Talk:Bonnie and Clyde/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Clean slate

Archived. · Katefan0^(scribble)/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^{(cat scratches)} 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)

Katefan0 CyclePat Hi Kate, HI Pat, another user, who has not been involved with this page, eliminated the controvery and aftermath section altogether, without discussing it here. I restored it, and ask you to look at it, and see whether the section needs removal. He eliminated all the sourcing for the ambush, the scene after the ambush, what the coroner saw, etc. Would you take a look, when you have a chance? THis is complete revision of the article, and needs to be discussed before just eliminating months of work. If it is a majority view - okay, I can live with consensus, but this was just wholesale elimination without mentioning it on the talk page. I asked the user to come here and discuss such wholesale changes, instead of simply eliminating whole sections, when those changes are strongly disputed, as these are. I am sure she meant to improve the article, but i don't honestly believe that happened, instead, large amounts of vital information were simply deleted from the article without discussion. SO, to quote Pat, lets talk about it!

• He eliminated the entire section on what the coroner saw after the ambush, and the heavy sourcing that went into that, and eliminated the section of controversy in masse. I don't honestly believe this is a majority user or historical view;
• He eliminated mention of Hamer's press conference, and all of the sourcing on the ambush itself, again, I don't believe that is the majority user or historical view;

Thanks in advance for looking at that section...(you and Pat can look at it, and decide!) Would one of you put the page under protection till such wholesale revisions can be discussed? old windy bear 11:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I read this article for the first time, last night. It's a good article, except for the POV pushing on the late Bonnie Parker's behalf.

To paraphrase:

It was a really, really bad thing to shoot Bonnie Parker. Frank Hamer was a mean man. Bonnie never killed any body. The posse didn't give Bonnie and Clyde a chance to give up. It was against the law to shoot Bonnie. Frank Hamer liked to break the law. The posse shot Bonnie and Clyde without fair warning. Today, what the posse did would be against the law. The posse stole guns and did not give them back. It was a really, really bad thing to shoot Bonnie Parker. Bonnie never shot any body.....

I simply replace what I saw as a long-winded, repetitive, POV push section with a simple, two paragraph statement, at the end of the 'Death' section.

Controversy lingers over whether Bonnie Parker should have been killed, and 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 for the rest of his life by his actions that day. He was the only posse member to publicly express remorse or regret for his actions.

Some of the posse, including Frank Hamer, took and kept for themselves stolen guns that were found in the death car, with the approval of Lee Simmons.

I think that just about covers it. But I'll let other editors decide on the content of the article. I would recommend; avoid long-winded, redundant, POV pushing statements.

Mytwocents 19:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

my response

I appreciated your coming and discussing this semi-rationally. You paraphrased it one way, now here is mine:

Bonnie Parker was not wanted for any capital crime at the time of her death. In fact, a study of the various jurisdictions the Barrow Gang committed crimes in showed no warrants for her at all for any of the major crimes committed. The Posse which staged the ambush protested to Frank Hamer, in charge of the ambush, that it might be legally wrong, and they had serious reservations about shooting a girl from ambush not wanted for any serious crimes. Frank Hamer did indeed have a reputation, one he himself bragged about, for not caring about the nicities of the law, like having a warrant before shooting people. He then allowed people to cut the bloody clothes and hair off of a dead girl before a horrified cororner asked him to control the crowd, and to cap it off, held a news conference and bragged about it.

The Posse took not only guns, but all the personal possessions in the car, many stolen from people, and not only refused to give them back, but sold them.

• you sarcastically imply it is just sporty to shoot a girl not wanted for a single major crime 130 times and then let people cut off her bloody hair and clothes for souvenirs, which they sold. Golly, let's not talk about that! You are right, let the editors decide. I think your version a whitewash of what was an open disgrace to law enforcement. I also invoke POV on your version, which I believe is just as biased, ignoring sources, and generally wrong. I would avoid deleting what actually happened that day - the ambush - and instead whitewashing it with a POV that wants to hide the truth. Kate and Pat, it is in your hands. old windy bear 20:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversy lingers over whether Bonnie Parker should have been killed. One sentence covers it. A extlink to a source for this statement is needed. As far as the death of Bonnie and Clyde goes, it was a brutal way to die, but it was a brutal time. I would encourage all editors to be bold in cleaning up this article. Mytwocents 21:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with my Mytwocents I urge Kate and Pat to be bold in editing this, and I know they will be, Kate certainly was in my article on Frank Hamer.
• As to whether controversy lingers over the ambush -- read John Treherne's book, or E.R. Milner's, or Ambush by Ted Hinton. ALL question the events surrounding the ambush, especially the horrendous aftermath, Milner, 146-7. Even online, In his article "Romeo and Juliet in a Getaway Car" Joesph Gerringer writes of the ambush: "But, Hamer chose not to call out a warning -- not to Bonnie and Clyde...in a voice audible only to those around him, void of drama, void of malice, Hamer ordered, "Shoot!" Also in Hinton's book, the best source on the ambush, he makes clear Hamer had ordered firing without warning no matter what happened prior to the car's arrival,AND that the posse had great reservations about that!
• My2cents would edit this out." I agree with My2cents that the issue is: do we use the books which plainly state the facts about the ambush, the questions the posse had in firing without warning, or do we whitewash and make Hamer a hero, something he was eager enough to do in his lifetime. She would like to eliminate the language that Milner used in describing people cutting bloody locks of the dead girls hair. I think those facts important!
• I know the editors will be bold and fair. She states one sentence sums up our differences, and she is right, and obviously has not read the horde of books which question shooting down someone with no warrants on them with no warning. This is not making Bonnie into little susie sunshine, this is asking WHETHER OR NOT THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY MEAN SOMETHING, TO EVERYONE, EVEN FOOLS SILLY ENOUGH TO RIDE WITH PSYCHOPATHS - HAVE WE ABOLISHED WARRANTS AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW?.

I agree long winded statements are to be avoided - but not at the cost of whitewashing the truth away, and deleting facts a user finds unpleasant. It is up to the editors! old windy bear 22:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting

Another look should be taken at the Ambush party as a whole. I believe it was Ted Hinton In "Ambush" that told of the position of each man, the order in which they stood when they fired. Law enforcement has progressed in the last seventy two years in that if the incident would have happed today, the posse members would have been skilled sharpshooters, a S.W.A.T. team of sorts. After the first shot into the side of the primary suspects head, the others might converge and arrest the hysterical woman suspect. Not so here, after the first shot was fired the others "reared back " and fired. The lead men in the group firing intentionaly at the face of the passenger. Today, this behavior would be seen for what it is/was, an illegal execution. randazzo56

Oakley did indeed kill Clyde with the first shot - and Hamer ordered firing on Bonnie anyway, thogh Ted HInton made clear in his book, as all other accounts of the ambush, much of the posse objected. John Neal Phillips wrote a fascinating piece that makes clear that the death of both Bonnie and Clyde - with no trial, judge, jury, or even warrant on Bonnie - was part of a promise that a Texas prison official had made to the dying guard Joe Palmer had murdered during the famous Eashtam prison break. He literally promised to get them, and had Hamer do so. This story is in article form but is online at http://historynet.com/ah/bleastham/index2.html from an article written by John Neal Phillips and originally published in October 2000 issue of American History Magazine. This explains, as randazzo56 pointed out above, the cold blooded and illegal execution of Bonnie Parker. Hamer himself bragged of this in the interview he gave the day of the ambush. (see the article for the sources) As randazzo56 pointed out above, this ambush does deserve a long and hard look in the Bonnie and Clyde article. I also point out the aftermath scene as described amply before in Milner's book - again, while this may be long, it is vitally important to the history, which is why wikipedia exists, to enclyclopedia the historical facts. I stress again that this does not make Bonnie some saint, but the fact she was not on any warrant, and we had due process in this country, even during the great depression, should not simply be whitewashed out.old windy bear 04:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

changing the article

Mytwocents did not wait for the editors involved in this article, and simply rewrote it his way, eliminating all mention of the aftermath of the ambush, and all discussion fo the role of Bonnie Parker in the gang. I did not revert the changes, but added a section on Bonnie's involvement in the Barrow Gang - which had been eliminated in toto from the Bonnie section, and reinstated enough of the facts about the ambush to give an accurate picture of what happened. I left most of the edits intact, since he did, in fact, cut out a lot of repeat language. By adding the additional section, becuase the role of Bonnie Parker in the gang had just been edited by two other users before my2cents simply decided to eliminate it without discussion, I was able to put this vital information in the article, without a revert war. As to the ambush, I added several paragraphs, including one on Ted Hiinton's afterdeath confession that the posse tied up Henry Methvin's father, and only got him to agree not to press charges by promising to get a pardon for his son for the terrible murder of the two highway patrolmen near Grapevine, Texas, on April 1, 1934. These facts are simply too important to be deleted without discussion, and without consensus. old windy bear 13:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the 'disputed', 'POV-section', and cleanup tags regarding old windy bear's revision. The cleaned-up version can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bonnie_and_Clyde&oldid=44331821.

Consider

That its just as important to detail the aftermath of the Amcush as it is to detail the controversy surrounding the death of Dillinger

old windy bear, please don't need leave messages on my talk page, my watchlist will catch any changes on this articles talk and main page.

Mytwocents 17:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents I will not leave any messages - I was trying to explain to you that wikipedia works by consensus, (and given the number of unhappy people who are objecting to your unilateral edits, I am not the only one having trouble with your unilaterally changing articles, without any attempt to discuss the changes), and explain that while you might want to wish away the aftermath of the ambush, it is too vital a section to simply delete. I prefer to try to work with people, when possible, and discuss issues in articles, as Palmdogg or Smec and I have done with the Battle of Tours, for instance. I see it is not possible to discuss things with you, and won't try. It was meant in good faith. If more people discussed these issues, there would be less controversy and more articles written! old windy bear 18:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User:katefan0 and User:CyclePat These are the two issues in dispute, and if My2cents had left the article as he left it after wholesale deletions, I would have POV'd it anyway, so you guys will end up deciding these issues:

• the extent of Bonnie Parker's involvement with the Barrow Gang - My2cents wants to eliminate all language and sourcing involving the extent of her involvement with the gang. I do agree some was redundent, but the issue itself is vital to the article, and needs to be incorporated. I don't care whether it is in the Bonnie section - where it was when Ewulp was making some good edits the other day, or in the new section I created, after My2cents unilaterally decided this issue did not need to be in the article. I believe the majority of users, and certainly the majority of historians, in fact, ALL of them, believe her involvement was more limited than publicly thought, and this needs to be in the article. The wording can be anyway you two decide.
• the aftermath of the ambush. That is so heavily sourced as to not require defense. As Randazzo56 said the other day, the ambush, and it's aftermath, almost deserve an article of their own, those issues are so important! (especially given the relatively recent uproar over Ted Hinton's posthumous declaration that the posse had tied Henry Methvin's father to a tree, and to placate him, and avoid criminal charges, Hamer agreed to get his son a pardon for the killing of the two highway patrolmen, which he did - this really cannot be ignored, nor can the scene at the ambush site as Milner describes in page 147 of his book)

To simply delete both, and whitewash what happened, is POV with a vengence. I trust you both, you have been working on this article, and I believe you will resolve it fairly. I ask Mytwocentsnot to unilaterally delete whole sections and let the editors decide. I will abide by your decisions, certainly. So far, the only comments on the talk page do indicate these are important issues, which need to be in the article, though perhaps not in the present form. BUT THEY DO NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. THANKS! old windy bear 18:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

old windy bear, I'm an editor, and I'm involved with this article. You took it upon yourself to revert the cleanup I made on this page. It hasn't gone anywhere http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bonnie_and_Clyde&oldid=44331821 and any editor can revert to that version, or use it as a starting template. I tried to remove the POV pushing and clean up the prose. I don't know what content you have added. I judge the page as I find it, and make the changes accordingly. Please assume good faith.

Mytwocents 19:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents I do assume good faith - and I also judge the page as I find it. I prefer not to make disputes personal, and I appreciate that you have not made this one personal. I simply strongly disagree with your truncated article, not because of any bad faith, but because you are rewriting history. EVERY historian who has written about the Barrow gang has emphasized two things, (especially John Treherne, and E.R. Milner, generally regarded as the best of the group)

• the limited involvement of Bonnie in real life as opposed to the public perception;
• the incredible horror of the ambush scene, particularly well pictured by Milner on page 147 of his book;

In addition, you deleted all mention of the relatively new controversy about Ted Hinton posthumous revelations concerning the bargain Hamer allegedly made with Methvin's father. (and considering Hinton's reputation, such charges have to be taken seriously!). With all respect, I don't believe you cleaned up the article - though I do agree that you eliminated a lot of unnecessary language and statements made repeatedly -- but eliminated history you don't agree with personally. That is POV, and other editors need to examine it, especially since your version flies in the face of EVERY book on the gang. I do believe you cleaned up some unnecessary and repetitive language, but to use a colloquial phrase, you threw the baby out with the bathwater! When such a dispute exists, as here, then the editors who were already working on the article, in this case, Katefan0 and CyclePat, should look at the dispute, and the sourcing, and decide whether the clean up was revisionist history. I do assume you believe you are correct - I also believe that every history of the gang and the ambush proves you wrong. I have to say I find it ironic that you remind me to assume good faith - one of the foremost tenets of good faith is "Consider using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating." This was what I attempted to do, leaving a courteous message explaining the historical problems of your revisions. They simply delete historical fact.old windy bear 19:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This link shows the difference between my cleanup and the current page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bonnie_and_Clyde&diff=44378752&oldid=44331821

I think the additional text, on the right, should be reduced to one or two sentences. This would make the point, without undue weight to the POV the section is trying to make.

Mytwocents 20:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Katefan0 I Respectfully disagree with my2cents. I state again, the couple of sentences he proposes are themselves POV, ignore all the accepted historians, and sourcing now in the article - even Pig (who is quite mad) agreed with the importance of these issues:

• the limited involvement of Bonnie in real life as opposed to the public perception -- he leaves out all the sourcing, and pretty much eliminates the major controversy historians have been examining the past half century!;
• the incredible horror of the ambush scene, particularly well pictured by Milner on page 147 of his book, which by POV he deletes in toto;
• In addition, he deleted all mention of the relatively new controversy about Ted Hinton posthumous revelations concerning the bargain Hamer allegedly made with Methvin's father. (and considering Hinton's reputation, such charges have to be taken seriously!).

The couple of sentences proposed by My2cents are themselves heavily POV in that they reduce the vital issues of Parker's involvement - and more importantly, because of the controversy, the sourcing for same! - and the ambush, and again, the sourcing for same, to a about 25 words. That is absurd, and a POV attempt to delete information vital to the article. He leaves out the vast bulk of the information, like 95%, all the sourcing, and doesn't mention the Hinton controversy (his posthumous revelations) at all. His version does NOT make the point without undue weight to a POV, it is a POV by it's rewriting and deleting sourcing and history. His cleanup is not a cleanup, it is a POV rewrite to delete facts - like the ambush aftermath, and the historians view of Parker's role in the gang - he does not like. I strongly oppose it on the grounds of historical inaccuracy, and trust you to do the right thing.old windy bear 21:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello all--I've been watching this article from the sidelines for a while & attempted some edits. I claim no expertise on B&C and only tried to reduce POV and redundancy of sources all saying the same thing in the "Bonnie's Role" section. The same information--no warrant for murder for Bonnie--is given again in the highwaymen section, and I think repeating it over & over makes the article sound like a defense attorney working a jury.

The section is still unsatisfactory; the matter of Blanche vs the newspaper story is mush--Where did this incident happen, which newspaper & date? And the book titles could be eliminated in favor of footnotes (I'm working on learning footnoting). I invite those who have the books to check this edit over because in rephrasing I may have introduced factual mistakes--and that newspaper bit needs help.Ewulp 02:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC) "Only known warrant" is a problem too--Known to whom? This probably needs a footnote if it's going to stay.Ewulp 02:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ewulp Welcome! You are certainly right about the newspaper article section needing rewriting. The incident occurred on May 12, 1933, - Lucerne, Indiana: a Bank robbery in which the town was supposedly shot-up. The town newspaper is the one that carried the story. The problem with it is that no warrants for Bonnie or Blanche, who supposedly did the shooting, were ever issued. I can give you an online confirmation on that article, http://www.afterthebattle.com/bonnie&c.htm The warrant issue is a little more complex: John Treherne and E.R. Milner, among others, trying to ascertain what the actual role Bonnie had in the gang - as opposed to the public personna the media had of her being Clyde's equal in crime, went to the various jursidictions the gang supposedly had crimes in, looking for warrants for Bonnie Parker. The only one known to exist federally as of the date of the ambush, May 23, 1934 - Ambush at Gibsland, Louisiana was one issued federally. (Treherne and Milner don't mention that warrant in their book, because it was federal, it was not a capital offense, and they were looking for murder warrants primarily in that context). For that warrant, the record of it as the only one in the FBI's database is at http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/clyde/clyde.htm I agree much of this could be done by footnote. The issue has been what exactly was Bonnie's role in the various murders, robberies, et al - and to the best of the knowledge of historians like Treherne and Milner, plus testimony from gang members like W.D. Jones, was that she was strictly logistical support - like helping him move a stolen car across state lines, as in the federal warrant! I am going to eliminate the second mention of no warrants as soon as I post this, and straighten up the Lucerne issue in the article, and I hope this answered some of your questions, and welcome to the Bonnie and Clyde site, your interest and help are welcome! The two issues primarily remaining to be resolved are what exactly - as best it can be reconstructed through the historians and records -was Bonnie's actual role in the gang's activities, and the aftermath of the ambush, which frankly, was horrible. Your help, or anyone else's, with questions, facts, or sources, is welcome. old windy bear 02:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is how the page stands after old windy bear's further additions. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bonnie_and_Clyde&diff=44454785&oldid=44331821

What needs to be done? It looks straightfoward to me. The right side text needs to be condensed to about two sentences. I'll wait a while and give another editor a chance to clean-up and NPOV the particular sections.

Mytwocents 05:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

request for arbitration on this article and Frank Hamer

Mytwocents I have requested, as you can see at the bottom of the page, arbitration from several editors who are not involved with this dispute. You did the same wholesale deletions from the Frank Hamer article, which Editor Katefan0 had rewritten. I restored her version, and ask for arbitration on both these articles, since you are, in my opinion, simply POVing the articles with your own positions -- for instance, you do not dispute in any way the information on the aftermath of the ambush of Bonnie and Clyde, or the fascinating claims by Ted Hinton that Hamer traded a murderer a pardon for not being charged for kidnapping a citizen before the ambush, or the numerous sources outlining the specifics of Parker's involvement with this gang. Given that, I have requested arbitration, and ask that you refrain from further deletions, as I will refrain from further editing, on either article, leaving Hamer's as Kate left it, and this article as is, until the other editors review this issue. You have no right to inflict your POV on all users, ignoring history in the process, and deleting wholesale work done by an editor (Kate on Frank Hamer) just because you don't want people reading about the aftermath of the ambush. Equally, I have no right to inflict my POV - so let us wait and let the requested editors examine the EVIDENCE and render a decision. If you simply deep deleting, I will just mark it as disputed, and it will go on and on - this is not wikipedia's way! Since you will not discuss the history - why should the Hinton revelations and the coroner's observations of the ambush scene not be in the articles? Wh should Ralph Fults and W.D. Jones statements on Bonnie's involvement with the actual gunfights be striken? You have never said. What are your sources? In the interim, I propose we wait for arbitration. I feel very confident in the historial evidence - do you? old windy bear 13:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

clarification

Mytwocents I added the information on the lucerne, Indiana, incident, because another user suggested it needed doing. I rewrote that section so it was not much bigger to accomadate the suggestion from Ewulp -- a good one -- that the section needed source citing, which i did. As far as condensing the information to two sentences, I will simply slap a POV dispute on your two sentences. ANOTHER EDITOR - not you, who has shown that you don't care or understand the historical issues involved -- needs to check the article. At no point have you disputed the information as being invalid, or historically wrong, you just want to get rid of it. Wikipedia does not work that way. Here things are done by consensus, and where, as here, you have a complete disagreement, editors NOT INVOLVED examine it, and resolve it. Also, you have reverted twice. these are the issues you are ignoring, or attempting to delete out:

• the limited involvement of Bonnie in real life as opposed to the public perception -- mY2CENTS leaves out all the sourcing, and pretty much eliminates the major controversy historians have been examining the past half century!;
• the incredible horror of the ambush scene, particularly well pictured by Milner on page 147 of his book, which mY2CENTS POV deletes in toto;
• In addition, mY2CENTS in his POV version deleted all mention of the relatively new controversy about Ted Hinton posthumous revelations concerning the bargain Hamer allegedly made with Methvin's father. (and considering Hinton's reputation, such charges have to be taken seriously!).

mY2CENTS will be in violation of the three revert rule shortly, and again, because he wants to present a particular point of view, not because he has any case that the information is historically wrong. User:katefan0 help! This person does not dispute the historical accuracy of the information in question, he merely wants to present a particular viewpoint. NOT ONE USER has posted supporting him. I have appealled to Katefan0, an editor who knows this page well, has edited my article on Frank Hamer, which is related, which my2cents also screwed up without any sourcing for his POV changes, and unlike Katefan0, is not interested in historical accuracy, at no point has he disputed the accuracy of the information he seeks to delete. He simply wants to whitewash the ambush, and hide the horror of the aftermath fo that scene, and hide the research done on the extend of the involvment of Bonnie Parker in the Barrow gang crimes. old windy bear 12:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

HISTORICAL ACCURACY

We cammot begin to attain historical accuracy concerning this artile until we begin to address, in detail, the circumstances of the death of the pair as well as the effects on the ambush party itself. Oldwindybear is right, there is enough here for a seperate article. One thing to avoid would be to try and "sum-up" these details in one or two sentences, as if to shift attention elsewhere. randazzo56 3-19 2:50 P.M.

randazzo56 I could not agree with you more. The absolute worst thing we could do to this article is what My2cents is proposing, which is try to sum up the ambush in a couple of sentences. And all that kind of 2 sentence summing would do would be to whitewash the ambush - which as randazzo56 has also pointed out, could not been more of a mess. The sharpshooter, Oakley, killed Clyde with the first shot. The rest of them could have trotted down and arrested Bonnie with ease. Or at least yelled "throw out any gun and get out with your hands up!" What they should not have done, and did, was fire 130 rounds at her! Then let people chop off her bloody hair and clothes. But I could not agree with randazzo56 more that we need to reach consensus on the ambush - which brings me back to what facts does My2cents dispute? Then we can talk about rewriting. The WORST POSSIBLE THING to do would be to try to sum up as My2cents proposes, without ever saying what facts he would delete - and why! old windy bear 20:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

request for arbitration

User:Woohookitty(cat scratches)User:Johntex Greetings! We have a situation with this article, and the one on Frank Hamer, that requires arbitration. Katefan0 went to a great deal of work to rewrite my article on Frank Hamer - and did a good job of fairly presnting the evidence on the aftermath of the ambush of Bonnie and Clyde, and teh questions about the extent of Bonnie Parker's involvement with the gang. She also addressed the new questions Ted Hinton has raised with his posthumous publication of the claim concerning the bargain Hamer allegedly made with Methvin's father. (according to Hinton, a man whose word cannot be lightly dismissed) the conventional belief that Methvin betrayed Bonnie and Clyde was not so. According to Hinton, the posse, at Hamer's order, tied the elder Methvin to a tree, and in order to get him not to press charges on them, agreed to get his son a pardon for murdering the two highway patrolmen Henry Methvin and Clyde had killed. My2cents has deleted all this without any discussion, without any sourcing, simply in a POV effort to whitewash Hamer. This article, and the one on Hamer, which I restored to the one Katefan0 wrote, need arbitration, so that in the interim, My2cents cannot unilaterally impose his POV on wikipedia. I request arbirtation, or the two of you, or CyclePat, (Kate, since she wrote teh version My2cents deleted on Frank Hamer) examine the evidence, and not allow wholesale deletion for the sake of POV. Thanks!old windy bear 13:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as the Bonnie and Clyde article goes, here is how it stands today; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Bonnie_and_Clyde&diff=44454785&oldid=44331821

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bonnie_and_Clyde&diff=44454785&oldid=44331821]

I'll repeat myself; What needs to be done? It looks straightfoward to me. The right side text needs to be condensed to about two sentences. I'll wait a while and give another editor a chance to clean-up and NPOV the particular sections.

The Frank Hamer page already had parts of it commented out, by another editor ( BTW old windy bear, we are all editors). I commented some other sections out, with a note for a citation check, for POV pushing.

As always, my interest is in NPOV. NPOV in language, tone, and weight on a wikipage.

Old windy bear, this is where I'm coming from; NPOV, assume good faith, no personal attacks, the 3rr rule, and be bold!

I'm taking a go slow approach with the B & C and Frank Hamer pages. But, I do think my versions are sound, worth keeping, and over time, these pages will be hammered into shape, by many different editors.

Mytwocents 18:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents I could not agree more on the totally disputed tag, as your revisions would utterly destroy good articles, and hide the truth for a POV.

Mytwocents at no point have you said what is historically inaccurate in the section on the aftermath of the ambush, or in the section on Bonnie's involvement. For a consensus, please start citing FACTS you see which are wrong and need deleting, not just saying "two sentences will do." That won't do, you need to cite FACTS WHICH ARE WRONG, AND NEED DELETING THEREFORE.

• Are you disputing that E.R. Milner wrote of the scene the coroner reported?
• Are you disputing people cut off pieces of Parker's clothes and hair, blood soaked, and sold them as souvenirs with Hamer looking on?
• Are you disputing that Ted Hinton posthumously claimed that Hamer literally kidnapped Henry Methvin's father, tied him to a tree, and made a deal to avoid kidnapping charges, that he, hamer, would obtain a pardon for Methvin's son for the highway patrolmen murders, in return for the elder Methvin's silence?
• Are you disputing only one warrant exists for Parker in the FBI database?
• Are you disputing the facts John Treherne and Milner wrote about Parker's lesser role in the gang than was generally believed?
• are you disputing the sworn testimony of other gang members who said Parker did not participate in the gang's gun battles?

I also urge all wikipedians to be bold and resist the kind of personal viewpoint that My2cents is trying to force down your throats without even offering one scintilla of evidence that any of the sections he seeks to delete are historically inaccurate! I have asked for arbitration on these two articles because I will boldly resist any person's personal view of history when it is based on a rewrite without citing facts in need of revision. It appears you seek to whitewash the ambush, and eliminate facts from the article. This kind of revisionism must be resisted. Wikipedia is a wonderful repository of FACTS - not opinions! The Bonnie and Clyde page you left was a complete POV mess, and i would have tagged it so, but it already was. I have asked real editors, not just contributers like you and myself to arbitrate this since you offer no history, no sources, no proof, just your desire to delete facts from the articles. I am sorry you cannot see that this is not just wrong, but censorship of the worst kind, because you won't even offer any historical facts or sources to justify your chopping good articles to bits to reflect your own POV. I have asked you over and over, cite facts! Tell us what FACTS are wrong in the paragraphs you would seek to delete. You refuse to do so. You say your versions are solid and good, I respectfully disagree and think they destroy the article and hide the truth. By the way, i agree, we write by consensus - but you make no effort to cite what FACTS are wrong, and not one person has written in support of your chopping the articles to pieces. If you will show me FACTS which are wrong, we can start talking about what needs deleting! Some of your edits I left intact because they eliminated repetitive language. But to delete facts wholesale, you must show those FACTS TO BE WRONG, and you have not done so. old windy bear 19:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

INDEED

If the gentlemens facts are correct, which they are, how can one consider deleting these facts? The more in detail and factual the article, the better for Wikipedia. Ive been reading books on this subject since the movie came out, and Ive found more factual information then all scources with the exception of "texashideout.com", right here on Wikipedia. Why should Wikipedia deprive its readers of as many of the facts as possible? because someone wants to be trendy and arbitrarily shorten an article? I hope the edditors know what time it is... randazzo56 3-19 3:10 P.M.

Been trying to get My2cents to name the facts which are wrong, but he won't

and NO facts should be eliminated until and unless he names which ones are wrong, and sources it. This "gee let us just cut out all that nasty stuff about the ambush and Bonnie not being the gun moll the press played her" is far from what wikipedia is supposed to be about. TELL US WHAT FACTS ARE WRONG, AND WHY THEY SHOULD BE DELETED?(ACTUALLY, he won't name which facts are wrong, because none are! and randazzo56 is right again, wikipedia should be giving as many facts as possible, not deleting them for no reason!) old windy bear 20:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't deleting facts, but consolidating rambling prose into concise sentences. We can state a fact once, to make a point. The issue is not to have undo weight given to one point of view, but to have balance. We need to avoid revisionism and POV pushing. BTW, the B&C page survived without much of what has been trimmed out for a long time, so Old windy bear please spare me any histrionics about removing factual statements. When I find the time, I will make a new edit that uses some of the facts old windy bear has added to this page ( as did a few days ago) w/ footnotes

Mytwocents 20:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents Sir, the blunt fact is you just admitted NOT ONE of the facts in the article are wrong. What undue balance can there be to the fact that there were, or were not, warrants for someone? What undue balance can there be in citing what the coroner observed after the ambush, or what Ted HInton said about it? There is none. Respectfully, you use those phrases verbally but not in your writing. I don't object to anyone rewriting if they do a better job, as long as the current facts are kept intact. ALL of the current facts are heavily sourced, as you would know if you had read the books, visited the cited sites, etc. And the reason the language was used on removing facts was that your revisions were removing facts, period, loads of them. There were no histrionics but a genuine demand - shared, you may notice, by other users, that you cease trying to delete facts wholesale. And respectfully, your own revisions show that was precisesly what you were doing. Here is your proposed wonderful revision compared to what is there presently: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bonnie_and_Clyde&diff=44378752&oldid=44331821 These are the facts you delete, period, and anyone can see it:

• that E.R. Milner wrote of the scene the coroner reported;
• that people cut off pieces of Parker's clothes and hair, blood soaked, and sold them as souvenirs with Hamer looking on;
• that Ted Hinton posthumously claimed that Hamer literally kidnapped Henry Methvin's father, tied him to a tree, and made a deal to avoid kidnapping charges, that he, hamer, would obtain a pardon for Methvin's son for the highway patrolmen murders, in return for the elder Methvin's silence;
• that only one warrant exists for Parker in the FBI database;
• the facts John Treherne and Milner wrote about Parker's lesser role in the gang than was generally believed;
• the sworn testimony of other gang members who said Parker did not participate in the gang's gun battles;

Your own citations show that all these facts were deleted in your proposed revision. And great effort was made, by consensus, through many users/contributers, to reach this point in the article. You talk to me as though you were some superior historian, but Sir, you show no knowledge of the facts of this article, or Frank Hamer's. You may prepare all the revisions you wish, if they don't include all the facts presently in the article, other people will take your advice to be bold, and POV your revisions. In other words, while you condemn my writing, I frankly think it far superior to yours - but other users will decide which version best serves wikipedia! Finally, when you rewrite articles wholesale, it is considered good form on wikipedia to "Consider using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating." This was what I attempted to do, leaving courteous messages explaining the historical problems of your revisions. They simply delete historical fact. When other users took your advice adn boldly opposed your wholesale deletions, you attempt to deny what is plainly in the proposed article: a truncated version of what occurred, with half of the article deleted for no good reason. That is the plain documented truth. Next time try talking to people, reaching a consensus means "a group or cooperative decision." It does not mean you simply delete facts wholesale and ignore everyone else.old windy bear 20:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this paragraph;

Controversy lingers over certain aspects of the shooting. Should Bonnie Parker's life have been spared? Should Hamer have ordered to fire without warning, no matter what happened, prior to the car's arrival? Should Prentis Oakley have fired the first shot without warning, into Clyde Barrow's head? Oakley is reported to have been haunted for the rest of his life by his actions that day. He was the only posse member to publicly express regret for his actions. Should the posse, including Frank Hamer, have taken and kept for themselves stolen guns that were found in the death car? These questions have been asked since the day of the ambush.

As can be seen, my rendition covers most of what was written before, but with much fewer words. You simply tacked on the old stuff, making the page even more redundant. I think piling on facts serves no purpose. Citations cover the need for further information. I have shown good faith, but you have accused me of bad faith, and you say I shouldn't make changes without approval. I've said, when I find the time, I will edit this page for NPOV and clean-up the text. I will try to incorporate more of your facts.

Mytwocents 21:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents At least we are discussing possible changes, which is an improvement. The fact is though, the facts you were deleting were not repetitive. You cited your paragraph - but it does not include:

• that E.R. Milner wrote of the scene the coroner reported;
• that people cut off pieces of Parker's clothes and hair, blood soaked, and sold them as souvenirs with Hamer looking on;
• that Ted Hinton posthumously claimed that Hamer literally kidnapped Henry Methvin's father, tied him to a tree, and made a deal to avoid kidnapping charges, that he, hamer, would obtain a pardon for Methvin's son for the highway patrolmen murders, in return for the elder Methvin's silence;
• that only one warrant exists for Parker in the FBI database;
• the facts John Treherne and Milner wrote about Parker's lesser role in the gang than was generally believed;
• the sworn testimony of other gang members who said Parker did not participate in the gang's gun battles;

These are not redundent facts, piling on, but separate and very important facts. NONE OF THEM WAS IN YOUR PARAGRAPH. I am glad you will try to incorporate them, and I would much rather work with you, assuming good faith, than arguing. If you will check the Battle of Tours, or Charles Martel, you will see great articles written primarily by Smec and myself, together, with consensus from a wide variety of contributers. This is our goal here. I have given credit to you -- from the first edit you made -- that you eliminated much redundent language. But the specific facts listed above are not redundant, especially the three crucial issues that define this article:

• the real extent of Bonnie Parker's involvement as opposed to popular perception;
• the absolute horror of the ambush, which today would involve all involved being charged with murder and associated civil rights violations;
• the posthumous accusations made by Ted Hinton that Frank Hamer tied the elder Methvin to a tree, and then traded a pardon for his son, who had murdered two poor highway patrolmen, to avoid prosecution. This is particuarly vital (actually, all are vital - but is particuarly relevant to a fair presentation on Frank Hamer; as a user edited today, (and accurately) "an eyewitness account stated that Methvin fired the lethal shots" - yet Hamer got him a full pardon for these horrific murders, and according to Hinton, published posthumously, the pardon was plain payoff for the elder Methvin not filing charges on Hamer for kidnapping him the night before the ambush!I prefer to effectively start anew, ask that you incorporate these vital facts, continue to eliminate redundent language - where it truly is redundent, for instance, the article only needs to say once that no reputable historian believes Bonnie ever killed anyone, nor were there any warrants for her for murder. So let us go forward, instead of backward. I do believe both of us share the same goal: the best, most informative, article for wikipedia.old windy bear 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Final Run, edits..=

I added a little to the chapter, Phillips wrote of how a couple named Giggal were driving by and saw the incident, I limmited my changes to two sentences. Fat Carl

good edition

Fat Carl Nice addition - Treherne had Methvin as the killer too. He said Methvin shot the first officer, Clyde shot the second, but Methvin finished him off. Neither was supposed to be shot, Clyde had meant to take them on one of his famous "runs" where they carried them off, dropped them off later, usually with money, after Bonnie took some pictures. But Methvin got antsy, and shot them instead. And for this, Hamer got Methvin a complete pardon in return for old man Methvin not pressing kidnapping charges -- according to Ted Hinton's explosive posthumous revelations about the ambush. Good add. THANKS! These are the kinds of facts, Hinton's revelations on Hamer's getting Henry Methvin a pardon after that cold blooded viscious killing of those two patrolmen - that cannot be deleted, they are too important. Your edit was a good one. old windy bear 01:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This sentence was removed in a recent edit to the 'final run' section These killings were senseless, and shocked a public which up to now had tended to idolize Bonnie and Clyde.

Was this removed intentionally or accidently?

Mytwocents 06:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

MytwocentsThese killings were senseless, and shocked a public which up to now had tended to idolize Bonnie and Clyde - that was a deliberate addition by me, as John Treherne specifically mentioned those killings as shocking a public that up to that point had tended to idolize Bonnie and Clyde, I don't know who removed it, I thought that it should be there, and since you do too, i put it back. Also, on the Frank Hamer article, please remember your word that the aftermatch section - with these points, would remain:

• that E.R. Milner wrote of the scene the coroner reported;
• that people cut off pieces of Parker's clothes and hair, blood soaked, and sold them as souvenirs with Hamer looking on;
• that Ted Hinton posthumously claimed that Hamer literally kidnapped Henry Methvin's father, tied him to a tree, and made a deal to avoid kidnapping charges, that he, hamer, would obtain a pardon for Methvin's son for the highway patrolmen murders, in return for the elder Methvin's silence;
• the facts John Treherne and Milner wrote about Parker's lesser role in the gang than was generally believed;

and in the Bonnie's participation in the gang section:

• the sworn testimony of other gang members who said Parker did not participate in the gang's gun battles;
• that according to other posse members, like Hinton in Ambush, they were uneasy about firing on a woman, and argued with Hamer that a warning should be given, it was his direct order to fire without one, and keep firing once Clyde was dead;
  • that only one warrant exists for Parker in the FBI database;
• research showing she likely was not involved in any of the gang's killings but was limited to logistical support in the major crimes

I am willing to agree to trim the Hamer article if - as you say you will - the information stays in this one. I rewrote the Bonnie involvement section to cut out unnecessary language, and rewrote the aftermath section - but every fact there in those sections needs to stay, especially if we agree that the Hamer article is trimmed because those facts are here. Compromise...old windy bear 11:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the 'totaly disputed' tag from the page. I think the 'cleanup' and 'NPOV section' tags for 'Bonnies role' and 'The Aftermath' sections cover any remaining issues.

I know that 'The Aftermath' section is meant to illuminate the killing of Bonnie and Clyde, but I don't believe Ted Hinton's story; that Hamer kidnapped Henry Methvin's father, then made a deal to get Methvin off, to avoid kidnapping charges... It seems silly, on it's face. Every other author has said that Methvin's father set the duo up in exchange for getting his son off on the charge of murdering the two highway patrolmen. That's plausable. Hamer delivered.

But like I said, I'm taking a go-slow approach. I'm fine with the page as it is, with the section tags showing where some improvement in NPOV may be made.

The Frank Hamer page looks good too.

Mytwocents 16:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents I am happy with the compromise we have reached. I believe you have been fair to lift the totally disputed, and leave the minor tags to show people there is some disagreement. As to the story on Hamer and Ted Hinton's son, that has to be included although I, (like you, believe it or not!) have my doubts. Let me explain why. Wikipedia does not allow you or I to delete relevant facts because our opinions say we do not believe them. The explanation Ted Hinton's son gave is reasonable on it's face (for every other author not knowing the true story), that Hamer made every member of the posse swear none would reveal the truth as long as anyone of them was alive. Hinton was the last, and when he died, he released the story through his son. You have to understand that Ted HInton is a revered figure in Texas law enforcement history, and any story he wrote, adn released through his son - also a respected figure - has to be at least carried as part of the article. Personally, I tend to agree with you simply because Hamer was not the bargaining type - it would have been more likely for him to say to the elder Methvin, "do this or die." But my opinions don't count. We have to report this, because it is such a huge development in the Bonnie and Clyde story. I do wish to say that I feel you and I have shown that people with widely diverging views can reaach compromise and work together to craft good articles. Your willingness to allow the section on the controversy of the aftermath, and both our efforts to craft a good article is a good example of how people who don't agree don't have to be hateful, but can put aside those differences, and find a middle ground. Further, I appreciate your never making this personal. I tried also not to, and I feel again this is a good example of people working together despite diverging views. Congratulations on your Good work and willingness to compromise. old windy bear 19:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Pig again?

Only someone with a real problem, and a complete lack of history, would have made some of the changes 82.114.74.96 made in the article. For intance, " Both Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow were believed to have been bisexual, and although Bonnie is known to have been with other men during their relationship, it was usually in the company of Barrow" is totally unsourced, not recognized by historians on the subject, and the additional comment "However, whatever the outcome, Hamer did bring the crime spree of Bonnie and Clyde to an end. Regardless of how Hamer did it, the end result is that had he not taken matters into an unconventional manner, their crimes would have continued, and most likely more lives would have been placed at risk." is POV at it's worst. It isn't history, it is more appropriate to the National Enqirer. If he wishes to propose this kind of POV, he needs to do it on the discussion page, and if he can source it, then propose it. Otherwise it will be removed, which I did. It is POV at it's worst.old windy bear 21:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Woohookitty Hey Buddy, Another nameless user is tearing up the Bonnie and Clyde article, as I posted on above - could you put the article under protection from editing from nameless internet addresses? The current article was reached by a huge amount of work and compromise, which Pig keeps trying through various aliases to ruin. Thanks!old windy bear 21:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Oldwindybear Not to make too much of a small point, but I think the paragraph as now written is quite complimentary to Bonnie's talents -- to go further risks turning this into a fan page & losing credibility. A lot of people think the poetry is doggerel, and it's doubtful it would have continued in print all these years if the author weren't notorious. If the poems are in the public domain, the best thing would be to put the poems into their own Wikipedia pages, so readers can judge for themselves.Ewulp 05:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Stereolab Cover, or not...

It was actually a cover by the band Luna featuring the vocals of a member of Stereolab... Mr. Cat 06:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Poetry

User:oldwindybearPlease see my previous comment about this above--it would be just as legitimate to write that her verse has been critically derided, but I'm not pushing that POV. I think her poems are treated pretty kindly here, and I'm fine with it as is. Readers can always check them out for themselves. What this section of the article sorely lacks is more info about her youth--It jumps right from her birth to her marriage. Was she a troublesome kid? Good student? This could use fleshing out. This is otherwise becoming an extraordinarily good article--a wealth of good information from all editors, and the tone is greatly improved from the rampant POV I and others sensed a month or so ago. I share 100% your opinion of Wikipedia--it's the greatest invention of the last decade easily imo! Ewulp 22:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

HI there, Ewulp I based the comment on her poem on critical reviews listed on http://oldpoetry.com/opoem/35561, on reviews of the play on Bonnie Parker, which at http://www.bonnieparkeronstage.com/reviews.html say "If Bonnie Parker hadn't met Clyde Barrow, her intelligence and knack for poetry might have taken her far from Texas," and numerous other sites, which cite especially Suicide Sal -- however, I think your point is fair, let readers decide for themselves, and I prefer, as I see you do, to discuss these things, and reach a consensus, so we will leave that section as you edited it. Actually, I agree with you on her early years, and am adding a couple of lines, and encourage you to add some more. She was a very precocious child, and did very well in school, until her teen years, and boy troubles. She was especially praised for her work in literature and the arts while in school. I think we all who have worked on this article, you, myself, My2cents, everyone who has tried to work together have put together a pretty darn good article, and a very fair one. Bonnie was no saint, but she was really in many ways a tool of a psychopath instead of the "partner in crime" she was so long painted. She was never implicated reliably in Clyde's killings, for instance. Anyway, You have done some good work on this article, and thanks for the support on my feeling that wikipedia is the greatest invention of the internet age, as far as information sharing goes! Take care! old windy bear 03:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

removing the cleanup label

Ewulp suggested the article sorely lacked is more info about Bonnie's youth--It jumped right from her birth to her marriage. This was fleshed out considerably answering the questions asked. Ewulp's edits on her poetry were also left, despite numerous websites praising her poetry, and it being mentioned in Milner's book especially. But that user was right - let people read her work, adn decide for themselves. Given all the work, and various other edits by many other people, I echo Ewulp"This is otherwise becoming an extraordinarily good article--a wealth of good information from all editors, and the tone is greatly improved from the rampant POV I and others sensed a month or so ago." Therefore if no one objects, I will remove the cleanup label tomorrow. I think a number of people have put a lot of work in Ewulp among them, and this article is ready for removal of the cleanup notice. old windy bear 21:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello oldwindybear, I think at this point it's a much smoother read, not needing any major overhaul calling for a cleanup tag. Good work on the Bonnie section--a needed correction to the impression left by the 1967 movie, where she's portrayed as pretty dim.Ewulp 05:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ewulp Thanks, but the credit goes to you who saw the need for the added information, which I had, and had not posted. You have added a lot to the article, and the help is appreciated, to you, and everyone else, (thank you user:Katefan0 and everyone else. I am removing the cleanup tags, since everyone seems in agreement that we have come a long way, compromised on a lot, listened to good people like you and added needed information, removed POV - it is ready for the tag to come off. THANKS AGAIN! old windy bear 18:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

How can you call yourselves experts when no one knew if there were seven or eight barrows?

Good Point on the BAR

randazzo56 Greetings! Been laid up, so it has been awhile! Good point on the BAR - the Lucerne incident, which was the only recorded time anyone claimed Bonnie fired a weapon was a rifle, and supposedly AUTOMATIC FIRE - and the only rifle in the possession of Barrow at the time was a BAR, which, as you pointed out, was virtually impossible, (I would say plainly impossible, but i suppose a finite possibility exists!) that someone who was 4'10" and weighed 90 pounds could fire. In reality, both you and I know NO WOMAN THAT SIZE could possibly have handled a BAR! That adds to why no police reports were filed on the incident, and no charges, because it never happened...As to the issue of the number of Barrows, unfortunately, the problem comes because the various books list various numbers, and the census is not clear, as all the children were not living at home. Since there is no definitive agreement among the real experts, Treherne, Milner, and even Ted Hinton, then we list 7 or 8. But good addition and good point on the BAR.old windy bear 14:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

to MyTwoCents about wholesale deletions without discussion to advocate your POV

Did you even bother to read the discussion page, and see this article had achieved consensus, before you deleted wholesale additions by at least six contributers? No, you don't care, only for your POV! Mytwocents wholesale chopping of article without discussion I allowed some of the editing MyTwoCents did to stand, as they did shorten and improve the article, BUT mostly My2cents merely removed heavily sourced information in order to advocate a particular point of view, and did so without discussion on this page, so three areas stand, unless by consensus, the majority of readers agree they should be changed:

• 1) the role of Bonnie Parker in the Barrow Gang, massively researched, very relevant to the article;

• 2) the ambush, which is exhaustively researched, and quotes directly from reports by the officers, and which was allowed to stand as part of an agreement on the Frank Hamer article;

• 3) controversy and aftermath, which MyTwoCents agreed would remain AS IS in this article in return for removing it from the Frank Hamer article - this section is exhaustively researched and has been repeatedly rewritten.

Massive deletions without discussion will not be tolerated on an article that everyone finally agreed was fair and without POV. If MyTwoCents again does wholesale revisions on Bonnie and Clyde without seeking consensus, I will immediately reinstate the controversy section in the both it and the Frank Hamer article, and tag it as POV, since I strongly disagree with MyTwoCents version - I agreed to it, as did others, provided the information, strongly sourced, remained AS IS, in the Bonnie and Clyde article. Bluntly, MyTwoCents you are NOT COMING INTO AN ARTICLE, REWRITING IT FOR YOUR POINT OF VIEW, without discussing it first on the discussion page. If you want to discuss it, fine, but again, I am immediately revising your rewrite of the Hamer article, because the only reason I allowed that totally biased version to stand was your agreement to allow the information to be presented in Bonnie and Clyde. Also, bluntly, what you call cleanup is really wholesale revision to present your point of view, and deletion of material which is both relevant, and heavily sourced - you cannot dispute any of the information you chose to delete, and such antics will not be tolerated. I hope you will leave the article alone, but if not, I will restore the original Frank Hamer article, tag it POV, and ask for arbitration. Finally, I remind My2Cents of the 3 edit in 24 hour rule, once those edits have been challanged as not discussed, which those were not, and are challanged as POV, which they are. old windy bear 10:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to compare my NPOV version with the current version, can do it here.

The current version states opinions, pushs a pro-bonnie,POV and even has an exclamation point! This article doesn't seem to see much traffic, so the revisionism and POV pushing has gone unchecked. There are simply too few contributors to hammer out an encyclopedic article, so it comes out reading as a novelistic, puff piece.

I think my version covers the story with a more neutral, encyclopedic tone.

Mytwocents 15:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

POV Version by My2Cents

In answer to Mytwocents I am going to echo the new user who asked some similiar questions on My2cents talk page.

• what historical inaccuracies are there in the present article, and what source do you have for disputing the facts presented?
• why do you think your version, which deletes wholesale the most salient and important historical controversies surrounding the duo is anything but a puff piece for your religiously right wing writing - typified by your statement on Ted Hinton's posthumous revelation that Frank Hamer traded a pardon for Henry Methvin, who murdered two state highway patrolmen, because he had kidnapped and tied up Methvin's father - you stated you did not believe it - you lack any historical perspective, it does not matter what you believe, or what I believe, what matters is what history says!
• you seek to delete wholesale the following, which again, are the most important historical issues surrounding the duo:

1) what was Bonnie Parker's true role in the Barrow Gang and their crimes?

2) was Phillips right that Clyde's motives were never monetary, but rather some vendetta against the Texas Department of Corrections that ended up costing a dozen innocent people their lives, plus his entire gang, except Methvin, whose father got a pardon in return for not having Hamer jailed for kidnapping during the ambush;

3) what really happened at the ambush site, and the horrific aftermath, where at page 147 of Milner's book he records the coroner's record as having to get Hamer away from bragging to a group of people to stop souvenir collectors who were busy cutting pieces off the dead bodies?

4) what is the real role of Bonnie and Clyde in popular culture, and why has their legend so dwarfed that of far greater criminals like Alvin Karpis and Ma Barker and her gang of the same generation?

You bring nothing historically, seek no discourse, cite no sources, and in short, are a POV writer with a right wing agenda to sanitize away the nasty details like Bonnie NOT being wanted for any capital crime, (and as the new entry pointed out on your talk page, which you did not rspond to because you could not) Hamer's subsequent turning the ambush into a lifelong financial sinecure where he parlayed the ambush into a book deal, paid speaking tours, and the sale of stolen weapons. Gosh, it must be nice to be able, as you do, to rewrite history without citing one single source for your puff piece! A LOT of people contributed here, including such items as the fact that the duo never carried machine guns, only BAR's, (randazzo56's excellent find, or Ewulp's excellent suggestions we add more information on Bonnie's youth). You come with nothing but opinions, no fact, no sources, no history, just opinions, and I don't think you fool anyone with your agenda. You may have done this on other articles - Reagan is fine example, which I may just rip to pieces since your puff contributions on him typify your work, no history, no sources, no cites, just opinion, after opinion...I have forebore doing that, for instance, citing all the historians and correspondents with evidence that Reagan was already so lost in dementia his second term he didn't know Iran Contra from Counterfeiting. Your writing is simply that of an advocate, not a historian, and while I have not intervened elsewhere YET - though others have, you won't do it here. You agreed when we let you POV Hamer's article that you would allow the real issues to be aired here. That is called consensus; everyone else is fine with the changes and the current article, and you seek to renege. No go! If you attempt to POV this article, I will immediately reinstate the salient issues in the Hamer article, and source you to tears.old windy bear 18:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Old windy bear please stop leaving messages on my talkpage. Please stop threatening to Wikistalk me. Please stop using intimidating language towards me. Please stop personaly attacking me Please remember to assume good faith and not go off on a rant because of one edit I made to the B&C page. I always strive for NPOV in my edits.

Mytwocents 18:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents Your "one edit" removed 60% of the article, including most of the genuine issues that are vital to the article, including, as noted many times:

• what the true role of Bonnie Parker in the Barrow Gang?
• what really happened during the ambush, was Ted Hinton telling the truth, did hamer trade away the lives of two highway patrolmen to their murderer because he kidnapped the man's father?
• what about the horrific aftermath of the ambush where hamer stole weapons and sold them, and allowed souvenir collectors to cut off Bonnie's clothes and bloody hair?
• what about Phillips research that all of Clyde's crimes were solely motivated by his desire for revenge against TDOC for the rape at Eastham?
• why has the legend of Bonnie and Clyde had such enduring popular appeal over far greater criminals of that era, such as Alvin Karpas and the Barker Gang?

User:Katefan0 is a great editor, who has asked that this discussion be conducted in a professional manner. Therefore, before you remove any information, you must list the facts in dispute, source your factual disputes after listing them, and ask on this page for consensus to remove factual information. Because you personally think it is POV to ask what Ms. Parker's role was in the Barrow Gang, or why Hamer allowed people to cut the bloody hair off her head, is not sufficient to delete those facts. You must prove they are wrong, and then, if you have proven they are wrong, seek consensus on how to best rewrite. I respectfully invite you to bring forth the facts that are wrong, and what sources you have for this information.

As to good faith, it cannot be assumed here - and this is not a personal attack, it is quoting your words on our compromise on the Frank Hamer article:

• (My2Cents at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frank_Hamer saying " I removed 'Aftermath of the Ambush of Bonnie and Clyde' section, this section just mirrors what is already in the B&C article... hope this is seen as a workable compromise." Mytwocents 05:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I will be glad to assume good faith, if you honor your word, and the compromise you made when we settled the Frank Hamer article. If you have FACTS in the current article that you can prove with historically accepted sources that are wrong, then list them - otherwise, the remainder of us who have worked hard on this article, including Kate, Ewulp, randazzo56, and many others -- find the current article factual, and fair, and asks legitimate questions that have been steadily asked for 72 years.old windy bear 05:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Request

Mytwocents I will absolutely afford you the same courtesy I do everyone, which is not leavning messages on their talk page if they ask me not to. As to your good faith, remember, when we, you and I, rewrote the Frank Hamer article, you specifically - if you would like, go look - agreed that these issues were appropriately sourced and aired here. Now you want to go POV that. I am not threatning to Wikistalk you, quite the contrary, I am pointing out that most of your contributions have been very controversial, not sourced, not referenced, but POV additions advocating a particular viewpoint. And any review of your edits shows strong resistance to your arrogance in simply deleting information wholesale, with no effort to source your deletions as not factual, and no effort to follow the most basic of wikipedia tenets: discuss change, source the factual differences, and seek consensus. You say "good faith" but frankly, your record shows none. You always POV every article you have contributed to, without sourcing any but one.

Good faith requires good acts. If you really want good faith assumed, then:

Answer the questions on your unsourced deletions of vital information from this article:

• what historical inaccuracies are there in the present article, and what source do you have for disputing the facts presented?
• why do you think your version, which deletes wholesale the most salient and important historical controversies surrounding the duo is anything but a puff piece for your religiously right wing writing - typified by your statement on Ted Hinton's posthumous revelation that Frank Hamer traded a pardon for Henry Methvin, who murdered two state highway patrolmen, because he had kidnapped and tied up Methvin's father - you stated you did not believe it - you lack any historical perspective, it does not matter what you believe, or what I believe, what matters is what history says!
• you seek to delete wholesale the following, which again, are the most important historical issues surrounding the duo:

1) what was Bonnie Parker's true role in the Barrow Gang and their crimes?

2) was Phillips right that Clyde's motives were never monetary, but rather some vendetta against the Texas Department of Corrections that ended up costing a dozen innocent people their lives, plus his entire gang, except Methvin, whose father got a pardon in return for not having Hamer jailed for kidnapping during the ambush;

3) what really happened at the ambush site, and the horrific aftermath, where at page 147 of Milner's book he records the coroner's record as having to get Hamer away from bragging to a group of people to stop souvenir collectors who were busy cutting pieces off the dead bodies?

4) what is the real role of Bonnie and Clyde in popular culture, and why has their legend so dwarfed that of far greater criminals like Alvin Karpis and Ma Barker and her gang of the same generation?

Further, NONE of your deletions or additions, on any article, have been discussed on the talk page, as is wikipedia policy, seek consensus and source changes. Of course I will honor a request not to leave messages on your talk page - but I will go to whatever articles I find have been inappropriately edited, and correct those edits, with proper sourcing Do not try to threaten me not to go to your favorite sites and rewrite what is plainly wrong. You have NEVER followed any of wikipedia's policies for discussing, sourcing, or seeking consensus, so your taking the high horse amuses me. If you wish to be taken seriously, then list your factual disputes with the current article, and source them, don't POV us to death with your unsourced opinions, such as your statement in talking about the ambush "it was a brutal way to die, but it was a brutal time" Do you consider that in any way a professional or historical way to address these issues? It is not. Your style is highhanded at best, certainly not in wikipedia's rules, and unfortunately, usually wrong factually because you are advocating instead of recording facts. That is what an encyclopedia does, records facts. If you want to demonstrate your mastery of this subject, answer the new user, who asked you flatly, what sources do you have for your deletion of valuable information? ANSWER: YOU HAVE NONE. old windy bear 19:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the merits of the two sides, but I would like to ask that you please ratchet down the yelling and bolding. That's certainly not helping you two find a resolution. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I always do what you say Kate, you know that! All I am asking, seriously, is:

• 1) that he list his factual disputes and source them before wholesale changes, and discuss those disputes here, appropriately, as the rest of us do, instead of wholesale deletion of heavily sourced relevant material;

I don't think that is unreasonable. You know a LOT of people worked for the last year on this article, including that user, who agreed that the controversy around the ambush could be fully addressed here - and other users agreed - so it was left off the Hamer page. Now he wishes to POV this page, without listing his factual disputes, sourcing them, or discussing them, as wikipeida demands. That is all I will say, and I have ratcheted down as you told me too! old windy bear 19:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Declarative Statements

How am I supposed to say anything? You have personally attacked me. You have assumed bad faith. Editing includes deleting content. This page will receive more attention in the future from other editors, and a lot of the purple prose that resides today, will be gone. Here are some declarative statements that don't belong in any wikiarticle:

• 'it is likely'
• 'However, this is questionable'
• 'it is highly improbable'
• 'Clyde had finally obtained his revenge against the hated Texas Department of Corrections,'
• 'and perhaps larger than their life'
• 'and she unquestionably appealed'
• 'one must realize'
• 'Even today people glamorize the couple'

Who is talking here? In whose voice are these emphatic statements being made? Must I realize..., is it questionable?..., is it unquestionable?.... These statements embody a personal point of view, and they inhabit a wikiarticle that reads like an editorial written by a member of the Parker family, not an encyclopedia article. I know NPOV and this article, as it stands, ain't it. Mytwocents 06:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of these are okay if they're supported by facts (it is likely), but some are probably not all right at all ("one must realize" -- don't tell the reader "what they must realize," show them with facts.) · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 10:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

All of the statements above can be "softened" so they aren't speaking as authoritatively. Some call it "couching", but it's a necessity. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I did some work on the article to take out some of the more aggregiously POV statements. It's not perfect and some of the statements need sourcing, but it's better IMO. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty You did a truly outstanding job of rewording statements of fact, that were and are factually correct, but may have been worded poorly for an encyclopedia article. My thanks. ANY of the facts currently in the article have been sourced to death, but anyone who wishes a particular fact sourced, just ask here, and it will be given. In answer to My2Cents, I still say that you cited language issues rather than facts that were incorrect - on the ONLY "fact" you may have raised, Phillips book flatly states that the Eastham prison break was Clyde's long awaited revenge against the Texas Department of Corrections, and Treherne comes pretty close to saying that also. Milner cites Clyde's well known hatred of the department. As to their appeal, read Milner's book, or Treherne's, which starts out by saying he wrote the book in order to examine the enduring appeal this couple has 7 decades after they died. You really don't cite ANY facts to dispute, just language, and I am perfectly happy with Woohookitty's rewrite of the language - and again, any fact in question, like the only one you may have raised, the issue of revenge on TDOC - go read Phillips, who flatly states (citing Fults and W.D. Jones as his sources) that Clyde's motivation was revenge on TDOC.

Mytwocents Truthfully, your massive deletion of well sourced and correct facts was far more POV than my work, which was carefully and massively sourced, as noted in the issues above. Woohookitty's rewrite of the language is fine by me, it preserves the crucial questions and issues that have plagued this case for 72 years, while giving it a more encyclopedic tone. And it avoided the slashing of facts that My2Cents wants to POV out with no sourcing at all. Our job if you wish to edit is to give ALL available facts to our readers, not less, just because someone does not like the facts in question. I agree language should be neutral, adn facts neutrally presented, but that was never My2Cents intention. Slaughter of 60% of the article, all of it sourced facts - NO. Good rewrite for better language, you bet!

Mytwocents You demonstrated bad faith by wholesale deletion of facts, after you specifically agreed on presenting those facts in this article, without to this point showing one incorrect fact, and Katefan0 is absolutely right when she says that the facts in this article can ALL be sourced, fully. The language? what can I say? Woohookitty is better at writing than I am, and I salute him for it.old windy bear 11:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review Bonnie and Clyde

I have requested peer review for the Bonnie and Clyde article. I hope with some fresh perspective from other wikipedians, this article can be hammered into final featured article candidate shape. Mytwocents 16:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0I agree, let peer review commence. Instead of letting one user ruin a great article with POV. Every fact in this article is exhaustively sourced, can be produced at an instant's notice, and a very good wikipedia editor has just looked at it and removed any vestiage of POV. Our obligation at wikipedia is to write the best articles we can, with the most facts possible without making them a 14 page article, as Geringer has done online with BONNIE AND CLYDE: ROMEO AND JULIET IN A GETAWAY CAR. The truth is in this well writen and fair article, and the article is the best on the net, except for Geringer's article at http://www.crimelibrary.com/americana/bonnie/main.htm old windy bear 22:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

AndyZ I have sources for every fact in question, with specific page numbers and statements.

I also respectfully request that before you undertake any major rewrite, that you discuss it on the talk page. My2Cents came to peer review only because he lost in consensus seeking wholesale change on the talk page. With all respect, and I am not impuning you, I like your work, no one person should unilateraly rewrite this article, which a half dozen have worked on rewriting for a year, and which two wikipedia editors just examined for POV, one of which cleared it after a few language changes. It would be deeply violative of wikipedia rules for any single person to do a major rewrite without discussion, especially since the request was strictly POV motivated by a person who could not obtain consensus for such a rewrite on the talk page.

• For instance, My2Cents has questioned Clyde's virtually decade long quest to avenge himself on the Texas Department of Corrections as being the motivating factor behind his crime spree -- that comes directly from one of the most respected writers to research a book on the duo, JOHN PHILLIPS, at http://historynet.com/ah/bleastham/
• He questioned the horrific aftermath of the ambush, and the actions of Frank Hamer in it, that also is directly sourced from Milner's book on the duo, at page 147;
• He questions the extent of Bonnie's involvement, that comes directly from Phillips, Treherne, and Milner's books, ALL found no warrants except one preserved in the FBI data base - which is online to confirm, no proof she ever fired a weapon or was more than logistical support;

Our obligation at wikipedia is to write the best articles we can, with the most facts possible without making them a 14 page article, as Geringer has done online with BONNIE AND CLYDE: ROMEO AND JULIET IN A GETAWAY CAR. The truth is in this well writen and fair article, and the article is the best on the net, except for Geringer's article at http://www.crimelibrary.com/americana/bonnie/main.htm

The article as is is not meant, and another good wikipedia editor just went over it and removed any trace of POV -- see the talk page -- to be slanted, but it is meant to TELL THE TRUTH, which unfortunately, My2Cents has clearly shown, with his wholesale deletions, without challanging the truth of the facts, or producing sources, or discussing them on the talk page. Only when he failed there, to impose a POV, did he come here. POV is his objective. I hope you won't do the same. NO major rewrite should occur without consensus. old windy bear 23:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Allow the process to work

Once again(and this is realy getting to be tiring) I would ask old windy bear to assume good faith, stop attacking me and let other editors be bold. You impugn my motivation for seeking peer review. How can you do that? Your behavour towards me, regarding the Bonnie and Clyde and Frank Hamer pages has been deplorable. I have never once rose to your bait and responded in kind.

I want more editors to contribute to this article, to make it NPOV and a candidate for Featured Article. The more eyes that see this page and prune away the excess, to make for a nuetral tone and balance, the better. Old windy bear, will you allow other editors to make changes to this page, the bulk of which may mean truncating statements and paragraphs, to make this a better article?

Mytwocents 04:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents Once again, and for me, I have better things to do, so this is really tiring, I hate coming behind you to an article you have decimated in complete violation of wikipedia policy, and having to restore facts you deleted wholesale without proving them false, sourcing or discussing, because - as you said about Ted Hinton's revelations about Frank Hamer, "you didn't believe it." It does not matter what you or I believe, the FACTS matter. I have impugned your reason for seeking repeated review because you have deleted FACTS wholesale REPEATEDLY without any attempt to follow the wikipedia process, to wit:

• 1. list facts in dispute;
• 2. source your factual disputes;
• 3. list your proposed rewrite and why you are doing it on the talk page and seek consensus;

You have NEVER ever listed one fact you have found in any reputable source to be in error, typical of you writing is your statement on Frank Hamer: you did not want Ted Hinton's revelation that Hamer allowed a murderer of two highway patrolmen to go free in order to keep from being charged with kidnapping because "I don't believe that," or your statement about the ambush "the only statement that needs to be said...it was a brutal way to die but it was a brutal time." POV? You bet. As to whether controversy lingers over the ambush -- read John Treherne's book, or E.R. Milner's, or Ambush by Ted Hinton. ALL question the events surrounding the ambush, especially the horrendous aftermath, Milner, 146-7. Even online, In his article "Romeo and Juliet in a Getaway Car" Joesph Gerringer writes of the ambush: "But, Hamer chose not to call out a warning -- not to Bonnie and Clyde...in a voice audible only to those around him, void of drama, void of malice, Hamer ordered, "Shoot!" Also in Hinton's book, the best source on the ambush, he makes clear Hamer had ordered firing without warning no matter what happened prior to the car's arrival,AND that the posse had great reservations about that!

I impugn your reasons because I cannot assume someone is fair and impartial who REPEATEDLY disregards the wikipedia process wholesale, and rewrites facts out wholesale to suit their own agenda. Once, I did not make this charge. Twice, I spoke to you, and we hammered out a compromise, which you then violated a third time, and yes, I am prepared to sit before a panel of wikipedia editors, have them go over your "edits" on this article, and believe they will conclude the same thing.

Perhaps you believe that it is wikipedia policy for a contributor - you are not an editor, nor am I - to delete facts wholesale, without sourcing, without discussion, and when he or she cannot get his way by consensus, seek to go around consensus achieved through months of work on the article by dedicated people, and not just me, User:Woohookitty (editor, and a great one!) randazzo56, User:CyclePat (editor, another good one), Katefan0 (editor and fairest person on the net) Ewulp, and others. randazzo56 said it best though, when commenting on your proposals: the article needs more facts, not less. You want less, could care less than the vast majority disagree, and keep trying to push a POV. I don't like to have to stand up like this against a contributor, but your contributions are all invariably - and I have studied them all -- geared towards a political viewpoint. I am sorry, but I have to oppose that on principle because that is not what wikipedia is for, it is to give the best possible information we can. old windy bear 10:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As for my comment; the only statement that needs to be said...it was a brutal way to die but it was a brutal time. I'm the author, that is my take on the shooting of Bonnie and Clyde. You lifted that quote from the talk page, where we can state our opinions freely.

Old windy bear I removed the comments you posted on the Bonnie and Clyde peer review page, your position is preserved here and stated clearly on this talk page. The peer review page is to state briefly what changes, if any, need to be made to the article. I hope you will allow other wikipedians to make those changes, to make this a Featured Article. I am willing to let the process work, as I hope you are. Perhaps we can have a fresh start.

Here is a link that compares my edit to the current version. My edits always strive for NPOV.

Old windy bear, we are all editors. This is a concept you don't seem to grasp. As for peer review, there is no panel, it is a process. I ask you again, pointedly, will you let this process go foward?

Mytwocents 15:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents And I answer you equally as pointedly that you don't understand - we are NOT all editors. Editors are User:Woohookitty Katefan0 are editors, with the power to remove comments - you don't have that power, nor do I, we are contributors who edit articles, but have no power to remove others comments - as you did against policy by removing my comments on the peer review page. By this note, I ask that User:Woohookitty intervene, and explain to you that you cannot remove my comments - nor can I remove yours, however ill-informed they are, as in this instance. I am not stopping any peer review, but I can and will point out that no major rewrite should be made without:

• 1. list facts in dispute;
• 2. source your factual disputes;
• 3. list your proposed rewrite and why you are doing it on the talk page and seek consensus;

You have NEVER ever listed one fact you have found in any reputable source to be in error, typical of you writing is your statement on Frank Hamer: you did not want Ted Hinton's revelation that Hamer allowed a murderer of two highway patrolmen to go free in order to keep from being charged with kidnapping because "I don't believe that," And that was after you removed the Hinton revelations simply because you did not believe them. You cannot seem to grasp the reality that you are NOT a wikipedia editor, per Jimbo's interpretation of same, nor do your feelings or beliefs matter - just as mine don't. FACTS MATTER, TALK FACTS. NOT PERSONALITY. I am reinstating my comments on the peer review page, and if you remove them again, ask the real editors to bar you from making any edits for 24 hours or an appropriate remedy for violating wikipedia policy in removing comments of other contributors without an editor's approval - which contrary to your misguided belief, you are not.old windy bear 20:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The peer review page is for suggesting what changes need to be made to the article.

Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong—e.g., article length, the lead section, poor grammar/spelling, factual errors—post a comment in the article's section on this page.

Feel free to correct the article yourself. Please consider noting your edits here to keep others informed about the article's progress.

I ask you to restrain yourself and please abide by that guideline. If you hate me, say it here, not on the peer review page. Your PA's are preserved here, on the article talk page. I created the peer review page and I'm just trying to follow policy. I want the peer review to be an open process, that invites all contributors to participate. No one should be intimidated from editing the B&C page, editing defines what we do on wikipedia. Are you going to allow other people to edit this page or not?

Mytwocents 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The peer review page is for comments on the review, whether you like those comments or not. You have NO power to remove my comments. I welcome ANYONE:

• 1. list facts in dispute;
• 2. source your factual disputes;
• 3. list your proposed rewrite and why you are doing it on the talk page and seek consensus;

AndyZ has been invaluable in linking to sources, and given me great guidance in how I need to further link. So far, not a soul has disputed a fact - I welcome ANYONE who has facts we don't have to put them in, add to their hearts content, but if that involved major rewriting, to follow wikipedia policy, bring the dispute here, (if it disputes current facts) source the differences, and seek consensus. That, My2Cents, is genuine peer review, not your seeking the POV you want.old windy bear 21:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Will you remove the comments that I deleted earlier from the peer review page? Will you let other people make suggestions on the peer review page freely, without telling them how they may change the page or how much you hate me? Will you allow other people to be bold. Will you acknowledge that I am a human being worthy of good faith? Will you ackowledge that what you have said to me has been hurtful, petty and taken out of context? Will you apologize to me?

Mytwocents 21:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents Any human being, by my defintion, has worth and value. But we are not talking about your value as a human being, we are talking about your editing, which is terrible, because it lacks sourcing, deletes facts, ignores consensus, and tries to evade consensus which opposes you. You may be a great person, I don't know you, but you don't follow wikipedia rules on challanging facts, or rewrites, and that is the simple truth. You did not honor our agreement on the earlier resolution of this matter - well documented on the Frank Hamer pages - and I honestly believe your actions,

• massive repeated deletions of fact, without disputing facts,
• no sourcing of opposing information, claiming you deleted Ted Hinton's revelations because "I don't believe them,"
• or removing my stressing that any major rewrite is a matter of consensus is wikipedia correct, was abolute violation of ALL wikipedia policy.

you cited "Please consider noting your edits here to keep others informed about the article's progress. - you have NEVER done that, not once, informing anyone or seeking consensus. That is the plain sad truth. When you and I - with Kate and others arbitrating, reached consensus on these articles, you then waited a few months, and broke your word, clearly documented on your agreement on the Frank Hamer talk page.

I cannot assume your good faith because you have broken your word and engaged in activity which repeatedly, over and over, violated wikipedia policy. As for your goodness of soul, I don't question any person's intrinsic goodness, the issue here is whether you violated wikipedia policy, over and over. You did, and I am sorry you did, but you did. That is all I am sorry for, that I have to waste my time arguing with someone who won't argue FACTS, but wants to argue philosophy - because essentially that is what you want. You want a pro law and order spin on the ambush. I am part of the law enforcement community - I want a FAIR article that relates FACTS. No, I will not remove my comments, I feel they are fair, and encourage good people like AndyZ to contact me to show me how to improve the UNDISPUTED FACTS WE HAVE. NOT A SOUL, EXCEPT YOU, has contacted me to say my comments are inappropriate. On the other hand, Andy has already contacted me, with guidance on bettering the article, So where is the negative impact you speak of? There is none, except my honest feeling you seek POV. Get Katefan0 who I respect greatly, or Woohookitty to look at them, as I asked him to, and if he, whose opinion I also greatly respect, feels they should be removed, they will be removed at once. You don't run the peer review page, we all do, and when there is a dispute, as there is here, I have already asked one of wikipedia's most respected editors to look at it.

and i close by again saying, FACTS, PLEASE, give me some FACTS you dispute, and source them, instead of this endless philosophy debate!old windy bear 22:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

But I haven't been debating you. I made one edit, which you reverted. You've done all the talking and shouting. I started the peer review to bring more people to the page. I don't seek POV, I seek NPOV. You are the one who accuses me of a personal agenda. You even make personal attacks against me on the peer review page. Don't you see the irony in that? In your mind, you've made me an enemy, there is nothing I can do to change that. Your debates and arguments with other editors fill the talk page archives going 6 months back. Nothing has changed.

Mytwocents 22:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents This is my last comment on this. You came here twice, and made wholesale deletions, TWICE, without any discussion, or any dispute in fact. The second time you did it, you did it after having agreed not to do it on the Frank Hamer talk page. Period, and the history reflects the two wholesale butcher jobs on the article, deleting facts willy nilly, with no listing of any dispute, no sourcing to contradict, no discussion. As to the peer review page, I kept my word, AndyZ said the statements should be removed, so I did. I said if one person agreed it was inappropriate I would remove it. I keep my word. Actually, as my arguments six months ago, yes, I was recovering from chemotherapy at the time, (not that that is your business) and was cranky. Katefan0 taught me better. If you go to my talk page, most of those folks are now my friends. As for you, I don't see you as my enemy, I see you as a nuisance to people trying to write a good article, when i think of you at all, which is only when I am here. 99% of my day, I don't think about you at all, frankly. Certainly I would not dignify this idiotic argument as you being my enemy, how silly of you.old windy bear 02:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest that for anything that is disputed, the template {{fact}} is added. I have to agree here that this article is filled with weasel words - see WP:AWT. Some of those examples are listed above by Mytwocents, at Talk:Bonnie and Clyde#Declarative Statements, and I'll list some more here:
  • However, this is considered by many to be questionable as no charges were ever taken out on either woman for the alleged act
  • It is said by many that Bonnie appealed to the out of work
  • many people sympathized with Bonnie and Clyde as rebels against a failing government.
  • is considered by some that someone of Bonnies size and stature would have been unable to handle such a weapon.
  • according to some accounts, merely to visit and attempt to talk Clyde into giving himself up
  • accounts maintain that Buck was shot several more times.
• Regards, AndyZ _t 22:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

AndyZ

• The fact is that no charges were ever taken out on either woman, but that is being reworded. (that is in EVERY book written on the duo, including Treherne, who went to Lucerne - for an shootout reported to be that badly, NOT ONE POLICE STATEMENT OR WARRANT EXISTED -- also again, the FBI warrant data base shows just one warrant known on Bonnie Parker).
• The statement on Bonnie's appeal came from three authors, it was not my statement - I can give you page numbers on it, and it is directly linked now.
• As to their appeal to the disenfranchised, it is now linked and sourced online, quote by Milner, Gerenger, and noted historian Jonathan Davis, who, in an excellent A&E Cable Network-produced Biography on the two bandits, says of Bonnie and Clyde’s crimes, "Anybody who robbed banks or fought the law were really living out some secret fantasies on a large part of the public," so I had have to laugh you thought it weasal to say Bonnie appealled to the disenfranchised, actually, noted historians say it a lot stronger than that, and I simply quoted them, and linked the quotes. THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS (actually, I am glad you made me reword that - Milner's, Gerenger's Davis's quotes on the duo are far stronger than what I had said)
• As to Buck being shot, that is online, at Gerenger's article, but i reworded - there is no absolute proof to more wounds, so we stick with what we know, that he died of pneumonia after surgery for two head wounds.
• As to the B.A.R. that was inserted by an ex-marine who has handled B.A.R.'s as have I, but you may be right that it is original research, which is prohibited, so I will remove it.

ANY weasal words have been removed, all the ones you noted, and the original research deleted, and the wounds clarified to what we know for sure. Appreciate the help, the article is far stronger sourced, and by the weekend, will be as well sourced as yours. old windy bear 23:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite on the Aftermath of the Ambush Section

Woohookitty who is an editor whose skills I highly respect suggested that no question marks should be in the controversy section, and I have reworded that to remove them all. The facts are indisputable, virtually all of them online, (such as the quotes on the ambush from Hinton and Alcorn, which are sourced to online quotes they made to newspaper articles posted online) and the ones that are not are very specifically sourced, (such as the coroner's horror at what he found going on at the ambush site, with Hamer allowing it) but a good editor felt it needed rewording, and I did so immediately. Any further suggestions on rewording of facts not in dispute to remove any suggestion of POV are welcomed. User:AndyZ is adding some links which are necessary, and which is greatly appreciated because my computer, for reasons known but to God and the cyberuniverse, will not do,old windy bear 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

User:AndyZ Thanks to Andy for his linking sourced material to the links, something my computer would not allow me to do. This is a good article, well sourced, and the aftermath section just looked over by an editor who feels it is not perfect, but much better, and all of it is fact - so any issues are language related. Anyone with any suggestions to language improvement, they are welcomed, as long as they do not remove facts which are undisputed. old windy bear 20:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

merging of sections

I would like to propose that we increase the lead paragraph, as it wikipedia general policy, and include the last paragraph of their impact on the public, then and now, that we merge Bonnie's role in the Barrow gang, which is vital to the article and heavily sourced, with her life in general. I would also merge Clyde's life with their meeting, which was fated to weigh so heavily on both. I would propose merging sections 6-10, preserving the information there, sourcing more heavily, as I have been doing, and labeling the first three sections, simply Bonnie Paker, Clyde (Champion) Barrow, and Early Days of the Barrow Gang; I would merge all of 10, calling it Bonnie Hurt and Buck Barrow Killed, and leave the final sections as they are. I seek consensus for this proposed consolidation of sections, as suggested by --Cherry blossom tree on the peer review page. I have done a tenative model on word, and it looks tighter and better. If anyone would like to see the proposed model, just email me, and I will send it to you. old windy bear 09:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

old windy bear ,go ahead and write the intro the way you want it, then other editors can modify it.

Mytwocents 15:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents The basic issues surrounding the article - are you going to finally accept the plain facts as relayed by EVERY historian on the duo, or keep attempting ways to delete them - as discussed below, need to be decided first. I have two versions written. One contained the original less powerful language, but no, you and Andy thought that was "weasal," and then I simply started going to the sources, as AndyZ suggested. AND NOT ONE IS WRONG. We need to decide whether you are going to finally accept that this is going to be an article that tells the truth, not from any point of view, just the sad, brutal, cruel, truth of what happened, and how people viewed it, and then I will post it, and people can freely edit. But I will only rewrite when I have CONSENSUS, which now is lacking. I believe honestly most people want more facts, not less, and all the truth, and that view will prevail. old windy bear 19:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, do go ahead and be bold and fix up the article; I suggest that besides just increasing the length of the lead paragraph that we have 3 paragraphs, as per Wikipedia guidelines at WP:LEAD. However, I am not disputing that any fact in this article is wrong; weasel words can be taken care of by citing specific people who have made such observations, which you have done. Thanks, AndyZ _t 20:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

AndyZNo, the thanks is owed to you. You were right that when controversial subjects are discussed, it is best to cite the actual source, and quotes from noted experts are an excellent way to deal with such issues. I am now increasing the length of the lead in paragraphs, as you have suggested, and then we can deal with the issue of combining sections when the other matters are complete. I think you hit the nail on the head with suggesting - which you note I did immediately - removal of "weasal words" and as, as you suggested, citing specific experts in the field who made such observations. Thanks for your help, your suggestions, your referring me to your article (which does all the foregoing) and for linking my quotes, which actually is resulting in a great article. It is factually correct, and we will polish the remainder. THANKS! old windy bear 23:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

rewrite begun after suggestions from several outstanding contributors

AndyZAndyZFor consensus: following Andy's suggestion, and Cherry blossom tree suggestions on the peer review page, I removed one section, the role of Bonnie Parker, and used part of that paragraph, plus part of a wonderful quote from noted B & C expert J. Geringer, and created the three paragraph opening that AndyZ suggested, while beginning to tighten the article as Cherry blossom tree suggested. I believe the opening paragraphs flow into each other, introduce the couple, define their role in american history and the times AS THE EXPERTS HAVE DEFINED IT, and lead into the rest of the article:

• who exactly were these people,
• and what did they do, and why do the experts think they did it,
• what victims occurred because of it,
• how were they stopped,
• what is the controversy surrounding the ambush, and the horrible aftermath,
• and why their legend lingers even today, according to the best historians and experts alive.

I also, following Cherry blossom tree suggestion, combined the sections of Bonnie meeting Clyde with their relationship during prison, and the early days of what would be called, the Barrow Gang. I also combined 3 other sections, without deleting fact one. It tightens the flow of the article, without deleting any facts which are not in dispute, and virtually every person who has participated in this discussion wants the facts in, not out, they just want the article better structured, sourced, and written, which, with AndyZ's invaluable help, Cherry blossom tree excellent suggestions on combining sections without eliminating facts, it is being.

Not one fact is wrong, the weasal words are gone, I agree absolutely with AndyZ when dealing with controversial material, direct quotes from expert sources are the best way to resolve language disagreements, and avoid weasal words or subjective interpretations. I believe this article is now 100% improved, and flows excellently to the issues involved. THANKS especially to AndyZ for doing what I could not, and linking the quotes and facts to the relevant sources, completely reworking the references, and generally being a great help, thanks to Cherry blossom tree for a suggestion that remarkably tightened and improved the article.!old windy bear 01:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No direct quotes

I propose that we eliminate the use of quotes on this page. A direct qouote from a book or web article can be a little jarring in a wikipedia article. It is by definition, expressing a point of view, and because of the violent subject matter of this page, can disrupt the balance and tone of the text. I propose that we condense any quotations to a neutral, encyclopedic, statement with the appropiate citations. This excercise would go a long way towards making the article more neutral in tone.

Mytwocents 16:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

MytwocentsCertainly, if we go back to using the information from those quotes. You cannot have it both ways.

You and Andy objected to the language that Bonnie appealled to the disenfranchised and unemployed desperate 35-40% of americans out of work, and a lot of the remainder enraged with the government. That is FACT in every book based on the duo - but it was said that was "weasal words." Okay, I did make them subjective, which is a valid point. So to eliminate that, now we go to direct sourced quotes from unquestioned experts in the field, the writers who are acknowledged the master historians on Bonnie and Clyde, whose information we should relay in this article - and you want now to eliminate that, because you have discovered - which I could have told you if you had read every single book on the duo, as I have, that this is a universal observation. I am willing to take out the quotes, and reinstate less powerful language. Though you cannot seem to grasp it, my goal was a nuanced FAIR factually accurate article, and I did it, with a lot of help. Then you objected to the wording, so we went back to unquestioned direct source from the experts - which do you want, the former, less powerful language, which we fashioned for a neutral article, or direct quotes? One thing is a certainty, I believe consensus will rally around:

• defining Bonnie's actual role in the gang, and her background, including warrant status, et al;
• was Clyde seeking vengence on corrections and what he viewed as an uncaring government, whether it was insane and criminal being irrelevant to it being his motives, as Phillips and Milner, two of the real experts, maintain devoutedly;
• their powerful effect not just on depression era americans, but generations after, and why;
• what actually happened at the ambush, and the horrific aftermath;

You and AndyZ cannot have it both ways. I reworded originally to take out the sting from the direct quotes - and you and Andy objected to that as weasal words. Now we have the historians, and you are equally unhappy because your idea of a "neutral" article is one that puffs the police, and ignores the very real controversy that has dogged this matter for 72 years. Do what I did, and go look at AndyZ's work, which is so heavily sourced and has quotes. It eliminates any question of subjective interpretation. Which do you want? The former, less confrontational language, or direct quotes? I honestly believe consensus will not allow you to delete the facts, so you must chose. I don't believe you have the consensus to delete the facts, bluntly.old windy bear 19:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see why the quotes should be removed - I have seen many quotes in many featured articles, and see no problem with their inclusion as long as they are cited. I am not objecting to any content in this article- I just wish for it to be well-referenced and WP:NPOV, hence displaying the weasel words as shown above so that such problems can be fixed, of which almost all have already. And by the way, the numbers on Great Depression of 1929 indicate that the unemployment percentage never quite reached 35-40% (in fact, probably just around 25% maximum). Thanks, AndyZ _t 19:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should just describe what happened, in an unemotional, detached way. We should leave motives, vendettas, lasting effects, conjecture and purple prose, off the page. It may come across as a little dry to some readers, but it will make for a better wikiarticle.

Also, we are all free to make changes to the article, see the peer review template: Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article. So I encourage all editors to be bold

Mytwocents 20:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather than arguing whether or not these are facts, how about we just verify any contents in dispute (including the things that were just listed above), and remove any that we find to be unverifiable? (Just add {{fact}} to note a place where a citation is needed) I find nothing wrong with quotes- in fact I support their inclusion, and lasting effects should also stay. Regards, AndyZ _t 20:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents listen to AndyZ, AndyZI could not agree more. First, let us decide what, if any, facts are in dispute, and then go from there. By the way, thanks for linking all those for me, I know you showed me how, my computer is still giving me hell. THANKS. But AndyZis 100% right if ther are any, which so far there are not we need to find out what,if any, FACTS, in the current article are in dispute. LIST THEM, OR MARK THEM AS HE INDICATED. On the great depression, yes, I think I was referring, as the article does, to the 38% of farmers who lost their farms, the devaluation of money, and the hordes of familes on the road. I believe you are right on the overall unemployment - and it is not in the article, but Milner refers to the general state of depression, as does legendary historian Jonathan Davis. Point is, with your linking, the article is actually a lot better. You were right that since these were controversial points, it was necessary, I felt, to use actual sources. I agree with AndyZ since there are really not, the quotes are a good way to avoid language issues, subjective interpretations, and weasal words, since we are literally quoting the experts in the field, the quotes should stay, and the lasting effects must as well and it flows better. Go look at AndyZ's work - I did, and eliminated the weasal words the second Andy identified them to avoid subjective language and interpretation. old windy bear 21:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This page makes Bonnie and Clyde out to be heroes, with the Hamer posse' serving as the arm of an oppressive establishment, in the role of antagonists. It reads more like a novel, than an encylopedia article. The use of direct quotes from authors hinders making the article neutral in tone. The inbalance of pro B&C statements is still there, big as ever. But the statements and quotes contained on the page have better sourcing now, which is good. NPOV is still a distant goal. Since neutrality is at the heart of wikipedia, I think there is a lot of work still to be done to this page. Kudos to all, for there recent work.

Mytwocents 16:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I think that Andy is right that when subjects are controversial, as this one is, the best answer is direct quotes from experts. Further, again, assuming your good will, you asked for this. Oldwindybear had toned down those direct quotes to avoid an article that might be interpreted as being pro B & C, which I do not gather he is. You demanded a review, and as Andy says, the best way to resolve subjective differences in language and weasel words is direct quotes from recognized experts and sourcing. On B & C there are no better experts alive than John Phillips, John Treherne, Joseph Geringer, and E. Milner. I think you should congratulate and thank oldwindybear for a great job on following Andy's direction, removing all weasel words, and I strongly support keeping the quotes, and the article is not POV to me, it shows Clyde for his 10 plus murders, but it also relays some very disturbing facts about the way they were killed, that you apparantly don't like, but are the truth. Stillstudying 16:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

StillstudyingQuite naturally I am going to agree with you. I don't think the article makes Hamer out to be anything other than what he was - a brutal killer with a badge. Clyde was a worse killer without a badge, who murdered a lot of innocent people in his crazed vendetta against the Corrections folks. Bonnie was a intelligent yet foolish girl that followed a psychopath. Those basically were Treherne's and Phillips findings, and they are the best of the Bonnie and Clyde writers, along with Milner, who concluded the same. I tried to tone the article down, but My2Cents insisted on a peer review, where AndyZ was great in directing me to a number of things:

• how to link so sources can be made without disrupting the article, which has been done, virtualy every fact in the article is now massively sourced, but more are on the way, Andy sets a high standard,and I agree with his;
• when controversial subjects, with weasal words are involved, or subjective interpretations, it is best to use quotes, and original expert sourcing, so that there is no question this is what the historians say;
• as Andy and you have said, I think the quotes and lasting findings must stay;
• some people don't want the facts told, they want a particular point of view relayed - they cannot grasp we are an encyclopedia here, to relay historial FACTS, not opinions, or beliefs;
• no facts are in dispute, and all weasal words and subjective language has been replaced to eliminate any possibility of bias, replaced with the historical facts directly written, as should be in an encyclopedia article.

I am NOT for Bonnie and Clyde. Neither am I for a so called law officer who would shoot a girl not wanted for any major crime 130 times after the real murderer was already dead; and then let people cut her bloody hair and clothes off for souvenirs. That is the reality of what happened. But I tried to keep my beliefs out, and simply relay the facts. It is absolutely true, as another expert observed - and which I left out to avoid POV - that today Hamer and the entire posse would be tried for murder, and convicted. Again, that was a historian, not me, but I left it out to avoid a POV slant. I think with AndyZ's direction, and Cherry's suggestions, and 12 hours of work from me, this has become a great article. It is not going to please everyone, but it is fair, nuanced, sourced, factually correct - no one disputes a single fact - and by the weekend will be even more massively sourced. Thanks for your kind words on my work. My only goal is the TRUTH, wherever that takes us.old windy bear 18:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Article intro

Here is my re-write of the intro:

---

Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow were notorious criminals who operated in the central United States during the Great Depression. They captivated the attention of the American press and its readership during what has been referred to as the public enenmy era" — between 1931 and 1935, a period which led to the formation of the FBI. Though remembered as a bank robber, Clyde Barrow preferred to rob small stores or gas stations.

Bonnie was viewed at the time, as a full partner in the gang. Gang members W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults said they never saw Bonnie fire a gun, but described her role as logistical.

On May 23, 1934, Bonnie and Clyde were killed in an ambush, in rural Louisiana, by an interstate posse, led by Capt. Frank Hamer, Texas Ranger. The bullet-riddled Ford, in which Bonnie and Clyde were killed, is in a museum display, in Primm, Nevada.

---

This covers the facts, and introduces the key people in the saga. It avoids repetition and statements of opinion.

Mytwocents 04:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to Rewrite

I would immediately revert, unless over the next 48 hours it is clear by consensus your version will be approved, which I do not believe will be so, because:

• I think you deleted fact wholesale, and made it POV.
• introductory paragraphs in wikipedia need to be fuller and discuss the article to come - go look at AndyZ's article;
• the current introduction is full, fair, and by using quotes, eliminated the subjective language, but introduced us to all the powerful and controversial subjects in the article, respectfully, what you call opinion is historical fact, eliminates weasal words, and is quoted from direct sources to avoid exactly the kind of subjective interpretation, or POV deletion you wish to do:
• what was the actual - versus perceived - role of Bonnie Parker (you eliminate that completely)?
• who were these people, and why has their legend been so enduring, far outliving far more deadly criminals, such as Alvin Karpas and Ma Barker of the same era(you eliminate that completelly)?

You eliminate all the foregoing. Respectfully, so far, all who have commented have supported keeping the quotes in, and the current, massively sourced rewrite, with keeping lasting effects in - go read AndyZ's comments. You would have no consensus for deleting wholesale, not leaving sufficient wikipedia paragraphs or truly introducing the subject, and I had consensus for keeping the quotes in, and lasting effects, which the introduction raises from direct sources. NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". The current introduction, and article, was massively rewritten to remove "weasal words" AndyZ was kind enough to identify, used direct quotes from unquestioned experts and historians in addressing controversial subjects to comply most effectively with Jimbo's policy. The proposed rewrite does not address the people and issues, it is an attempt to eliminate facts - undisputed facts -without consensus in violation of wikipedia policy. Because you do not have consensus, I also respectfully warn you of the three rewrite rule. old windy bear 09:58, 4

May 2006 (UTC)

I must weigh in on this one, though I generally am a reader, rather than writer. The current introduction flows smoothly into the article, and does three things which are vital. It introduces us to these very controversial outlaws, especially Bonnie Parker. In the second paragraph, it focuses on the public misperception, according to all the experts, of her real role in the gang, and that flows beautifully into the third paragraph, which discusses why these two relatively minor league people have remained so dominant in popular culture 70 some years after the events in question. The use of the quotes is well done, Andy is right, they eliminate the weasel words that subjective interpretation can bring. I strongly support the existing work oldwindybear has done, which is outstanding sourced, and really works to introduce us to the article. Also, the rewrite is not even three paragraphs - one is one sentence, and it is essentially one paragraph spread out so it looks like it complied with the standard 2-3 wikipedia introduction paragraphs. Quotes are vital here, because of the controversial nature of the subject matter. No one has questioned the facts, and the quotes, as all have said, and the lasting effects, must stay. I strongly oppose the rewrite proposed. Stillstudying 12:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The intro, as it stands, tells the reader five times, that Bonnie didn't shoot a gun. ...."they never saw Bonnie fire a gun"..... "Bonnie never fired a shot"..... "Bonnie never packed a gun".... "she never fired a gun."...... "Bonnie never fired a shot".

I think this is excessive. One time would be enough.

I would ask that reponses be indented. A response written in its own section can be considered rude.

Mytwocents 15:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete other people's work who disagree with you

I am not going to engage you in a war of words, the way you have oldwindybear. Nor am I going to allow you to unilaterally disregard wikipedia policy, and simply change the discussion page, because you evidently want to minimize the fact that people are disagreeing with you. Removing other people's sections, or work, is not only rude, but absolutely against wikipedia rules. Only an editor, which clearly from reading this page and your ongoing argument with oldwindybear you are not, has such power. (Please spare me the "we are all editors" argument, you do not have the discretionary powers they do, through appointment! You are a contributer, as oldbear puts it, no more, no less) Please refrain from interfering with my comments. Your statement a response in it's own section can be considered rude is not in the wikipedia rules, especially where the seperate section is needed to clarify for other people trying to speak out on consensus, where to take a stand.

On the other hand, unilaterally removing someone's comments or work is absolutely not just rude, but against wikipedia rules. Again, I do not have oldwindybear's infinite patience to argue with you. If you delete my work again, I will file a wikipedia complaint on you, for abusing the rules.

I oppose your rewrite, period, for the reasons listed above. I consider every quote in the article a good one, and the entry excellent. Your proposed introduction is silly, and ignores all the salient issues that have tormented so many people for so long about this couple. Two of your "paragraphs" are only two sentences, and the total is about one normal paragraph. It does not introduce the most important questions people ask: what was Bonnie's real role in all this, and why has their legend proved so durable? Andy is right, the quotes are relevant, important, as are lasing issues. I oppose your rewrite, and ask you to obey wikipedia policy and stop deleting people's statements that you dislike. I have now respectfully asked you to refrain from rude actions against wikipedia policy, and trust you will abide by that request.Stillstudying 16:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oldwindybear, I think you are still confusing 'editor' with 'administrator'. What did I delete?

Mytwocents 16:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I know this may come as a surprise, but other people actually disagree with you. I am not oldwindybear. You deleted section leads, which were placed so people could clearly comment on this. Stillstudying 17:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You can see, by this indented reply, that continuing a discussion in the same section, makes it more clear, and doesn't imply that my reponse has greater weight, than your statement. When I changed the section lead to to an indented paragraph, this is called refactoring, and is meant to help the discussion. It's hard for any other editors to follow a discussion, when it is broken up into sections. it also makes copy and paste more dificult, if the copy text is on a different part of a long talk page.

Mytwocents 19:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents I don't want to turn this into a pissing contest between you and I, but please don't accuse me of using sock puppets. I have never done so, and would not. First of all, it is unethical, and while you don't know me, I pride myself on being an ethical person. Secondly, it is stupid, since internet addresses are easily checked, and I, not that it is your business again, work for a law enforcement agency, and have no internet access (other than for work related sites I cannot name) during the hours those postings were made. Allow me to assure you that wikipedia, while highly respected, is not a law enforcement site, lol.

I am not getting into the argument between you and Stillstudying over removing section titles, because I really consider that irrelevant to the main topic: the direction of this article. I prepared by reading every book on Bonnie and Clyde, watching the very excellent A & E documentary, and preparing as much historically as I could - natural, since I was trained as a historian. I honestly believe:

• the real issues in this article are who was this duo, and why is their legend so enduring, why has it lasted generations after their death, when far greater criminals, i. e. Alvin Karpis, have been forgotten;
• what was Bonnie Parker's true historic role in the so called "Barrow Gang," and why did the public think one thing while another was true?
• why have so many people made heros out of a psychopath whose hatred of prison which he brought on himself, cost at least 18 people their lives, between his known 10 victims, 5 members of his gang, himself, and a foolish girl?
• why did a supposedly respected law officer conduct one of the most horrific ambushs and aftermaths in the history of American law enforcement?

I also honestly believe my introduction is far closer to what AndyZ had in mind when advocating three paragraphs, not one. You essentially have one, broken in three, to hide the deletion of material you personally oppose. I believe my introduction brings the reader into the article asking the same questions historians have asked - and answered - for 72 years, keeps quotes and lasting effect Andy, Still, and others have thought should stay, while yours attempts to sanitize the entire mess. You believe I am "pro" Bonnie and Clyde. Nothing could be further from the truth - there is no effort in this article to hide the visciousness of the crimes of Clyde Barrow and what it cost. But this article does into the historical complexities of the depression, the vision people had of this duo, rightly or wrongly, and still do. Yours does not. The issue here is not personal, it is which vision of the article is correct, yours or mine. I believe mine will obtain consensus for the simple reasons that is better written, quotes the experts, and brings the readers in introducing the issues the article should address, with no POV, just seeking the truth. Respectfully, I honestly don't believe that is your goal, you want to sanitize what happened. I seek to put the facts out there, FACTS YOU HAVE NEVER DISPUTED, NOT ONE. All weasal language identified by Andy is gone. The article is a good one, approaching great, and you would ruin it. I don't believe people will let that happen...(old windy bear 19:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Old windy bear,do you have an opinion on the the intro. As it stands, it tells the reader five times, that Bonnie didn't shoot a gun. ...."they never saw Bonnie fire a gun"..... "Bonnie never fired a shot"..... "Bonnie never packed a gun".... "she never fired a gun."...... "Bonnie never fired a shot".

I think this is excessive. One time would be enough.

Mytwocents 19:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents Do I have an opinion on your introduction proposal? Your proposed introduction is terrible, as another contributor has already said. REALLY TERRIBLE. I have gone to great lengths to explain to you why your introduction is lousy - and why mine is better. Yours is simply not good writing, or good encylopedia writing. It is terrible, and I think the introduction I wrote is far better, and so far, so do those who have commented. (which is the most important - what do the rest think? So far, they think the facts should stay, the quotes should stay, the lasting impact should stay, and yours does none of the above). You write 5 times that Bonnie did not shoot a gun, which is not what the introduction says - it leads flowingly into the facts of the article, which the really awful introduction you propose does not. I hate to break the news to you, but consensus rules, and so far, consensus is that the current introduction is better. The introduction should contain, or lead into the following facts:

I honestly believe my introduction leads into these issues, while yours powder puffs and santizes an incredibly complex and sad story:

• the real issues in this article are who was this duo, and why is their legend so enduring, why has it lasted generations after their death, when far greater criminals, i. e. Alvin Karpis, have been forgotten;
• what was Bonnie Parker's true historic role in the so called "Barrow Gang," and why did the public think one thing while another was true?
• why have so many people made heros out of a psychopath whose hatred of prison which he brought on himself, cost at least 18 people their lives, between his known 10 victims, 5 members of his gang, himself, and a foolish girl?
• why did a supposedly respected law officer conduct one of the most horrific ambushs and aftermaths in the history of American law enforcement?

Now let us just let everyone else decide. Two people have already said the quotes should stay, AndyZ and Stillstudying, and they both support the lasting impact staying. One said flatly your intro was terrible, and I agree, it is terrible. Let us see what the rest say. I have explained four times now why your introductory paragraph is terrible, and is really one sanitizing paragraph which you spread out to fake three so that you don't violate the basic tenet (two sentences do not a paragraph make, at any college I have been at!) that totally fails to lead into the crucial facts of the article. Not being smart, but didn't you take writing in school? The lead paragraphs, and certainly in an encyclopedia article, must give enough fact to let the reader know what the article is about, yours does not, mine does, and it flows quite well, while yours reads like the instructions on a pizza. Now let us see who gets consensus, and I feel quite confident it will be to include the present facts, quotes, and lasting impact, to lead into the article. old windy bear 21:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the pararagraph in toto with gun statements bolded;

Though the public at the time believed Bonnie to be a full partner in the gang, the role of Bonnie Parker in the Barrow Gang crimes has long been a source of controversy. Gang members W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults testified that they never saw Bonnie fire a gun (1), and described her role as logistical. In that book, Fults was adamant that Bonnie never fired a shot (2) in any of the gang's gun battles. W.D. Jones stated under oath to the authorities, "Bonnie never packed a gun (3), out of the five major gun battles I was with them she never fired a gun (4)." Writing with Phillip Steele in The Family Story of Bonnie and Clyde, Marie Barrow, Clyde's youngest sister, made the same claim: "Bonnie never fired a shot.(5) She just followed my brother no matter where he went."

Why say it once, when we can say it five times? Right?

Mytwocents 04:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Why leave a great introduction alone, when you can rip it to pieces and instead substitute what two people have already labeled terrible work. You seem unable to grasp that historically - and we are an encyclopedia relaying facts - the public's facination with Bonnie, versus her actual role in the gang, is an essential part of the article. Those quotes - which three of us have supported against you alone, are a powerful introduction to the mythos versus the reality, elinimate weasal words, and the subjective language you prefer, something you cannot grasp. Here are the three introductory paragraphs, as are, which do three things:

• tell you who these people are;
• begin to define the real Bonnie Parker as opposed to the mythic;
• try to begin to explain their enduring hold on the American public:

Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow were notorious robbers and criminals who traveled the central United States during the Great Depression. Their exploits were known nationwide. They captivated the attention of the American press and its readership during what is sometimes referred to as the "public enemy era" — between 1931 and 1935, a period which led to the formation of the FBI. Though remembered as bank robbers, Clyde Barrow preferred to rob small stores or gas stations.

Though the public at the time believed Bonnie to be a full partner in the gang, the role of Bonnie Parker in the Barrow Gang crimes has long been a source of controversy. Gang members W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults testified that they never saw Bonnie fire a gun, and described her role as logistical.[1] In that book, Fults was adamant that Bonnie never fired a shot in any of the gang's gun battles. W.D. Jones stated under oath to the authorities, "Bonnie never packed a gun, out of the five major gun battles I was with them she never fired a gun." Writing with Phillip Steele in The Family Story of Bonnie and Clyde, Marie Barrow, Clyde's youngest sister, made the same claim: "Bonnie never fired a shot. She just followed my brother no matter where he went."[2]

But noted writer Joseph Geringer, in his article "Bonnie and Clyde: Romeo and Juliet in a Getaway Car" explained part of their appeal to the public then, and their enduring legend now, by saying "Americans thrilled to their "Robin Hood" adventures. The presence of a female, Bonnie, escalated the sincerity of their intentions to make them something unique and individual -- even at times heroic." .[3]

This introduction introduces these two lasting figures in pop culture, it also tackles head on, with great use of quotes, both the mythic Bonnie against what the article willl show, the real Bonnie, and finally, it does what the last lead paragraph does, speaks to what the article will explain, the lasting effects of the duo on the culture and history of the depression, and this country. It uses quotes and real historians to eliminate all possibility of subjective interpretation. On the other hand, yours, shown above, does none of those things, has all the power, quotes, sourcing, and lasting impact of the directions on how to bake a pizza. Let us now let consensus work. Three voices have already spoken against you - your proposed revisions are terrible, and this is far better. Let consensus decide. Your proposed introduction is terrible next to this, losing everything that an introductory paragraph needs, and again, has all the good writing to how to bake a pizza at 400 degrees for 12-14 minutes. Consensus is against you, and for the fifth time, your proposed revision is terrible, an opinion supported by all who have weighed in. AndyZ suggestions, use quotes to elimniate weasal words, cite all, 3 good intro paragraphs, are all here, and you would destroy it - go look at his work, not a 2 sentence paragraph anywhere - lots of work has made this a great article with a great introduction, which is supported by consensus against your proposals.old windy bear 09:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

But the question still stands, how many times must you tell the reader, Bonnie never fired a gun. Tell them 5 times, as the intro does now, or something less, like 1 time?

Mytwocents 15:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

See my previous 5 answers, and the one below: for many reasons, all detailed, the quotes provide powerful entry into the article and issues involved, which yours does not. This introduction introduces these two lasting figures in pop culture, it also tackles head on, with great use of quotes, both the mythic Bonnie against what the article willl show, the real Bonnie, and finally, it does what the last lead paragraph does, speaks to what the article will explain, the lasting effects of the duo on the culture and history of the depression, and this country. It uses quotes, multisourcing, (which is NOT redundency!) and real historians to eliminate all possibility of subjective interpretation. Yours sounds like the directions to the beltway, instead of an encyclopedia article on two of the most enduring figures of american mythos. old windy bear 19:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)18:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose the Rewrite

I will say this simply and once. I completely oppose the proposed rewrite. It is poor writing, and destroys the present value of having quotes, as AndyZ says above, in eliminating subjective interpretations, weasel words, and giving actual historical fact. The present introduction is excellent, raises the issues in the article, and is a good lead-in. Stillstudying 12:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation has been requested on MyTwoCents Editing Postings

I warned this user two days ago that if he changed the talk page again, whether it was mine, or someone else's postings, I would request mediation on him, and ask for his banning from editing. He again edited a posting, and while oldwindybear may not resent this, I do, and I carried my request to the mediation unit. MyTwoCents reformats people's postings to hide the opposition to his rewrites. This must stop. Anyone else resenting this user's highhanded erasure of postings, editing other people's postings, please go to mediation and report it. He needs to be banned. When he cannot, as here, obtain consensus for plain sorry rewrites, he edits postings to try to get through trickery what he cannot obtain by consensus. It must stop. I am not going to argue with him for months like oldwindybear, I can, and have, taken action to stop him. Wikipedia rules state I must post this mediation issue involving MyTwo Cents on the relevant talk page, which I now have. Stillstudying 16:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I simply indented the paragraphs to show whom was posting. I earlier refactored a section into the relevent discussion, with indents to keep the discussion from being broken up. I changed bolded text, to italic to show it was a quote. I have removed no ones text. My motive was to make the conversation clear, and balanced. I started the peer review process for the same reasons. I want to bring more people to an open, clear debate. I would ask that people would stop shouting and bolding, on this talk page and excercise civility. There is no need to impugn my motives, or chastise me.

Mytwocents 17:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I warned you clearly, and asked you in good faith not to edit the talk page, and you refused. You are not an administrator, and I am not as patient as people who have tolerated your attitude that you may refactor mine, or anyone's, postings, for whatever reason. You simply do not do that under wikipedia rules, and it is time you learned it. I stand by the complaint, and my objection to your rewrite. Max 17:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 17:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I hope we can continiue the debate as to how the article should be written. If an administrator agrees to mediate, then we can deal with that.

Mytwocents 18:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

TO ONE AND ALL: I would prefer that StillStudying withdraw his complaint, and we focus on the issues. My2Cents, don't edit my work again, period. You moaned and complained about my doing so to yours, so do me the basic courtesy of not changing my work. If I feel it should be italized, I have sufficient education - a number of college degrees, for what that is worth, (little, actually, I agree with Essjay on that, degrees are overrated as a measure of worth) - to italize my work, or indent it. Okay? We clear on that? Still, please drop the complaint. I don't want this deteriorating into a contest over My2Cent's rudeness in editing other people's posting, and whatever motivates it, I want the debate on his really lousy proposed rewrite. No writer in any school could get away with 2 sentence paragraphs and decimating the subject matter in the introduction. His work is not good here, and would detract from what AndyZ, a very VERY good writer said: with controversial material which is subject to interpretation, and weasal words result, use direct quotes from acknowledged historians and experts. We have voted so far 3-1 against deleting the quotes and lasting effects - so let us stay on topic, and not go after My2Cents personally. My2Cents, in return, you STOP changing the talk page, period, unless it is your posting. You are NOT empowered to edit other people's postings, and frankly, your writing and style is not particularly good, in my honest opinion - and yes, I once taught english and history both - so please, no lectures on how you are facilitating discussion.

In short, Still, please drop the complaint, My2Cents, please stop editing other people's postings on the talk page, and everyone, please keep the current introduction, which is infinitely superior to what My2Cents would like to do, delete quotations, delete facts, and WREAK the flow into the article. The three introductory paragraphs, as are, which do three things:

• tell you who these people are;
• begin to define the real Bonnie Parker as opposed to the mythic;
• try to begin to explain their enduring hold on the American public:

The bottom line: the current introduction is better, simple as that, and better introduces the article and issues. Let us concentrate on that, instead of other issues, though My2Cents, if you edit mine again, I will have to join the complaint. Please don't, I am asking you nicely, so we can finish this discussion. I believe consensus will keep the present introduction - let us deal with that issue. I have to add, My2Cents, you keep asking people about the introduction: AndyZ said the quotes and lasting effect should stay. Stillstudying has said 3 times your work is terrible and the current introduction must stay. I have said so many times I am tired of counting that your rewrite is bad, unencyclopedic, and wreaks a fine entry into the article, which if you were allowed, you would then wreak also. I think it clear most people don't want that, but you won't accept defeat. Please let other people talk now - the rest of us have made our positions clear, no one is changing theirs. old windy bear 18:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy in the intro

Old windy bear, you stated earlier, You write 5 times that Bonnie did not shoot a gun, which is not what the introduction says. The introduction, as of now states this(with key statements bolded);

Though the public at the time believed Bonnie to be a full partner in the gang, the role of Bonnie Parker in the Barrow Gang crimes has long been a source of controversy. Gang members W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults testified that they never saw Bonnie fire a gun (1), and described her role as logistical. In that book, Fults was adamant that Bonnie never fired a shot (2) in any of the gang's gun battles. W.D. Jones stated under oath to the authorities, "Bonnie never packed a gun (3), out of the five major gun battles I was with them she never fired a gun (4)." Writing with Phillip Steele in The Family Story of Bonnie and Clyde, Marie Barrow, Clyde's youngest sister, made the same claim: "Bonnie never fired a shot.(5) She just followed my brother no matter where he went."

Old windy bear, you've removed redundancy before, but for some reason, you won't defend the five-fold mention of Bonnies non-gunwielding, just in the intro statement. Instead, you criticize my proposal. Done, you've made yourself clear about my version. Now, can you reduce the intro so it just contains ones tatement regarding Bonnies gunwielding?

Mytwocents 20:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents I defend multisourcing and direct quoting on a very controversial subject. Redundency exists when the same source is repeatedly cited with the same comment. This is not the case in this matter - See my previous 5 answers, and the one below: for many reasons, all detailed, the quotes provide powerful entry into the article and issues involved, which yours does not. There are four separate sources, which are necessary for a controversial topic. Andy was right - go look at his article - when anything is controversial, or allows subjective interpretation, quotes, direct history, is the definitive encyclopedic answer. That paragraph is a powerful, multisourced entry onto one of the salient issues of the article, (public perception of Bonnie as Clyde's full partner in crime - see the lead in then to the next paragraph, where another great historian explains that was part of their appeal, then and now, that a woman was helping strike back!) and a subject of enormous misconception for the past 72 years! To lead into such an article, weasal words, and subjective interpretations must be avoided, and multiple facts used. The paragraph reads well, all agree but you. The paragraph leads superbly into the third, why the two have an enduring public appeal, then and now. Yours sounds like the directions to the beltway, instead of an encyclopedia article on two of the most enduring figures of american mythos. old windy bear 19:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)18:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

PS I hope you notice, that I have attempted to defuse this complaint issue. There need be no nastiness, and I hope Stillstudying removes the complaint. Come now, you have made your best arugment, and it has fallen short. Consensus sees that this is a great introduction, fashioned carefully in three very well written paragraphs, with multisourcing (and that is what you miss, multisourcing is not redundency, see the APA guidelines to citing!) to introduce us to some of the most controversial topics of the depression era.

Old windy bear, Point taken. I have made my argument clearly. The peer review process is still young. I encourage all editors to feel free to join in, to make this a better page. All contributors, so far, appear to think the intro is fine, with a five-fold emphasis on Bonnie's pacifism regarding guns.... No problem. NPOV is a 'wheel that grinds slowly, but exceedingly fine'. I'm content to let things proceed on their own pace. I believe the more people who contribute to this page, the better.  :AndyZand Cherry blossom tree have pitched in with the enthusiam I envisioned when I submitted the peer review. I encourage them to continue their work.

Mytwocents 06:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents You have acted with the best wikipedia manners, and I then will ask in strongest terms that any complaint against you be dropped, and am going now to the mediation page to note that. I feel the differences over whether or not you were attempting to facilitate the argument are more than offset by your acceptance that the vast majority don't see the intro as a 5 fold emphasis on Bonnie's pacifism - It is not meant to be that, nor do I think most people see it so - but a vital and moving massively sourced introduction that lists the three salient encyclopedic issues to be addressed in this article:

• who were these two people that have held such an enduring hold in the public and especially american mythos, which led into;
• what was the real - as opposed to perceived - role of Bonnie Parker, (VERY controversial, thus needing 4 separate sources, with quotes, leading into:
• why the presenece of a beautiful woman led a veneer of daring do to their antics, and appealled especially to the disenfranchised during the depression, and afterwards.

AndyZ has been invaluable in teaching me several things, first to link, (how to teach an old contributor, new tricks!), then that when dealing with controversial subjects, which lend to subjective interpretation, use direct quotes to avoid weasal words; and Cherry blossom tree for her brilliant suggestion to shorten the article, combine sections, which we did so without losing ONE SINGLE FACT. I honestly am not trying to write a pro bonnie article - I went, as a trained historian and member of the law endorcement community, where the truth took me. I stressed in the article, that Clyde's psychotic obsession with revenge against the Texas prison system directly resulted in at least 18 deaths, 11 of them totally innocent people. But the truth also shows that Bonnie Parker was essentially a lovestruck girl who followed a charming, but deadly, psychopath to her death. That is not my wording either, it is almost a word for word conclusion from John Treherne, John Phillips, and E.L. Milner, the three best Bonnie and Clyde historians, plus Jonathan Davis, the great depression era historian. The horrific aftermath of the ambush has to be told - that is NOT american law enforcement, it is murder Hamer got away with, again, another historian wrote "today he and the posse would be tried for murder, and at the least, imprisoned for life." I left that out, because I feft it, though historically correct, it did not help us achieve NPOV, which the current article has. It is nuanced, balanced, sourced, and fair. The difference now, which AndyZ in particular taught, is that all this is MASSIVELY sourced, and going to be more so. Thank you for accepting consensus. old windy bear 11:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

there is no redundancy in the introduction, just facts to introduce controversial subjects

Paragraph one introduces us to a duo revered and reviled for 72 years as America's Robin Hood and Maid Marion, or a pair of deranged killers, take your choice. Paragraph two, delives into what is one of the most powerful subjects in this article - Public perception of Bonnie as Clyde's full partner in crime, which heavily sourced, (and as Andy says, where subjective interpretation, weasal words, are natural due to controversy, source HEAVILY and QUOTE HISTORIANS), we are writing an encyclopedia article where fact is all. Paragraph two shows that the myth is not so - and then see the lead in then to the next paragraph, where another great historian explains that myth was part of their appeal, then and now, that a woman was helping strike back! And you fail to show how the paragraph deals with a highly controversial subject, condensed material which was already in the article, and flows into the third. The paragraphs are carefully structured to introduce:

• who this pair was, that trod so heavily in the national mythos for 72 years;
• what was the real Bonnie Parker's role in the gang, as opposed to the:
• public perception, which according to ALL historians that have studied the duo, that a woman helping strike a blow many americans would have like to struck, gave them a special aura that has NOT FADED WITH TIME.

Thus the three paragraphs are carefully constructed to introduce us to one of America's great myths and a horrific set of tragedies that cost 18 people, at least, their lives. Thus, It stays, period. I have consensus to keep the article as is. You must not be reading my responses, or anyone elses. The introduction includes a first paragraph which introduces the couple, but needs no quotes as it does not delve into controversial material. Not so the second and third. The second and third paragraph were constructed with quotes which form absolutely perfect introductory paragraphs. As to the second paragraph, that information, and it does flow, comes from different sources, (Fults, W.D. Jones, John Phillips and Marie Barrow), replaced weasal words which Andy was kind enough to identify, and involves an absolutely vital issue in the article:

• what was the real role of Bonnie Parker in the Barrow Gang and their crimes, which is a topic that has stirred controversy for 72 years, as Andy said, quotes and history are the best way to deal with such topics and avoid subjective language and weasal words;

It is not redundent, it is vital. Because the subject is so controversial, it is vital to have as many facts as possible historically, and each is differently sourced. I am supported so far by everyone else that has offered opinion, and believe I have consensus to keep it. Bluntly, it is not redundent, it is vital, flowing, and moving, right into the third paragraph, which tries to give us a hint at what the article will explain, the enduring popular appeal of this duo, then and now. So the first introduces, the second offers a real versus perceived view of Bonnie - which, you fail to mention, is not repeated later in the article; those quotes were moved from the old "Role of Bonnie Parker in the Barrow Gang" Section, and contain vital information not repeated elsewhere. No, I will not remove it, I have consensus to keep it, and it stays. It is an encyclopedia, and as all other users but you have said, it needs more facts, not less, and teh truth, not a point of view. The paragraph stays as is, by consensus. old windy bear 20:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As a "PS" i repeat my pleas to Stillstudying to remove the complaint against My2Cents. Let us resolve the real issues. He is not editing other people's work now, there is no reason to make this ugly. Please, if you value my work, as you say you do, drop the complaint, and let us all just finish this fine article, and keep it's fine introduction! Let us all assume good faith, mistakes can be made, I have even made a few myself, lol! BUT, not on this introduction, which is virtually perfect for the article! Thanks to Andy, Cherry, Kate, Woohookitty, randazzo56, Euwelp, and everyone else who has helped with this article.old windy bear 22:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents I feel this user has worked with us, accepted consensus, and I then will ask in strongest terms that any complaint against him be dropped, and have gone to the mediation page to note that. I feel the differences over whether or not he was attempting to facilitate the argument are more than offset by his acceptance that the vast majority don't see the intro as a 5 fold emphasis on Bonnie's pacifism - It is not meant to be that, nor do I think most people see it so - but a vital and moving massively sourced introduction that lists the three salient encyclopedic issues to be addressed in this article:

• who were these two people that have held such an enduring hold in the public and especially american mythos, which led into;
• what was the real - as opposed to perceived - role of Bonnie Parker, (VERY controversial, thus needing 4 separate sources), with quotes, leading into:
• why the presenece of a beautiful woman led a veneer of daring do to their antics, and appealled especially to the disenfranchised during the depression, and afterwards, also very controversial, requiring heavy sourcing and direct quotes from historians.

AndyZ has been invaluable in teaching me several things, first to link, (how to teach an old contributor, new tricks!), then that when dealing with controversial subjects, which lend to subjective interpretation, use direct quotes to avoid weasal words; and Cherry blossom tree for her brilliant suggestion to shorten the article, combine sections, which we did so without losing ONE SINGLE FACT. I honestly am not trying to write a pro bonnie article - I went, as a trained historian and member of the law endorcement community, where the truth took me. I stressed in the article, that Clyde's psychotic obsession with revenge against the Texas prison system directly resulted in at least 18 deaths, 11 of them totally innocent people. But the truth also shows that Bonnie Parker was essentially a lovestruck girl who followed a charming, but deadly, psychopath to her death. That is not my wording either, it is almost a word for word conclusion from John Treherne, John Phillips, and E.L. Milner, the three best Bonnie and Clyde historians, plus Jonathan Davis, the great depression era historian. The horrific aftermath of the ambush has to be told - that is NOT american law enforcement, it is murder Hamer got away with, again, another historian wrote "today he and the posse would be tried for murder, and at the least, imprisoned for life." I left that out, because I feft it, though historically correct, it did not help us achieve NPOV, which the current article has. It is nuanced, balanced, sourced, and fair. The difference now, which AndyZ in particular taught, is that all this is MASSIVELY sourced, and going to be more so. Thanks to Andy, Cherry, Kate, Woohookitty, randazzo56, Euwelp, and everyone else who has helped with this article. Thank you all for your contributions, teaching me, and for helping reach consensus. old windy bear 11:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust

I tried to make this a better page, but all it has gotten me is muddy. Here is the last edit I made on April 26, 2006 with the edit summary; (general cleanup, trimmed redundant statements, wordiness, POV pushing). I have been shouted down for that edit. I have had good success on other wikipages, but not here. I hope the peer review process I started in good faith, will make this a better page.

Shouting, personal attacks, assuming bad faith, slandering, threats, and a sockpuppet have achieved their purpose. They have made me walk away. So long.

Mytwocents 16:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

---

False Accusations are Sad

Mytwocents You walked away because the majority of people who came here, and participated in the peer review process, saw the amended article, with heavy sourcing, use of quotes to eliminate subjective language and weasal words, and three outstanding introductory paragraphs which tapped into the real issues, and approved of it because:

The vast majority don't see the intro as a 5 fold emphasis on Bonnie's pacifism - It is not meant to be that, nor do I think most people see it so - but a vital and moving massively sourced introduction that lists the three salient encyclopedic issues to be addressed in this article:

• who were these two people that have held such an enduring hold in the public and especially american mythos, which led into;
• what was the real - as opposed to perceived - role of Bonnie Parker, (VERY controversial, thus needing 4 separate sources}, with quotes, leading into:
• why the presenece of a beautiful woman led a veneer of daring do to their antics, and appealled especially to the disenfranchised during the depression, and afterwards, also very controversial, and again, better off with direct quotes and historical facts from noted historians.

The sad fact is that to the best of my knowledge, no sock puppet made you walk away. Shouting, personal attacks, assuming bad faith, slandering, threats - you just did all the above in lying about another contributor. Let us be clear on that - you called me names on an administrator's talk page - I never treated you so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Woohookitty where you call me an "ape-over-asshole nut." Slander? Calling names? You do it well and regularly to those who dare disagree with you. I simply refused to back down from you. I find you and your tactics pitiful, frankly, and very sad. Was AndyZ a sock puppet when he told you the quotes and lasting effects should stay? I told you when you made that accusation, I don't use sock puppets, first, because they are unethical, secondly, because they are so easily traced and stupid. I work at a law enforcement agency, (not that it is your business, but I would happily let Kate, or an editor I trust check that), and the internet addresses show it could not possibly have been myself - please make this accusation formal if you truly believe it, so it will be formally cleared, and you then appropriately disciplined for slandering someone in complete violation of wikipedia policy. You repeat like a mantra, assume good faith, and lie openly about people, calling them names on other talk pages - a greater hypocrite I have not dealt with here. My only offense is you cannot bully me as you do others. I find it sad - but typical of you - that you repaid my kindness in asking the mediation against you be dismissed by lying about me - nonetheless, I stand by my request. I feel that your actions, while typically highhanded, and meanspirited - I never called you names, as you did me on an editor's page, but nonetheless, though I could ask for your banning for that alone, and this further attack, I will not. I won't stoop to your level. This is not about you and I, it is about an encyclopedia article, and the best way to write it.

Mytwocents, you walked away because when AndyZ told you to find facts to dispute, you could find none. He, a great editor, went through, found all subjective interpretations, and weasal words, and they were removed, and replaced by quotes, and historically undisputed facts. He supported the inclusion of the quotes, and lasting effect as an outstanding way to eliminate any possibility of subjective interpretation or language. That was why you left. You cannot dispute facts, and you cannot gain anyone's support to eliminate facts, quotes, and the truth.

Mytwocents, you walked away because, though you cannot bring yourself to admit it, you were wrong. Consensus is the voice of reason here at wikipedia, and you could not convince people that your truncated version, eliminating facts wholesale, substituting weasal words for actual historical quotes, not properly introducing the real heart of this article, was simply not good writing, not encyclopedic, and your version got zero support. I reiterate to you that if you want to accuse me, please do it formally, not by innuendo, and we can have it formally resolved. AndyZ has been invaluable in teaching me several things, first to link, (how to teach an old contributor, new tricks!), then that when dealing with controversial subjects, which lend to subjective interpretation, use direct quotes to avoid weasal words; and Cherry blossom tree for her brilliant suggestion to shorten the article, combine sections, which we did so without losing ONE SINGLE FACT. I honestly did not write a pro anyone article - I went, as a trained historian and member of the law endorcement community, where the truth took me. I stressed in the article, that Clyde's psychotic obsession with revenge against the Texas prison system directly resulted in at least 18 deaths, 11 of them totally innocent people. But the truth also shows that Bonnie Parker was essentially a lovestruck girl who followed a charming, but deadly, psychopath to her death. That is not my wording either, it is almost a word for word conclusion from John Treherne, John Phillips, and E.L. Milner, the three best Bonnie and Clyde historians, plus Jonathan Davis, the great depression era historian. The horrific aftermath of the ambush has to be told - that is NOT american law enforcement, it is murder Hamer got away with, again, another historian wrote "today he and the posse would be tried for murder, and at the least, imprisoned for life." I left that out, because I feft it, though historically correct, it did not help us achieve NPOV, which the current article has. It is nuanced, balanced, sourced, and fair. The difference now, which AndyZ in particular taught, is that all this is MASSIVELY sourced, and going to be more so. It is sad that you would rather make unfounded and mean spirited accusations than accept consensus. To everyone else, thank you, we have achieved consensus. old windy bear 18:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

I am in partial agreement with My2cents, the number of concurring statements on Bonnie's non-use of guns is bound to strike some readers as overkill. This rewrite helps without (as far as I can tell) cutting anything important:

Old version: Gang members W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults testified that they never saw Bonnie fire a gun, and described her role as logistical.[1] In that book, Fults was adamant that Bonnie never fired a shot in any of the gang's gun battles. W.D. Jones stated under oath to the authorities, "Bonnie never packed a gun, out of the five major gun battles I was with them she never fired a gun." Writing with Phillip Steele in The Family Story of Bonnie and Clyde, Marie Barrow, Clyde's youngest sister, made the same claim: "Bonnie never fired a shot. She just followed my brother no matter where he went."

Proposed rewrite: Gang members W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults testified that they never saw Bonnie fire a gun, and described her role as logistical.[1] Jones' sworn statement was that "Bonnie never packed a gun, out of the five major gun battles I was with them she never fired a gun." Writing with Phillip Steele in The Family Story of Bonnie and Clyde, Marie Barrow, Clyde's youngest sister, made the same claim: "Bonnie never fired a shot. She just followed my brother no matter where he went."

This way all the witnesses are still on record, but it no longer sounds like repetition of a mantra. If all agree feel free to paste it in. Ewulp 05:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

EwulpNice rewrite, Is it okay to leave the first sentence in, which says her role was long as source of controversay? You did not mention eliminating that, so I left it in, but I have already pasted in the rest as you rewrote! So the new paragraph is:

Though the public at the time believed Bonnie to be a full partner in the gang, the role of Bonnie Parker in the Barrow Gang crimes has long been a source of controversy. Gang members W.D. Jones and Ralph Fults testified that they never saw Bonnie fire a gun, and described her role as logistical.[1] Jones' sworn statement was that "Bonnie never packed a gun, out of the five major gun battles I was with them she never fired a gun." Writing with Phillip Steele in The Family Story of Bonnie and Clyde, Marie Barrow, Clyde's youngest sister, made the same claim: "Bonnie never fired a shot. She just followed my brother no matter where he went.".[2]

Bolded is your suggested rewrite, which is pasted in now. old windy bear 11:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks oldwindybear, you are correct, this is what I intended. Ewulp 01:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ewulp No thank you! You have made only good suggestions throughout this article, (back to increasing greatly the amount of information we should have on Bonnie's youth - all that is yours also, remember?) And look how much better the article is! Your paragraph was better than mine, thanks for your help! old windy bear 03:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ewulp Nice again, better arranged and worded, so that the reader who doesn't know them, better understands their enduring place in popular culture and the american mythos, when far more dangerous criminals like Alvin Karpis are long forgotten. old windy bear 10:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Peer Review Complete, though all help to further Improve the Article is Welcome

A user who saw we had achieved consensus, with Andy, Cherry and Ewulp's help - and everything each of you suggested has been done - so that user removed the controversy tag. Equally, it is time to remove the peer review tag. That doesn't mean we are done, we are never done. Ewulp has made major improvements in the aftermath section the past couple of days. We will all continue to work here, but the tag can be removed. THANKS TO EVERYONE FOR THEIR TIME, EFFORT AND HARD WORK TO MAKE THIS WHAT IT IS NOW, A NPOV OUTSTANDING ARTICLE. old windy bear 01:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A peer review may be archived two weeks after the last entry is made on the peer review page. The next step can be to submit this article for Featured Article status.

Mytwocents 06:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents Thank you, we will submit the article for featured status, due to the fine job everyone did on the peer review, (oh, i forgot, you didn't participate much).

old windy bear 10:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

MyTwoCents POV Chopping Sections out of the Article in open Defiance of a Peer Review

Mytwocents Katfan0 We had a lengthy peer review on this article, in which four people participated heavily, since that time three others have assisted in rewording sections which Mytwocents simply chopped out wholesale without any effort to list his disputes or achieve consensus, in his latest - because this is about #8 or 9, wholesale butchering of the article with complete contempt for wp rules.

• He did not list anything in dispute on the talk page, he just butchered the article without notice or the least bit of following wp policy before he deleted half the article, including everything he personally disagrees with, but which the peer review left in. He is now noticed that the three edit rule is in effect.
• I have reverted his wholesale editing out of sections and/or paragraphs and references he does not like, which consensus allowed in.
• If he continues, since he has ignored the requirement that all major changes be discussed on the talk page, and ignored the peer review, I will revert each time, and the third time he attempts to chop out sections, I ask he be suspended for violating the three edit rule.
• By wp policies he is simply not allowed to destroy Ewulp's work on the introductory paragraphs, and her work on the remembering sections, chopping out whole paragraphs, and whole sections. He is not allowed to delete whole sections such as the aftermath, which the peer review and AndyZ specifically approved after elimination of all weasal words.
• Katfan0 I hope you notice that I did NOT say a personal word in this dispute, despite the vicious personal attacks on me by this user, including a now discredited sock puppet charge, and calling me names. I kept this about the fact that he failed to list facts in dispute, and ignored that a peer review HE CALLED FOR upheld the current article, asking only that it be heavily sourced, weasal words eliminated, and tightened - all were done, and the article approved AS IT WAS before this user came back, ignored consensus, and butchered it yet again in violation of consensus and wp rules.

I will not stand by and watch him butcher this article, especially since 7 other users have worked hard on it, and disagree strongly with his stands. See the peer review, and Ewulp's work since then in particular. Mytwocents is on notice that his wholesale deletions of sections, paragraphs, references, and topics in the article agreed on in peer review is a violation of the three edit rule, and will be protested to admin as strongly as possible. I asked for mediation on his antics, but unfortunately, it was not done, (not sufficiently controversial), but on this article, he had his chance to present his point of view at peer review, it failed, the article was achieved by consensus, and I will not permit him to destroy it. old windy bear 22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I did not write the above section, and don't know who changed it to show I wrote it, but the history shows oldwindybear wrote it. StillstudyingMax 13:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I will make my comment short, and to the point. I have thanked all the people who came and asked me to stay and work on wikipedia after the false sock puppet charge was dismissed. Before anyone makes such a scurulous accusation again, I would hope they would look at my work, which shows I have no interests in common with oldwindybear, except depression-era gangsters, and to my knowledge, he works on only this pair. My growing body of contributions, plus my internet address, shows who I am. That said, I agree 100% with his stance that no user should or will be able to come on this article, and delete whole sections, delete paragraphs, and other work achieved by the peer review, and by consensus. My2Cents made no effort to discuss this, or do anything wikipedia policy calls for, before once again devastating a good article with his massive deletions. If the bear does not reverse such vandalism, I will. These antics are wrong, have happened before, and won't be tolerated. Stillstudying Max 12:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Listen, talk pages don't need this level of mudslinging. If you can't work something out with an editor, use dispute resolution (see [WP:DR]]). There's so much soapboxing going on here that it distracts from discussions about the article's text. At this point I almost don't care who's right and who's wrong, I'm tired of wading through reams of text. Find another way to resolve your disputes, please. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 12:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't see this as mudslinging. I noted the sock puppet matter, simply so that anyone who was interested can check my edits. I called no names, nor violated any policy, which I have religiously studied since being falsely accused. For the record, I did ask for dispute resolution, and I understand oldwindybear did also. It was not granted. The issue is the right of anyone to unilaterally delete sections of an article wholesale, without any discussion. Period. Such actions are wrong, period. This is about basic wikipedia policy. Period. Such unilateral deletions will not be tolerated. That is the issue.Stillstudying Max 13:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made precisely two edits since March 27 to the Bonnie and Clyde page. They have both been an attempt to clean up this page. Describing them as vandalism serves no purpose. My goal is NPOV. As for wikipedia policy, see; If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. It's at the foot of every editing page. Mytwocents 17:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I will not engage you in the personal debate you have with oldwindybear. Your "edits" deleted about 1/3 of the article, all of which was approved by the peer review. That is not editing, it is deletion and vandalism. If oldwindybear does not revert your deletions, I will. If you wish to reopen debate on the article, for the 109th time, you must do so on the talk page, which is also in the wikipedia policies, and see if you can obtain consensus for your proposed deletions. If you do not follow this policy, any major deletion will be reverted, and you are reminded of the three edit rule. Stillstudying Max 17:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I find this occurence to be quite strange...[1]

As for my edit, it is decidely not vandalism, please see; If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Mytwocents 20:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I find any occurance you are involved in is usually strange, and ends up quite controversially. You may edit as "mercilessly" as you want - but I repeat what I said earlier, and

• if you delete sections, paragraphs, or references without coming here first and discussing them, I, or evidently others, will merely revert the edits as being done in violation of wikipedia basic policy that requires consensus before major change of any article.
• I remind you of two rules: first, the three edit rule.
• You are also required to post any disputes in fact and discuss them. Wholesale deletions on an article which you insisted go to peer review, and which that peer review worked on and found a first rate article, are not acceptable unless, as Still says, you raise this for the 109th time (like that!), and get the consensus you did not obtain the first 108 times you tried to do this.

Kate, you are a good admin, and a thoroughly decent person, but sorry, this is not mudslinging, it is about basic wikidpedia policy, no editor can make wholesale deletions without discussing them, or they are merely reverted. As to dispute resolution, I asked for it with this user, and talking to him is useless as he refuses to accept consensus. old windy bear 22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Back-Up

The fact that "Mytwocents' insists on shortning the article serves to show that he does not act in the best interest of Wikipedia, He acts to offend "Oldwindybear" by removing facts from this article. Why shorten an article? does anyone think that people will shy away from Wikipedia because an article is at is best I.E., more informative? If mytwocents has a problem with Oldwindybear, he should keep it in the closet. randazzo56 01:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

randazzo56 Thank you, and I agree. I asked for dispute resolution on his issues with me, the false complaints, the name calling, but it was not granted. (his phony sock puppet charge was dismissed - and the odd warnings from an unnamed user began appearing displacing the Hamer page with the false information - and I have read it - from the Hamer book. What a coincidence!) This article was approved by a major peer review HE asked for, and now HE alone wants to delete information wholesale, information he cannot dispute as heavily sourced as true, agreed on by consensus by everyone else. EVERY other person who reviews the article likes the lengther article, with more information, (Ewulp for instance wrote and recommended we add information on Bonnie's childhood and youth). No one else wants to slice the article up. That pretty much sums it up, you are right, and he should take his issues with me and HE should request dispute resolution - perhaps if he asked, in addition to my asking, and Kate has recommended it, it would be granted. But you are dead right that his destruction of a great article is solely based on personal issues with me. old windy bear 01:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I eliminated the sentence to the effect that "no legal authority has been offered for this devolution" because it's confusing -- what legal authority is needed for a change from honors student to accomplice of Clyde? Everybody agrees she was Clyde's accomplice, which is what the previous quote says, so it doesn't make sense. Also, oldwindybear, just for the record, I'm a he. Usually I'm rude enough so it's obvious, I must be mellowing..Ewulp 03:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also the line saying the BAR "may have been too heavy for her to use"" is open to charges that it's conjectural -- it may have been or may not have been too heavy. Better solution would be to just mention its weight in lbs. & let readers draw own conclusions. Ewulp 03:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ewulp Sorry! You are one of the politest people I have worked with on this article, and for some reason - chalk it up to my advancing age and early onset senility, lol, I thought you were female. In any event, as always, you make good points, and I concur. The one change has been made by you, and I am rewording the BAR quote. It is not merely the weight, (but you make an excellent point which I will incorporate, because unloaded it would have been OVER 20% of her body weight, when loaded, the weight would have been nearly one third her body weight!) Also the Browning Automatic Rifle was an extremely difficult weapon to handle for anyone, when on fully automatic fire. And prior to 1937, it could only be fired wide open on automatic fire, at 550-600 rounds per minute, which is smoking! The option for slower automatic fire was not added till long after Bonnie and Clyde were dead. (I have fired one on fully auto wide open, and I don't care what the so called experts say, it is difficult to fire - witness the army adding the bipod to steady it in 1940! The resistance is much greater than that of a 12 guage shotgun, for instance, which is formidable) Since we cannot include original research, I will ponder it, change the wording, and you can check it for me. In any event, your help on this article has been invaluable and I hope I did not insult you, which I would not have deliberately done for the world! old windy bear 09:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As I always try, I will make my points short and to the point. MyTwoCents, once again, for the 109th time, you have failed to achieve consensus. 4 editors have stepped forward to oppose your changes in the last 24 hours alone. I agree with Ewulp on the deletion of the sentence involving the devolution of Bonnie, that issue is self explanatory. As to why, you have to read Treherne, and understand the effect a charismatic psychopath can have, especially on a person longing for romance and adventure the way Bonnie Parker was. Ewulp also did a superb job on editing the introductory paragraphs, and the place the duo have in popular culture. As to the "machine gun" issue, again, I agree with Ewulp that simply listing the weight and specifics of the weapon, rate of fire, etc., is sufficient. We are an encyclopedia, and the reader will obviously draw the same conclusion I do: that no woman of less than 90 pounds can fire a fully automatic rifle some marines had trouble firing, that weighed one third of her body weight, or more. oldwindybear did not say, probably because he could not source it with exactitude, that Clyde was probably using a bandoleer magazine, which would have made the weight well over 30 pounds, and absolutely unfirable by Bonnie. Back to the place the duo have in popular culture, Mytwocents you cannot seem to grasp that for good or ill, this duo occupies a fairly unique place in the American cultural mythos. To this day, again, rightly or not, they represent to many a couple willing to strike a blow at an uncaring government. Ewulp 's use of quotes and references was beautifully done to try to explain why. Overall, the article tries to separate myth from fact, and explain why their legend has evolved as it has, which is not only legitimate for an encyclopedia, but as long as it is quoting fact and experts, necessary. These two are unique in that over 70 years after they died, they remain an enduring symbol to many people. While you delete the controversy on the ambush, (and I will address why you delete it shortly), I think is, if anything, understated. There are ample quotes, not in the article, that say today Hamer and the posse would be tried for murder, and Hamer executed or imprisoned for life, as he should have been. How anyone can possibly defend his allowing people to deface a dead girl and sell her bloody hair and clothes for souveners, is simply beyond my comprehension. That isn't law enforcement, it is pure vile murder. Finally, I absolutely agree with randazzo56, and I think he put it very well, that Mytwocents destruction of this article is a personal attack on oldwindybear. Bluntly, you lacked consensus to force your changes before, you lack it now, the vast majority oppose you and will revert your deletions. Please do as admin Kate advised you, and take your personal issues with oldwindybear to dispute resolution, or, as randazzo56 rather bluntly said, put them back in the closet while working on wikipedia. The article is a great one, thanks to everyone who worked on it. Take your personal issues elsewhere, and leave the article alone. You have absolutely no support for your proposed massive deletions. Stillstudying Max 12:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I will edit the Bonnie and Clyde page as I see fit. My changes have nothing to do with any editor, they are to make the page more NPOV. NPOV trumps consensus. Mytwocents 15:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit and delete as you will, I or others will simply revert since consensus supports keeping the article intact AS IT IS. You have now deleted substantial sections twice in defiance of consensus, the third time I will ask for your suspension and believe it will finally be granted. You simply do not have the authority to decide what is NPOV in defiance of everyone else, and openly defy consensus. You simply cannot defy consensus and delete whole paragraphs, without discussing the changes on the talk page. NPOV is simply not yours to decide, a peer review already has decided those issues, and 4 editors have told you to cease vandalism. We, as a group, say that your deletions are POV. 4 of us have reached consensus that your changes are POV. You are not an admin, you are simply an editor who is openly defying consensus and a peer review. Please desist, no one can say you were not warned your banning would be sought. old windy bear 21:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello oldwindybear, no offense taken, the reason I've been so polite here is that I'm dealing with some contributors like yourself who know this subject far better than I do. I can't add much to the historical account covered very thoroughly in the article so I've stuck mostly to cleanups and policing the language. I think that a number of the edits made by Mytwocents are improvements and should be retained, others remove content that bears on the controversy and a discussion is in order. He's on the money in the Controversy & Aftermath section where he's identified some redundant lines that can be removed with no loss. And "long, horrified pain-filled scream" is overwritten, 1 adjective too many. Some very long digressive quotes need to be kept on point. It's mostly about keeping the reader interested, and avoiding rhetoric Ewulp 02:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ewulp No offense taken, I believe you and I have worked very well together. I have edited the controversy section myself, (removing a number of redundancies, and tightening the language, while retaining the vital content) and you can let me know whether or not you agree with the changes. I did eliminate redundencies, and trimmed the language, while keeping in vital information - which is the trouble with MyTwoCents, he is editing to a POV and deleting vital information. I feel you have been, and are, far more neutral, and a good writer, who works well with me to eliminate redundent language - much as AndyZ did on weasal words - while still retaining the important content. SO, I have eliminated some redundent lanugage, (such as the warrants on Bonnie) and changed the scream sentence to read exactly as Ted Hinton wrote it, "a long horrible scream" which is eliminating the extra adjective. I appreciate your help and insight, and feel it invaluable that I have it, because I do feel you are a better writer, and again, quite neutral, simply seeking to improve the article while retaining the content. Thanks, and let me know whether the changes I make are satisfactory. The trouble with working with Mytwocents is I cannot. I have tried, and he simply removes massive amounts of content. But if he will finally list specific facts and sentences, I will attempt, as I feel others will, to work with him. But, as you pointed out, he must list his proposed changes, so we can discuss them. In the interim, I have consensus not to remove content as he wishes - but am very open, as I hope you know, from our previous work, to changes to improve the article, or better achieve NPOV. SO, let me know if the changes I made are acceptable, and addressed your concerns...old windy bear 02:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I will admit I am terse. I usually let the edit summary suffice for my explanation for my changes. I will make my changes using the preview button and then pull the trigger on the 'save page' button. I am sincere, and put some thought into my editing. My problem with this page is not the facts, but it's balance and the pushiness of some of the statements. I probably need to work on my communication skills......Mytwocents 04:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

old windy bear : The article is much improved, and as always it's a pleasure to work with you on it. I hope MyTwoCents will discuss some of his suggestions because I think we're all persuadable. Just for example, the Jimmy Fowler quote that MyTwoCents wants to cut from the Bonnie section is in my opinion iffy. It makes a great wrapup to the section, but Fowler is a theater critic not a historian, and maybe not a good enough source for a forceful statement like, "police admitted that she was no bloodthirsty killer". Fowler is casually paraphrasing unnamed police, which is not ideal in an encyclopedia article, even though the article makes it clear that she was not wanted for any violent crime, so he's in effect right. It would be good to hear what others think about this quote, acceptable or not? There are other issues of this type that could be resolved through calm discussion. Anyway, the article looks better and better. Ewulp 05:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ewulp Thanks for the thoughts on the work I did last night, and it is always a pleasure to work with you on this. I also support the changes you made afterwards - each acted to tighten the article. Your editing skills are superior, and I enjoy working with you. We work so well together because my research skills are good, and since AndyZ taught me to link and source, I do that part well, but you have absolutely great language and writing skills, and can take my raw research and history and rework it in a superior way to flow in the article. Your help is GREATLY appreciated, and I may ask you to look at some of my other work, especially in the military history project, because I think you could really help me there also, if you would not mind?

• On the Fowler quote, I personally like the Fowler quote because it really sums up what happened in a way that is undisputable - literally Bonnie went from high school literary star, and stump politician warm up, to riding with rage filled Clyde. During the peer review, AndyZ felt that quotes were the best way to deal with subjective interpretations, and weasal words, and this quote specifically acts to sum up her devolution, and he is unquestionably correct. Yes, he is a theater critic, but he is commenting on the stage play, movie, and history of Bonnie Parker, and, as you pointed out, is a great wrap up to the section. The problem is, if we eliminate it, what do we replace it with to wrap the section up? The peer review found that quotes were the best way to do such wraps when controversial. But I will abide by consensus, as always. I think it should stay, or we should craft replacement language all can agree on, so I am open to suggestions...
• Mytwocents the issue for me is not your communication skills, it is your absolutest attitude that you, and you alone, decide what is NPOV. You must accept that we operate by consensus - if you can, I will be pleased to work with you, and discuss changes. This is one such issue. If you wish to replace the Jimmy Fowler quote to wrap that section, what would you suggest we replace it with? The section still needs a wrapping statement - what would you suggest? I am willing to work with anyone, and certainly Ewulp and I have worked well together, as I have with AndyZ and Randazzo. But as a for instance, you would eliminate the third introductory paragraph also. That is totally unacceptable. Ewulp rewrote all three introductory paragraphs, and three is the wikipedia norm - and each serves a purpose. THREE introductory paragraphs, each with a topic, the first to introduce the duo, the second to introduce the most controversial issue, that of Bonnie's real role versus perceived public role in the gang, and the third introdcutory paragraph brings up and introduces an issue vital to the article, the enduring place in the American lexicon of popular mythic figures that Bonnie and Clyde have, and why, emphasizing what historians have found, that the presence of a pretty girl elevated their acts into the heroic, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, and that legend persists to this day. (and it is vtial to note that that issue, of a pretty girl in the gang elevating their acts is NOWHERE else in the article! Ewulp rewrote that paragraph, nothing in it, especially the vital quote, is redundant!) ALL THREE were approved in the peer review, and Ewulp rewrote them to eliminate redundent language, and tighten up. This is VITAL to the article, and perfect the way Ewulp wrote it. That is one example where you chopped out a whole paragraph without discussion, where consensus had approved three, and a great writer had rewritten - and Ewulp is one of our best editors for language edits! - and we all approved those changes.
• But that does not mean we can not work together! But let us start with the Fowler quote, as Ewulp suggested. If you want to replace it, what would you replace it with? Bring your thoughts here, and all of us can discuss any potential change, as Ewulp and I always do, working together. I am open to removing it if replacement language can be agreed on. What would you replace it with? It does, as Ewulp says, do a great job of wrapping that section. What would you replace it with? Let us discuss it first, achieve consensus on language and go from there. Ewulp has rightly idetified this as a good paragraph and quote to discuss and achieve consensus. I like the quote because it is such a great wrap for the paragraph, but if you wish to replace it, what would you replace it with? Let us work together if you have a better wrap up paragraph or statement, and discuss same here. old windy bear 10:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the Bonnie and Clyde were among the first celebrity criminals.... paragraph serves the purpose. The Finally trying to put the duo's appeal to the public during the depression in perspective..... statement is redundant, is lifted from the source, and is not encyclopedic in tone. It should go. Mytwocents 16:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely. Those are direct quotes, which AndyZ and Crystal specifically approved in the peer review, and which Ewulp edited in the closing. You see, this is why we never get anywhere. You want to delete good material. You say it is not encyclopedic in tone, but it is absolutely perfect in encyclopedic tone. Direct quotes, to quote AndyZ during the peer review, are the best way to avoid subjective interpretations on controversial subjects. The first section you cite introduces the section, and the later closes another section and the entire article. Both are highly appropriate, and perfect in tone, and respectfully, I have consensus to keep them. Mytwocents this is why we get nowhere. You were supposed to come here and discuss the Jimmy Fowler quote, and what if any language should or could replace its closing. Instead, you come here and suggest deleting material you know perfectly well I have consensus to keep, which are unquestionably quoted directly from historians and experts on the duo, and which are perfect for the sections in first introducing the subjects of the article, and for the later, in closing the article and assessing the duo's legacy in the popular mythos. So no, you may not delete either. If you wish to get serious, and discuss the Jimmy Fowler quote, or language to replace it, I am willing to listen and work with you. But on the quotes in the sections you cite, no, they both stay, and we have been through this repeatedly, and every time I have consensus to keep them. In point of fact, AndyZ suggested use of them to eliminate weasal words and subjective interpretations, and approved both, as did every other user, but yourself. THEY STAY. Now, do you want to discuss the Jimmy Fowler quote, or does it simply stay? I am certainly open on that one to replacement language but as I told Ewulp you are not really interested in editing as language issues, you don't dispute facts, you want to delete material you dislike. Sorry, that is out. I note again in closing, I am open to discussing the Fowler quote, but the sections you mention are perfect as is, and 7 editors have approved them, to your one opposing, you lose, and for good reason. There was an excellent reason Ewulp left both those quotes in - they are from different sources and introduce and close a section. The former opens the article, while the last closes the article, with a powerful sumnation on why these two people, a relative minor league crime pair, were and are so enduringly powerful in the national consciousness. The first statement says they were the first celebrity criminals - the later explains why, and more, explains their enduring appeal in a wonderful quote from one of the three most highly regarded Bonnie and Clyde historians. You say direct source material, though properly credited, is inappropriate in an encyclopedia - you must not read Britannica, or any of the others, which ALL use credited direct material! AndyZ explained to you more than once during the peer review that is the best way to avoid subjective interpretations of controversial material! They are from different sources, and while you do not think so, everyone else wants as much information - without reducdancy (which these, from different sources, are not) - as possible to provide the best article. That is true NPOV, not deleting material you dislike. Especially the final paragraph, which is among the most powerful closings anywhere in wikipedia, in any article. old windy bear 19:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

==Look Here==To user Mytwocents: you have been told by 4 editors to stop deleting whole sections of this article, and you refuse to stop. You have been told and are being told that your deletions are POV, by four different editors. If you make these deletions one more time, I will join the other edtiors in asking that you be permanently banned for defying a peer review, defying consensus, and vandalizing an article because you personally dislike the primary author, oldwindybear. Take notice that you have been warned, today, specifically, by three editors to stop, myself, Stillstudying, and oldwindybear, and Ewulp supports the article as is. You do not have the authority to defy consensus, so stop or we will ask for your permanent banning for imposing your POV against consensus and a peer review. randazzo56

I am going to have to agree with randazzo56 and Stillstudying -- Ewulp recommended we discuss the Jimmy Fowler quote, and because I believe Ewulp to be a great asset to my own work, as well as wikipedia, I certainly was open to discussing that quote and replacement language. Mytwocents is not willing to do that. He wants to delete more material. That being said, I agree that if he deletes again, the three editors who have warned him against it should ask for his permanent banning. Ewulp I am sorry - you and I work well together, because you are a very reasonable person. Mytwocents is not. Instead of talking about the quote you identified, he wants to - and you noted it -delete again. You said it best: (about Mytwocents deletions: "others remove content that bears on the controversy and a discussion is in order." You and I cleaned up the controversy section - actually to give the proper credit, your clean up followed my attemps, lol! You noted a specific issue that Mytwocents suggested which was reasonable to discuss removing and replacing, and I asked him to do that. Instead, he wants to remove the closing paragraph which was specifically upheld by the peer review and reedited by yourself, and is an incredibly powerful closing for an article. This kind of deletion, which is pure vandalism, has to stop. 3 editors have taken a firm stand against it, and you oppose deletion without discussion. I am in full agreement of that stance. Mytwocents, your proposed deletions are opposed by consensus. They are POV by consensus. Ewulp gave us both a good place to try to compromise, and I offered to do so, and you came back with more deletions and ignored Ewulp's suggestions in favor of delete, delete, delete. NO, AND IT STOPS TODAY. randazzo56 and Stillstudying are right, and by consensus we are telling you to stop deleting at two edits, or face permanent banning. If you wish to discuss the Fowler quote, as Ewulp suggested, DO SO, but delete anymore and you are in violation of consensus and the three edit/deletion/vandalism rules. old windy bear 19:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand where you are coming from. I can and will make changes to this page. My goal is NPOV. Threatening to have me banned violates wikipedias policy on WP:CIVIL. Mytwocents 07:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents Let us see if you understand this:

• you are deleting material without discussion;
• 3 other editors feel your deletions are POV, PERIOD;
• You have been repeatedly asked to stop deleting without discussion in violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement;
• I will revert every deletion, such as the final paragraph and other material you delete without discussion because we - 3 of us support the Fowler quote, with Ewulp neutral and Ewulp agreeing any deletion must be discussed in accordance with wikipedia policy on same, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement mandate that you can not substitute language without posting the disputed language, waiting for reply, discussion and agreement unless there is no reply - your wanton total violation of these policies force us to conclude your deletions are harmful, POV, and need stopping;
• there is a vital principle at work here, the right of one editor to unilaterally declare "I am going to delete material agreed on by consensus, because I am a better or smarter editor (the implication) and my single voice outweighs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement which stipulate that you "post, wait for replies, discuss, and work toward agreemnt" - we cannot permit your complete disregard of all the rules as stipulated - and they are not discretionary in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement and we will not permit one person to unilaterally destroy the 27 rules.
• at some point admins will become involved. I have accepted that perhaps we will both be banned, and will accept my banning, if you are also banned, because I feel so strongly that your removal is vital to wikipedia, since you absolutely refuse to work with others, absolutely refuse to accept the rules of engagement and mandate to work towards agreement, and disucss changes, and absolutely feel your sole judgment should override everyone elses. That viewpoint is so negative and harmful to wikipedia that it must be removed, whatever the cost. It violates every rule of editors engagement stipulated on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement

I have reverted every one of your edits, as they violate every one of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement and having consensus to do so, except the excess language in the Clyde section - that having been brought to my attention, was PARTIALLY redundent, and I moved the part not redundent to the final run section. EVERY other edit was reverted, and will continue to be reverted, since I have consensus to do so. Sooner or later the admins will act, and I pray they will remove you from wikipedia. You are a true danger to it, because of your feeling you are superior and above http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagementis, and may act unilaterally to not discuss changes, or work towards agreement and destroy consensus in utter and total defiance of the wikipedia rules as mandated -- THESE RULES YOU ARE IGNORING ARE NOT DISCRETIONARY, YOU POST PROPOSED CHANGES, AWAIT REPLY, DISCUSS, AND IF NOT IN AGREEMENT, SEEK AGREEMENT, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement. old windy bear 10:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Some trims

Here are a few more edits I will try in a few minutes, and the reasons:

• the material in parenthesis about Hamer in Final Run seems to me more detail than needed here, and is covered in the linked Hamer article for those interested
• There are some lines in the Clyde section that aren't needed because they're covered in the Final Run section
• Some adjustments for more a more neutral tone in Buck joins the gang

and old windy bear I'll be glad to take a look at your work in Military History Project, as time permits -- I'm currently writing an overhaul of a "neglected" page so WP is taking over my life a little--I'm sure you know that feeling! Ewulp 06:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

MyTwoCents beat me to it on the Clyde section--starting at (if I remember correctly) "It was an expensive...". A good edit. Ewulp 06:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As I just told MyTwoCents via his User talk page, I'm of two minds about that Fowler quote--on the one hand it's a good quote to summarize the section, on the other hand it's a little like a historical article on for instance the Italo-Ethiopian War sporting a quote from Roger Ebert. But if it was a really outstanding quote it would be fine, and this one is very useful here-- my position is neutral on this one. At worst it's borderline, not something that has to go imho Ewulp 07:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ewulp I believe I have preserved your edits in the final run, and I have removed the lines in the Clyde section which were redundent. I also did the following

• reworked the final run section, which really should focus in toto on the Eastham Prison Break, which was literally their shining moment, in Clyde's eyes, (crazy though he was, he had yearned to strike at the prison system for years!) and trimmed some excess language;
• MyTwoCents did not discuss his other edits, which all deleted material, especially the final paragraph, which I restored in total.
• 3 other editors have voted to keep the information on Fowler, and you are neutral - I was willing to discuss replacement language but he simply removed it without discussion - so I reverted.
• Mytwocents can make whatever edits he choses, and the admins are going to have to decide how long he deletes and we revert; this can go on forever, but I know Kate and some of the other admins, and I don't believe they will allow this indefinately. I won't allow him to delete material without consensus, in violation of every rule, "post proposed change or disputed facts, await reply, discuss, work towards agreement and discuss changes" - he wantonly violates virtually every one of the rules as mandated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement and deletes wholesale where consensus have been achieved on the material staying, in complete defiance of the 27 rules.
• Ewulp there is a vital principle at play here, and I am sure you can see it. Mytwocents simply refuses to even discuss issues such as the Fowler quote -which you admit, though by an arts critic, is simply outstanding for summing up the section - he simply deletes. Ditto for the closing paragraph, which a peer review, and 7 of us have voted to keep. He simply cannot be allowed, on principle, to come here and unilaterally delete material without discussion. He is unilaterally destroying the wikipedia policy on editing as stipulated in the rules of engagement, which mandate "work towards agreement and discuss changes" - he wantonly violates virtually every one of the rules as mandated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement And I will not permit him to do it. Perhaps admin will finally act and bann us both. I would rather both of us be banned than permit one person to destroy the concept of consensus which is so vital to wikipedia editing. We work with each other, respecting each other's work - and he is the only editor I have ever worked with, who simply refuses, and deletes at will. VERY WELL, I must stand up to him, and have consensus to do so.

It is always a pleasure working with you, when you have time, I just rewrote the entire article on the Mongol Invasion of Central Asia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Central_Asia for the Military Committee - I would like your opinion on the general tone - there is no question I got the historial accuracy right, but your formidable editing and language skills would be a great help in assessing the overall rewrite. It is interesting you mention the Italian-Ethiopian War, we lived in Addis Ababa for 3 years when I was young, and even in the late 50's and early 60's the impact of that war was quite great on the Ethiopians. Let me say in closing I enjoy working with you, and I have considered carefully the consequences of my actions. I truly believe the principles of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement are so vital that they must be preserved at all costs. I enjoy working on wikipedia, and except for this person, Mytwocents, and one other, now permanently banned, have been able to work with everyone. But this user, Mytwocents, is simply so violative of the rules, so arbitrary in his absolute refusal to abide by the 27 rules, that he must be halted, or this kind of chaos will spread, and what Jimbo has built so carefully, with our help, those of us willing owrk with others, will be destroyed. I would go myself, provided this user goes also, in order to preserve the vital principles of post a proposed change, wait for reply, discussion, work towards agreement, and the other 23 rules mandated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement - all of which this user is simply ignoring. old windy bear 12:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't know where to put any notes in the midst of all this flaming and soapboxing. Mytwocents 16:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)