Talk:Bonnie and Clyde/Archive 4

the three edit in 24 hour rule is in effect, as are the 27 rules of editing
Mytwocents Put anything anywhere you want. The bottom line is exquisitely simple:
 * wikipedia has firm rules for editing;
 * these rules are the 27 rules of engagement, enumerated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement
 * these rules require as merely four of the 27, 1)that you post facts or language in dispute, or language you intend to change, 2)await a reply, 3)discuss the proposed chanage if opposed by other editors, 4) and seek agreement. If agreement is against  you, you may seek a peer review.  It is the peer review which is final and absolute in arbitrating factual or language matters which cannot be resolved by consensus.
 * You have broken each of these rules, twice in the last 24 hours, by deleting massive portions of the article, in direct opposition to 4 other editors, plus a peer review which specifically approved the deleted sections.*You were asked nicely to stop, then told to stop, by 4 different editors, all of whom asked you to post proposed changes, wait for reply, discuss, and seek agreement, as per the rules - and you replied "I will edit the Bonnie and Clyde page as I see fit." My changes have nothing to do with any editor, they are to make the page more NPOV. NPOV trumps consensus," in direct defiance of the rules as laid out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement which make clear no single editor may determine NPOV where controversy exists, and agreement can not be reached, a peer review is the remedy. Your proposed changes have been rejected by massive consensus, and the peer review, but you disregarded those results,and openly defy wikipedia's most basic rules, over and over.
 * You have abandoned any pretense of following the 27 rules and told us you would do what you wanted, when you wanted. (see your edits on this page, stating you would ignore consensus, or the other rules "I will edit...as I see fit")  '''"Work toward agreement" is the most basic of wikipedia editing rules - and you absolutely refuse to acknowledge or make even the tiniest effort to follow it.  This is by definition, clear vandalism.
 * I reverted your edits as vandalism, violative of the work towards agreement rules and against consensus, twice in 24 hours you have deleted large amounts of the article without posting, waiting, discussing, or seeking agreement in complete defiance of the 27 rules as stipulated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement A third time will trigger the three edits in 24 hours rule, which I pray will bring admins into this to finally deal with your own defiance of the rules and vandalism.
 * You are the only editor to openly defy consensus and a peer review I have had the unfortunate experience to have to deal with other than SaltyPig, who is now permanently banned. Everyone else except yourself is willing to accept the 27 rules, and abides by them, as laid out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement.
 * I welcome admins to review all this, and believe you should be permanently banned for your absolute refusal to abide by the warnings you repeatedly received from at least 4 editors - and the 27 rules as plainly laid out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement Ewulp also advised you against deletion without discussion, as did myself, randazzo56 and Stillstudying.  You are a real vandal in the truest sense, and need to be banned, because of your absolute refusal to edit by the 27 rules as strictly laid out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement which are mandatory, not discretionary.  Putting it in the simpliest terms, you stated above when noticed that there are rules, and your changes disputed, by the majority, you stated "I will edit the Bonnie and Clyde page as I see fit" and then act openly and clearly in defiance of wikipedia rules.  You have now deleted sections without following the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement twice in 24 hours, if you do it a third, the three edit in 24 hours rule kicks in, and admins will act.  Again, you need to be permanently banned.old windy bear 16:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a note about the above comment, eventhough I am not involved, you should review the policies at WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.--Strothra 18:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strothra Believe me, I reviewed the policies to great length before posting the above. Good faith cannot be assumed when someone repeatedly deletes sections without following the most basic of the 27 rules of editor engagement, 1)that you post facts or language in dispute, or language you intend to change, 2)await a reply, 3)discuss the proposed chanage if opposed by other editors, 4) and seek agreement.    Civility is not implicated when you point out that an editor has repeatedly deleted sections and facts in open defiance of a peer review and against 7 other editors agreeing they stay - and refuses to even discuss it, saying "I will edit the Bonnie and Clyde page as I see fit."  Strothra you are one of the good folks, and I appreciate the concern - please believe I read ALL policies carefully before posting the foregoing.   Repeated deletions in violation of the basic rules, and open defiance of consensus unfortunately negates good faith, and pointing it out is not a violation of civility, it exists where you have no alternative to stop vandalism.  But thank you.  old windy bear 19:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that my comment below also responds to this. His actions are not vandalism nor is he committing any bannable offense. --Strothra 20:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strothra Your comment below was fair and welcome. ALL of us intend as you said, to interpret all the rules  and exercise the right to ignore all the rules if necessity requires us, to improve the article, and be bold to - as you said - "contribute to and improve Wikipedia".  You did those of us trying to work hard on quality articles a huge favor, and leveled the playing field, as I noted below.  Being tied to a set of rules while one person played without them was hopelessly handicapping the rest of us.  Your fairness evens the playing field, and allows us to continue our work to improve wikipedia without fear of banning ourselves, because your finding has to apply to ALL. Thanks! old windy bear 21:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My interpretation would apply to all, yes but you have to respect that right to other as well. You simply cannot expect editors to wait for concensus before making an edit to an article.  That would be beuracratic and time consuming.  Keep in mind, however, that I'm not an admin so I really have no authority over what admins would do in a banning situation.  I'm just calling it as I see it since I took some interest in this discussion. --Strothra 21:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strothra You are not admin, but you are a highly respected editor, and I was deadly serious in thanking you. We, the rest of us who have worked so hard on this article for half a year, were hopelessly handicapped in defending it because the other editor, without attacking him personally, was not following the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement in any way, while we had to lurch along, as I noted, as the fighter I once was, with one hand tied behind our backs.  Your note makes clear that ALL are able to exercise the right to interpret all the rules and if necessary to improve or protect a good article, ignore all the rules if necessity requires us, to improve the article, and be bold, and if admins do come in, ALL will be held, I believe, to the same standard.  I do believe your interpretation both correct and fair.   I would not presume to predict what an admin would do, but I have found Kate, Essjay, Woohookitty, for instance, to be unfailingly fair, and I feel ALL will be held to the same standard of accountibility, which I believe is what you were saying, (I would certainly expect if one person is banned for ignoring the rules, then ALL would be, or none at all) and we do honestly thank you for caring enough to inject a valued opinion.  Certainly ALL should play by the rules, or NONE must play by the rules.  I am certainly curious as to the admins take on this when they come in, but knowing several pretty well, I am certain what, if any, punishment is meted out will be uniform for the offense.   old windy bear 21:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Seriously, that means a lot right now especially in light of controversy which has been brewing over some of my recent AfD nominations. I hope to hear what admins say about that if they do weigh in on the discussion. --Strothra 03:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strothra No one asked me, but I think your nominations are solid, personally, and your points in this discussion valid. I would humbly offer you the thought on your nominations that controversy is inevitable, and you cannot please everyone.  I think you try, and are a respected editor.  Here, you made an invaluable contribution: Either EVERYONE must play by the rules, or NO ONE should have to.  I am certainly curious as to the admins take on this when they come in, but knowing several pretty well, I am certain what, if any, punishment is meted out will be uniform for the offense.  I would offer as two  thoughts that everyone might wish to consider whether that is a path we really wish to take, and ask whether or not each person is willing to accept the possible consequences.  I understand your points, and agree, that we are not a system of laws.  Nonetheless, we are treading a narrow and winding road when we dispense with wikipedia editing rules.  But frankly, I am glad a respected editor such as yourself, and I mean that seriously, sees that if one party dispenses with the rules of engagement, all are free to do the same.  I also believe that will have consequ

Wikipedia is a joke because if the "Admin" or "moderator" doesn't like what you have to say ences for everyone involved. old windy bear 03:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a joke. It's NOT truth, but status quo. It'sb great for finding definitions of things, but to find truthful in depth stories, forget it. The 911 investigation is a perfect example. If it doesn't jive with the go0vernment's story, it will not be posted.

Clean Slate
I hope we can all start with a clean slate on this new talkpage and avoid unacceptable behavior This page is really not about Old windy bear or Mytwocents, it's about Bonnie and Clyde. I hope we can make this a page that is worthy of Featured Article status. Cheers, Mytwocents 18:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents I accept your good faith offer, and let us work together. old windy bear 23:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please remember that Mytwocents has the right to be bold in his edits and does not need to submit to a peer review on all edits and changes he wishes to make to the article. This is against the spirit and letter of Wikipedia.  --Strothra 19:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strothra You are absolutely correct, but equally, where controversy exists, the 27 rules are quite clear that basic policy must be followed. He must post the facts or language in dispute, wait for reply, discuss, and seek agreement.  We are not talking minor edits, we are talking wholesale slicing of the article.  I respectfully maintain that is NOT being be bold but rather open violation of the unacceptable behavior and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writers%27_rules_of_engagement   I respect your opinion, but strongly dispute that open deletion of material specifically approved by the vast majority is not abuse of the letter and spirit of wikipedia.  Respectfully, the most important of the 27 rules is "work towards agreement."   Edits which only delete material in opposition to consensus, with no discussion, et al, is far more against the letter and spirit of wikipedia.  old windy bear 19:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Going against those rules of engagement though can be done for subjective purposes. Mytwocents has the right to ignore all the rules if he feels that those rules of engagement are slowing down his ability to contribute to and improve Wikipedia. Subjectivity is not forbidden from his approach to editing as he is also allowed to interpret all the rules.  As far as him not being able to edit without first gaining consensus please remember what Wikipedia is not.  Wikipedia is is not a bureaucracy and, more importantly, Wikipedia is not a system of law. --Strothra 20:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strothra I removed these comments, in the interests of a new start --Mytwocents is right that we should try, and such were inappropriate for it.  I woudl have removed the others I made, but felt it would leave you looking like you were talking to yourself!  Ouch! old windy bear 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Old windy bear, this is not starting off with a clean slate. I can tell you are upset, but this is not a boxing match. Many editors will change this page in the coming months, most will only leave edit summaries explaining their actions.  I don't think you know this, but katefan0 is gone. She was driven away by personal attacks.  Most of us here today, will be gone in six months. Wikipedia sees an everchanging parade of editors. NPOV is the only thing that will remain after us. Mytwocents 07:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents I removed my comments to Theresa, (except the welcome!) and the later of those toStrothra -- you were absolutely right that they were inappropriate for a new start. You are also right about change. The only constant in the universe is that there are none except God. I have been through chemo 3 times in the past couple of years, (had to stop twice, couldn't take the side effects) so you are more on the money than you may know that I at least may literally be gone tomorrow. I do wish a new start, and accept your offer as sincerely made, and struck as many comments as I could without breaking the rules of altering whole lines of communication. I hope this also shows a good faith effort to reach out. old windy bear 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents has asked me to come to this page to keep an eye on the discussion. I am an administrator. I've had a quick glance at the discussion above and I can see a great deal of talk about "rules". One of the rules is 27 rules of engagement - where on Earth did that one come from? I've been here from the first year and I've never hears of it! You don't need rules of engagement, because editing shouldn't be war, it's cooperative.

I suggest the best way forwards is to start discussing the article. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Theresa Knott First, welcome, and I have removed the rest of my comments as I hope they are unecessary, and perhaps created an atmosphere not appropriate for cooperative editing! old windy bear 10:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I probably should have made this clear at the outset - I am here at mytwocwents request. I am not here on his side and i don't know him or know why he picked me to ask for help. I am hoping that having an admin watch the page for a little while will help kickstart debate rather than war - sometimes after a long fight the two sides can get a bit entrenched. Anyway i can see cooperation is happening below so I'll just lurk for a bit. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Theresa Knott Hi Theresa, he probably picked you because you are obviously bright, and asking around, you have a rep as a fair admin. I struck my comments above, to you, and some to another editor, (if you are wondering where they went, I deleted them, since they were mine) in the interests of removing a lot of needless stuff that has nothing to do with the article. I am trying, and I believe he is, to work together, which, is the wikipedia way. I am going to assume WP:good faith and you are certainly welcome here, and I do not regard it as "lurking." I prefer to think of it as monitoring your errant but will meaning brothers! Actually, as an admin, you have the authority, which I do not, to remove the entire discussion above on rules, which I would prefer. I did not know until tonight when I reread the page that Katefan0 - a really super admin and human being was drive away by personal attacks. As I wrote Mytwocents below, I refuse to be part of an atmosphere that contributes to that sort of thing, and in reflecting, regret ever quarreling over something that in a few years won't even be remembered. old windy bear 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Some edits
I agree with the above (the Theresa Knott post)--In the last few hours I have just read the article from beginning to end, to identify any remaining hint of POV or overemphasis that I can spot, & made some changes -- in other words this is my dream edit, leaving an article that I believe meets stringent standards for NPOV. It mostly involves adopting a more clinical tone, and there aren't that many changes. It may solve some of the remaining problems. Here are the main changes--
 * In 1 or 2 places phrases like "very respected" describing writers & historians were removed, only because repeated too often they sound defensive.
 * Likewise I think the line starting "Bonnie herself..." in the Buck Joins the Gang section is better left out. This is a close call, but since the opening section says 4x she never shot anybody, and there is language elsewhere about the lack of any warrant, etc. this line seems one repetition too many. The reader will notice in any case that the list of gang members known to have murdered does not include Bonnie.
 * the word "very" should have been removed, you are dead on on that.
 * In the Death section, I cut the line containing "but this is contradicted" only because I can't identify the contradiction-- there's a lack of clarity there. If this is an important detail it could be rewritten, let's discuss this one.
 * I agree somewhat with MyTwoCents about redundancy in the final section, although I don't agree that the excellent last paragraph should be cut -- I think the problem is solved with some tinkering at the beginning of the section. Sentences are rearranged and I've removed one quote from Geringer which repeats material already covered in Final Run. This quote always bothered me, it seemed out of place in the Popular Culture section because it's not about B&C's appeal to the public, it's about Clyde's grudge against the Texas Dept. of Corrections. Ewulp 09:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ewulp I agree with your work, as I almost always do, and find
 * the edits appropriate, remove any hint of POV, and
 * leave in the place the incredibly powerful closing paragraph, an attempt by one of the three most respected historians on Bonnie and Clyde to explain their enduring popular appeal, then and today, which the peer review loved, and so did the rest of us on 5 separate occasions when Mytwocents tried repeatedly, alone, to remove it.
 * leaves the Jimmy Fowler quote in - okay, he is a literary writer, but it is an incredibly accurate and powerful quote, summing up the Bonnie section perfectly, introducing her mysterious descent into darkness perfectly, and 5 of us want it in - as you konw, I was willing to discuss replacing it with another sumnation - but Mytwocents wants no replacement, just deletion, and that is a no-go.
 * I think the Geringer quote on corrections should go to the final run section, but will wait on your thoughts before restoring that quote to that section - it really is only appropriate there, but I want discussion before restoring it to that section - as you noted, it really applies to Bonnie and Clyde's joint vision, originated by Clyde, that corrections was a monstor they should strike at, it should not be in the closing. I think your tinkering with the closing solves any issues there.  People not familiar with the duo historically come to the article wondering why Bonnie and Clyde, a minor league crime duo, her not a real "gangster" at all, have seized and held the public eye for over 70 years, and we tried in the opening to tell why, and closed by explaining why.  Nice job!  And the quotes are necessary because as AndyZ said in the peer review, with controversial material, quotes are always best, because they remove any hint of subjective interpretation.  The quotes in the opening introduce the duo, explain why the presence of a beautiful girl elevated their acts, then and today, and the closing explained why that happened so powerfully that it has reverbrated in the national consciousness for nearly 3/4 of a century, and probably will for centuries more.  Rightly or wrongly, they are the "Robin Hood and Maid Marion of America," to much of the public, then and now. (and the article makes clear by listing Clyde's killings, that he was really a psychopath who led a devoted girl to her death)
 * looking back at the contradicting line, originally, that was in because someone had a version where Clyde drove off. That was removed in the peer review, because the best source is direct quotes when subjective interpretations are possible - and Ted Hinton's direct account of the ambush, plus the official report, makes absolutely clear there is no contradiction - they blew Clyde's head off as he drove up, then opened fire with automatic weapons on Bonnie, and most of the fire came with her, and the car, directly accross, and continued after emptying the automatic rifles, a number of magazines, with shotguns and pistols, as it drifted burning,  Your removal of that word was very appropriate, since there is no contradiction to what happened historically.
 * I can agree with you on the Bonnie herself...line, I would have left it in, but I can live with it being out, because it clearly says in the introduction she never fired a shot, and there were no warrants, she is not listed on the list of gang members known to have killed, so people certainly have the information necessary to see what her actual role was.  I will trust you on this one, given the excellence of your work, and how well we have worked together, lol.
 * I feel given that you are one of our most respected editors for language and editing, this should resolve the issues in this article.  This is now the 7th time it has been reviewed, including the peer review.  You will have consensus to keep the article as you have edited it.   GOOD JOB, AS ALWAYS, AND THANKS.  As I just explained to the nice lady from London, who seems quite bright, up above, (welcome to the Bonnie and Clyde wars, Theresa!) if there are any FACTS in dispute, anyone is welcome to list them.  Language?  7 other people have already approved everything you left in, and you trimmed and worded to remove any hint of POV.  The blunt fact is that this article is very much about Bonnie and Clyde's unique place in the culture of America, and to some extent, other places.  They have a unique place in the american popular mythos, and we had to explain why.  You did so, beautifully.  BUT, I say as always, FACTS, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY FACTS IN DISPUTE?  old windy bear 10:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oldwindybear, thanks for accepting the edits! I urge MyTwoCents to discuss changes, not because it's mandatory (it isn't) but because it defuses pointless edit wars and advances the cause. On the subject of the Geringer quote, I went back & studied the Final Run section, and the quote, and frankly I advise leaving it out--it's not a bad quote but it starts to tip the balance again-- there's a certain amount of material in the article that makes Clyde a vicious maniac, up against several quotes that put him in the role of Romeo, Robin Hood or a fighter for the working class. It's all  part of the picture (dealing with B&C's mythic status documented here)  but it's a delicate balance. The article needs to convince the skeptical that it's not in any way a whitewash--meaning an excess of caution is in order to avoid POV. Ewulp 12:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ewulp I accept your judgement on the Geringer quote - I really believe you are the most impartial editor we have, and one of the flat plain best at language and editing, period.  I also absolutely agree on the excess of caution to avoid POV.  (though I must say, it always baffled me how people viewed listing the horrors of the aftermath of the ambush, in particular, as whitewashing Clyde's murders, or by listing that no one ever even made a police complaint on Bonnie shooting anyone was a whitewash!   The truth is we went out of our way to avoid claims of a whitewash by keeping out the most explosive quotes on the ambush, as you know.  My own favorite not in is: "Today Hamer and the posse would be tried, and convicted, for murder, and Hamer probably executed or at the minimum given life in prison."  That quote was left out precisely to avoid POV, though frankly, any human that justifies cutting the bloody clothes and hair off a dead girl and selling them for souveners, or allowing it to be done, as Hamer did, deserves life in prison)


 * Therefore, I cheerfully accept your decision on the Geringer quote. You have absolutely hit the nail on the head that we have to balance this article extremely carefully to explain the mythic Bonnie and Clyde that so incredibly powerfully hit the nation's consciouness during the depression, and even today dominate american popular myth, against what he, really was, a vicious psychopath, and even more importantly, what she, in particular, really was, a foolish (but sadly, quite gifted - one of the quotes deleted during peer review hit that on the head, "if she had not met Clyde Barrow, Bonnie's intelligence and talent might well have taken her far from Texas and poverty") girl who followed him to her death.  (the quote was deemed too far in the balance as pro-Bonnie, I accepted it's deletion.  I try to work towards agreement, as I hope you know - you and I have always worked well together) You have balanced reality and myth, explaining how the former led to the later.
 * I accept your advise because I trust you, you are impartial, and one hell of a writer. I would have left it in, but we operate here as a team, and I trust your judgement, period.
 * I also urge Mytwocents to discuss changes, because otherwise I, or randazzo, or stillstudying, will merely revert them. I think you know I am perfectly willing to listen, and discuss, and accept consensus - even when I feel otherwise - because my goal is the best possible article, AND I CANNOT DO THAT ALONE.  I hope Mytwocents sees the same thing - that neither he, nor I, should decide things, but we should seek cooperative editing, and consensus.  Where that does not occur, there are edit wars.
 * There are NO disputed facts, so it is all language issues, and frankly, I think you as the most impartial editor we have, have resolved those. But I will listen to anyone. old windy bear 12:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice job Ewulp, I like your style. Mytwocents 17:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Mytwocents Once again you might try imitating Ewulp, and posting proposed changes or discussing them.


 * Hamer unquestionably, and I can give you any cite you wish, ordered the ambush posse to fire full power NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED prior to Bonnie and Clyde's arrival. That is a vital fact, I restored it.
 * You eliminated the word "respected" from the historians cited in this article, which is not acceptable. I allowed you to remove that particular adjective, in the spirit of attempting to work towards consensus, and placed the words "recognized as experts on Bonnie and Clyde," or do you wish to dispute factually that John Phillips, John Treherne, and E. R. Milner are not nationally recognized experts?  I can prove that one also.
 * Finally, the entire paragraph on the grisly and horrible aftermath of the ambush was deleted, and restored. That paragraph stays in, it has been voted in 7 times now, it was in Ewulp 's edit, and it contains vital facts and information on the ambush and the absolutely horrific aftermath where a supposed law endorcement officer allowed people to cut blood hair and clothes off a dead girl not wanted for any violent crime.  In fact, he would not stop the defacing of the dead until the coroner ordered him to secure the crime scene!  Do you dispute that those incidents did not occur?  If you don't they stay in. old windy bear 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As an editor who has quietly watched these edits go back and forth over the past week, I'll add my two cents worth: the paragraph on the grisly aftermath should remain in but the other changes that old windy bear added back are, well, a bit windy. I don't think they change either the substance or tenor of the sentences and therefore are just excess verbiage. That the historians and writers are respected or experts, for example, does nothing (in my opinion) to further drive home the point that that no historian or writer has found such items (unless you are telling me that disrespected historians have turned evidence that the respected historians missed). -- DS1953 talk 17:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, DS1953 that the grisly aftermath paragraph must stay, it simply contains too much vital information to delete, and I thought your point on the respected/disrespected historians was hysterical. And true of course, but funny as hell, nonetheless.  But evidently, oldwindybear and Mytwocents are working together, and the changes oldwindybear put back in he voluntarily removed.  Nor evidently did Mytwocents remove the grisly aftermath paragraph.  I must say, the spirit of cooperation is a nice change, and everyone seems honestly determined to work without nastiness.  I did have to note that your comments were not only on point, but hilarious.  It helps to have humor sometimes, and I am still laughing over the disrespected historians.  (Actually, I suppose there really are some, who plagerize, or committ other academic no nos, but in this context, it was genuinely funny while making a good point) Stillstudying Max 15:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the diff for my last edit I didn't remove the grisly aftermath statement.  It may appear that way on other diff's, but wikipedia does that sometimes.

Mytwocents Tell you what, since you did not knock the grisly aftermath paragraph out, I reversed and reinstated the changes you want. I don't necessarily agree they flow better, (and I still think the fact Hamer ordered firing no matter what should be in) but I think we need to get to the point of not being petty. I am putting your sentences in. We need to reach a point we can work together - this is silly. You are far too intelligent for you and I to go around on a couple of sentences, and there is just not enough difference to argue about. Please consider this a good faith gesture. old windy bear 18:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Works for me! I'm off. Happy Memorial Day! Mytwocents 18:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Happy Memorial Day to you also Mytwocents, and I am following you off, lol. old windy bear 18:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * NIce work--and a Happy Memorial Day to all! Ewulp 22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ewulp My friend, it is always a pleasure to work with you, and I wish you and everyone a Happy Memorial Day !old windy bear 23:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Mytwocents I did not know katefan0 was gone until I fully read your comments back up page, tonight. That she was driven away by personal attacks horrified me. I went up and removed as many of the comments made after you posted a new start offer (including all those to Theresa when she came, and the last of those to Strothra) - Theresa has my blessing as an admin to remove the whole line (I didn't feel I could, since he was responding to me, I had to leave the uppermost in or I would be leaving him looking like he was talking to himself!).  The personal attacks must stop.  I hope my removal of all the edits I could shows my own disgust at an atmosphere that can drive someone away, and more importantly, my desire to not be part of such acts in any way.  (I like to think I am the person who works with Ewulp so well here, or randazzo, or with Srnec on the Carolingian Empire projects) I was absolutely horrified that Kate was gone.  She was an extremely nice and fair person.  I wish to be remembered, when I am gone, as someone who honestly tried to donate time, a lot of it actually, to work on articles because I truly believe in wikipedia.  I don't want to be part of forcing anyone out, or contributing to an atmosphere that fosters such events.  I thank you for letting me know about Kate, but I am sickened that she was driven away.  I refuse to be part of negative postings after this minute.  Never again will I post one.  If I cannot say something without it carrying a negative connotation for the editor, I won't post it.  At some point, all of us who are decent people have to say enough is enough, and I am sorry to say I was guilty of quarreling over things that in 5 years won't even be remembered. old windy bear 23:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Old windy bear, I echo your pledge. I hope, of course, that you will be editing on wikipedia, for long time.  You have invested a lot of time and effort on several articles, that would basicly be stubs without your contributions. Katefan0  can still be reached by her email, she has invited anyone to write her. Sincerly, Mytwocents 02:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Mytwocents Thank you - I wrote Kate, as soon as I finished here.  I was really horrified after I investigated a bit into what was happening.  I truly did not know she was the victim of really vicious personal attacks.  I am ashamed I ever made a personal comment, because when I reflected on what has occurred with her, it is obvious to me that all of us, all decent people, have to stand up and decline to contribute in any way to the hate filled personal attacks.  I believe you, and I offer, as a further sign of good faith, to invite you to look at the article on Frank Hamer.  We had once agreed to taking out the controversy section there, since it was in this article.  I put it back in that article, I am sorry to say, after we began arguing here.  I have honored our original agreement, and just removed it.  I also removed other language which could have been POV, and invite you to edit away on it.  I thank you for your kind words on my work in wikipedia.  I think Srnec and I did the work I am proudest of on the articles on the Carolingians, and the rewrite Kirill asked me to do on the Mongol Invasion of Central Asia,  but thank you again for the kind words.  This incident with Kate really shocked me.  I do NOT wish to be remembered as a person who encouraged an atmosphere of hate and anger, of personal attacks.  I believe you will honor your pledge, as I will mine, and we will work together on this article, and who knows, if I last, maybe on the Luther article - I happen to have read his treatsies in Latin, and agree with your stance, (while his early writings do reflect loathing for Jews, that was typical for the times, I am sorry to say, and it was far less virulant than it became in his later writings...)  I hope you stay on wikipedia also, and you will realistically be here when i am gone, and I hope we forge a better memory than what we had.  old windy bear 02:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * First, kudos to Ewulp for essentially resolving the language issues remaining on this article, and generally fostering good will. I left for the memorial day weekend and it was Mars on this page, and returned today to Venus.  Mytwocents I won't lie and say you and I did not get off to a poor start, as the sock puppet charge enraged me.  You can study my edit history, which is beginning to build since that time, and I am obviously not oldwindybear.  But I have to say, with reluctant admiration, that you deserve credit for proposing a new start here, and old windy bear your horror at whatever happened to Katefan0, (I gather this was a popular admin who was driven away by personal attacks, but did not know her other than a posting or two she put up, which seemed quite fair), inspired you to accept Mytwocents offer, and reject negative postings.  I am going to join you both.  This is the only talk page I have actually, to the best of my memory, written on, (except my own), all my other edits are as Mytwocents are, if I have the information, and it is a brief edit, which most are, I merely put it in.  This seemed an especially vipurative page, and I am glad you both decided to change that.  I would note I would post any major changes, but most of mine are such as my edit to the Battle of New Market where I noted the actual ages of the cadets involved, and where they are buried, and sourced those facts.  I pledge to stand with you both and abhor negative postings on talk pages or anywhere else.  I think we all should.  The negative energy on wikipedia has been growing, and it needs to stop.  This is a fine place to start, congratulations to all here who are trying, and I join you. Stillstudying Max 12:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Bullett ridden shirt claim needs citing
The claim the casino has a bullet ridden and bloody shirt of Clyde's needs citing. It it is not sourced in the next 48 hours, I will remove it. old windy bear 01:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone was kind enough to send me the sourcing for this, and it is now posted. Thanks! old windy bear 19:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice article
I haven’t read more than a handful of words on this talk page, but they were enough to see that a certain amount of pain has been suffered (and inflicted) in getting this article to the state it is in. I found it informative and well-written. So, for what it’s worth, you all have my thanks. (The footnotes are royally screwed up, as they usually are on Wikipedia—and no, I haven’t found the magic bullet for that problem—but absolute kudos for citing sources.) Mostly an editor, but in this case entirely a reader (probably a more important vocation) —Ian Spackman 16:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why thank you - there was more than a little pain involved in getting this article where it is. But all parties seem to have made peace, and in the end, produced a really good article. Yes, the footnotes are a mess, but the sourcing is impeccable. Max 18:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding a Trivia Section
The car comments are already in the article, the quotes belong in Wikiquote. I therefore removed the trivia section. Stillstudying 13:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur. Not to mention there is already a Popular culture section, and Trivia is not encyclopedic. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Commentary removed from article
I removed the following:

Finally trying to put the duo's appeal to the public during the depression in perspective, and their enduring appeal to those who consider themselves outsiders, or oppose the existing system, "The country’s money simply declined by 38 percent," explains E.R. Milner, author of The Lives and Times of Bonnie and Clyde. "Gaunt, dazed men roamed the city streets seeking jobs... Breadlines and soup kitchens became jammed. (In rural areas) foreclosures forced more than 38 percent of farmers from their lands (while simultaneously) a catastrophic drought struck the Great Plains... By the time Bonnie and Clyde became well known, many had felt the capitalistic system had been abused by big business and government officials... Now here were Bonnie and Clyde striking back."

From the article. The source is crimelibrary, which is tertiary; it is a commentary on their popular appeal which in my opinion would be well suited to inclusion, but is not "popular culture". comments, suggestions? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ?!? I restored it, I am not trying to start an editing war, but this was argued at great length during the peer review, and a solid majority voted to keep this section in to sum up the article, and the pair's enduring appeal in the mythos of the American culture. It stays unless a majority vote to move it, and no offense, but we have gone through this argument repeatedly.  It is a solid commentary on their popular appeal, as you noted, and thus fits perfectly in popular culture.  We who participated in the peer review agreed this should stay as the ending of the article, for precisely these reasons.  However, if you have a better idea for it, I am certainly open to it - you are a good editor, and I am always willing to listen.  I just personally think it is where it belongs. Stillstudying 19:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) I moved it here for discussion and rephrasing, which apparently has not met with any response other than to undo my action. I feel it is confusing and not well placed where it is, and could use a rewrite. In short, I feel it belongs either elsewhere in the article, or as an introduction to the popular culture section, as it comments on, rather than is an example of, B&C in PC. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

?!? I thought I explained my reasons for restoring it and showed you respect by going and explaining: first, this sums up the pair's place in the American popular lexicon of heroes, whether one admires them or not. Secondly, it perfectly sums up the popular culture article, and would merely clog the beginning, which has other comments to open the section. It was placed where it is by a peer review, which discussed these issues at length, and I believe it should stay there. Anyone else have any thoughts? Stillstudying 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the length of the intro to the section, this is about their popularity and not an example of their popularity. The paragraph needs a rewrite as well - can we begin by agreeing to not start the paragraph with "Finally"? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

?!? Sure, I just changed it to say "E.R. Milner, one of the experts on Bonnie and Clyde and the era in question, tried to put..." - see if that opening is any better. I agree "Finally" was certainly something we could do better on. Stillstudying 20:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Much better, I tweaked it a little. It is still very run-on. Currently reads:

E.R. Milner, an expert on Bonnie and Clyde and their era, put the duo's appeal to the public during the depression in perspective, and their enduring appeal to those who consider themselves outsiders, or oppose the existing system.
 * Can we do better than this? Surely we can. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Take 1: E.R. Milner, an expert on Bonnie and Clyde and their era, put the duo's appeal to the public during the depression and their enduring appeal to those who consider themselves outsiders, or oppose the existing system, into perspective. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

?!? Works for me, I think it is a good entry into the sumnation of why these two relatively minor league criminals have had such an enduring hold in the popular mythos for over 70 years. Nice work, I like it. Yours was a lot better than mine. Stillstudying 20:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, I try. There is surely a better way, but that was the best I could think of. No one else has weighed in on whether the paragraph would be best at the intro or at the end of the PopCul section, so as it is empasse currently I suggest we wait a few days and see if anyone else has a thought on the matter. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

?!? I really do believe it sums up the article perfectly, again, explaining why these two - not Dillinger, not Pretty Boy, not Alvin Karpis, not even Al Capone -have held the public imagination so long. But I agree, lets see if anyone else has any thoughts, and you did a nice job of improving the opening, for what I think should still be the closing paragraph for the article. Stillstudying 20:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't mind it where it is nearly as much as I minded how awkwardly it was written. Now that it's tidied up I feel much better about it, wherever it lands. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

?!?I think this was a great example of editors working together and compromising, and I appreciate your doing so, and improving the article, wherever it ends up, though I hope it still ends it, hint, hint! But seriously, thanks. Stillstudying 20:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It was, wasn't it? Thanks much! This is especially appreciated since I currently have someone yelling on my page about my bias as an admin... apparently I'm not mean enough to other people with whom he is in disagreement. Your cheerful willingness to listen to my concerns about the paragraph and work with me has been a real joy. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think KillerChihuahua first instinct was correct. Moving the Milner paragraph to the talk page allows everyone to discuss it. To me it is so much POV fluff, and doesn't have a place in an encyclopedia article.  That was my position some time ago and now. But others think it has a place.  We have needed fresh eyes on this page for some time now.  I encourage everyone to be bold and for this page to be inclusive and open to new editors. Mytwocents 04:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Greetings! Hi everyone.  I still think the piece is not fluff, but the comment of a first rate historian, an acknowledged expert on the time frame in question, and the duo here, analyzing why they remain so enduring in the national consciousness 7 decades after their death.  I don't have any problem with KillerChihuahua's editing of the opening to that paragraph, but now, as then, I really feel it should stay, it is a perfect secondary source sumnation of their place in our culture - perfect for wikipedia and an encyclopedia article. I believe, and vote that it stay to close the article.  Ewulp did the edit that put it to close the article, and I think it is perfect for that purpose, good solid history, from a very first rate source.  old windy bear 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Good article. Why do people keep trying to change it? Must be the right wing at it again. Historyman1978 17:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Historyman1978I would have to dispute that. I think people legitimately disagree on this article, and the purpose of this talk page is to discuss those differences.  Please assume good faith.  I think the article is pretty good as is, but nothing is perfect in this universe but God, and the purpose of these talk pages is to talk about the disagreements.  I personally think that paragraph should stay, but I don't think someone wanting to move it is "right wing."   I see you are a new user, you will find that nastiness and getting personal on these issues has driven many good people off wikipedia, and done no one a bit of good.  I am glad you like the article as it is, but again, please do not assume bad faith just because someone wants to change it.  old windy bear 19:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Image
Where did Image:Bonnie and Clyde.jpg come from? It looks like the late 1920s or something; I know it can't have been published before 1923 (they do not look like they're 13 and 14 years old), so it's definitely not PD-US. Can someone clarify this? hbdragon88 00:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * they were taken from Marie Barrows basement. If they have basements in the bowels of Texas.....unsigned


 * The photos were taken prior to the assault in Joplin, probably by W.D. Jones. The photos were found in the garage apartment at Joplin. Other photos from the same roll show a Ford with 1932 plates. Kaltenborn 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it was W. D. Jones, he died in 1974, so the copyright wouldn't expire until 2044 if there was a copyright on it (there might not be). If we can definitively prove that it fell into the PD, it should be undeleted. hbdragon88 00:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I will try to find out if they were, as I believe and you obviously do also, uncopyrighted. They should be retored. Stillstudying 13:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned comments will be removed.old windy bear 09:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro and Bonnie
Just a quick note before I head to parts of wp that are more familiar to me... Does the intro to this article need to talk so much about Bonnie not being a partner? It provided 3 quotes saying she never fired a gun. Can't someone read that further down in the article? At the very least, I think those three quotes should be moved into the controversy section, and the intro could simply mention that there's disagreement on how involved Bonnie was. ----Steve 19:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * --Steve With all respect, I strongly disagree. This format was approved by consensus after an exhaustive peer review.  The issue is heavily discussed with different sources because it is the primary matter of controversy involving the duo.  It should stay as it is.  old windy bear 00:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice Edit on the controversy
Stillstudying Nice edit on the controversy - that quotation out of a Supreme Court case on use of deadly force is perfect for explaing why there lingers such controversy about the ambush, and Hamer's orders to not warn a girl not wanted for any major felony before shooting her 25 times. old windy bear 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks bear, I thought it would put an end to the question of why Hamer's ambush was controversial. Stillstudying 12:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there is some controversy in the manner that Hamer approached the apprehension of Bonnie and Clyde. But I don't see how Tennessee v. Garner clears anything up. Clyde was a clear and present danger to the officers and the general public. I think the controversy speaks for itself, without tying to bring in case law that came into affect 51 years after the fact. It seems to me that the controversy lies in the number of rounds fired and the killing of Bonnie. It seems to me that the officers opened fire on the vehicle and did not stop until they were fairly certain that the threat to their lives presented by Clyde had ended. The question then is how do they, the officers, warn "a girl" without warning Clyde. It also appears to show a bias and Non NPOV to call a 23 year old woman "a girl". If we are to apply todays standards of Tennesse v. Garner, then shouldn't we also apply the laws affect accomplices. This is a rhetorical question to make a point. I think the reference to the Supreme Court case should be removed.Jar3079 (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Jar3079 (talk) Perhaps the section could be reworded - the point of Tennesse v. Garner being included is to show why the ambush remains so controversial almost 80 years after they were killed. The law evolved, and people's perceptions did too.  I would not support removing the cite, but I would support a rewrite to state that the evolution of the law - which historical sources will support - are a strong reason people still believe the ambush wrong.  Also, as a point of law, even if the officers believed Clyde dangerous to them, they were still obligated to attempt to arrest him, even under the law existing at the time.  They simply could not shoot him because they thought he might shoot back, or because he had previously done so.  No case law I am aware of states that they were free to simply shoot him on sight!  Political pressure saved the posse from any legal charges.   As to Bonnie's presence, that is obviously even more controversial.  And under today's law, the posse would have been charged with first degree murder for both deaths.  I do stress though I think you have a point, that we need to clarify the reason that cite is there - I do think it should stay, as I said, but your point it can be misleading as is is valid, and we should reword.
 * Respectfully, you are totally misreading Tennesse v. Garner if you read into it a subjective belief of a police officer that a suspect may harm him, without any overt act, is cause for lethal force. That is simply legally incorrect.  Clyde would have to DO something, not simply have DONE something, for the law officers to feel a reasonable belief their lives were in imminent danger.  Past actions, while influential in interpreting present acts, are not sufficient in and of themselves to relieve law officers of the requirement to use non-lethal force minus an immediate threat to life or the public safety, and again, such an immediate threat must have a act showing same.  Clyde could have had the entire National Guard Armory in the vehicle - unless he reached for a weapon, committed an immediate, overt, act to cause imminent risk, they were not free to shoot him to pieces, and today, would be tried for murder.  You are misreading the law. Anyone else on this?  JohninMaryland (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

JohninMaryland, I do understand your point in reference to the use of deadly force. In hindsight, Hamer definitely should have approached it differently. So we are in agreement that it needs to be rewritten. I don’t believe we are in disagreement in reference to Tennessee v. Garner. I may have given the wrong impression in my previous statement. So the jest of it is that there should be some type of rewrite. I’m not going to go into what Hamer should have, could have done, but I do agree that it should have been handled differently.Jar3079 (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jar3079 (talk -- I agree with you completely, and yes, we are in complete agreement. It does need to be rewritten, to say that Tennesse v. Garner was not precedent at the time, but the law in effect still did not authorize simply shooting on sight.  I, like you, feel Hamer should have done differently - but equally like you, have no intention of second guessing it nearly 80 years later!  Do you want to take a stab at the rewrite, or would you like me to?  I think this needs to be done, because we want to emphasize that as the law evolved, so did the controversy, which is why in so many eyes it remains so open after all these years.  Would you like to do the rewrite, or do you want me to try it, with your reviewing it?  I feel certain we can correct this.  JohninMaryland (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Posse members said all manner of things, but the fact was no murder indictment existed
The plain blunt fact is that only one indictment existed for Bonnie Parker at the time of her death, for assisting in the interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle. While it is acceptable to add the attempts by posse members to sugarcoat their shooting a girl not wanted for any major crime 25 times, it cannot be done in such a manner to suggest it is true. The cases cited do not exist naming Bonnie Parker in any murder indictment. Noted historians checked Alcorn's claims, and they were a lie. old windy bear 14:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Lies cannot create a court record that does not exist. Stillstudying 12:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

None of which has anything to do with a Supreme Court decision that was decades in the future. At the time the shooting was completely legal, and was in fact laudable. "Bonnie and Clyde" were vicious violent murderers, and the world was made a better place by their deaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.2.87.151 (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Possibly, but that viewpoint - the world was made a better place by their deaths - is so highly POV that it has no place in an encyclopedia. The evolution of the law is certainly explanitive of why the ambush has been so controversial through the years.  You also miss the point that Bonnie murdered no one at all, and indeed, was never even accused (let alone charged) of doing so. JohninMaryland (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is erroneous to make some connection between the shooting of Bonnie and Clyde and the Tennessee v. Garner case. I believe it should be removed. The controversy is in how we look at it today, with the standards of today. The family of Bonnie Parker could have sought legal recourse (filed suit). And that might have led to a change in 1934. But to apply standards set 51 years later is inappropriate. As I read it, it appears to be in disagreement with the NPOV. To apply today’s standards to something that occurred in 1934 is not NPOV. Even when reviewing the Garner case and what was written about it by the Majority Opinion, Justice White brought to light Common Law. Taking a quote from the Wikipedia page on Tennessee v. Garner: “At common law, it was perfectly legitimate for law enforcement personnel to kill a fleeing felon.” Also being noted in the Garner case was the facts found by the District Court that Hymon had no reason to believe that Garner was armed or dangerous because Hymon had used a flashlight to view Garner at the fence and had been able to seen Garner’s face and hands. This case does not apply to the Bonnie and Clyde shooting. In reading Wikipedia’s page concerning Bonnie and Clyde, Clyde was “probable the shooter in ten murders”, Clyde was known to have and use his “favorite weapon”, the Browning Automatic Rifle, “the Barrow Gang would not hesitate to shoot anybody, civilian or lawman, if they got in the way of their escape”, and “following the ambush, officers inspected the vehicle and discovered a small arsenal of weapons including stolen automatic rifles, semi-automatic shotguns, assorted handguns, and several thousand rounds of ammunition.” From what I gather from Wikipedia, Clyde would not give up if challenged, but would kill anyone that got in his way in any attempt to escape capture.

Even in reading Tennessee v. Garner, Clyde had provided proof beyond any doubt that he would shoot officer or person who got in the way of his escape (based on previous attempts by officers to take Clyde and members of his gang into custody) and therefore he did pose a significant threat of death and serious physical injury to the officers. It appears to me that that section should be removed. Jar3079 (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Jar3079 (talk) Perhaps the section could be reworded - the point of Tennesse v. Garner being included is to show why the ambush remains so controversial almost 80 years after they were killed. The law evolved, and people's perceptions did too.  I would not support removing the cite, but I would support a rewrite to state that the evolution of the law - which historical sources will support - are a strong reason people still believe the ambush wrong.  Also, as a point of law, even if the officers believed Clyde dangerous to them, they were still obligated to attempt to arrest him, even under the law existing at the time.  They simply could not shoot him because they thought he might shoot back, or because he had previously done so.  No case law I am aware of states that they were free to simply shoot him on sight!  Political pressure saved the posse from any legal charges.   As to Bonnie's presence, that is obviously even more controversial.  And under today's law, the posse would have been charged with first degree murder for both deaths.  I do stress though I think you have a point, that we need to clarify the reason that cite is there - I do think it should stay, as I said, but your point it can be misleading as is is valid, and we should reword.
 * Respectfully, you are totally misreading Tennesse v. Garner if you read into it a subjective belief of a police officer that a suspect may harm him, without any overt act, is cause for lethal force. That is simply legally incorrect.  Clyde would have to DO something, not simply have DONE something, for the law officers to feel a reasonable belief their lives were in imminent danger.  Past actions, while influential in interpreting present acts, are not sufficient in and of themselves to relieve law officers of the requirement to use non-lethal force minus an immediate threat to life or the public safety, and again, such an immediate threat must have a act showing same.   Clyde could have had the entire National Guard Armory in the vehicle - unless he reached for a weapon, committed an immediate, overt, act to cause imminent risk, they were not free to shoot him to pieces, and today, would be tried for murder.   They could not even say he was fleeing, as he was never given the chance to do so!
 * A better statement applicable to this case comes from Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 125 S.Ct. 596, (U.S.,2004) which says:
 * “Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.”
 * Further, the Court says where an armed felon who is not presenting any immediate threat by his direct actions may use a vehicle to escape, lethal force may only be used to stop the escape where the vehicle itself poses a threat to others in the vicinity – clearly not the case in this instance, where the ambush took place on a desolate road with no one remotely near except the hidden officers, who were in no danger at all. Otherwise, deadly force may not be used to prevent the escape.   The law is clear… Anyone else on this?   PS  - which still does not change the fact you are correct, and the current language needs a rewrite, as it is misleading... JohninMaryland (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Clyde's Middle Name
I noticed that someone kept trying to change Clyde's middle name, so I did some looking and found a website that lists Clyde's full name and then many aliases. I thought I would post that hear so it can be discussed if that should be added into Clyde's bio, etc to solve that problem. The website is "http://texashideout.tripod.com/Ford.html" I'm not sure the rules, so I thought it better to discuss it hear first. It lists as follows: ''Name:      Clyde Chestnut Barrow Aliases:   Clyde "Champion" Barrow, W. J. Callahan, Elvin Williams, Eldin Williams, Robert Thomas, Carl Beaty, Roy Bailey, Jack Hale

Height:    5' 6 3/4" Weight:     125-130 pounds Complexion: light Eyes:       hazel Hair color: dark chestnut Marks: missing 2 toes-left foot Tattoos: heart & dagger initials "EBW"-outer arm (probably initials of ex-girlfriend Eleanor B. Williams) rose & leaves-left shoulder, shield & anchor with initials "USN"-left arm, girl's face bearing the name "Grace"- right arm, and the name "Anne"- inner left arm'' Jar3079 (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jar3079 (talk) You are 100% correct. Since you have laboriously notified the errant editor, I would just revert if it is changed again, because it is just vandalism.  JohninMaryland (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The famous dogs bonnie and clyde
Hi, I recently saw a scottish whiskey that was called bonnie and clyde and had a picture of two dogs. On the label it said something about the legend of captain john tomson the famous hunter and his dogs bonnie and clyde. This sounded interesting so I tried searching the Internet for this legen but couldn't find anything. Does someone know about this. 87.126.25.216 (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Evgeni