Talk:Bonnie and Clyde/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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)

Further discussion re: media reference section

The section is entitled "Popular Culture References." By definition, the word "reference" means "refers to," aka "alludes to." I can understand the need to remove only passing references to the couple in songs/films/etc. However, if the basis of an entire medium is to compare the subject of said media to the couple, then I think it is a valid reference. You may say I'm just talking semantics, but if you are to remove any and all allusions to Bonnie and Clyde, then the title of the section would have to be "Depictions of," not "References to". That is a big difference. Dpodoll68 (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the title of the section is Selected references in popular culture. The intent of the restrictions on what goes in here is to avoid exhaustive and tangential listings. As it was, any time a songwriter, etc., would use the names of Bonnie and Clyde in a song, it got stuck in this article. That's not feasible or productive in relation to the article. Actually and respectfully, I'm not sure what you are saying with "...the basis of an entire medium is to compare the subject of said media to the couple..."? That songwriters, screenwriters and novelists have taken the basic story of a couple becoming outlaws on the run from authorities, sometimes throwing in the names of this couple, doesn't automatically make it notable to Bonnie and Clyde. Cases in point include the Jay-Z and Eminem songs. They have no connection to the storyline of this couple. Where do you draw the line? Well, consensus of this group was to only include songs and other works that are specifically about Bonnie and Clyde. If the section name needs changed, then so be it, but using the definition of the word reference to argue for inclusion of a Travis Tritt song which is based in modern times (driving a Firebird, driving on 95, smoking Marlboro lights) isn't arguing for inclusion based on the consensus. I changed the section title to Bonnie and Clyde in media to better delineate this distinction. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. My whole problem with the section was that you can't say one thing, and then have your basis for inclusion be another. I've always been a proponent of "say what you mean, and mean what you say," and this section as previously constituted wasn't achieving that end.Dpodoll68 (talk) 14:32, 7 September 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)

Thanks 96.52.132.224 (talk) , but I have to say, I believe you should get the credit on this one. You found a very real flaw in the article, and I just followed your lead and corrected it. Good catch on your part, I am glad we were able to improve the article. JohninMaryland (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference work & clean up

Yesterday's inclusion of the article on the home page brought a rash of activity on the page, including a lot of additions of mostly the Eminem and Jay-Z songs in the music section, neither of which are in anyway related to this couple save for the use of their names, which I removed. It also brought a welcome addition of new material by a new editor, User:Jim Moshinskie, PhD, regarding the disposition of the pair's bodies after they were killed and funeral and burial. I reworked part of this, bringing it more into Wikipedia MoS guidelines, and added more referencing, as well as some extensive reference formatting. There are a few sections I've not finished yet, including Platte City, Final run, Death and Controversy and aftermath. I plan on finishing these up later today. I want to extend a thanks to Jim Moshinskie for his additions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Wildhart for his excellent editing and clean-up of my additions. This is my first entry in this media, and his edits helped me tremendously. Oftentimes, the funeral of the deceased is just as interesting as the death, and in the case of Bonnie & Clyde, this was certainly the case. Again, thanks Wildhart for your time and work. Dr. Moshinskie 13:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What if she didn't fire a gun? That wouldn't mean she wasn't part of the gang.124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Restoring the Milner Quote

Congrats to Wildhart for his work, my only cavet is that the Milner quote is a great way to end the article, and was put in originally during a peer review, and needs to be restored, which I have done. The new information on the funeral and preparation for same is a great addition. JohninMaryland (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Darby Who?

Some imbecile stated that "Darby" assisted with Clydes embalming, where you got that crap is anyones guess. Its idiots like this that make wikipedia a joke. I omited it, lets see how long it takes for some know-nothing to put it back...Why would anyone want to glorify Bonnie and Clyde? If todays law enforcement officials were allowed to shoot known felons on sight, we might find it safe to walk the streets. Clyde was a psychopath raised by bible-thumping inbread morons....Kaltenborn (talk)

First of all, the material you removed is sourced, and you also removed a citation preceeding that comment. It came from a scholarly work authored by a university professor who offered it for the page to expand the funeral and burial sections. Secondly, your tone and commentary are not appreciated in the manner you have stated them and are inappropriate and POV. There is nothing in an article about two dead criminals that glorifies them and is out of line for this page, as are your comments about shooting felons on sight and bible-thumping. Please contain your comments to constructive ones that are geared toward improving the article and not to air your personal opinions. This is not a forum. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Kaltenborn (talk) I really don't know where to start. First, no rational person would advocate law enforcement officers becoming judge, jury, and executioner, and shooting people down on sight. Secondly, the comments on "inbread morons" are so offensive as to be silly. Actually, I assume you mean "inbred" since "inbread" is not a word...I echo Wildhartlivie (talk) that there is nothing in this article glorifying criminals. Your comments are so outlandish that I have to wonder if they are deliberately silly.JohninMaryland (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

TUPAC

Why are you not allowing the Tupac song "Me And My Girfriend" to be added here, and who are you to say it wasn't written about them? Ms Scarlett Dracula (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better served if you could explain how this song has anything to do with Bonnie & Clyde besides use their names a couple times. "Born as a ghetto child"? "Smokin sherm, drinkin malt liquor"? "Mafias on the side, my congregation high"? Look, there are scores of songs that slip in the names of these two that aren't otherwise about them in anyway. The consensus of the project governing this article is that only media portrayals that are specifically about the subject of the article will be included. That would be why this song, the Jay-Z song and several others are not included. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion - WHY?

RE: The "Conclusion" section. Just me being a nitpicker here. This article is quite good. It's a nice read - informative - well written... however...

"Conclusion"?

This makes it look like a school paper, not an encyclopedia entry. I say it should be renamed to summary or reworded just a bit. Discuss?

--Kyanwan (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed the section title to "Historical perspective". That subtitle has been there a long time and I suppose no one ever really considered it. Thanks for the kudos, some of us have worked a lot on it. There was information from a professor who studies ... mortuary history, for lack of a better name ... who contributed some really fascinating content on the funereal aspects. The article is a good example of collaboration. Now the overriding problem is to prevent the inclusion of each and every time that someone, somewhere, used their names in a song or Simpsons episode. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro section. Firstly let me say that I know nothing about B&C - but that makes me, in many ways, an ideal reviewer for an encyclopedia article, no? OK...I don't like how the intro section starts talking about "the gang" before having introduced this concept. The immediate thought is "can the term 'gang' really be used to describe two people". Only afterwards do you realise that there were others involved in the crimes of B&C. A simple way to fix this would be to say that "B&C travelled the Central United states as part of a criminal gang" OR "Barrow was the leader of a gang". Something like that. But not knowing diddly squat about them, I don't feel qualified to edit. Just saying that the wording needs clarification. Rja211077 (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

another "External Link"

The "Texas Hideout" website (http://texashideout.tripod.com/) has bucketfuls of period photos, newspaper articles, and law enforcement documents related to Bonnie & Clyde. At one point in the Wikipedia article, a mention of the number of wounds inflicted to each one at the final ambush is made and a dispute is noted; at http://texashideout.tripod.com/coroner_report.html one can read the actual pages of the coroner's reports where the gunshot wounds are listed and described. There are also links to several coroner's photographs. 192.100.70.210 (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)CBsHellcat

That site is used as a source several times in the article and is available through the references. We don't usually repeat links in the external links section if it is used as a reference. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

On May 27, 2009, the FBI issued further information and archives related to Bonnie and Clyde:

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/may09/bonnieandclyde_052709.html

Contained therewith are PDF files containing pictures and accounts of the Barrow Gang's adventures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hschatz (talk • contribs) 19:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

New home for the "Death Car"

The car in which Bonnie and Clyde were killed is now at the Primm Valley Hotel and Casino in Primm, Nevada. I placed this information in the article yesterday, but it has been replaced with the old erroneous information. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.159.183.75 (talk • contribs)

User:Wildhartlivie provided an edit summary - "don't change this unless you also add a reliable source to confirm it." This would indicate that the.com copyrighted source provided is suspect. Sensei48 (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As I explained in the edit summary, it would be fine to change it, but when you do, a reliable source to confirm the move is necessary. It was changed twice, the first time removed all the previously existing source, and the second time, the change was put in front of a source that wouldn't support the change. Meanwhile, what was already there is not technically incorrect. It says "The bullet-riddled Ford in which the pair was killed and the shirt Barrow wore the last day of his life, were, as of March 2008, on display at the Gold Ranch Casino in Verdi, Nevada." The source that was added at that time was valid and the sentence does not say the car is still there, only that it was there in March 2008. I know this sounds picky, but it is necessary because, basically, we need proof. I don't doubt that it was moved somewhere else, it just needs a confirming source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the same person, but if you are that serious about needing proof, send me an email. I will take a picture of the car, in the casino, with a paper with today's date. detox702@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.33.178 (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That isn't what I meant by proof. Thanks for offering, but in Wikipedia, proof means a reliable souce, such as a newspaper or magazine article that covers the move, or a book that published the move, or something that falls under reliable sourcing guidelines. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

To paraphrase Galileo, "And yet, it has been moved".

Seriously, I acknowledge the legitimacy of the requirement of proof. I am employed by Primm Valley, so I KNOW that it has been moved, but I recognize that my knowledge is insufficient. I will endeavor to obtain a source of confirmation Balavent (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. As I said, a newspaper story, magazine article, etc. Since the article says "as of March 2008", it isn't in error. I'd welcome an update to the location with verification. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I was just on the website referenced in #27. There is no reference ANYWHERE on the page to the Verdi, NV location. There is, however, photographs and text on the page stating 'PRIMM VALLEY RESORT.' Even though the pictures are not of the correct location, the exact reference you gave for the Verdi, NV location, ACTUALLY references PRIMM. Suggest the sentence be updated, or the source be corrected. Also, as self-published references are not acceptable, how can you take this website as a source? As he is the webmaster, this would qualify as self published. 66.59.33.178 (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)DeToX

Look, if you'd bother reading the postings above, you will see that Balavent has kindly offered to find a reliable source to verify that the car has been moved. How about you be patient for a few days until this is all sorted out? I didn't give or take anything, I am asking for a reliable source be obtained that verifies the location. Is that so hard to understand? I suspect the existing source was updated with the new location information, I don't know, but I do know that it supported the location when it was added in. That the website belongs to a professional photographer perhaps gave the original author pause to consider it was reliable enough for the purpose used in the article. Give it a few days and it will be sorted out. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Barrow Gang ..re-invented..

A London art collective, thought to include conceptual artist James Fox, Hans Ulritch and even possibly, graffitti artist Banksy are rumored to be going under the moniker of 'The Barrow Gang' .

Inspired by Bonnie and Clyde's do it yourself philosophy, they are taking London by storm with their cut and paste style of photos and music.

James Fox was previously the founder member of London band The Moths! who came to notice of the music industry in 2007. They signed a publishing deal for a six figure sum and James Fox left soon afterwards blaming fatigue. However, since then there have been numerous rumors about Fox and his motives for the band. One of the most outstanding, and one that is not going away is that it was all part of an elaborate con. Fox isnt saying that it was, all that he says is that it was part of an art project and if you listen to the lyrics of the songs which he wrote, the story is all there in black and white.

It is thought that he is now in talks with publishers about writing a book on his venture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantomartists (talk • contribs) 13:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not return this content to the article. It is uncited, includes ambiguous wording, and does not assert relevance or notability. Something "inspired by Bonnie and Clyde's do it yourself philosophy" - whatever that is, that regards art and music that is in other way related to this couple, is not appropriate content. Furthermore, it appears mostly promotional in nature, rather than adding anything to the understanding of the actual subjects of this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

New info

• Note: I have found another sheriff involved with Bonnie and Clyde who has his own story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holt_Coffey Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

censored?

why is any information or even mention of Clyde Barrow's highly ambiguous sexuality not mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.228.111 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no censorship on Wikipedia. It's not mentioned because the sourcing is highly absent. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Bonnie's Epitaph

The article says that the verse on Bonnie's headstone is her own; I've never seen this contention anywhere else. In fact, I read some 40 years ago that "its selection" by her mother from a book of verses at the undertaker's "was thought to be in poor taste" -- although this was in a pulpy detective magazine soon after the 1967 movie. Does anyone know if Bonnie wrote about the sunshine and the dew? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HarringtonSmith (talk • contribs) 16:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

.--HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Find-A-Grave website that the article cites as the source for Bonnie's having penned her own epitaph makes absolutely no mention of this. Since there seems to be no source to support this, shouldn't it be trimmed? --HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Bonnie as media "manipulator"

This sentence leads off the section on the couple and the media: Certainly Parker knew how to enhance the pair's popular appeal by manipulating the media, and newspapers were quick to publish her poem The Story of Bonnie and Clyde. The fact is, Parker never attempted to manipulate the media. Her early poetry, plus all the famous photos -- as yet undeveloped film still in the camera -- were found in the Joplin apartment after the gang fled. It was the police who gave them to the press, not Parker. Her poem, The End of the Line, was submitted only posthumously to newspapers -- by Bonnie's mother, whom Bonnie had given it to two weeks before her death. This opening colors the tone of the whole section and gives the wrong impression. Shouldn't we fix it? --HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would say definitely if this is all as you say (and I don't doubt it). The problem on Wiki is that you have to find and include a reference to a published source (book, magazine, website etc.) that supports the specific edits that you want to make. The part about the film in the camera and the posthumous publication of the poems should be relatively easy to support (I would think).

Parentetically, I think that the misimpression about all this derives from the highly entertaining and excellently made but historically inaccurate 1967 film. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful reply, Sensei48. I do have a question, though: at what point does "common knowledge" become acceptable as fact -- unfootnoted fact? Specifically, I'm thinking about the undeveloped film found in the camera at the hideout. This is universally accepted, it's described in every account of the Joplin shootout, it's even in the Wiki article here. Does such a universally acknowledged fact have to be referenced to rebut an irresponsible (and unsupported) claim that Parker knew how to manipulate the media?

I agree with you about the 1967 film; it was Movie-Bonnie's idea to take Capt. Hamer's picture and send it to the newspapers -- an encounter that never happened (Hamer and B&C never even met until the moment he killed them). Isn't it something how a feature film can, in one fell swoop, scramble up actual history? --HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, HS, that's a really tough question for me in the articles I've worked on here as well, especially those related to politically volatile topics in history. I've done a lot of work on George Armstrong Custer and striven to maintain balance there against those who want to make him a shining knight vs. those who want to make him a genocidal butcher - both of which are laughably ridiculous and derive again from movie distortions. To one camp, GAC's "heroism" would be a self-evident "fact" - to the others, his "racism" would be. The Wiki guidelines (which I used extensively since I just rewrote an article on The Kingston Trio from the ground up - a volatile topic for some but not in the league of B&C or GAC) point out that if a statement could be challenged, even as a matter of fact, it should be "sourced." My feeling is that the misimpression about Parker is so deeply rooted in public perception thanks to that landmark movie that to contradict this contra-factual idea it would really help to have a source.

So I Google 'bonnie parker camera film" and came up with this from CBS news - [1] - not comprehensive but likely enough to use as a ref. to revert (edit out) that sentence and replace it with something truer. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sensei, I'm really frustrated: the first two paragraphs under B&C and the media (including the one on Advertising), are just flat-out wrong. The letters from Clyde and from Dillinger to Henry Ford were never authenticated and were certainly never used in Ford advertisements. The website cited about the letters only suggests coyly and obliquely that the letters "had pr value" but never shows a single pr use of them, let alone show an ad based on them. How should I proceed in getting rid of these untruths? Thanks for your help on this! --HarringtonSmith (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello HS - What a lot of editors do around here is simply take out or revert the part that they think is wrong and substitute for it a section that they think is more accurate. Now I just looked back to the section in this article about the letters, and it is "sourced" to what I'd call a proprietary website - in this case "Texas Hideout," which if memory serves is a for-profit "museum" related to B&C (I could be wrong - need to check that). Anyway, the site used as a source simply presents photostats of the letters and asks questions rather than draws conclusions, though you don't have to be a graphologist to see that the letter to Ford is a complete forgery. Unfortunately, we as editors can't draw conclusions, even obvious ones, or they become WP:OR.

Also, as I noted earlier and as the cited website indicates, the authenticity of the letters in question is a matter of controversy - to someone, at least. Wiki policy is that in a matter of controversy, both sides must be presented dispassionately. If you have a moment to look at another Custer topic I worked on, check Battle of Washita River and look at the subtopic 'Battle or Massacre?,' (an extremely volatile topic) - you'll see the kind of balanced compromise that several editors working together can accomplish - two arguments for battle, two for massacre, the last being a citation of cavalry casualty statistics that I appended and sourced. The result is - readers can draw their own conclusions, either way.

In this case, I think your best bet is to do the same thing. Instead of replacing the offending sentences, simply write the 'on the other hand' kind of argument - in this case, the same sources work both ways, including to support your idea.

The civility and restraint that you're showing in proceeding carefully in working on this article are qualities all too rare around here - but don't forget the Wiki admonition to us editors to "Be bold!" Just go for it - you see an egregious error and injustice, so edit away! regards, Sensei48 (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sensei-san: I made my changes to the "B&C in media" section. I was bold -- but not too. Hope you like. Thanks again for your help and counsel! --HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolving "Bonnie and Clyde in media" section

There are a couple glaring falsehoods in this section. First is the claim that Parker "certainly... knew how to manipulate the media." The fact is, she never once sent a photo or a poem to a newspaper; other people did. Second is the next section "In advertising". It's highly doubtful that the letter received by Henry Ford even came from Barrow (the middle name was wrong!) and it's certain that Ford Motor Co. never used Clyde's (or Dillinger's) "endorsement" in an advertisement -- these two were public enemies at the time! The website cited as the source of this item never seriously makes any such claim and the entire section is just flat-out wrong.

Unless anyone objects, I'd like to revamp the first section and completely delete the "In advertising" section. Anyone object? --HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I object to simply removing the advertising section. Whether the letter was a forgery or not, and whether Ford used it in advertising, the urban legend about the letter is factual. There was a letter received by Ford, it's in the Ford Museum, often included in histories of Ford Motor Company and has been widely reported, whether the report says it was authentic or not, and is therefore notable on that basis. For examples just quickly found, see [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. There is also the fact that if the article does not address it in some manner, especially recently since the economic problems of the automobile industry and the mentions of the letter in news reports, people will come along and put it in. It should be included in some manner. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your points are well-taken, Wildhartlivie. The letter -- and its dubious origins -- should be included in the article. But since it did not result in any advertising, to discuss it in a section called "In advertising" just wouldn't be right. How would you feel if I addressed it in the section above as the only time B&C did self-publicize -- albeit with a no-match in the handwriting and the fact that Clyde "signed" it with the wrong middle name? --HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I took out the attribution to Parker for the epitaph but left the words. Are you referring to the lead paragraph of the "in media" section for mention of the letter? That would be fine, or just change the leading to something like "The Ford letter", since it's something that has gained legs. I suspect personally that while Henry Ford may not have used it as advertising bait, that with time, Ford Motor Company didn't mind the notoriety since it keeps coming up. I also think, just from the little I've read, that a lot was made of it by the media over the years as a nice hook for a story. It doesn't even have to mention self-publicizing, though if you have sources that support that Parker's mother did a lot of promotion, that would be a good addition. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, I made the edits to the "In Media" section as we discussed. I am satisfied -- hope you are also. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It reads quite well, I made some small stylistic changes based on WP style guidelines. Do you have sources for any of the content that was added? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Guinn, Milner, Parker/Barrow/Fortune, even our own article here -- there's no contention about the Joplin aftermath content I added, so all the books agree. Ditto on Bonnie giving Emma the poem in early May 1934. Guinn writes most extensively about the difficulties of travel after the publicity, but so too do Parker/Barrow/Fortune.

How did you make the em-dashes? --HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Still, content must be cited to a reference, that's what I'm asking for, not confirmation to me about it. The easiest way for me to make the m-dashes is from the section below the edit window when it is open. There should be a drop-down box and the first selection is "Insert". The m-dashes I put in by just clicking on the long dash that is second in the line next to the box. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I supplied citations for the added content and I reverted your edit of "Barrows' notoriety" to "gang's notoriety" back to "Barrows'." Prior to Joplin, there was no perception of them as a gang; Clyde and Buck were just seen as two thug brothers in and around Dallas. It took Joplin — the photos, the boxes of guns and ammo, the dead officers — to transform them into gang status. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Beware the Joseph Geringer article

The article Bonnie and Clyde: Romeo and Juliet In a Getaway Car, by Joseph Geringer, which originally appeared on the truTV.com website, is cited several times in our Wikipedia article on Bonnie and Clyde — and it is riddled with falsehoods and inaccuracies (resisting temptation to say it has "more holes than the B&C death car"). First, and least, is his persistent mangling of names: Doyle Johnson becomes "John Doyle", H. D. Darby becomes "Darby Dillard" and Clyde's mother Cumie Barrow becomes "Cummie." He spells it this way on each use of her name, so it's not a typo. Please tell me this is not some nasty off-color wink at his readership.

More concerning are his repeated descriptions of events as they happened in the 1967 Arthur Penn film — not as they happened in fact. His account of the April 1933 shootout at Joplin is straight from Penn, and the real incident had significant differences.

Most of all, though, he brings a post-1967 sensibility to his analyses of the public's perceptions and acceptance of the pair. He writes that "The presence of a female, Bonnie, escalated the sincerity of their intentions to make them something unique and individual—even at times heroic" [italics mine]. This is a modern take on the two, based on the movie characters, not so much on the real-life public enemies. If the couple was unique, it was in the way they killed mom-and-pop shopkeepers and a young family man trying to keep his car from being stolen on Christmas afternoon. The sadistic side of them was never far below the surface of the public's minds during their lifetime, and indeed, public opinion turned seriously against them after the April 1934 Grapevine murders and the one five days later in Commerce, Oklahoma. It took the 1967 film — and 33 intervening years — to push those perceptions deeper into the background and make their intentions seem "sincere."

I post this not to snipe at Mr. Geringer, but to alert Wikipedia editors that if they find a source at odds with Bonnie and Clyde: Romeo and Juliet In a Getaway Car, don't be afraid to believe the other source. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Flowers from Dillinger?

This preposterous claim currently stands in the "Funeral" section of our article: His son, Dr. Allen Campbell, later remembered that flowers came from everywhere including some sent by Pretty Boy Floyd and John Dillinger. Now really — can you imagine either of these two, stopping in the middle of their own desperate flights, to send flowers to Clyde and Bonnie? In the pre-credit card, pre-FTD era? It's highly iffy whether Floyd ever met Clyde, and Dillinger only ever expressed contempt for the Barrows' small-time activities, saying they gave "real" bank robbers a bad name. Moshinskie, Dr. James F. "Funerals of the Famous: Bonnie & Clyde." The American Funeral Director, Vol. 130 (No. 10), October 2007, pp. 74-90 may be a credible source, but the son's exaggerated recollection is not a credible claim. Anyone mind if I cut it? --HarringtonSmith (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Moshinskie is a credible source. Perhaps it could reworded to say "purportedly", since it has been published as a recollection and cited here as such, whether the flowers were from them or not. It could have been someone's idea of a joke to have flowers supposedly from other bad guys. There were flowers wired to my grandfather's funeral from Korea back in the pre-credit card, pre-FTD days, I probably still have the cards in one of the packets in my steamer trunk from his funeral. (Please don't ask me the year, it was far far far too long ago and I wasn't an adult. My mother used to talk about the flowers that came from that family.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to keep but soften that particular sentence. It adds a bit more color to the part about the funeral frenzy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It was the Dillinger claim that really stuck in my craw; Dillinger's scorn for Clyde was well-known and well-articulated. The Floyd claim, not so much. There's one B&C writer (I forget which one) who claims a meeting in Joplin between the two (not in Apr '33), but no one else mentions it and none of the Floyd writers do, either. I tend to doubt the meeting myself. (What would they say to each other? Would it be like Clyde and Buck in the movie? "Charlie, whatta you think of Bonnie?" "She's a peach. Is she as good as she looks?" "She's better.") As for the carnival atmosphere of the funerals, I agree with you -- it's one of the best parts of the tale. So I shook some cinnamon on the flowers rather'n snip 'em. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL. The cinnamon works just fine. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Victimized?

Just a question - in the section on Barrow's early life, reference is made to his first killing, that of a fellow prison inmate who is said to have "repeatedly victimized" him. Is this a euphemism for sexual assault, as the phrasing implies? If so, shouldn't that be made specific? And if it isn't, whatever does "repeatedly victimized" mean? Sensei48 (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sensei48. I wrote the entry about "repeatedly victimized" and yes, it was a euphemism for sexual assault. I probably could've been bolder with my phrasing, I guess. It somehow seemed too lurid to be blunt. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's reliably sourced, it should be spelled out and not addressed ambiguously. I'm sure others would wonder the same thing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's from Jeff Guinn's 2009 Go Down Together, which is truly the gold standard on this topic. Since you both agree, then I'll "lurid it up" a bit. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it reads just fine. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Good job - just straightforward and factual and not at all lurid, I think. It fleshes out the motivation for the killing clearly. Sensei48 (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need Ed Crowther's name here? The section's starting to feel cluttered. The important thing is that he was raped and it changed him forever. The name and the extra words we're picking up grind down the flow. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Make that Crowder--HarringtonSmith (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we do need his name in the article. Readers need to know this. Furthermore, the section is not cluttered. It's simply more accurate. Caden ^cool 13:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not less accurate without the name; it is, however, more straightforward without it.--HarringtonSmith (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the name is extraneous. It was a non-notable person and in context, doesn't matter. I did have to change the wording a bit - after I looked at the sentence, it basically said Crowder assaulted him for a year, which read to me as a very long time for an assault. (Read it literally.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Since no one save its poster spoke up for keeping the Crowder name, I deleted it.--HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Two editors, and I'll add myself - three editors feel that the name of the rapist is superfluous. It's not a question of censorship, but a question of usefulness. The point is he was sexually assaulted. Knowing the name of the offender does not provide any further clarity, because the name of the person is irrelevant. The person is not notable - it's just a name. The name could be "Joe Schmoe" and the meaning and context would be identical. It's not right to keep reverting it back without addressing the comments of other editors. If there is a compelling reason for including the name, it needs to be given here. Rossrs (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish I'd seen this before I commented. Is the purpose solely to name the "pervert"? It's true that Wikipedia does not endorse censorship, but this comment reflects a strong bias, and bias is also not endorsed by Wikipedia. It still comes down to relevance, and that has not been established. Rossrs (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad claim in "Controversy and aftermath"

This sentence appears in the Controversy section of the article: The only claim that Bonnie ever fired a weapon during one of the gang's crimes came from Blanche Barrow, and is backed by an article from the Lucerne, Indiana, newspaper on May 13, 1933. This statement is not only uncited but untrue: dozens of contemporary newspaper articles portrayed her as an active participant in the gang's gunbattles, several even describing her as "gungirl Bonnie Parker." I suspect it's only here to impugn the motivation or the actions of Hamer's posse. It doesn't matter if recent research has failed to unearth murder warrants for her; the posse's perceptions -- and their fear of the outlaws -- would have been informed by these many contemporary reports. Since the claim is not true, I propose we drop it.--HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the claim was untrue and no one spoke in its defense, I deleted it.--HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Who's the bravest among us?

Our Bonnie and Clyde article is shaping up nicely, with newer, smoother, more informative copy, and hopefully, fewer polemical assertions. But it's also looking a little, well, gray. The "Spree" and "Controversy" sections are vast, monolithic swaths of wall-to-wall copy, imposing to the eye and daunting to read. What it could really benefit from is some photos. Shots of Buck & Blanche, W.D. Jones, the Joplin hideout, the Red Crown Court and the Frank Hamer posse come to mind, and all can be found easily at http://texashideout.tripod.com/bc.htm (just beware the obnoxious and seemingly unstoppable music there). Problem is, it's a real drag to make successful fair use arguments (even of these 75-plus year old photos) here at Wikipedia. I know my own, lone, experience trying to get a photo approved was baffling, frustrating, bile-generating — though ultimately successful, last time I looked. I know there's someone reading this right now who's a way better person than I — smarter, more patient, more industrious, braver — who can make this happen, getting some pix into our fine article. Is it you?--HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be possible to contact the owner of the website and get permission to use the files. Alternatively, is it possible any of them are old enough to use under free use guidelines? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the owner of the website has any claim to them. Consider the Joplin pictures (two of which are already in our article): they were snapped by W.D. Jones, on film probably paid for by Clyde, found by the police, developed by the Joplin Globe, distributed by the Associated Press, published by dozens of newspapers, dozens more magazines and dozens more books -- plus bunches of websites. Now who owns that copyright? Oh, and all this 76 years ago, and by people long dead. The Red Crown operation in Platte City was razed some 40 years ago, and the Joplin hideout is now a sort of motel you can rent, so it would be helped by any publicity here. Perhaps we need to copy-and-paste fair use arguments from photos that have already been approved. I dunno... I'm overwhelmed at the prospect. Also -- there needs to be a better explanation and how-to posted here at Wikipedia.--HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what the Wikipedia:Image use policy#Adding images and WP:Non-free content policies say. There's a date for the latest acceptable use but I don't know what it is. I note the image of Bonnie came from a public domain content source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

About the internal links I added

Since the article claims that the movies about Bonnie and Clyde mentioned are quite notable, they all should have independent articles. I later added an internal link about an author, hoping other Wikipedians would try to make time to create the book author article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh-oh

Hi, I edited sections of this article last night without taking it to the Talk page first and this morning I see everything was reverted to the previous edition. I really dont want argue about subjective things like style, so -- okay by me. LaNaranja (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe you meant well, but a couple of really good editors spent a huge amount of time working on this article, and it should not have major revisions without discussion. Pv86 (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I think LaNaranja recognized some weak spots in the article — spots that have been bothering me for quite some time — and maybe now is a good time to put 'em out on our table here, address 'em, and hopefully fix 'em.

Lead, paragraph 2: This 'graph still has many vestiges left of the I love Bonnie/I hate Hamer imbroglio of several years ago. It would not be inappropriate to mention that a controversy exists about the extent of her role, but the 'graph as it now stands leaps right in arguing the point. This is not the place for that. IMHO, LaNaranja was right to move it to "controversy" section. Graph 1 of the lead is the driest of summaries, as it should be; graph 2 should be a little more personal: Clyde "did" banks but preferred filling stations — stop snickering, you! — and Bonnie was thought to smoke cigars but didn't.

Lead, paragraph 3: It was I who inserted this summary quote from Go Down Together to replace the preposterous, ludicrous one that had been there, but it's really not the definitive quote that should be there. I'd love to see someone ferret out that "best one" and bump "mine" out.

Bonnie mini-bio, paragraph 2: Husband Roy's reaction to his wife's slaying makes a nice bookend to info about their brief marriage; LaNaranja was correct to move Roy's ultimate demise to join everyone else's in the "Aftermath" section, which I had urged in a hidden note.

Major hole #1: Jeff Guinn makes the fascinating point in Go Down Together that the perception of this couple evolved over the years based on their current portrayal in films. In 1934, the prevailing wisdom was that Clyde was a bad-boy type who had pulled a fair-haired high school girl into a sordid web of robbery and murder. By 1950, however, Dashiell Hammett and ten years of film noir sensibilities had transformed her into the evil femme-fatale who had lured him astray — witness Gun Crazy and They Live By Night. The ultimate expression of this shift is 1958's Bonnie Parker Story, the poster of which is all close-up of Dorothy Provine with a big black El Producto jammed in her mouth. Then, of course, there's 1967's Bonnie and Clyde...

Major hole #2: 1967's Bonnie and Clyde. The impact of the movie is the defining factor of all of our perceptions of Bonnie and Clyde in 2009. When the pair was killed in 1934, they were definitely the minor league to bandits like Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd. Yet this past summer, when everyone's 75th anniversaries of being mowed down were "celebrated," B&C got all the "ink," and even former topliner Dillinger barely got a mention outside Chicago. Bonnie and Clyde are the standout public enemy-era gang, and it's Arthur Penn's movie what did it. I know the movie has its own page, but since it plays such a central role in how we view the real pair, it needs more attention on this page.

Those are my top five structural issues, for now anyway. I'm eagerly awaiting y'all's responses.

As far as LaNaranja's edits, most of them were simple additions, not deletions or structural changes; they were comprehensively researched from out-of-the-way sources (not just the usual ones), meticulously cited, and frankly, they were interesting — they improved this article. LaNaranja's work on the moribund W.D. Jones article transformed that page into the best of the Bonnie and Clyde satellite pages; that grade of edits to this page would make it one kickin' article.

Perhaps LaNaranja will resubmit these improvements, a few at a time, and we can revivify this page. Hope so. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree, at least to the extent that I viewed most of the changes that LaNaranja made as shifting the tone of the article to a more "Pro-Hamer" article, for instance, in claiming that the law enforcement officers of the time did not know that Bonnie was not wanted for any violent crime. That is not only not true - you have to believe Hamer was incompetant, which no one has ever alleged - but belittles the officers and their ability to keep up with warrant status. While it was a lot harder to do in the age of phones and without computers, it was done and warrant status determined how "wanted" a person was.

I also find myself having to both agree and disagree with your belief that the public perception of Bonnie and Clyde was created and evolved through Hollywood and films. I think you are correct - but we cannot say that in the article, in any way, shape, or form, without finding an established historian or expert who says it for us. Otherwise what we have is original research.

Harrington, from reading the history of this article, it appears a huge amount of struggling went on before the current version of the article was finally agreed on. I think we need to tred carefully before wholesale revisions, especially ones which significantly change the tone of the article - and I think the recent ones did, and changes which rely on original research, even if the conclusions are correct. Pv86 (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello there. I'd just like to point out that you're misreading the history, Pv86. I didn't write anything new about law enforcement officers, nor did I engage in any "original research." LaNaranja (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If my posting was misunderstood, I apologize. I did not mean to infer that you wrote anything new, simply that your rewriting the article changed the tone. It is certainly easy enough to do - to slant an article, either intentionally, or (as I suspect in your case) unintentionally. I think the way you reworded the article slanted it - and I don't mean that to be insulting, just an honest opinion. As to original research, that was not concerning your rewrite, but Harrington's interesting, and probably correct, belief that public perception of this pair has been heavily influenced by film. I think he is right, I also think we have to find someone historically profound to say it. Pv86 (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's okay, I just disliked knowing that someone was trying to make a case based on a misread of my edits, and felt I had better step up and say something because I knew no one else would. I dont want to get into a bickerfest with you or anyone or drag this out at all, but I do want to be sure that the record is "honest and upright and clean" as far as any of my edits are concerned.

Would you please clarify for me what you mean by "your rewriting changed the tone"? Maybe you mean moving paragraphs changed the tone --? If changes that I made shifted the tone of the article I'd like not to make that mistake again and I'd appreciate your help with it. Thanks LaNaranja (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is just my personal opinion - and I would rather ask Wild or Harrington, because they have been doing this longer than I have; I felt moving the question of Bonnie's role in the gang as you did is what triggered the change in tone. The controversy over her real (as opposed to perceived) role in the gang has convulsed experts for years. Certainly most experts believe the police were well aware that she was not the "gun and cigar moll" of legend. This article previously attempted to put that controversy out front, since it is a huge reason Frank Hamer's reputation suffered so badly from the ambush. I don't think you meant to change the emphasis, (to a more pro-Hamer tone) but the change in placement seemed to deemphasize the controversy, and the subsequent question of why Hamer ordered no warning, despite her not being wanted for any violent act at all. This is just my opinion, and I would like to congratulate you for getting in the trenches and trying to improve the articles - I have tended to sit on the sidelines. Pv86 (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not for me to say what you, Wild and Harrington intend to project in Wikipedia's article, but thank you for clarifying, now I know what to explain. I moved the paragraph to the "Controversy" section because, as you say, it's controversial, surely the only serious controversy remaining in the B&C saga. As an outsider, it seemed to me the logical place to find discussion of a controversy longer than about a sentence would be in a "Controversy" section. That Harrington agreed with me that the paragraph doesnt belong up top (it's one of those little < !-- hidden edits --> in the history) is a further puzzlement, so maybe you need to clarify the goal with him/her as well.

Anyway, as long as you know that I only moved that paragraph because at the time I thought it was just common sense to move it, and didnt rewrite it and didnt move it to reflect a particular POV, I'm happy :) Thank you again for clarifying what you meant Pv86. LaNaranja (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I wish everyone on this project was as polite and civil as you are. I never thought you moved the issue out of malice or with any agenda, and while I still disagree with moving it, perhaps you and Harrington are right - much of this is pure opinion, (in terms of how to construct the article to showcase the facts with the least POV as possible...)

I actually don't think Bonnie's role is controversial anymore - the historians have reached a consensus that she was not involved as a full participant in the gun battles, other than loading, and that she certainly was not wanted for any violent crime. (Back before the plethoria of laws relating to accesory and conspiracy to crimes, she simply was not guilty of any act which was chargable under the laws in effectd at the time, except for the charge on interstate transportation of a vehicle...) So the issue of her role is, I really believe, not a matter for the controversy section. It is something however that speaks to Hamer's decision to shoot her to pieces, given that she was not wanted for anything remotely violent.

I started seriously watching wikipedia and this article in particular about a year ago, and have admired Wild's work as he strove to keep vandals from putting in idiocy in the music section, and as he strove to keep this article up to high standards. I am willing to abide by the majority - if wild agrees with you and Harrington, I will support the changes. If he does not, we can all talk further, and find a compromise. I am sure one can be found, everyone involved seems to be genuinely good editors, with no trolls or vandals - what a blessed relief that is! Pv86 (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Aw that's so nice :) Maybe we can get a consensus!

Maybe it's a "cant see the forest for the trees" problem -- everybody who's been working on it might be just sick of staring at it for so long -- plus exhausted from battling for what's been literally years -- or just are afraid to speak up, but so much of it is already fine. Im sure the whole thing can be tightened up considerably without losing a single thing of value and the Controversy covered (anywhere you want to place it AFAIC) to everyone's heart's content. That's not just famous last words anymore! As Clyde said in Joplin, "Oh, lordy. Let's get started!" :) LaNaranja (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Harrington here, and I am a him (at least I useda be). I'm not sure that our discussion here is whether the moving of certain sentences changes the tone of the article — so much as what should be in the lead of an article like this. While it is totally correct to introduce the idea that controversy surrounds the role of one of the gang members (as well as the role of their chief nemesis), it is not appropriate to start arguing the point here in the introduction, which is what the quotes by WD and Marie do. The argument should be summarized in the lead but argued in the article — else you have no article. The WD and Marie quotes certainly can stay, they just need to be used in the appropriate place — not before you've even presented the historian's overview of why the popularity of the couple endures today. That's the kind of thing that needs to be in a lead.

The other thing to remember is that it's really best not be pro- or anti-Hamer or pro- or anti-WD or pro- or anti-anybody when it comes to the Bonnie and Clyde saga. Did Bonnie empty a clip into the patrolmen at Grapevine and then laugh about it? Surely not, although that account did have the weight of an eyewitness and the gravitas of a dozen newspapers behind it in 1934. Did she load the bullet into the gun that killed Doyle Johnson? Hmmmm... At what point along the continuum should one switch one's pro- or anti- allegiance? We're seventy-five years down the road from the actions of these people and the world has changed a lot; it's easy today to look to "warrant status" as a gauge of their motivations, but it was an earlier era of jurisdictional patchwork and low-tech tools. Plus, in the hurly-burly aftermath of BAR fire at Grapevine, how could you fault a fellow officer for being cautious when confronting a double-digit killer like Clyde Barrow?

Our article here should reflect this: that everyone at the time, and most researchers today, had a personal agenda when it came to Bonnie and Clyde and their capture. You should read — and edit — with total skepticism, because when it comes to B&C, the truth is unknown and unknowable. The closest you're gonna get is your own hunch — and that's what you'll be arguing. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ooops -- you-all were writing the same time as I was -- hope not too much of my wind-filled post is out of date --HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie here and I'm a she. And I checked. Aw shucks, all this praise could make a person blush. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wild, you have done a great job on this article...I did not know you were a she, sorry...Harrington, the point I think you miss is that the police, including Hamer, knew very well that Bonnie was not wanted for any violent crime. Then, as now, warrant status determined the level of dangerousness, and the level of force generally used in apprehension. Police then, as now, used a far greater degree of force to apprehend a fleeing felon, or someone wanted for a violent felony! And there is absolutely no question or controversy concerning the fact that Bonnie Parker was not wanted, ever, for a violent crime. There is absolutely no controversy about the fact that Hamer knew very well that the woman was not wanted for any violent act, in any jurisdiction, no matter what the newspapers said. I am not attacking Hamer, simply stating the facts as they are, and were. You do, however, have an excellent point in that none of us should be pro- or anti- Bonnie (or Clyde, or Hamer). We should be pro-truth, and the facts fall where they do. Pv86 (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We can easily and quickly sort out what's already here line by line, group them roughly point by point. Hold on, going to get more adverbs. Not sure what points and concepts might remain to be included that arent already incorporated into this article, could there be any? Maybe we already have them all here.

I just looked at the article and there's really not that much here specifically about The Controversy. I dont know much about The C but maybe a lot of it is what people of the modern day speculate *should* have been done versus what *was* done. Well, we'd examine step by step why things fell into place the way they did. This doesnt have to take up much space if it's expressed clearly.

I think we should start a new section in the Talk section for The Controversy because everyone seems to want to step carefully. In it, even as we're editing, the important elements of The C will become clear, and new points to be made will come up; we can post them there and write example-sentences/paragraphs expressing them, to be edited and agreed upon as they fit with the rest of the section.

Each paragraph related to it now seems to be kind of a crazy quilt of fragments. Some ideas in a paragraph belong together and some belong elsewhere. In the new section we could take the paragraphs apart line by line and sort the sentences and ideas out to where they belong, then refine them. (Or we could be antisocial and work on them in our own editing tools "at home," and present them in the new section for consensus.)

Or, however you all would like to do. I havent really looked through the Talk pages but maybe something like this has been done before.LaNaranja (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Or even a new Talk section for each major section of the article. For example, the Introduction. My suggestion for a first paragraph for that you all already know. I think -- and this is ONLY my opinion -- we should either move the second paragraph to "Controversy" or if consensus says it must be remarked upon up top, create some appropriately sized, right-to-the-point wonderful great paragraph.

I like the idea of a summarizing quote from somewhere as a last paragraph in the intro, but Im not happy with the Guinn quote. Fine if that's the best there is but I'll look for some others for you all to consider.

So.... if we created a section in Talk for each section of the article, everyone would suggest their own ideas for what should go in a section and we would come to agreement and add the final version to the article. LaNaranja (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

On intro quotes, see what you can find...the only quote in the article which I think is perfect is the Milner quote in Historical Perspective. That one is perfect. Guinn's is passable, but I agree, there has to be better, somewhere - now we have to find one! Pv86 (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I find the Milner quote one-sided — and its one-sidedness reveals a very important theme not addressed anywhere in our article: Not everyone in 1934 regarded Clyde and Bonnie as heroes. Some folks did, principally, I think, the ones themselves felled by The Depression. But many others — perhaps the majority — considered the Barrow Gang the epitome of "mad-dog killers." Unlike Dillinger, Floyd, even Nelson, who only killed cops and bank guards, Clyde and friends killed civilians, shopkeepers and grocers — "just folks" — and were hated for this. Don't forget that on May 24, 1934, four different state legislatures passed bills of commendation of the members of the Hamer posse. They — the posse — were heroes to many more people than villains. It wasn't until 1967 that B&C's murders of civilians started being overlooked by the public. But, that's another discussion for another day. The point I'm attempting to make is that you really need to read as many contemporary accounts as you can find before you make a conclusion on the mindset and motivations of Hamer, his five co-possemen, Governor Ferguson, Director Lee Simmons, et. al.. The prevailing thought about things was a lot different in 1934 than it is in 2009, and you need to judge these people by the backdrop of their own times, not yours. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly so. Thats the balance the article needs to maintain. And we might add to each victim's name (quickly) his human details -- Wes Harryman's e.g. An interesting turning moment in the article will be the acceleration of events post-Grapevine, too. LaNaranja (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Pv86, maybe our definitive quote for the lead is two quotes — one explaining their popularity, the other decrying their cruelty. Whadda you think? --HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

LaNaranja, I like your suggestion about the quick human details of victims, and it's a great point you make about the acceleration of events post-Grapevine; that's almost like a screenplay, innit? Everything rushing toward critical mass out on that lonely road on that sunny day. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the emphasis on victim's also, but I think it needs to be said that B and C did not kill those victims, under the law in effect at the time, C did, or another gang member. It also needs to be emphasized that no one ever took a single warrant out alleging Bonnie Parker killed or tried to kill anyone. She was certainly guilty of massive stupidity in following Clyde, but not of much else, not under the law as it stood at that time.

I do like Milner's quote - if you have read his book, you know that he is NOT pro B and C, far from it. Nor does he forget the victim's or excuse the crimes. But he tries to make the point that this couple was a cultural phenomenon, then and now. And yes, it is true that certain politicians applauded their deaths, but huge crowds also grieved them. A minority of the overall population, almost certainly, but again, Milner explores this thoroughly. Pv86 (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read Milner's book back in the '90s when it first came out. I think I prefer Jeff Guinn's level of scholarship, but when it comes to must-haves, it's On the Trail of Bonnie and Clyde: Then And Now. It's not only the most complete timeline (except perhaps Blanche's for her narrow strip of time), it's chock-full of contemporary news reports, and you can't get to the truth of Bonnie and Clyde without taking that time-trip back to 1934. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Good morning Harrington...I think I prefer Jeff Guinn's scholarship as well, but I agree that no scholar undertaking a serious look at this era, and especially this pair, can ignore Milner. Personally, I found it fascinating that up until the 1970's on - probably, as you noted, as a side effect of the movie - there was very little in the way of serious scholarship on Bonnie and Clyde. I am a little older than the average editor, and grew up in the 40's and 50's. Serious work on the duo was just about unknown. Also, I must say as someone who grew up as a child of depression era parents, you are absolutely right that they looked at the world totally differently than we did, let alone how this generation looks at the world! I remember well how vastly different the world was without computers; (having said that, I am proud to say I have adapted to this era well, and love my computer!) Pv86 (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

'Morning, Pv86 — I was wondering how old you were, and was afraid the "86" was gonna be a birth year. Hahahaha. We're close to being peers, or at least I could be your kid brother. I was 15 when the Arthur Penn movie exploded in '68 (it slumbered for a lot of '67), and I grilled every "grown-up" I knew at the time about Clyde and Bonnie, and to a one, they all remembered them as small-timers who were unusually vicious towards "just folks." I always try to remember those important recollections when I'm hearing from someone who's only been informed by the post-movie notions of who Clyde and Bonnie were. Yes, isn't it something the way computers have changed our world? --HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

HarringtonSmith (talk) Hi Harrington, and good evening to you! I apologize for not answering back this am, I caught a cold yesterday, and it is wreaking my day! Back to your interesting post, I was 27 when the movie exploded into our national consciousness, and you are absolutely right, it changed everything. I watched an explosion of scholarship in the years following, and there was more done in the decade after the movie than the three and a half decades prior to the movie! I remember my parents telling me how vicious B and C were to "just folks," but I have to say, I had an aunt and uncle who suffered much worse than my parents did during the Depression - to them B and C were heroes. (My aunt used to say that B and C at least struck back at "the bosses and fat cats") I remember such voices being in the minority - but they were definitely there. I also grin when people talk about these kinds of events without having ever talked to people who lived through the times involved...Finally, like you, I marvel at our computer world. Lord, if you had told me, when I started school in 1946 that we would be "talking" on cell phones and communicating by computer, I would have never believed it! Take care, and I will talk to you later, I have to go to the doctors! Pv86 (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Odds 'N' Ends for Bonnie 'N' Clyde...

I thought we might open a section with suggestions of items for the article. Some might warrant a section, others a paragraph, some a sentence, others just a caboose chasing an undistinguished semicolon. Some might not spark any interest at all in you. Many of this first group I picked up at the W.D. Jones and Frank Hamer pages, both of which feature thoughtful, interesting, slants, different from the run-of-the-mill stuff in the books we're all used to. [Best pages on Wikipedia but they both need help from thoughtful interesting editors. - LNj]

• Joplin idyll: girls play house, boys go out robbin' and burglin' at night
• The BAR that wouldn't stop firing when Clyde was cleaning it at Joplin apt.
• Buck's seeming determination to get right back in trouble again, pulling jobs right away
• Plans to leave Joplin on Friday the 14th
• Changes in "chemistry" between threesome and fivesome; bickering in car after Joplin
• Quick overview of rural areas in 1933: no phones, no power, no daily papers
• WD jumps ship after Ruston; Clyde's disbelief of it; the month of May without him
• The Indiana bank robbery where Bonnie allegedly fires a gun
• Mention of the kidnapping after Wellington
• The extraordinary demands on Clyde by Bonnie's terrible wounds
• WD's roll in the hay with Billie Parker at Ft. Smith [I love Blanche's antique expression, "She and W.D. had become sweethearts" - LNj :)
• The dreadful trip from Platte City to Dexfield Park; dire conditions at Dexfield
• WD confiding to Blanche at Dexfield that he wants to go home. [I *do* like the footnoted speculative business about Clyde harassing WD re clearing Frank Hardy's name, the code of honor - very Ralph Fultsian - but dont think there's anywhere to include it, it's really just an aside. - LNj.]
• Most Dexter area citizens didn't even know who Barrows were
• Differing accounts of split with WD in Sept '33
• [Nice mention at Buck's page about the practicality/fittingness of the shared headstone, and Clyde suggesting its inscription -- his parents and him all on same bizarre sad wavelength about it. - LNj.]
• The plans we would all know about now, but no one knows about because they were canceled on May 23. A *second* raid on Huntsville to get Ralph out ("Hope we all live to see the flowers bloom"; wouldnt you love to see that note! If there really was one.); the OD Stevens Ft Worth planned breakout, and the down payment money for that -- Clyde was moving up into the local big time. And the possible plans for a little home in the swamps for Bonnie and Clyde. - LNj LaNaranja (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a start: embrace 'em, or poke 'em with a stick! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HarringtonSmith (talk • contribs) 11:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A way to collaborate/get consensus on sections that need it

Most of the sections in here I think we can just leave alone, to be tweaked by all editors forever as is usually done.

But for each Article section that needs consensus (Bonnie controv, Intro, Aftermath, whatever else), how can we get consensus on a final version, made out of our separate "editions"?

I think the way is to start editing separately -- which will force us to *think* about the content, take responsibility for it -- and brainstorm "together" as we edit.

For collaborating on "Controversies," I copied and pasted all the Controversy-related material from the original into the below section on the Talk page, "Content collected from article about Controversies". Then I started a new section to put down notes and questions, and come up with a draft. The notes section everybody can add to or disagree with and be disagreed with -- it's intended to be the brainstorming section.

IMO we should be able to pick up sentences, words, sections from each other's drafts in creating our versions and hammering out the final -- anyone can use what they want from mine in their drafts.

This is working for me, but it's just a suggestion. Ive never done this consensus-edit thing, but I dont want us to get bogged down in egos or in tedious waiting for sign-offs (until the final draft) -- and we can come up with the least contentious and best version (though I realize and understand it's never "final") if we collaborate intelligently. LaNaranja (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Content collected from article about Controversies

• original, gathered from entire article

Believed at the time to be a full participant in the gang's crimes, Parker's role has since been a source of controversy. While gang members W. D. Jones and Ralph Fults said they never saw her fire a gun and described her role as logistical,[1]Jones also told investigators that she had fired a pistol at officers "two or three times" when he was deposed under arrest in 1933.[2] By 1968, his recollection was that "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."[3] Youngest Barrow sister Marie made the same claim: "Bonnie never fired a shot. She just followed my brother no matter where he went."[4] Parker's reputation as a cigar-smoking gun moll grew out of a gag snapshot found by police and released to the press; while she did chain-smoke Camel cigarettes, she was not a cigar smoker.[5]

Bonnie and Clyde were killed on May 23, 1934, on a desolate road near their Bienville Parish, Louisiana hideout.[25][32] The couple appeared in daylight in an automobile and were shot by a posse of four Texas officers and two Louisiana officers when they attempted to drive away.[33] Questions about the way the ambush was conducted, and the failure to warn the duo of impending death, have been raised about the incident.

Controversy lingers over certain aspects of the ambush and the way Hamer conducted it. The tripartite composition of the posse made controversy almost inevitable, starting before a single shot was fired and continuing on today. Hamer and Gault were both former Texas Rangers on the payroll of the Texas Department of Corrections, Hinton and Alcorn were employees of the Dallas Sheriff's office, and Jordan and Oakley were, respectively, Sheriff and Deputy of Bienville Parish. The three duos distrusted each other, and indeed did not even much like each other.[6] They each carried differing agendas into the operation and brought differing narratives out of it. Because their self-serving accounts vary so widely, and because all six men are long deceased, the exact details of the ambush are unknown and unknowable.[6] The points at issue include the warning, if any, given the fugitives before the firing commenced, the status of Parker as a shoot-on-sight candidate and the role of the Methvin family in planning and executing the ambuscade.

Historians such as Phillips, Treherne and E.R. Milner have been unable to turn up any warrants against Bonnie Parker for any violent crimes.[30] FBI files contain only a single warrant against her, for aiding Barrow in the interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle.[45] Posse member Bob Alcorn identified Barrow on the road and cleared the way for the others to fire. In his deposition to Dr. Wade, chair of the Coroner's Jury in Arcadia, he was quoted as claiming that Parker had been indicted for murder. In addition to officially identifying the bodies of both Barrow and Parker and stating that he knew them personally, the deposition claims that "he know[s] of his own knowledge that both were 2 [times] indicted on charge of murder Case #5046&7 Criminal District Court Dallas Tex. November-28-1933."[23] While this appears to be offered as proof that Parker had been indicted for murder, she had not yet been so charged.

• /original —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaNaranja (talk• contribs) 15:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Aren't these four paragraphs from two different spots in the article? The first two sound like the lead, the 3rd and 4th from the "controversy" section. Boy, that third 'graph is some well-written 'graph! Whoever wrote that one really knew his stuff. "Tripartite construction"... "unknown and unknowable"... swell stuff. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's everything I found in the article about the Controversy. Might have missed a scrap here or there. ""Dont look like much, does it? Well, times is hard...."LaNaranja (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that tripartite paragraph is excellent and perfect as is. Wish they were all like that. LaNaranja (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Notes, questions about original's "Controversies" content

• Methvin family role is not controversial and is not necessary to discuss IMO. If it were really necessary we /someone sd make a Henry Methvin page and go into it there. People will draw their own conclusions reading about the Methvins' involvement in the chronological story.

I should put that another way. Ivy Methvin's situation at the time of the ambush -- whether he was tied up to a tree or burrowing under his truck -- isnt really a controversy, there are just different versions of it that can only be argued about now. If it's a controversy then Jordan's and Hinton's and Hamer's versions of how the posse came together on May 22-23 is a controversy too.

• Something that *is* controversial could be Sandy Jones's determination of the bullet angles and how close the shots were fired, which proved to jeff Guinn that Hamer walked over to the smoking, silent V-8 and pumped a fresh pound of lead into Bonnie Parker's -- not Clyde's -- body. But should that go here? I only know of Guinn's two sentences on it at the top of his notes for the Ambush chapter at p. 425. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaNaranja (talk • contribs) 23:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• Public perception of them should be in a separate section, not in Controversy. "Parker's reputation as a cigar-smoking gun moll grew out of a gag snapshot found by police and released to the press; while she did chain-smoke Camel cigarettes, she was not a cigar smoker.[5]]" <-- would move to that Pub Percep section.
• square away what office drew up the warrants for murder, and murder of whom (Grapevine probably)
• move tripartite to "Aftermath"
• some notes about whether parker *should have been* shot to pieces

1. Easy for us to second guess.

2. Hamer and the other professional experienced lawmen knew Clyde wouldnt have stopped! It doesnt matter what their various stories were about "Halt" and Oakley shooting first. Unknowable and ultimately unimportant. (Hamer knew from years of frustrating experience about lawmen's hands being tied by "niceties" to please politicians/citizens.)

3. The Dallas police Schmid, Alcorn and Hinton knew the barrow-parker story most intimately next to the family, knew their updates more or less minute by minute, tapped family phones etc. They would have known if Parker had ever indicated she *didnt* want to go all the way to the grave with Clyde -- had ever come home alone, called her mother about it. Also the fam would have said so. So--she was tacitly indicating, signaling, that she and Clyde were one unit and the posse took her up on it.

4. Is it necessary to look up to see if there were other police ambushes at the time, what those circumstances were?

5. The warrant argument is actually a fallacy -- Clyde had warrants on him too, but hadnt been tried in a court of law yet, either. Does presumption of his guilt mean it was okay to kill him? If yes, then same with Bonnie. If no, then how come there isnt a controversy surrounding *his* "murder".

6: might as well implicate Lee Simmons who gave hamer the shoot to kill go-ahead -- and mrs Ferguson who gave *him* the go-ahead, and whatever law empowered her to do *that*.

7. As HS says, in 1934 the posse were commended and feted. The citizens did NOT complain about the killings, though Id dearly like to see op-ed commentary and letters to the editor of newsps and detective mags in the aftermath. (Guinn notes gossipy scandal-type comment in (the dallas news?) in days following about Parker And barrow Walked Into Trap Set By Snitch, that probably lasted awhile.) The more i think about this the less controversy I see. Could someone please post a reminder as to why there's a controv about parker at all? It's a modern day armchair quarterbacking game seems to me.

• when you get into shoulda-woulda-couldas implied or direct you get into trouble.

LaNaranja (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)LaNaranja (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)LaNaranja (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)LaNaranja (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

---

The Methvin involvement and the Alcorn deposition are both vestigial flotsam of ursine argumentation. If they ever helped prove that Hamer was scum (and I'm not sure they ever did), they have long since ceased performing that function. There's value in a quick recounting of all the conflicting agendae/accounts, though, to demonstrate how fractured all these accounts are — which helps when people start throwing polemics into things.

I think the different versions, immediate, later and YEARS later, are hugely interesting and important and should have their own section at the top of "Aftermath". And a mention of the feting and commendations for the posse should follow, along with their disappointing reward money. I dont know whether the ambush affected the go-ahead for a new "Federal Bureau of Investigation" or what effect it had politically. "All over bar the shouting." —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaNaranja (talk • contribs) 22:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Lee Simmons thing is important: he was Hamer's boss on the operation and he did recommend shooting "everyone in sight." It's not that he's granting permission for it — but it does indicate the atmosphere and the mindset of the operation.

As to your question "Why is there a controv about Parker at all?" — my guess has always been that it's more of a rock to throw at Hamer than anything really to do with Ms. Parker. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I think it's a couple of guys armchair-generaling. Why it was legally all right to ambush/shoot them, from Mrs Ferguson (or above) on down, is covered or coverable up in the Hamer set-up section I think. The murder indictment of Bonnie (and Clyde) for grapevine (if that's what it was for) can go in the Grapevine section,or the posse-gets-aligned section (if we can find they brought the warrants with them May 23). The speculation on public perception determining whether she should have died or not is too... speculative.

I think the tripartite business only drew out the date of apprehension by a few days; how their various different stories afterwards are okay for "Aftermath", so maybe that should be moved to "Aftermath".

Maybe the only thing that's includable is "Did Bonnie ever shoot anyone?" (not in those words of course). LaNaranja (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

---

LaNaranja's suggestion for a final draft

This is only what I think the Controversy section should be, if we have to have one. This is not some sort of final version that I think everyone must accept. I hope everyone who wants to will do one themselves. See section above about suggestions for collaborating. If something has to be in the Intro about it, I suggest something a little less schlocky than

In the days of the Barrow Gang Parker was generally assumed to be a full participant in their crimes, engaging in every firefight and surely guilty of murder. She herself never indicated that she would part from Barrow or the life they had made for themselves. Over time, however, it has been proven that while she and Barrow saw themselves as a single unit, destined to "go down together," she committed none of the murders ascribed to Clyde Barrow and the Barrow Gang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaNaranja (talk • contribs) 21:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

just thinking: [The cultural double standard regarding "bad women" as debased (but "bad men" as glamorous) and over the years led to a stream of detective stories and B-films with this perception of Bonnie Parker as their seed.] LaNaranja (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion on your draft:

In the days of the Barrow Gang, Bonnie Parker was assumed by many to be a full participant in their crimes, engaging in every firefight and surely guilty of murder. She herself never indicated that she would part from Barrow or the life they had made for themselves. Over time, however, it has been proven that while she and Barrow claimed to see themselves as a single unit, destined to "go down together," she committed none of the murders ascribed to Clyde Barrow and the Barrow Gang, nor was she ever indicted for any violent act. Whatever the perception was of her level of involvement, factually she was simply not involved in the killings committed by the Barrow Gang.

Pv86 (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I like it, it's great! Except they did have an indictment processed and were prepared to arrest her for murder of -- Im guessing -- the Grapevine policemen.

In his deposition to Dr. Wade, chair of the Coroner's Jury in Arcadia, [Alcorn] was quoted as claiming that Parker had been indicted for murder. In addition to officially identifying the bodies of both Barrow and Parker and stating that he knew them personally, the deposition claims that "he know[s] of his own knowledge that both were 2 [times] indicted on charge of murder Case #5046&7 Criminal District Court Dallas Tex. November-28-1933."[23]

-- this is in the current "Controversy and Aftermath" section.

Also, she definitely was an unflinching accessory, so we have to balance that she wasnt all the way innocent. LaNaranja (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There are two problems: first, the accesory statues you are referring to did not exist back then, so she could not have been charged. Secondly, the indictment you refer to does not exist. That record is not in the Dallas Court files! No such indictment existed. Check any of the books, or the FBI records, or check with the Dallas court. Pv86 (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

what are the agreed-upon controversies?

• Bonnie (legal "right" to kill her? (Is that the question?))

• the varying stories told by the posse?
• whether Ivy Methvin was tied to a tree or under the truck? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaNaranja (talk • contribs) 23:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Was Bonnie guilty?

The car riddled with bullet holes after the ambush, May 23, 1934.

• ^ Not correct title... and not really sure what we're trying to determine: "Should" Hamer have figured out a way to kill only Clyde? "Should" Lee Simmons have expressly told him to take her alive? "Should" he have taken it upon himself to try to do that? Barrow was suspected of murder too, and hadnt been tried in a court of law yet, either. Does presumption of his guilt mean it was okay to kill him? If yes, then same with Bonnie. If no, then there should be a controversy surrounding *his* murder, but there isnt. What am I not getting?

Questions have been raised about the status of Parker as a shoot-on-sight candidate.

Hamer said he considered for a long time surprising them while they slept, but that opportunity never presented itself. The time pressure on Hamer precluded trying to devise a way to separate them. She was never far from Barrow's side.

Hamer could have believed Mr Schaeffer's statement, which in turn could have influenced any decision to not look too hard for an opportunity to separate them and take her alive. If Sandy Jones's studies of the bullet holes in the death car is accurate, Hamer walked up to the car window behind Bonnie's seat and fired several shots into her body. < Guinn p. 425 >

Deputy Alcorn stated to the chair of the coroner's jury in Arcadia that [the Dallas County sheriff's office ?)] had indicted Parker along with Barrow on the charge of murder in the deaths of A and B.< ref >Case #5046&7 Criminal District Court Dallas Tex. November-28-1933.[23]</ ref >

Problem is that the Dallas County sheriff's office had NOT indicted Parker along with Barrow on the charge of murder - those records simply do not exist. Both Guinn and Milner checked exhaustively, and they simply do not exist. Bottom line, in this country today, if Hamer did the same ambush, he would be arrested and tried for murder, post haste. Pv86 (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, do we think that Hinton just made it up? Does Guinn or Milner say in their books that they looked and couldnt find? You dont need to convene a grand jury to get an indictment. Maybe he meant a complaint.

Still thinking about this, kinda stunned at the idea Alcorn might have lied. Lee Simmons and above him Ma Ferguson would have managed all the legal ends. Hamer could promise a pardon to Ivy Methvin for Henry, Guinn p. 276, and had promised he'd back him "to the limit," p. 255. Neither of them was indicted by a grand jury, but that doesnt mean the paperwork wasnt in place. IOW Hamer was just the bullet, not the gun, so to speak. LaNaranja (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Did Bonnie ever shoot anyone?

In the only instance in which Bonnie could have been clearly identified as a shooter, she used the gun to frighten, not to kill. In Lucerne, Indiana, as the gang was fleeing pursuers and a man leaped onto the hood of their madly swerving car, Clyde yelled at her to shoot him. Bonnie, in the front seat, "fired a few wild shots"; the man jumped off.< Guinn p. 184 > Later she told her family she had missed him on purpose: "I wasnt going to kill that nice old man. He was white-headed."< ref > But moments later, two women were hit by gunfire when the Barrows shot at a crowd of churchgoers. Many eyewitnesses reported two women shooting from the car.< Blanche's book 250-51, fn. 9 >

Bonnie told family that she fired "a shot" through one of the living room windows at Joplin.< Blanche p. 52 > Officer Grammer of the Missouri State Highway Patrol told reporters that he had seen "a woman" firing from an upstairs window during the Joplin shootout, but the day following the shootout he did not report this at the coroner's inquests.< ref > Police found no windows broken and no recently fired guns,< ref > and Blanche Barrow said she did not hear any weapon firing or hear glass break.< Blanche p. 51 >

She was not a stranger to guns. According to Officer Persell of Springfield she covered him for hours with a shotgun.

Mr. Schieffer's story. But Henry Methvin admitted to killing both motorcycle policemen at Grapevine.

W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults said they had never seen her fire a gun and described her role as logistical.[1] Though in his 1933 confession to Dallas police Jones blamed Bonnie for his own shooting the night of January 6 when Clyde killed Officer Davis, < confession > thirty years later, when it was safe to tell the truth, he said, "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." < playboy > LaNaranja (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)