Misplaced Pages

Talk:Bonnie and Clyde

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wordlelwabash (talk | contribs) at 02:31, 15 March 2006 (Charles Floyd association?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:31, 15 March 2006 by Wordlelwabash (talk | contribs) (Charles Floyd association?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bonnie and Clyde article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

To-do list for Bonnie and Clyde: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2006-03-12

  • Verify Neutrality and Factual Accuracy of the article.

Page archive: 1 2

Clean slate

Archived. · Katefan0/poll 14:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

To Do list: Verify Neutrality and Accuracy

The TO DO list is there because for the last few weeks we have been trying to fix and verify the neutrality and accuracy of the article. Any other comments you feel should be include and or are directly related to the fixing of the article, in regards for example to neutrality and accuracy should be discussed here. --CyclePat 06:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

A sugested format of presentation is as follows:
  1. "quote section of arguable info" -- WP:Policy -- Explanation of the policy in 5 to 15 words. -- Link to issue %-- signature
--CyclePat 06:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. --Woohookitty 07:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

CyclePat Reasonable enough. I have only two sections that I think there is any significant controversy on, and I stand by the wording and sourcing presently in those sections. Those two sections, and issues, are:

  • 1) the level of participation of Bonnie Parker in the "Barrow Gang" crimes. Everyone has conceded there were no warrants for murder out for Bonnie, and the surviving gang members, with the exception of Blanche, claimed she never fired a shot, and her role was limited strictly to "logistical support." Blanche's claim she fired on a crowd is backed by a newspaper clipping, BUT, no one from that supposed crowd ever filed even a police complaint! Realistically, no one can tell me that two women used automatic rifles on a crowd of people, wounded some, and NOT ONE SOUL ever filed even so much as a complaint, let alone took out a warrant?
  • 2) The order by Hamer to fire on Bonnie Parker without warning is undisputed. Also undisputed is that in recent years historians such as Milner have questioned the legality of that order. (Ted Hinton questioned it, as did other posse members, at the time!) Further, in Milner's book, pages 145-147, describe the aftermath of the ambush, a scene from hell, as people cut off locks of Bonnie's bloody hair and her clothes, and a man tried to cut off Clyde's ear. Hamer was too busy talking to people to stop this until the coroner asked him.

Some folks have implied that putting these facts in an article on Bonnie and Clyde implies sympathy for Bonnie -- not so. They imply only that wikipedia is an encyclopedia with an obligation to recite the facts as best we know them. Bonnie level of actual participation is an important facet of the article on Bonnie and Clyde, and the horror of the ambush is also vital to the article. I think the two sections, on Bonnie and her level of participation in the crimes, and the ambush and it's aftermath are good sections, well sourced, and factually and legally accurate. old windy bear 16:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

comment Interesting enough wiki is a place for many facts, however I remember reading that there are actually instances that exist where some people will argue that it may not belong in the article. WP:NPOV actually says that "regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not;" an extremely small view should not be in wikipedia. The idea here is to know on whether it belongs in the article or not because of it's predominant status (acceptance) in our society. I think an article that we should evaluate could be the Holocaust Cruelty. I'm not sure if that is the best example but it could be a good start. WP:NPOV#Fairness and sympathetic tone should be observed. This being said I would avoid using terms such as "a scene from hell." However.... heading down into WP:NPOV#Characterizing opinions of people's work you may be able to leave such a comment. It must be well WP:CITE sourced criticism. It is important for the construction of the article and for people understand who is saying this! Summary: determine the importance and see if it is a viewpoint held by a Majority, a minority or an extreme small minority. If it the 2 first then we should include according to WP:CITE. I would suggest placing it in a section that where it won't be contradicted right away. That means if there is another controversial view then I would put that in its own well sourced section. --CyclePat 03:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

CyclePat Hi Pat! You are right about the phrase "scene out of hell" which is why it is NOT in the article. I think actually that Kate, and then Kelly, did an excellent job rewriting the article, preserving those issues I thought important, while giving it less of a POV outlook. In short, you are right on that phrase, and i would never add it to the article, it is just my personal opinion, which has NO PLACE in the article. I think most people agree with the current way the article is presented, and the facts are certainly correct. I have stood aside and let others rewrite, and like the result. Pat, even at the time of their deaths, almost half the country did not agree - if you believe the histories - with the way they were ambushed, and the aftermath, especially considering Bonnie was not wanted for murder. But you are right on the wording. "Scene out of hell" should be reserved for Auswitz or Treblenka. old windy bear 19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

'there is NO BOOK that says this'

Oldwindybear, don't think anybody's forgetting that you admitted explicitly, in writing, with regard to your fantastic, manufactured, original-"research" claims for Bonnie Parker and Frank Hamer, "the trouble is that there is NO BOOK that says this". Right. That's what all this diversion is about — to let you pretend otherwise. All this mess is about you denying what you've already admitted.

Other items Oldwindybear'll pretend away. I'll let him find the sources, since he knows so much (and likes to imagine that the same sources supply his manufactured quotes):

During this fiasco, about forty shots were fired, two women bystanders were slightly wounded, and two pigs were killed when the bandits drove through a herd of swing while making their getaway. No money was taken from the bank.
The local paper provided details of a getaway down the main street , with the desperadoes spraying bullets in all directions. It also stated that there were two women in the getaway car and that one of them was firing as they left town.
In Clyde's Ford V-8 coupe , there were a few seconds of noise and flying glass as the car shook from the impact of bullets, windows broke, and a tire blew out, but Clyde was already on the move when the shooting started and after a few seconds was out of range. He and Bonnie returned fire from one or two pistols but really didn't know where the lawmen were and feared that they might hit some of their family instead.

Oldwindybear 02:14, 9 March 2006:

Enough said. I never "stole" any work from Pig, we went through all that six months ago, I cited facts in the public domain.

Since you like to hide behind the obvious difficulty of comparing multiple edits to your plagiarized, off-site "article" (though an intelligent, reasonable man can do it easily), I'll make it easy for you by referring to a single edit, and comparing it word for word with "your" article, and your obviously pathetic claim of citing "facts in the public domain":

Written and inserted into article by SaltyPig, in one edit:

by a posse of four Texas and two Louisiana officers (the Louisiana pair added solely for jurisdictional reasons, an aspect of pre-FBI America that Clyde had exploited to its fullest when selecting robbery and hideout locations). The posse was led by former Texas Ranger captain Frank Hamer, who had never before seen Bonnie or Clyde. Controversy lingers over whether the first shot, fired into Clyde Barrow's head by Prentis Oakley with a borrowed Remington Model 8, was too hasty. Oakley is reported to have been haunted by his actions

Passed off as an original article by "John McGlothlin" at http://www.redriverhistorian.com/mcglothlin1.html

by a posse of four Texas and two Louisiana officers (the Louisiana pair added solely for jurisdictional reasons - an aspect of pre-FBI America that Clyde had exploited to its fullest when selecting robbery and hideout locations ). The posse was led by former Texas Ranger captain Frank Hamer, who had never before seen Bonnie or Clyde. Controversy lingers over whether the first shot, fired into Clyde Barrow's head by Prentis Oakley with a borrowed Remington Model 8, was too hasty. Oakley is reported to have been haunted by his actions

Now who in this world are you going to try to convince that you're not a plagiarist? The only reason for so many ellipses is because that's my first draft above; later edits by me, not by you, remove the need for most of them. If one examines the full edit history (not merely my first drafts) and the many other paragraphs you ripped off verbatim, you must literally be insane to keep denying this. Where is your honor, John McGlothlin? You are not a plagiarist? You say this has been "answered" before? Baloney. You are a psycho dog in denial.

Why don't you just admit that you stole paragraphs (which didn't contain a single character edited by you) wholesale from this article, so that you could be "published" elsewhere and (in your warped plan, completely ignorant of the NOR policy shoved in your face regularly out of necessity) your opinions referred to as a source for Misplaced Pages articles? That was your explicit intention. Admit it and move on. Admit what you did. That's absolute proof of the deed up above, and it's only a nibble. I surely didn't steal anything from you. I sat here, in this very house, and composed the words above that you then ripped. Far from apologizing for it, you've only lied constantly (including a claim that you edited the article for years) and insulted me repeatedly. You've insulted the man whose work you attempted to pass off as yours, you sorry, worthless, dishonorable sonofabitch. You got a lotta balls hiding behind your wheelchair and your "service to America" and any other bullshit supposed cred when you aren't man enough to admit what you did in this specific, proven instance. I don't know how you sleep at night.

And what is your response? Irrelevancies. You talk about Jerry Dorsen, an obvious goof on your dumb ass, for the fiftieth time, point the finger at how I evade capture (ha!), and blah blah blah. You are a plagiarist, and that mark isn't leaving your head in this lifetime. The only thing you could do is own up and apologize. Then, perhaps, you could move on. You think I'm forgetting what you did? Not a chance. I'm going to ramp up. I'm going to publicize this elsewhere too, bullshitter boy. Jerry Dorsen? He's the problem? You're the goddamned problem. This article and the talk page were fine before you came along, child. Look at your disaster here, as you're mollycoddled by idjuts. Look at your other page from hell, with everybody wiping your ass because you can't write anything worth a damn, forget an encyclopedia. There are two articles — your supposed babies — to which you caused the application of TotallyDisputed tags, all while you prance around as if you're some lofty contributor. You cannot work with men.

The funny thing about this is that between the two of us — you with your "I'm a legal expert" assertions — I am the only one in his lifetime who's litigated, as sole counsel, a defamation tort! LOL. Maybe even funnier, if it's possible, is that truth is generally an absolute defense to a claim of defamation. Stupid as you are, I think you know that. Oddly, it is you, John — offender turned brash accuser — who is without defense for your defamation. And yet you are the one who raised the issue, threatening to sue. Might want to see a psychologist (again).

Regardless, you can either admit what you did, completely, or have this shoved up your ass as deserved, goddamned piker. You are going to be exposed wherever you go. Count on it. Even changing your legal name won't help. Wordlelwabash 02:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Category: