Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oldwindybear (talk | contribs) at 21:51, 2 January 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Redirect from Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow

Someone asked about making Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow redirect to Bonnie and Clyde. You can do that by pasting in the text "#REDIRECT ]" (without the quotation marks) in each of the links above. My question, though, is that if they're going to redirect to Bonnie and Clyde, why have them linked within the Bonnie and Clyde article? Unless it's just so you can paste the #REDIRECT command in. Anyway, that's how you do it. --KQ

Thank you very much. I'll try to figure that out.

Devotchka

Here is what it looks like. --KQ

Epilog v. Epilogue

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

revision

the more i read about bonnie and clyde, the less confident i am about any detail associated with them. there's a surprising acceptance of almost any historical account, and i suspect that much of what is called "history" is simply mass-embraced fiction. however, it seems to be far more prevalent with the bonnie and clyde story. supposedly authoritative and scholarly versions differ drastically, with many books stating as fact things that are disputed and likely perpetually unsettled.

i'm probably done working on this, but the subject of possible inaccuracy with bonnie and clyde details might warrant more warnings than are already in the article -- maybe even an introductory note about it. of the accounts i've read, i trust 2 ("twenty-first century" and the blanch barrow book, with their scrupulous footnotes) more than others, but it sure is strange to read the many versions of the history of bonnie and clyde. might be impossible to deal with the problem except in book form with tons of footnotes, giving the various versions and letting readers take it from there. might even be wise to trim the current article, rather than expanding it. SaltyPig 5 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

You have a point, but the legal records are available to anyone with enough time and money to research them. These facts are indisputable: Bonnie was never known to even take a shot at anyone, let alone shoot them. She was not wanted for any offense which carried the death penalty or would have justified use of lethal force to apprehend her. Those things are legal and historical fact. The problem is that many people don't want to accept the ultimate logical, historial, legal and moral conclusion that those facts force: Hamer and his posse murdered a 23 year old girl.

You are certainly right that much of the "facts" surrounding the legend of Bonnie and Clyde are a combination of folklore, and Bonnie's own gift for playing the media. She may not have been much of a criminal, but she was a genius at self promotion. The goal of this article, whether it offends some folks or not, should be to present the facts, including the fact that when Frank Hamer arranged the ambush of a car with a girl not wanted for any capital offense, and who was committing no crime at the time of the ambush, he murdered her. But i think you make a very valuable point that this article, as it is, is more folklore than fact. I understand Misplaced Pages bans original research, but it does not ban existing research and known fact, and you are right that this needs some serious editing. OLDWINDYBEAR 10:48PM 12/26/05

Sixth sense

Supposedly Clyde had something of a Sixth Sense. There were several traps laid for them by the authorities, that Clyde managed to avoid for no reason other than he just decided to. I wonder if there is any discussion of that?

what are some examples of what you describe? SaltyPig 23:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

How many bullet holes?

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

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

redirect v. stub

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

MURDER OF BONNIE PARKER

Does it strike anyone else how relatively little attention was paid to the fact that Hammer and his boys murdered Bonnie Parker? Under the laws in effect at the time, she was not eligible for the death penalty for any of her crimes. She had not personally killed anyone. When they were ambushed, she was not in commission of any crime. While certainly no angel, Bonnie Parker was executed in cold blood by men no better morally than many of the criminals they killed. OldWindyBear

OldWindyBear, i do believe that bonnie parker was murdered, and that the men who killed her were hypocrites and scumbags; in addition to killing bonnie parker, they pilfered stolen property that didn't belong to them, and the bienville rep went to great lengths to prevent the return of the death car to its owner (he lost in the end). however, i don't agree that parker would necessarily have been spared a death sentence had she been captured. she was involved in (supported) murder, and that's for sure. in any case, it's not true to say that she wasn't committing a crime when ambushed; almost all their "property", including the car, was stolen. she was evading capture. etc., and there are probably a hundred more technical charges that aren't necessarily crimes, opinions of cops notwithstanding.

BTW, it's "hamer" with only one "m" — pronounced HAY-mer, and deliberately mispronounced in the B&C movie. SaltyPig 13:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I restored the part about her murder, but in respect to your feelings, said it was "probably" legally murder. Actually, it was plainly murder which legally at the time was killing without justification. Theyhad NO such justification under relevant law, state, (any of them), or federal! To the best of anyone's knowledge, she had NOT KILLED ANYONE and in those days, none of the crimes she had committed were ones that called for the death penalty. Further, (I have a paralegal certificate and have done research for the ACLU for years), she was NOT committing a crime at the moment of her death -- there was no need to use lethal force.

the content of the article should have nothing to do with my feelings or yours. even if you're the chief justice of the U.S. supreme court, wikipedia doesn't want your direct opinion on the matter. wikipedia bans original research/analysis as official policy. i suggest you visit this page and further acclimate yourself with what wikipedia is (and how it works) before further analyzing the B&C ambush (in all caps, no less) on the article page. thanks. this isn't a contest of opinions here. SaltyPig 21:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I carefully researched what wikipedia is, and while they do not wish to be a sponsor or publisher for new research, this is a case of publishing FACTS. The Law at the time of Bonnie Parkers death did not allow for the death penalty for any of the crimes she was accused of, she was not even committing jay walking at the time of her murder, and historically she never even fired a shot at anyone! There was absolutely no legal justification for her murder by Hamer and posse, period, under any law in effect in the United States, state, or federal. This is not research, these are the facts, and that IS what wikipedia does, act as a repository of the facts...OLDWINDYBEAR12/27/05

My my, testy aren't we. You don't appear interested in the truth, or the law, but in exercising some sort of editing of the truth in order to espouse a particular viewpoint. The plain blunt FACT is that history says Bonnie Parker killed no one, to anyone's knowledge, and there was no legal basis to kill her. This is not an analysis, or research, but plain fact. You may edit history if you wish, but don't pretend to be doing otherwise. I am not analyzying anything, merely citing the facts as they existed. This is not a contest of opinions. I have a degree in history, another in law. I cite fact not opinion, facts easily verified, which all reputable historians and legal scholars accept. I will edit the comment to assure that it does not violate the bar on analysis. But your attitude is sad. People with knowledge come here in good faith to add facts, and find folks like you who espouse a particular viewpoint, at the cost of the truth, which I find sad. I have read the rules here carefully, and write only fact which can be verified by accepted historical and/or legal authority. It is FACT that Bonnie Parker was not eligible for the death penalty, recognized by every expert in this country. OLDWINDYBEAR

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

Since I am back reediting this article, you are right, personality differences should play no role -- but facts should. Misplaced Pages exists as a limitless repository of facts, and the facts of Bonnie;s legal status are well known and need to be published. I think we agree on the facts, we just need to put this article in more professional form.OLDWIINDYBEAR12/12/05

I feel my edits are well and professionally done, in an encyclopedic fashion. As to the Bonnie Parker matter, we agree she was murdered, so it was merely finding language that was appropriate. I felt mine was, you disagreed, such is life. I still find your mode of discussion offensive, but frankly, we both have better things to do than bandy semantics, so have a nice evening. OLDWINDYBEAR

RfC discussion

Hikaru Utada song?

The song "B&C" by Japanese pop singer Hikaru Utada names "Bonnie and Clyde" in its lyrics. Is this too obscure to be a relevant pop culture reference? Lyrics can be found here.

nothing wrong with popping it in to see if it stays. i don't think it's any more obscure than other stuff there. Wbfl 23:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

why wikipedia ultimately sucks

it requires perpetual vigilance if your effort's not to be wasted. can't walk away from solid ground, job done. this article was stable, and it's now being degraded regularly by wannabe newspaper editorialists and overt point makers, using the "note insertion" method (do a POV jig here, thrust another there). it's like watching a dog wander a field to lift his leg whenever something catches his nose. inserting sentences here and there is the laziest, most worthless "editing" one can do. may as well use a red sharpie. but i'm not touching this article; have at it. convert the investment of many good editors into your pee ground, forcing them either to acquiesce, or follow some snot nose around with kleenex, preserving a precious syllable as able ("look, johnny, you pooped out a syllable that we kept!"), arguing for 5 hours with a dull gasbag in the process. idiocy.

and probably some officious prig will wipe this comment ("NPA! NPA!"), while leaving the infantile changes to the article intact. the usual wikipedia hack elevation story -- slackers welcomed and coddled, good editors slapped on the hand like ignorami for being pissed about the slackers and not pretending we're in a group therapy session. while that's the policy, official or not, the material's gonna blow. enjoy! wikipedia will either restrict access or fail. 63.28.75.180 03:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

please take the time to review this page's history, and notice that within two minutes of me leaving the comment above, an admin had swooped in, also leaving an inappropriate comment on my user page! too poetic. meanwhile, look at the article. aren't the articles the reason for the superstructure? correction to what i wrote above: the laziest, most worthless "editing" one can do is NPA/language babysitting and control-freaking. wikipedia admin culture is laughably inept. this article was hammered all month, and did you see admins fretting so? not a chance. what a disaster this place is. nanny-boo bureaucrats with jangly key rings. i'm the one who expanded this article from a good stub, with the aux help of probably 5-7 other editors (now gone), and i, not the vandals, am being told, quite paternalistically, to take my comments to the sandbox! unreal incompetence. did you see the admins jumping in on the RfC i started above? not one. but say "sucks" somewhere, and they're falling over one another to get in on the action -- wannabe cops, screwing the pooch while sporting supercilious smirks. where were you when we needed ya, admins? out treating intelligent adults as children, and pampering vandals (both the obvious and covert type). yeah, that's a plan for excellence. yet it's some mystery why wikipedia's getting slaughtered in the press these days. note to admins: i busted my ass on this article for days, getting the facts as straight and NPOV as they could be at the time (including verifying personally, while visiting louisiana, the ambush coordinates within 20 feet). if that's not worth something -- if that doesn't give me some soundoff leeway -- you're made of sludge. 63.28.75.180 04:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You are certainly excited about something. Which revisions have aroused your wrath so? The fact that people are beginning to question what happened to Bonnie and Clyde? They were murdered, by Frank Hamer (you should like that article) and the beauty of wikipedia is if you cannot back your revisions with sources considered reliable history, they can be struck. I get annoyed sometimes that amataurs foul up articles, but then I merely clean it up, or help, and go back to work. Part of the beauty of this, along with part of the pain, is the participation of anyone on the net who wants to help. I also visited the ambush site. I have fired Browning Automatic rifles, and know their penetration power. The ambush was plain murder. Yes, you get folks who do not know history, or have not researched (I went to the Library of Congress to verify that the law in effect, both state and federal, in 1934, had no charge that could have gotten Bonnie the death penalty) You get both good and bad with the solicitation for all to participate, but you encourage interest in history, a positive thing. Does that mean you have to constantly edit sometimes? Yes, but honestly, if it encourages at all real interest in history then it is worth it. (though I grant you it is annoying - but frankly, your moronic language lends no credance to anything you say regarding this or any other historical subject. if you wish to be taken seriously, act so)oldwindybear