Talk:Bonnie and Clyde/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Before we get rolling moving everything around...

I need to split the Roy Thornton stuff in half and move the second half to "Aftermath" where it belongs. I've been wanting to do it for months. I'll do it in one fell swoop, easy to undo. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Did it. Thanks. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sandboxes as collaboration tools

Okay, Take 2 on collaboration suggestions. Editing an article in your sandbox makes it much easier to share, as well as to see what you're doing. And maybe the best way to organize masses of material. I'm trying this and will post a link to it when it's more or less presentable. LaNaranja (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC), LaNaranja (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

ammo vs ammunition in caption

what do you mean by destroying carefully stacked caption, i don't see any major differences caused by that change could you please clarify 24.17.211.150 (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try. The way that lines of type "sit upon" each other in a caption is called their stacking. When our caption uses the word "ammo," the caption stacks up in three neat lines (or "decks"), filling each line out nicely. Expanding to the longer form "ammunition," however, pushes the words along, causing the last word of each deck to drop down to the next deck. At the end of the process, we wind up with a four deck caption whose fourth deck is a single word, dangling down there all by itself. This is called a "widow" and is not good publishing form. Did I help? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

yeah thanks i understand now 24.17.211.150 (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

please explain

why the introduction's second paragraph belongs there, and not in a post-ambush "Controversy" section.. -- LaNaranja (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it is a salient point in the entire article and the lead is a summary of that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, dont see how it's salient to anywhere near the entire article. I see an allusion to it in the second paragraph of "Controversy and Aftermath," but that's the only place. ? -- LaNaranja (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

HI LaNaranja, I agree with Wildhartlive on this one, and believe me, I watched when the introduction was fought over, this is a reasonable compromise that introduces a very, very, important part of the article. Pv86 (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What I object to in our introduction is that the second paragraph intros the topic of Parker's complicity — and then proceeds to argue the case. If memory serves, there are more cites about her complicity in the intro than in the rest of the article combined. The purpose of an introduction is to, um, introduce the things to come, not to try to resolve the issue then and there, which is what our intro tries to do. Also, at least as salient as Bonnie's true complicity is her perceived complicity — and if we're going to dust off the Hamer-is-evil tussle again, we must examine thoroughly the avalanche of indignation against Parker immediately after Grapevine. It surely informed Hamer's, Hinton's and everyone else's perceptions; it surely lit a fire under Governor Ferguson, who put a $500 bounty on Bonnie's head after Grapevine (Guinn, p. 287: "For the first time, there was a specific price on Bonnie's head, since she was so widely believed to have shot H. D. Murphy.")

If we must dust off this unwinnable (by either side) debate, then let's at least frame it in terms of 1934 standards vs. 2010 standards. 1934 statutes might have saved Hamer from police brutality accusations, but they also saved Bonnie from accessory-to-murder charges. I live in Philadelphia so I see on the news all the time what happens in 2010 to cop-killers and perceived cop-killers. If B&C operated in Philly in 2010 — cop-killers times nine — what happened to them in Gibsland would've been Romper Room. This time, let's bring a broader view — and some contemporary cites — into the discussion. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I like you Harry, you are a jewel, but I strongly object to changing the intro. This article went through an agonizing Peer Review - I was not active then but watched the fur flying - and the current intro is the result of months of hard work. I believe Wildheartlive is right, and the intro should stay as it is. I don't agree with you that it is framing the discussion in present day values versus 1934 values - as I have explained to you on the Hamer discussion page, this issue is well cited by historians, as is. Leave it as is! Pv86 (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not in our article, it's not well-cited by historians; direct me to those cites in our article, if you would.

I must've been unclear above, about my objections to Paragraph Two. Our ParaTwo intros the topic, then offers a stream of footnoted quotes to support her non-participation. In a formal debate or a legal proceeding, this kind of stream offered during opening arguments (remember, this is the intro we're talking about) would be immediately objected to as argumentation. My contention is that the intro of an article is not the place to argue a controversary — which is what our intro does. It's just not the right place for it, is all. And I'm not advocating a change to ParaTwo, if only because I don't think we could reach consensus. I think it's wrong to have that stuff in the intro, but I think we'll have single-payer healthcare before a scaled-back ParaTwo.

I like you, too, Pv86, but if you're going to argue Bonnie-vs-Hamer, you're going to have to present your case in 1934 terms, which requires 1934 cites. Not to do so is like arguing to throw open the doors of Eastham Farm because no one in there had been Miranda-ized. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Pv86, I know you're dying to read my two cents so here they are. The information in the Intro paragraph needs to be presented much more strongly as well as accurately in the Intro, if it's got to be in the Intro (I read the replies above and I understand: a lot of people worked hard on it so it needs to be there to honor their work).

The content of the paragraph as it stands now needs to be made accurate and balanced. Marie's opinion, how does she know? I dont believe Ralph Fults ever saw Bonnie again after April 1932 in the jail at Kemp. When W.D. was with them Bonnie likely *didnt* shoot at anyone -- she herself said she shot at Joplin, though evidently that's not true -- but Ted Hinton said she did shoot at the police, at Sowers. So that paragraph would at least need Hinton's statement to be balanced if it's going to contain people's recollections.

The recollections make it weak IMO -- it needs to be made stronger to hold its place in an introduction. I think the strongest statement in the whole article about the Bonnie controversy is this sentence at the top of "Controversy and Aftermath:" The points at issue include the warning, if any, given the fugitives before the firing commenced, the status of Parker as a shoot-on-sight candidate and the role of the Methvin family in planning and executing the ambuscade. No equivocating and right to the point. Maybe that could be rewritten and made into the Intro paragraph?

I think the WD quote about "hell of a loader" would be great to include in a Controversy section. But I wouldnt include what WD said in his confession, he was protecting himself.

And I do think the "cigar-smoking gun moll" information is excellent up top in the Intro -- intrigues the reader. There you go (ching!) -- three cents instead of two :) -- LaNaranja (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

LaNaranja, I muscled my post in ahread of your cause we were saving at the same time (okay you beat me by 17 seconds) and my first line fed off Pv86's last line. Hope you don't mind. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That'll be three cents. -- LaNaranja (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks, here are my thoughts. I disagree with everything you have said. I think the cites are adequate, actually, excellent. I think the introduction excellent and the results of months, years, of working. I think also you do not have the votes to change it. Consensus means you have to have a majority, which you do not have. I am not trying to be hateful - far from it. You do have a majority on Hamer, which I have respected. I ask you to respect that you do not have a majority here. I did not engage in an edit war on Hamer, I respected being in the minority. Here on this topic, you two are in the minority. Please respect that. I would hate to start reverting edits due to non-consensus, and lose our good will. Pv86 (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Im not proposing to touch ANYTHING at this article, ever. I just gave my opinion. -- LaNaranja (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Golly, Pv86 — there's an awful lot of vituperation in your post. No one's made a single edit and you're rattling your saber and threatening an edit war. As one cardiac patient to another, let me tell you — you shouldn't get fightin' mad when no one else has even taken his jacket off yet. It ain't healthy.

But think back to Nurse Ratched's ward and the World Series vote — you're rather premature in your arithmetic. You counted three heads up in the front and concluded you had a majority... but there's a lotta folks in the back (some of 'em chained to the wall) who haven't even read these posts yet, let alone voted. You don't know that there aren't other good editors who feel the same way about ParaTwo: either that it's structurally wrong, or that the sources are weak and even self-contradictory or both.

Before you start threatening people with edit reversion, wait to see how the numbers work out. Oh yeah, and wait till some actually makes an edit. You're too good a guy to get rushed off to the great beyond for something like this. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Harry, thanks for bringing me back. I am sorry you took my post to be threatening. It seemed to me that you two were discussing major changes when you did not have a majority, knowing you did not have one - and that is wrong, and yes, I would revert, or ask for an administrator to lock the site till the matter was resolved. If you get a majority, you get a majority, and I will certainly honor that. Let us see how the folks vote. Right now, you don't have one. If you get one, you do. I will honor it. That is how the system works, or is supposed to. So for those out there who just read the article, are you satisfied with the introduction that was worked out over time, or do you want more changes geared to what I honestly believe is a POV? I think Harry and company mean well, but I think they represent a particular point of view. So what does everyone else think? Do you want their changes, or are you happy with the article as is? Pv86 (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pv86, I'd actually prefer a focus group response to a yeah-or-nay, flat-out vote. There are way more than two approaches to this, and a straight vote only accommodates two. I hope people will make subtantive comments.

I also need you to read my posts a little more carefully so you'll mischaracterize less what I write. I said that I wasn't advocating a change to the intro, agreeing that consensus would likely be hard to come by. And yes, we were discussing changes — discussing changes, which, seems to me, is the purpose of discussion pages. Finally, I don't have "a company" — I speak only for myself... and for the record, everybody "represents a particular point of view." — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Good morning Harry - I think the first order of business, if discussing major changes to an article which underwent a Peer Review, a lenghty bitter fight, and then years where Wildheartlive had to consistently revert Trolling, is to propose the types of changes you feel it needs - which you have been doing appropriately on the talk page, as you point out. The second order is to ascertain whether a consensus exists to make those changes, because if it does not, there is no point in wasting further time. So again, for those of you "in the back" as Harry so eloquently put it, those who read the article, do you like the current introduction, and the article as is, or do you wish major revisions? This is democracy at work, please make your votes known! Pv86 (talk) 10:01, 14

first comment on this, usually read only. leave article alone. like it as is. Texaslivein (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Flattered to have Texaslivein's first-time-ever posting as our first vote here! Cool beans! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Harry, hi Texaslivein. Harry, you appear to be right about bringing out people who normally do not participate - I admit to be being impressed. I would humbly ask though that anyone commenting, pro or con, please say why? Harry is correct in a number of things, one of which is that all this needs to be discussed. You were right on other people commenting Harry, again, I am impressed. Pv86 (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Music

Why would someone add a song that is supposedly about Bonnie and Clyde and even say that in the addition? Isn't supposedly just that? Sara's Song (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

notes about "Death" and "Funerals and burials" sections

From "Death," I removed "as they attempted to drive away"; no reliable sources support this claim.

I didn't remove "long" from "one long horrified scream", but unless any of the sources say it was long or that she kept screaming while she was being shot, I think it should go. There wasnt time for a long scream, and a panther's scream isnt long.

From the paragraph about Bonnie's funeral home, I think "Dudley M. Hughes Sr., who later became the prominent operator of four large Dallas funeral homes" is distracting and should go.

In the paragraph about Clyde's funeral, "Thousands of people gathered outside both Dallas funeral homes hoping for a chance to view the bodies" needs to be worked in somewhere else or deleted. -- LaNaranja (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Photos and captions: wassup?

All the photo caption stackings, carefully worked out by some obsessive-compulsive editor, can't imagine who, have changed! Which means either the photos have gotten wider or the type has gotten smaller. I don't think it's the former, but it doesn't look like the latter, either. Anyone have a take on this while I bite my fingers down? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Treherne and the warrant search...

This sentence appears in our Bonnie and Clyde article (under the heading "Controversies"): "Historians such as Phillips, Treherne and E.R. Milner have been unable to turn up any warrants against Bonnie Parker for any violent crimes.[3]" The footnote sends you to a general (no page number cited) footnote of The Strange History of Bonnie and Clyde by Treherne. Problem is — there doesn't seem to be a single mention of warrants against Bonnie anywhere in the book! Not only didn't he find any warrants, I don't see evidence of his having even looked for any. Strange History is not a scholarly work: there are no footnotes, no endnotes — not even an index! — so it's not worth much as a research resource.

Because I can find no mention of warrants in it, I am removing it from the text, removing the footnote, and asking for cites on Phillips and Milner. If anyone saw what I missed — mentions of Bonnie warrants in Strange History — please give me page numbers and I'll renstate both Treherne and the cite. Thanks! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In my efforts to upgrade all the footnotes to this article so they include page numbers, I scoured Strange History again and found several other claimed references which simply don't exist anywhere in the book; I removed them. I suspect someone, somewhere along the line, realized that Strange's lack of an index made it a good place to direct phantom footnotes to. I left embedded notes in the four affected places, so if you find something I missed, it'll be easy to reinstate the footnote. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Warrants on Bonnie Parker...

I removed this paragraph from the "Warrants on Parker" section of "Controversies":

Historians such as Phillips and E.R. Milner have been unable to turn up any warrants against Bonnie Parker for any violent crimes.[citation needed] Since bank robbery and kidnapping did not become federal offenses until the summer after her death, FBI files contain only a single federal warrant against her, for aiding Barrow in the interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle.[128] Posse member Bob Alcorn identified Barrow on the road and cleared the way for the others to fire. In his deposition to Dr. Wade, chair of the Coroner's Jury in Arcadia, he testified that Parker had been indicted for murder. In addition to officially identifying the bodies of both Barrow and Parker and stating that he knew them personally, the deposition states that "he know[s] of his own knowledge that both were 2 [times] indicted on charge of murder Case #5046&7 Criminal District Court Dallas Tex. November-28-1933."[129] While this appears to be offered as proof that Parker had been indicted for murder, she had not yet been so charged.[citation needed]

I removed it because it is just plain wrong. Neither Phillips nor Milner make any claim to having conducted a search for warrants on Bonnie, and in fact there were several, murder warrants, and easy to find. Also, it villifies Deputy Alcorn, suggesting that he was either underhanded or befuddled, when in fact he was correct and it was the Wikipedia editor who was wrong. I replaced the paragraph with this:

Different and disparate sources have cited five occasions when Bonnie Parker fired — or maybe didn't fire — shots during crises faced by the gang.[130] It is unimportant whether it was five times, or zero times — her shots, if any, never hit anyone, and she certainly never killed anyone with her own hand. She was, however, an accomplice to a hundred or more felony criminal actions during her two-year career in crime, including eight murders,[131] seven kidnappings,[132] half-a-dozen bank robberies,[133] scores of felony armed robberies, countless automobile thefts and one major jailbreak[134] — this at a time when being a "habitual criminal" was a capital offense in Texas.[135] Because of their far-flung, rural base of operations and will o' the wisp modus operandi, Parker was able to stay a step — or three or four — ahead of the tide of legal paperwork that inevitably follows a crime spree the scope of hers and Barrow's.

This started to change for Parker after Joplin: the Joplin P.D. issued a Wanted for Murder poster in April 1933 that featured her name and photo first, before Barrow's, though the text concentrated on him.[136] In June, another Wanted for Murder poster emerged, this one out of Crawford County, Arkansas, again with Parker's name and photo getting first billing. There was now a $250 cash bounty attached for either of the "Barrow Brothers" (Clyde and "Melvin") — and the admonition to "inquire of your doctors if they have been called to treat a woman that has been burned in a car wreck."[137]

By November 1933, W.D. Jones was in custody and supplying details of the gang's 1933 activities — details which led to the empanelment of a grand jury in Dallas. On November 28, the grand jury indicted Parker (with Barrow and Jones) in the murder of Deputy Malcolm Davis in January; judge Nolan G. Williams issued arrest warrants for Parker and Barrow for murder.[138] Parker's assistance in the raid on Eastham prison in January 1934 earned her the enmity of a wider group of influential Texans, so when an eyewitness, later completely discredited, linked her to the heinous Grapevine murders, the head of the Highway Patrol, and the Governor herself, placed bounties on Parker's head.[139] Just five days later, Barrow and Henry Methvin killed Constable Campbell in Commerce, Oklahoma, and the murder warrant issued there named "Clyde Barrow, Bonnie Parker and John Doe" as his killers.[140]

So despite argumentation to the contrary, Parker did indeed have murder warrants against her when she rode to her doom on May 23, 1934.

Your comments, please. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources for Parker's poems

An important part of Bonnie Parker's poems, particularly "The Story of Suicide Sal," is her heavy use of quotation marks. The transcription in the article's original source for them leaves her quotation marks out. I substituted the transcription at Cinetropic dot com because it is verbatim, and it would be good if people can click right through and read the poems rather than being referred to a book (thinking of Fugitives, the poems' original source, which isnt accessible online; no books on B&C that are at Google Books contain the poems in full). Cinetropic is the only source on the Internet for WD's Playboy article, "Riding with Bonnie and Clyde," but beyond that it's not exactly scholarly. I looked for the Parker poems all over, even at Gutenberg, but didn't find a more responsible-appearing source than Cinetropic.

If anyone knows of a better online source for the verbatim poems, please replace the Cinetropic links. Thanks :) -- LaNaranja (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than shunting our readers out the back door to some external site for Bonnie's poems, maybe we could open a satellite page and include the poems here, within our own screen door. They're so ubiquitous in books, I can't imagine there'd be a copyright problem; I've never seen one published with a copyright notice.

Anyone anticipate a copyright prob? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Great idea! There's lots of background information that would make such a page quite interesting. -- LaNaranja (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad news: my prototype for the copyright argument, the article entitled "Getta Bloomin' Move On," has been removed for, uhhh, copyright violation. But that 1969 song is not exactly analogous to Bonnie's 76-and-more year old poetry. Seems to me her poetry has gotta be in the public domain. It's way old, it's published promiscuously, never with a copyright notice, and is the work of a public figure, which often tends to mitigate privacy and ownership rights that a more anonymous citizen would have. But I'm no lawyer. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Joyce Kilmer's poem Trees is included in the Kilmer article, for whatever that is worth. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Knight, Ramsey and Treherne all publish both "Suicide Sal" and "End of the Line" in their entireties and without any copyright notices or copyright acknowledgements. Considering that both were published in dozens (if not hundreds) of newspapers as part of news stories in 1933 and '34, they're surely in the public domain. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Bonnie and Clyde's victims

There is talk above about adding information about Bonnie and Clyde's victims ("we might add to each victim's name (quickly) his human details"). Guinn, Phillips and Knight are good for this but here is a source for how the victims' families managed afterward. Mike Royko interviewed family members for an article published in 1968: "Bonnie and Clyde? They Want No Part of It." This article is reproduced (in segments) here: "The Victims," Bonnie and Clyde's Hideout. I haven't seen it elsewhere online. -- LaNaranja (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography and Footnotes

Hi, LaNaranja. I had always learned (back in the antediluvian days) that in a list of notes, the first reference to a source gets the whole bibliographic treatment: author(s), year, title, city, publisher, ISBN, page number. Then, subsequent references are just author and page, unless one author has several works involved, in which case it gets a brief qualifier — like Phillips, Running, p 65. I noticed you removed those first-time full treatments.

Nice edits to Hamer description, BTW. :) — HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

They are pretty good, arent they. What did you think of my other additions? Salient, no?

Oh, okay. Put 'em back in then, or do you want me to? I'll fix them.... not familiar with that format but please correct any mistakes I make. Thank you about Hamer. -- LaNaranja (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

May 23 is coming up, and page-views of this article spike way up on that date. Maybe this article could be tightened up all the way by then. --- LaNaranja (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for humoring me about the footnotes; as Diello says in 5 Fingers: "It isn't easy to break the habits of a lifetime."

Well... it mystified me, to put it nicely, why you didn't just fix it yourself and move on. But at least now it's one less thing holding up progress, so... all right.

It's a good point you make about the looming readership spike coming up this month — hard to believe it's been a year since the 75th anniversary — and it would be a good time to get this as close to "done" as possible. There are still many little things I'd like to see get accomplished, and several big things. The big ones would include:

• At the risk of inspiring Texaslivein to make his/her second post, I still think that the 2nd paragraph of the lead is inappropriate as it stands. The entire A-list of author-historians — Phillips, Guinn, Knight and Ramsey — never once describe Bonnie's role in the gang as "controversial." This was strictly an assertion of one or more earlier Wikipedia editors (or their sockpuppets) and is nowhere discussed in any of the scholarship. The quotes used are self-contradictory — first, she never fired a shot, then she did a few times, then back to no times, but she was a hell of a loader, as if she were passing loaded guns on to the menfolk during some pitched firefight like the climax of Duck Soup — from dubious source W.D. Jones and from Ralph Fultz who didn't lay eyes on her at any point during "The Spree." Further, the paragraph attempts to argue the contention at a point in the article that is wrong — the lead is for introing topics, not arguing them. This paragraph is a relic of an earlier time when this article was a much different article, and it needs to be fixed up.

• Bonnie's bio, 3rd paragraph. Jimmy Fowler is a theater critic, not an historian, and his quote here is not about the real Bonnie Parker, but about a Bonnie Parker character presented in a one-woman show in Dallas in the 1990s. The real Bonnie was not a high school poet (she quit school at 15 to get married and there's no evidence she wrote a single poem in school), not a speech class star nor a mini-celebrity; she was a girl already headed for trouble, tatooed in an era when it was a statement of defiance for a teen girl, married at 15 to a man who would shortly go off to prison... she was not an angel who was tarnished by Clyde Barrow, and it gives the wrong impression to suggest that she was. A more accurate quote than Fowler's is needed here to summarize Bonnie.

• Controveries section intro. The tripartite construction of the posse is important because it introduces the unknown/unknowable aspect of the ambush and the nasty tangle of private agendae of the three factions. I've come to think this might go better in the Ambush section, as would the Calling a "Halt!" section, both maybe in a trimmed-down form.

• Warrants on Parker section. This section exists in the beefy form it does now because there was formerly so much argumentation in the article about Bonnie's not being wanted for any violent crime, when in fact there were murder warrants and government and private bounties out on her as early as 1933. Maybe this material could be presented in one or more footnotes, to free the more casual reader from having to wade through the arcane quicksand of her legal status, particularly when there's no similar discussion of anyone else's legal woes.

• Hinton's Accusations section. Much of this material was originally inserted as part of anti-Hamer polemic, and absent that argument, it just leaves Deputy Hinton seeming confused and out of touch. Maybe its essence could be summarized as part of the Ambush section and the rest relegated to a footnote so it's still available for the full-story readers.

LaNaranja — and all — I seek your comments on these points and would love to hear your thoughts on buttoning this baby up (even yours, Texaslivein!). — HarringtonSmith (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Also:

• Historical Perspective section as it stands now offers a limp if flowery passage from the Milner book that never steps above the "living vicariously" appeal of the couple to the American public(!) If we can't come up with a better summary than that about how a pair of kids from an urban slum first gain notoriety to one generation as mad-dog killers of "just folks," and then have their images completely rehabilitated into victims of an uncaring universe, beloved by the next generation... then we oughtta kill the section and hang up our editor hats. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Harrington, I dont really want to spend time posting my specific ideas for each of the above right now, but would rather wait for Texaslivein's vote and the other owner's permission to go ahead on the broad changes first. You can put me down as "Vehemently support" for all of it, lol. I'll be back later -- good luck. --

Understood, LaNaranja. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Should you stumble upon any good possibilities for Bonnie 3rd (or for anything else), please slug it right in. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, I shall not be a gentleman 'til I finish counting it." No, thank you, I'll wait. -- LaNaranja (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I invited Wildhartlivie to come join this discussion. Can you think of anyone else who contributes significantly, to notify? -- LaNaranja (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Issues: dashes and tone

• The dashes throughout don't adhere to WP:DASH. The article should consistently use either spaced en – dashes or non-spaced em—dashes).
• The tone doesn't sound neutral and includes peacock terms.

serioushat 06:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed dashes. Removed tags: the article is in the midst of extensive renovation to remove peacock and weasel tones (see discussion above). -- LaNaranja (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Jay-z and Beyonce

They have a song called Bonnie and Clyde, and the music video for it is somewhat simliar to the life Bonnie and Clyde lived, you can probabably find it on youtube to refference it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.213.221 (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Somewhat similar" is not enough, 121.72.213.221. It only fits here if it is specifically about Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker and their lives. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Joplin police files, FBI files

Useful sources.

Bonnie and Clyde Joplin Shootout Documents. Joplin, Missouri Police Department

FBI file 26-4114, four volumes of files held by the FBI that document the pursuit of the Barrow Gang. FBI Records and Information -- LaNaranja (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a trove! Thank you. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Georgie Fame

Okay, I give up. I added a reference to the song "The Ballad of Bonnie and Clyde" by Georgie Fame, which was a top 40 song about the very bank robbers that this article describes. I included a link to the Wikipedia article about that song. The Wikipedia article to which I included a link specifically identifies that song as being about the bank robbers. My edit was deleted. I don't have the time or the patience for this. If a popular song (which reached #1 in the UK) that is about the bank robbers cannot be included in this article as a popular culture reference to the bank robbers, then I've got better things to do with my life than edit this article. If anyone else cares about this subject matter enough to do whatever it takes to put this reference back into the article, be my guest. I've provided links here to the appropriate Wikipedia articles here on the Talk page, so if someone else cares enough to improve this article in a way that I cannot, they have the tools to do so.

Oh, and here are some sample lyrics of the song:

Bonnie and Clyde
advanced their reputation
And made the graduation
Into the banking business.
"Reach for the sky" sweet-talking Clyde would holler
As Bonnie loaded dollars in the dewlap bag,
Now one brave man-he tried to take 'em alone
They left him lyin' in a pool of blood,
And laughed about it all the way home.
Bonnie and Clyde got to be public enemy number one
Running and hiding from every American lawman's gun.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulpatch (talk • contribs) 23:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Somehow, the list of legitimate songs got deleted, Soulpatch. I put 'em — including Georgie Fame — back in. Thanks for advocating. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Fowler paragraph from Bonnie Parker section

I deleted the following paragraph from the Bonnie Parker section of the article:

Jimmy Fowler, in reviewing a one-woman stage show portraying Parker in 1999 for the Dallas Observer, noted that "although the authorities who gunned down the 23-year-old in 1934 conceded that she was no bloodthirsty killer and that when taken into custody she tended to inspire the paternal aspects of the police who held her ... there was a mystifying devolution from the high school poet, speech class star, and mini-celebrity who performed Shirley Temple-like as a warm up act at the stump speeches of local politicians to the accomplice of rage-filled Clyde Barrow."[17]

The paragraph has several errors: there was no concession from the authorities, there is no evidence she wrote any poetry in her truncated high school career, and her "Shirley Temple-like" performances occurred when she was 8 years old, some 12 years before Temple's birth. Most egregious though is that Fowler was not writing about the historical Parker, but about a character in a play based on Parker. It has no place in our encyclopedic article. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I replaced it with this paragraph:

In 1929, between the dissolution of her marriage and her first encounter with Clyde Barrow in January 1930, Parker lived with her mother and worked as a waitress in Dallas; one of her customers in the café was postal worker Ted Hinton, who would join the Dallas Sheriff's Department in 1932 and would participate in her ambush in 1934.[17] In the diary she kept briefly in early 1929, she wrote of her desperate loneliness, her impatience with life in provincial Dallas, and her love of a newfangled technology — talking pictures.[18]

Comments/criticism, please. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit to paragraph two of lead...

I edited the first half of the second paragraph of the lead, which formerly read:

Believed at the time to be a full participant in the gang's crimes, Parker's role has since been a source of controversy. While gang members W. D. Jones and Ralph Fults said they never saw her fire a gun and described her role as logistical,[2] Jones also told investigators that she had fired a pistol at officers "two or three times" when he was deposed under arrest in 1933.[3] By 1968, his recollection was that "during the five big gun battles I was with them, she never fired a gun. But I'll say she was a hell of a loader."[4] Youngest Barrow sister, Marie, made the same claim: "Bonnie never fired a shot. She just followed my brother no matter where he went."[5] Parker's reputation as a cigar-smoking gun moll grew out of a gag snapshot found by police abandoned at a hideout, released to the press, and published in newspapers, magazines and newsreels nationwide; while she did chain-smoke Camel cigarettes, she was not a cigar smoker.[6]

Here's why: 1) among the four top-tier B&C historian/authors (Phillips, Guinn, Ramsey and Knight), not one attaches the word "controversy" to Bonnie's role in the gang. Some maintain there's controversy surrounding the ambush, but no one (save an erstwhile editor(s) at Wikipedia) disputes her role in the structure of the gang. 2) Jones's recollections are plainly self-contradictory between his 1933 deposition and his 1968 Playboy interview, and therefore don't have much value. 3) Marie was a young teenager at the time and never rode with the gang, so her recollections are just hearsay.

This is what I substituted, which is a more accurate portrayal of Parker then-and-now:

Even during their lifetimes, the couple's depiction in the press was at considerable odds with the hardscrabble reality of their life on the road, particularly in the case of Parker. Even though she was physically present at a hundred or more felony crimes during her two years as Barrow's companion, she certainly was never the machine gun-wielding killer portrayed in newspapers, newsreels, and, particularly, the pulpy detective magazines of the day. Gang member W. D. Jones was unsure whether he had ever seen her fire at officers. Parker's reputation as a cigar-smoking gun moll grew out of a gag snapshot found by police abandoned at a hideout, released to the press, and published in newspapers, magazines and newsreels nationwide; while she did chain-smoke Camel cigarettes, she was not a cigar smoker.

Your comments and criticisms, please. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Worc63's tags

I removed Worc63's tags to the article and have invited him/her to discuss more specific objections here at the talk page. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

---

As per HarringtonSmith's request, I am here to talk about the article. He thinks that my issue is with his facts. My issue is the tone. To cite several examples, which, I assume, were written by him:

"He was the fifth of seven children, from a desperately poor farming family that emigrated, piecemeal, to Dallas in the early 1920s as part of a wave of resettlement from the impoverished nearby farms to the impoverished urban slum known as West Dallas. It was a place of flimsy shanties and tent cities, piles of garbage and teeming open sewers, swarming insects and rampaging epidemics. The Barrows had neither shanty nor tent: they spent their first months living under their wagon. When father Henry had earned enough money to buy a tent, it was a major step up for the family."

"With husband Buck dying nearby, Blanche Barrow is captured by posse at Dexfield Park, IA"

"Former Texas Ranger Frank Hamer, the Barrow Gang's relentless shadow after the embarrassing Eastham prison breakout"

"Expensive pickup: Henry Methvin joins the gang after the Eastham breakout; he and his father, Ivy, ultimately prove its undoing"

"The trail ended here on a desolate road, deep in the piney Louisiana woods"

"Posse suffered deafness for hours after unleashing the thunderous fusillade"

This tone is not only unprofessional, it violates Wiki's guidelines for neutrality and objectivity! Many other parts of the article such as:

"But in the spring of 1934, the reality of the Grapevine killings was far less important than the perception of them"

are clearly opinion, and, again, have no place here. That is why I tagged it. Please ref Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Worc63 (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think your last example is opinion — it is fact — but it could perhaps be clearer, so I rewrote it to:

"But in the spring of 1934, the reality of the Grapevine killings had far less impact on events than did the public's perception of them"

The paragraph goes on to say that the murders increased public clamor for B&C to be stopped, and public officials stepped up their efforts to get them, which shortly thereafter, they did. Please help me understand how that's non-neutral or un-objective. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo additions

An editor has posted a handful of photos copied over from the W. D. Jones and Buck Barrow articles to Bonnie and Clyde. Does anyone else feel the article's a little photo-overwhelmed with their inclusion? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We now have five photos of W.D. and three photos of Clyde. Perhaps we need to change the name of the article to Bonnie, Clyde and William. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced sections

The music and section like it are totally unsourced and should either be sourced or removed. I think the article is long enough without adding this kind of trivial stuff to it so I think it should be all removed. What do others think about this? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I'll hold it down, you cut it it off, CrohnieGal! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else have feelings about this? It doesn't really contribute to the story, and continues to draw junky, inappropriate additions. I second CrohnieGal's suggestion of deleting the whole section. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think, especially with a subject like Bonnie & Clyde, a (short) listing of examples of their cultural impact is a useful addition to the article, and should not be removed. Their cultural impact is a vital part of their legacy. RagingR2 (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, RagingR2. But what needs discussing is the evolution of their legacy. It has changed significantly over the years. The 1967 movie made them heroes; pre-1967, they were mad-dog murderers in many eyes. The weak "Historical perspective" section might be the spot for this. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Reducing the lead to contain only "general info"

I have a general comment about the lead. I think it's pretty obvious that it's much too long. In my opinion, and I think this is rather common practice, a head should only contain the most vital general information about a subject in a few sentences, and not be multiple paragraphs long. Especially since the second and third paragraph are about a very specific subject (the discrepancy between B&C's portrayal in the media versus the real events) that they could easily be given a title/head to be labeled as such, and thus becoming part of the "regular" article, below the table of contents. For instance, why not make it a subsection under the section "in the media"? RagingR2 (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, RagingR2. I agree — and disagree — with your assessment of the lead. No question it's a beefy one, but it is also a beefy article, and I don't presume to believe that everyone is going to find his/her way through the whole story. About leads, the MOS suggests: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. In the case of Bonnie and Clyde, the crux of the story is that Clyde was a small-time robber of filling stations and country grocery stores who was propelled to national notoriety in April 1933 when the police found the undeveloped film, and Bonnie's doggerel gangland poetry, at Joplin and released both to the national newswires. From that point through their funerals, they were celebrity criminals, particularly in the Dallas/Ft. Worth media market. They were all but forgotten outside Texas by 1967, when Arthur Penn's movie re-established them as bigger "stars" than ever, with the more bloodthirsty aspects of their real-life careers softened by thirty-three years' passage of time. The lead must convey this or it's not "stand[ing] alone as a concise overview of the article."

I think the Guinn quote (which pretty much comprises the third paragraph) does a good job explaining the small-timers-until-photos angle; Guinn's book is a top source, the most recent book (2009), scholarly researched and comprehensively end-noted. To cut it back, I feel, would compromise its message, though I do wish it had gotten there a little quicker.

Most problematic is the second paragraph, which is a holdover from — and a reaction to — several earlier editors' polemical attempts to redefine Bonnie Parker; the archived masses of Talk Page entries provide an entire afternoon's reading on this, if you're interested. This paragraph could certainly use a tightening; it's the result of piecemeal band-aids over a long time.

The only thing I ask is that you not drag-and-drop these paragraphs elsewhere in the text. There are no obvious holes that need filling with the paragraphs and if you stick them in somewhere else, you're making a redundancy there.

Nice to have some "fresh eyes" looking in on this article! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see your points about (a) the pieces of text being the holdover of numerous edits by different people, (b) the Guinn quote being essential for the lead and (c) the information being redundant if it was to be moved to other paragraphs. All I am saying is, I think the goal should be to keep the information as short as possible. I can see how, in B&C's case, some information about their reputation being exaggerated really belongs in the lead. But if you ask me, that could be in 1 or 2 sentences, comparable to the "summary" of the issue you are giving in your reaction here. I agree a lead should be a concise overview of all the major subjects in an article. But concise being the key word here, one could really wonder whether quotes, examples explanations, etc. belong in a lead at all. Information and statements should of course be supported and sourced. But if you ask me, the lead should ideally be a summary of statements that are supported, sourced, and provided with explanation and examples *somewhere else* in the article; the lead should only summarize the statements *without* examples, explanations, quotes, etc. A good T.O.C. will guide people to where they can find those. Otherwise the lead becomes so long that new readers won't even plough through the lead anymore.RagingR2 (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So exactly what are you suggesting? A trim of paragraph two? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph about Barrow praising the Ford

A (minor) question about the article's structuring: why is there a paragraph about the Ford car under the section "in the media"? What has the Ford or Barrow's praising of it got to do with the media? As to where it should go; I'm not sure. I think maybe it's too "small" a subject to warrant it's own section, but it wouldn't be logical to put it in between the chronological events under "The Spree" either. RagingR2 (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry always to be citing ancient history, but the paragraph about Ford originally contended that Ford built an ad campaign around Clyde's unauthenticated letter, which of course is patently false. (It also is indicative of how many half-baked claims once were in this article.) I tried to drop the entire paragraph, but other editors argued that too many people knew about the letter and would want it back in. So I took the path of least fireworks. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the piece is a leftover of a false (or at least unprovable) claim that once was in the article, which was (partially) removed because there was no proof to back it up, but it wasn't *completely* removed, so now there is a piece of the information left because we think readers will expect to see some information about it. Then wouldn't the most logical thing be to just describe things as they are? I.e. to add something along the lines of "It is an often heard claim that... etc..." (if possible back this up with links to websites/books where this claim is being repated)"...but there is no known proof to back this claim up." That way (1) you still mention it, (2) you identify the fact that there's no proof for it and (3) you create some barrier for new editors to add the unsourced claim again. I think if unproven claims about a subject are so widespread that they themselves in fact become a part of the "lore" surrounding a certain subject, it warrants identifying them as such in the article. RagingR2 (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you starting to get a feel for my "path of least fireworks"? If it were my planet, I'd just dump the whole damn thing. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Grapevine/Southlake

Grapevine is not, in fact, now known as Southlake, as stated in the article. Both are cities in Tarrant County and adjacent to one another.

I do, however, believe the shooting took place in an area which, while referred to as Grapevine at the time, is now within Southlake city limits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcachran (talk • contribs) 06:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Jmcachran. I fixed it. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Trahern

I picked up a copy of Traherns book on e-bay. I didnt pay very much which is fortunate as this book is full of inaccuracies. The Redcrown Tavern was "a hotel with a motel behind it", the death car was tan, in reality it was gray. And the best is a photo of a Colt .32 pistol which Trahern refers to as a revolver. These are just a few. Perhaps Englishmen like Trahern should keep to writing about the folly of thier kings and queens, this book is truly a joke, and Traherns research isnt worth a damn. Busceda (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate style and tone template added

Don't get me wrong, I mostly enjoy your style of writing, but it's not really appropriate for Wikipedia. When turning to an encyclopedia, I believe that one expects brevity.

jfiogbn jhtbnjk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.237.251.59 (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's been four weeks since IP User 70.170.97.216 tagged the article with an "inappropriate tone" template; the "specific concerns" cited in the template are the first sentences in this section (70.170.97.216 came back and removed the bot-supplied user attribution). Since 70.170.97.216's beliefs haven't found any traction with either the 162 watchers of the page or the 150,000-plus visitors in the past 28 days, I propose we delete the tag from the top of the page. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - You may have noted that I've been following your odyssey with this article (and rv-ing vandals and bad additions from time to time) and I think you've done a splendid job with it. I do, however, understand the tagger's concerns even though I do not completely agree. The piece reads rather like a very interesting article that you might find in American Heritage; it is rather more colorful than most encyclopedia articles tend to be. I'll cite a couple of examples when I have a bit more time - not that I think they need to be replaced. There shouldn't be a penalty for good writing. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree and am removing it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, friends. I think an article can be engaging and still be encyclopedic. No matter how you argue it, dull is dull, and a disservice to our readers. Sensei-san, you were my first-ever wiki-mentor and I smiled every time you revealed your watchful presence. Thanks again, friends. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hamilton Question

HS and other editors -

Just wondering - the note on Raymond Hamilton is sourced to say that he was executed as a career criminal - but the State of Texas Department of Corrections here [1] asserts that it was for murder. Discrepancy? regards, Sensei48 (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, Sensei-san. The TDC page says Hamilton's murder conviction came out of Walker County, Texas, which is where Hillsboro is — and Hamilton was indeed eventually convicted of J. N. Bucher's murder there on April 30, 1932 (despite his being in Michigan on that day). All sources agree that his sentence for the Bucher murder was 99 years. This is further supported by Clyde's famously insisting to Ted Rogers (the actual killer of Mr. Bucher) that if Hamilton got the death penalty, Rogers must 'fess up to the murder. When Hamilton got "only" 99 years — added to the hundreds he had already racked up — Rogers was off the hook for confessing. Most importantly, John Neal Phillips, the gold standard of B&C historians, says in both his books that Hamilton was executed under the habitual criminal statute, not for any specific murder. Distrustful as I am of people who would say this, I gotta say: I think the TDC page is wrong. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Harrington - thought it might be something like that. It also occurred to me that the TDC might also not be too eager to publicize that once it invoked capital punishment for so vague and non-specific a reason. Thanks! regards, Sensei48 (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet another film

In the Bonnie_and_Clyde#Film section, adding this bit might be appropriate:

The Story of Bonnie and Clyde is an upcoming biographical film starring Hilary Duff and Kevin Zegers as Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow. The film is not a remake of the 1967 Bonnie and Clyde but to be based on the actual true story of the notorious thieves.

Just in case a logged in user feels like linking to the article about that film. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That project has been stalled, on-again off-again, for several years, and the consensus among editors here has been to include it when, and if, it is ever released. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Barrow mugshot date

The caption under the Clyde Barrow mugshot says it is from 1926. However, the data that the image upload has states that it is from 1932. Any ideas on this? Echoedmyron (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It is from 1926 — the uploader just erred when writing it up. In books, the date is always 1926. Most tellingly, though, is that Clyde started 1932 in prison, was paroled on February 2, 1932, and was never arrested again — so there were no 1932 mugshots (or '33 or '34!). — HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ford letter

"...It was never used in any form in Ford advertising...". I disagree. I'm sure I remember first hearing about the letter in a Ford TV commercial from the late 80s/ early 90s?. Enough time passed, perhaps? 71.201.40.29 (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Gimelgort 5/23/11

silly

Most of this article is very unprofessionaly written. I laughed out loud at the 'set legal balls rolling' caption, simply ridiculous. Very biased and I agree with the hobby horse statement above. Seems like it should be rewritten without all the needless poetic language. 'Saucy'? Seriously? Thought this was supposed to be an objective piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.139.45.42 (User ) 16:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This sounds like it was ripped off from somewhere else. "His good looks caught her schoolgirl's eye"?! Brted (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I more than agree with this... I felt like I was reading a story book, not an academic article: "Thereafter, the Public Enemies would no longer operate on thin ribbons of gray macadam across America, but only on silver screens throughout the world." What? That made me laugh out loud. Celynn (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Photo captions

Why are the first two to five words in each caption bolded, even if they do not appear before a colon? This is not part of WP:MOSBOLD and is not discussed in WP:IMAGES. Sottolacqua (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The bolding of the first few words of a caption is called a kicker—when the caption's been written for it. Caption kickers have been demonstrated to increase readership of the caption, which in turn increases readership of the text. When you're not under the yoke of free-use (as we here at Wikipedia are), the captions on a page can serve as stepping-stones throughout the course of the article, allowing a viewer to scan along a string of captions and then "dive in" to the text at a spot in the story that looks most interesting. The kickers help this process. :) — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

They're simply distracting and unnecessary. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This is not part of any WP:MOS and not found in any article I've ever come across. Sottolacqua (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Cigar smoking gun moll

This article would be far more credible if it stopped harping on the injustice of tagging a murderer and thief a "cigar smoking gun moll." This is especially true since the article actually includes a picture of the poor woman who was accused of smoking cigars. (I readilly admit of course, that all serious historians know that the gun moll in question never even once smoked a cigar.) Enough already. Some editor is riding a hobby horse, obviously. Rwflammang (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how your contention affects the credibility of the article, but you might want to check out contemporary magazines, newspapers, editorial cartoons and newsreels. They invariably feature Bonnie's cigar most prominently of all. As recently as 1958, the poster for The Bonnie Parker Story feature film portrays her with an enormous cigar clamped in her teeth while she fires a machine gun. You might not be aware of it, but the cigar was the defining feature of her image up until 1967 — and as such, it's important to a discussion of her history. BTW, I gave my hobby horse away. :-) — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The truth is though that she did use a cigar on the photo but she did borrow it from Clyde Barrow just for the shooting of the photo. In fact Bonnie hated cigars and she also told so to one policeman that they kidnapped and begged him to tell the press that she does not smoke cigars. So I think this "Cigar smoking gun molll" should be left out, because it was just the newspapers gimmick to sell her story and to prove that she was "tough". METC4F (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

BARs Monitors and Model 8's

This line here: "Hamer obtained a quantity of civilian Browning Automatic Rifles (manufactured by Colt as the "Monitor") and 20 round magazines with armor piercing rounds.[107]" is disproved by its own source [107]. That source claims that Bonnie and Clyde had 3 BARs, the posse had "Remington Model 8 semi-automatic rifle(s)" and Frank Hamer had a specially engraved and extended magazine version of the same. The source does not claim that any Monitor rifles were in play. Buck Starchaser (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Strange-sounding paragraph

The "Frank Hamer was that rara avis..." paragraph sounds like it's trying to idolize him. How can this be fixed? Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 03:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Done-that looked de trop to me as well. Maybe without a couple of editors here who have overriden about every move made, some more things can be done to improve this article. Hushpuckena (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Rm rewrite tag

Tag has been posted for months with no evidence for interest in any kind of rewrite. Article is very well referenced, factually correct and thorough. 65.96.0.19 (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is this in here?

"Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker were young and unmarried. They undoubtedly slept together."

Because as is clear in the article it is part of a direct quotation, cited there, from Jeff Guin trying to explain why a couple of no-account two-bit criminals have achieved such lasting notoriety. Sensei48 (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Reduntant: outlaws, robbers and criminals?

This phrase is in the first sentence of the introduction. Aren't all criminals, outlaws by definition? I think this phrase should be shortened to just "bank robbers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutster (talk • contribs) 13:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Eminem Related?

Is Eminem's song '97 Bonnie and Clyde; related to this, and if so, how? lskitto (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for a delayed response. Most editors who work on this article point out that the Eminem song has nothing whatsoever to do with Bonnie and Clyde - nothing in the lyrics suggests even remotely the historical facts about the couple. Sensei48 (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Location of the "Death Car"

It is common and very public knowledge (MANY sources, press releases, links) that this car is on display at Whiskey Pete's hotel and casino in Primm Valley, Nevada and NOT the National Museum of Crime and Punishment. I personally went there and matched up hundreds of details from old photos. I have amended this glaring error! Please RESEARCH before you post! We have a STANDARD to maintain! 64.250.228.220 (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you but this photo is from the National Museum of Crime and Punishment so I've removed it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Good thinking. Besides...you know, I stood right there in Whiskey Pete's, photos in hand, and matched up hundreds of points of similarity...and somehow the National Museum pic that was on here just doesn't seem to be the same car.

64.250.228.220 (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Serious issues

Pretty sure that the title for Clyde Barrow under Early Life shouldn't be "Clyde FaZe_DeEzNuTz" and the next section says "First meeting[edit] How about you get off Wikipedia and go to a more RELIABLE SOURCE. [27]"

I undid those edits that user "Thomlin" made. Looks like it was just made today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.2.245 (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancy with Prohibition dates

In the section "1933: Buck joins the gang", the article currently reads:

Beer had just been legalized after Prohibition, and the group ran loud, alcohol-fueled card games late into the night in the quiet neighborhood.

...referring to March and April 1933 in Joplin, Missouri. But this doesn't appear to be true! Over at Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution, it says that the state of Missouri didn't ratify the amendment until August 29 of that year, and that the amendment wasn't nationally adopted until December 5.

Anyone got any ideas on this discrepancy? The only thing I can think is that since the 21st Amendment was first introduced shortly before the months in question (on February 20), perhaps the repeal of the 18th was viewed as inevitable and alcohol sales came more out in the open. Just a guess though. Kane5187 (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

For now I've just removed that first clause mentioning Prohibition - it's really just an aside and the sentence stands fine without it. I'd be interested to know how this error got in there, though! Kane5187 (talk) 05:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

edit away

Get rid of the picture of the death car. This was not the car they died in, its not even the right color. There were perhaps a dozen fakes running around and this was one of them. Amazing how you egg-heads missed it. Busceda (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Honestly a lot was left out about Bonnie&Clyde,what was found in the car was not guns in fact it was their PERSONAL belongings. They where leaving to get away from all the crime because Bonnie was pregnant... They where on their way back down to south Louisianan. They did not do all the things people claim they did but after being blame for so much they finally decided to make it worth their wild and do it. I'm closely related to them and my family is where they where headed to stay to start over so their kid could grow up in a better place.. my great great grandad always spoke about them and it has been a story passed down. 11/15/2013 8:54 p.m — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.64.91 (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually if you learn some spelling and grammar people might take your "I'm related to them" fantasy a little more seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.184.213 (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting birth dates

Not sure which one is the correct one so I didn't fix it, maybe an editor familiar with the sources can fix it quickly. Bonnie Parker has two conflicting birth dates: One in the lede and one in the infobox. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible resources

Thought I'd note a link here. Others may follow ...

"948 pages of FBI files covering Bonnie Parker, Clyde Barrow, and the Barrow Gang, archived on CD-ROM.

~

These files, once thought to be lost, were discovered and eventually declassified and released by the FBI in May 2009. Previously only three pages of FBI files on Bonnie & Clyde were known to remain in the custody of the FBI. These “lost” files were released in their entirety, without redactions. The files contain details about the Barrow Gang’s crime spree not previously published before the discovery of these files. These files describe the Bureau's involvement in the pursuit of Bonnie and Clyde, which began almost exactly a year before their deaths."

www.paperlessarchives.com/bonnie_and_clyde.html

--Kevjonesin (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Raymond Hamilton

This has good detail about Hamilton. Site may be fruitful for other Barrow Gang info. http://texashideout.tripod.com/ray.html

--Kevjonesin (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Detail and tone

Am editing to get to more encyclopedia-style article, and reduce breathless, crime-fan tone. Also, reducing detail in notes - these are excessive. We don't need to know Clyde had trouble with his BAR in the country, or a history of kidnapping law, or speculation that the gang would have been tried for capital crimes and sentenced to death for the kidnappings if it had taken place after the Lindbergh kidnapping prompted new federal laws. Enough already! Let people read the books.Parkwells (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

My example of the above is, "He tried to change versions of the Methvin family's involvement in the planning and execution of the ambush." In other words, his version differed from the standard story, etc. etc.? Fotoguzzi (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Eastham

Article neglects Barrow's axe-severing toes to avoid prison labour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.173.130 (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

First Meeting Inconsistency?

If Clyde wasn't released from prison until 1932, how did he meet Bonnie in 1930 at a friend's house? Thanks. Onlydemi (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The article asserts that the first meeting was January 5, 1930 but that Barrow did not start serving his prison sentence until April of that year.Sensei48 (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

RTBF (New www rule)

Do these folks have 'right to be forgotten' going for them, per Google TOS? Should there be a footnote or disclaimer to the page added to prevent abuse of their info? -J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.240.225 (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe to exercise the "right to be forgotten" in the EU, one must submit a request/claim. As both are no longer alive, they obviously cannot. Nor could they get their own legal representation to achieve the same. The Haz _talk 17:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bonnie and Clyde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111010134253/http://casscountyin.tripod.com/bankheist.htm to http://casscountyin.tripod.com/bankheist.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Bonnie Parker firing a BAR?

I have heard some recent documentaries on Bonnie and Clyde state that Bonnie Parker rarely used guns, and that the photographs of her posing with various weapons was intended as a joke, but has misled people into thinking she was a firearms expert. This article says she was an expert with the Browning Automatic Rifles (BAR), but the only reference given seems to be a book about the Browning Automatic Rifle. It would be better if a Bonnie Parker biography were quoted instead. I'm not sure a book about a gun is going to provide the most accurate information about one of its users.

Agree, looks like effort to capitalize on publicity.Park wells (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2013 (U-T-C)

She was also only 4'10" and weighed less than 90 lbs. I would imagine a BAR's kick would knock such a petite woman right onto her iambic pentameter. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.30.24.162 (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bonnie and Clyde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100227083936/http://www.bonhams.com:80/cgi-bin/public.sh/pubweb/publicSite.r?sContinent=EUR&screen=aboutus to http://www.bonhams.com/cgi-bin/public.sh/pubweb/publicSite.r?sContinent=EUR&screen=aboutus
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908015130/http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2156135,00.html to http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2156135,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bonnie and Clyde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150531030604/http://www2.fbi.gov/research.htm to https://www.fbi.gov/research.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923235409/http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/clyde/clyde.htm to https://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/clyde/clyde.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0%2C%2C2156135%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812223057/http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie/195410/bonnie-and-clyde-the-true-story/ to http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie/195410/bonnie-and-clyde-the-true-story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Gang members' names in lead...

I commented-out the names of the other gang members in the lead because it's not the right place for them. If the consensus here disagrees, it's easy to reinstate them. 73.30.24.162 (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:LEAD Fail

Fails to summarize the article, instead has some authors quotes in the lead. That belongs in the body of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.1.126.200 (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Crowder

Newspaper articles published at the time say nothing about Crowder's head being crushed with a pipe. All say he was killed by being stabbed fifteen times with a home-made knife. [[2]] (Aubrey Scalley was another inmate who took the blame for the fight.) James Galloway (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This is an excellent point James Galloway makes. Should we discuss this? 73.30.24.162 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, the newspapers were reporting the cover story accepted by authorities that Crowder was killed by Scalley with a knife, everybody ignoring the "fracture of the skull" on the death certificate James Galloway (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Conflicting name

Clyde Barrow has two different middle names in this article. In the initial section(first sentence) he is called Clyde Champion Barrow. In later sections he is listed as Clyde CHESTNUT Barrow. The gravestone does not have his middle name included. Does anyone know the absolutely officially correct middle name?

Bobwhite1313 (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

End of lead is confusing

First the lead goes off into a digression about Bonnie never actually smoking cigars (hardly an important enough question to cover there).

But then it jumps suddenly into this:

Parker was Bonnie's mother, Cowan was Clyde's sister, and Fortune was a Dallas writer and reporter who was the primary author. Parker and Cowan repudiated the book immediately upon its publication, but more for personal and family reasons than for factual inaccuracies.[citation needed] Page numbers in footnotes refer to the 1968 paperback edition. According to historian Jeff Guinn, the hideout photos led to Parker's glamorization and the creation of legends about the gang.

There's no mention of Parker (other than Bonnie), Cowan, or Fortune either before or after this in the lead. Even in the article body, Emma Parker comes up only briefly and is not referred to as "Parker", and Cowan and Fortune aren't mentioned at all. The book also isn't mentioned anywhere in the lead or even the body of the article, not even in the Books section, but it is used as a reference many times.

It looks like this was broken in this revision by User:Btphelps. Prior to that, it was part of the first footnote that mentioned the book, where it actually makes sense. I think the intent was to (along with removing the sentence "First published in September 1934 as Fugitives") split the single note into two notes, but they accidentally opened the second one with /ref instead of ref.

I'm going to try to fix it to do what I think Btphelps intended, but hopefully someone will check it. --157.131.201.206 (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Chronological confusion

The article starts with separate biographies of Bonnie's and Clyde's early lives, before covering their life together.

However, Clyde's section runs 3 years longer than Bonnie's, which gets confusing. In particular, you get this sentence:

In 1930, Barrow escaped Eastham Prison Farm, using a weapon Parker had smuggled to him.

… before any mention of his having met Bonnie. If you keep reading long enough, the confusion goes away when you figure out that the next section ("First meeting") overlaps this one by two years, so we're now talking about things that happened after he and Bonnie met, and then jumping back in time again.

I would be bold and fix it, but I'm not sure _how_ to fix it. The article could just add a simple sentence mentioning their meeting in Clyde's section, and then come back to it later. Or Clyde's 1930-2 prison time could be moved out of his early life section and into a new section that comes after "First meeting" instead of before it. But neither of those seems ideal. Hopefully someone else has a better idea? --157.131.201.206 (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The article overall is not that well written IMO. The two bios can be reduced to a short summary because that's what their individual articles cover. I think the crime spree and the cultural/historical analysis are the two major sections. Go for it! — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 03:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2019

Incorrect: moved her family bakc to her parents' home

Corrected: moved her family back to her parents' home 173.169.245.223 (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Þjarkur (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2019

Request to add two songs to the musical references for the page.

1) Eminem - '97 Bonnie & Clyde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%2797_Bonnie_%26_Clyde

2) Jay-Z & Beyonce - '03 Bonnie & Clyde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%2703_Bonnie_%26_Clyde LA Pirates (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: neither song is actually about Bonnie and Clyde, and are therefore not appropriate for inclusion here. NiciVampireHeart 09:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Attribution

References copied from Frank Hamer to Bonnie and Clyde. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

First killing

Barrow's first killing is said to be "Big Ed" Crowder, who sexually abused him in prison, with a lead piping. However, contemporary news reports state that he was stabbed 15 times by Aubrey Scalley. Where did the story that it was Barrow who killed him come from? The circumstances and method are very different. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Clyde Barrow's middle name?

The FBI page (article reference [3]) states his name as Clyde Champion Barrow; yet multiple online sources, just as this article, use Clyde Chestnut Barrow. Which is correct, Champion or Chestnut? BW95 (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

His birth name was Chestnut, but he sometimes signed his name as Clyde Champion Barrow. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)