User talk:Mytwocents/Bonnie and Clyde

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

1 New version
2 Declarative Statements
3 Peer Review Bonnie and Clyde
4 Rewrite on the Aftermath of the Ambush Section
5 merging of sections
6 rewrite begun after suggestions from several outstanding contributors
7 No direct quotes
- 7.1 Article intro
8 Opposition to Rewrite
9 Oppose the Rewrite
- 9.1 Redundancy in the intro
10 there is no redundancy in the introduction, just facts to introduce controversial subjects
11 Intro paragraph
12 Peer Review Complete, though all help to further Improve the Article is Welcome

[edit] New version

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?
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?

This edit tries to sanitize away the nasty details like Bonnie NOT being wanted for any capital crime, 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. 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). That is called consensus; everyone else is fine with the changes and the current article.old windy bear 18:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

[edit] Declarative Statements

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.) · Ka t efan0 ^(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 My work 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,

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)

[edit] 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. 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. 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.

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. NO major rewrite should occur without consensus. old windy bear 23:08, 30 April 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.^[1]

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.^[2] 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)

[edit] 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)

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.Stillstudying 16:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents 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. All weasal language identified by Andy is gone. The article is a good one, approaching great.

User:Oldwindybear|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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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);

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)

P.S. 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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. Thank you, we have achieved consensus. old windy bear 18:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/y/t/User_talk%7EMytwocents_Bonnie_and_Clyde_8528.html"