations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What 1963 letter?

The third paragraph of the section Questions under the subhead Legacy discusses the Discovery Channel documentary of 2006. A reference is made to "the 1963 letter" as if this is a well-known historical piece of evidence/? But it is not common knowledge. I came to this page wanting factual information after seeing Public Enemies. This kind of undeveloped reference is not helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed8r (talk • contribs) 04:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a lot of vandalism on this page following the premiere of the recent film. At some point, some of that paragraph was removed. You've been around Wikipedia for while, you should know this. Please assume good faith. This is what happens when anyone can edit. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. It's not a question of "good faith." The purpose of my post was to bring it to someone's attention who could explain further. Sorry if my tone "sounded" off. Ed8r (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and in return. There once was a quite extensive section in the article that addressed questions, which was trimmed to the most overt, best supported and more easily researched. Things get tampered with so quickly, especially when a huge film like Public Enemies comes out. "It takes a village" is sort of apropos to describe maintaining the stability of articles then. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Misattribution to FBI website

This article is in a fairly regrettable state right now; I've tried to improve it somewhat by removing the most questionable and poorly sourced material, but it does seem to attract wild, unsourced claims on a regular basis. I would ask other people watching this article to keep an eye in particular on misattribution of claims to the FBI summary, which unfortunately right now is the main source this article relies upon. I've removed a couple of these, but there are probably more left. The FBI site does have good primary source information, none of which is however directly referenced in the article right now (and which generally should be treated with caution as it's the FBI's official record, not a secondary source providing context and background). Notably, the list of bank roberries in the middle of the article doesn't seem to match anything in the FBI source either, and if it's not sourced, it should be removed, as it's likely to be another attraction point for random insertions.--Eloquence* 06:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote and reworked a large part of the article using the FBI source about a week ago. I am currently still looking through a couple books on Dillinger and hope to expand the article and using them for sourcing. However, before the FBI source was used, the article was nearly devoid of inline citations so it is somewhat improved from its original state. I also removed several unsourced paragraphs. I do agree with you though that more sourcing is needed, and more reliable secondary sources are needed. My though with the FBI source was that somethign is better than nothing. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I should have left a note here, but I had posted with Eloquence this morning about this. [1] I had gone ahead and returned the gravestone vandalism and refined those sources and was going to address the other specifics (besides the legacy and questions section) this evening. It does need better sourcing, but like we've talked, right now, the preponderance of our job is to keep the article stable until the film hullabaloo is over. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching this article for well over a year, and it seemed fairly good - if at places poorly sourced - for a while... and now that the movie's opened, I agree with the sentiment expressed by longtime watcher Wildhartlivie about keeping the article stable. [And thanks! for the effort.] I was disappointed to see the penis section removed - not for prurient reasons, mind you - but because there has always been a snickering penis folklore aspect to the Dillinger story. It was in this article that I learned that the corpse photo was the cause of the scandalous stuff. And even though, as Eloquence wrote, some of the material is an "unreferenced hodgepodge," every American schoolboy takes as gospel the urban legend that JD's penis is in the Smithsonian. It was nice to see it acknowledged, at least for a time... Seduisant (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that those sections need to be considered gone forever, they are just in need of a thorough reworking and proper referencing be found to put it in context. I don't think legends and controversies need to be gone, just fixed. There actually is a lot that was removed that I haven't put back yet, mostly concerning what happened with his body after he died, the multitude of death masks, curiosity seekers and their behavior, and yes, if it can be supported, his penis. ;) I love Johnny Depp, I am quite anxious to see this film, but curses on what it brings in with vandalism! Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Film inaccuracies"

A notation that the film, Public Enemies, has historical inaccuracies has been put in this article 3 or 4 times now. There are several issues with such content. First of all, there has been no sourcing offered with this observation. Secondly, such content more properly belongs in the article about the film, and not in this biography and is well beyond the scope of this article. They are screen depictions, not documentaries. Thirdly, the question that arises from this is what difference does that make? Film depictions are not obligated to be historically accurate, they are fictional films based on stories about such persons as Dillinger that take artistic license for whatever reason to produce the film in the filmmaker's perspective. They aren't documentaries, there are no claims made that such Hollywood productions are obligated to conform to historical accuracy. Take for example Titanic, Troy, and the list goes on. None of them are put forth at any time as being historically accurate, they are made for entertainment. It is beyond irrelevant. Does anyone actually think any of the film portrayals listed in the Film depictions section are accurate historical portrayals? If so, that's a bit troubling. In any case, without proper sourcing, original research gleaned from watching the film and drawing conclusions cannot be used. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, source has been provided, so that takes care of that issue. And the first film on the list of movies in this article mentions an inaccuracy, so I fail to see how MAJOR historical inaccuracy in the most recent film dealing with the subject of this article is not relevant when that statement has been left unchallenged. Not to mention the most recent film is based on a NON-FICTION book. I think people might expect a higher standard of accuracy when that is the case. ViperNerd (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's unsourced, it needed to come out and it has. That other stuff exists is a fairly poor argument to put forth to justify the insertion of anything else. This is content for the film article, not for the article about the film subject. Again, the film is not a documentary and you said it best: "the most recent film is based on". Do you seriously go to major Hollywood films expecting it to be a history lesson? Artistic license it taken when a filmmaker makes a film. Unless it is released under the claim of an accurate historical depiction, it's much too naive to expect it to be a history lesson. The main article for the film doesn't even address historical inaccuracies and it is beyond the scope of this article to start that exploration. People might expect a higher standard of accuracy, but what does that have to do with the biography article of Dillinger the real man and not Dillinger as Michael Mann decided to portray him? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, those are all fine opinions, and you're indeed welcome to them, but the fact is that many people who view the most recent film about a historical figure might just turn to Wikipedia to learn something about the subject afterwards if their curiosity is aroused, especially if that film is not merely a dramatic retelling, but based on a non-fiction account of history. I think it's more than relevant to inform those people that much of what they might have taken away from the theater as factual isn't always so. That is the role of an encyclopedia, to better inform people about the factual truth of things. As you've neatly pointed out, that the article about the movie doesn't address these issues is quite irrelevant to this article. I don't think anyone who views a movie like Public Enemies necessarily expects a "documentary" as your carefully crafted strawman asserts, but it's not unreasonable that they might expect little details such as when key figures in the movie lived (and died) to be more or less accurate, and Wikipedia can help point out when this is not the case. ViperNerd (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As one of those who came here to help sort fact from fiction after seeing the movie, I have to agree with ViperNerd. I knew I hadn't watched a documentary, but since it was based on nonfiction, I expected a certain level of accuracy. Ed8r (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The name of the sheriff in Lima when Pierpont, Makley and Clark broke Dillinger out of jail was Jess Sarber. He was killed in the escape attempt.

Pierpont and Makley were sentenced to die in the electric chair. Clark received life inprisonment. Harry Pierpont was the only Dillinger gang member to die in the electric chair. Makley was killed in an escape attempt with Pierpont. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.31.26.226 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Wildhartlivie. Wikipedia is not a truth squad. Adding text that points out inaccuracies of film depictions runs into the solid wall of WP:SYN, unless sources specifically note the inaccuracies, and then only can be included in proper weight, which I would insist is zero. Movies never are historically accurate. If you think Public Enemies is bad, take a look at the Lawrence Tierney version. Tierney was a better Dillinger, at least in my opinion, but that movie has absolutely no historical fidelity. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Misconceptions"

I say this without looking at the editing or sourcing of removed text. In general, information about films and their accuracy belongs the article about the film. However, it may be useful to put a section here that details a few damning errors (from any film depiction) that are popular misconceptions, and any inaccuracies that are common to multiple films. This isn't unheard of, and there are good and bad examples of this treatment on other biographies. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I concur, we don't need any information on the film in this article, other than that there was a film. Specifics about the film need to be placed in the film article. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think that is the general practice. I can't think of a single movie made about a historical figure that hasn't been rife with inaccuracies. So unless we want "inaccurate film" references in articles about Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan, we need to be consistent and keep it out of this article. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If that's indeed the case, then why bother mentioning film depictions at all in the biographies on Wikipedia? If all such films are no better than fiction, then they aren't factually notable in a biographical sense, and have no place in an encyclopedic article. I seriously doubt Britannica mentions film depictions in its biographical articles. And if depiction in Hollywood dramatic films are notable enough to be listed in a Wikipedia biography, then that should open the door to lists of books that depict the subject (which would quickly become cumbersome). What's the difference? I say delete the entire section if its content is indeed as trivial as represented by some editors in this discussion. ViperNerd (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, someone, clear these dates up

The article says that after Dillinger's divorce, he robbed a grocery store and served 8 and a half years in prison. It says he was divorced in June 1929 and released from prison in may 1933...which is less than 4 years, not even close to 8 and a half. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.170.68 (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That occurred because someone moved that entire paragraph down to the section from the one above it and added the words "After the divorce". I've corrected that error. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Article style

The first paragraph of the article contains a subjective view-point:

He was a dangerous criminal, who was responsible for the murder of several police officers, robbed at least two dozen banks and four police stations, and escaped from jail twice, but some people idolized him as a modern-day Robin Hood.

I believe it is not true that John Dillinger was "reponsible for the murder(s) of several police officers. I believe John Dillinger is credited with the murder of one police officer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.102.249 (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

x

Dillinger was never convicted of killing anyone, and only accused of one murder on circumstantial evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pissedfluffy (talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

X

I would have to agree, I know of only one death of a police officer, based on FBI Fingerprint Data and he was not convicted of that crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadaway (talk • contribs) 05:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Vollrath Tavern

The Vollrath Tavern was a speakeasy and brothel in the 20's to which after the repeal of prohibition become a tavern still known for being a brothel and gambling house in the large multi room basement. It was a well know hang out for John Dillinger in Indianapolis. There are quite a few links on the Vollrath Tavern page to local news articles with respect to John Dillinger and he having frequented the Vollrath Tavern so I believe that the Vollrath Tavern's page should be added as a linked page. Can someone with edit / admin powers do so please? Thank you. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaGaffo (talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Right now, because there's a copyright question about that page. Please bring the question back when that page is settled. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

German or Jewish

Dillinger is clearly a German surname. But was he of German or German-Jewish heritage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.204.26 (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

name comes from Dillingen