User talk:Pv86

Any messages left will be answered.

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions that you have made already. You can use this if you like it. Just put it at the end of the end of talk pages. If you don't want it that's fine. Pv86 -  Talk  Regards -  BennyK95  -  Talk  02:14, October 10 2009 (UTC)

thank you very much! That is very thoughtful of you! :)  Pv86  -  Talk

Sure! The only problem is you have to paste it in and add the date! Regards -  BennyK95  -  Talk  19:23, October 10 2009 (UTC)

BennyK95 -  Talk  I hate to ask, but how do I add the date? Thanks in advance for your kind help! Pv86 -  Talk

Bonnie and Clyde
Thanks for your kind words. It's true that HarringtonSmith and I have worked double time to keep the presentation of the article as balanced as possible. For what it's worth, the editor who instituted such wide scale changes capitulated on the talk page. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie (talk) I thought you had done a superior job in maintaining a very good and very balanced article, and was appalled that such wide ranging changes - which unbalanced the article totally - instituted without any discussion at all. I am glad the other editor threw in the towel! Keep up the great work you do! I aspire to be the kind of editor you are. Pv86 (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Pv86, the other editor here. Would you like to come collaborate on the "Controversy" section at the Talk page? Ive been working on it since this morning and Im about ready to *cough* throw in the towel :) LaNaranja (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * LaNaranja (talk) Hello, and thank you for asking - I am feeling a little under the weather this afternoon, but I will help as I can. I appreciate your asking! Pv86 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Im sorry, feel better soon :) LaNaranja (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How nice to see you again, Pv86. Glad to hear you're one of 'em who keeps on tickin'! Thanks for the kind words about Bonnie and Clyde; I thought about you often while I was working on it, especially in segments on Bonnie and Hamer. In addition to Bonnie's Dallas and Miami, OK warrants, I also found a murder warrant from Belton Co. TX in Jan '34 (for murder of Doyle Johnson) and an "Assault to Murder" felony warrant from August of '32 (yeah, real early) from Wharton Co. TX on Bonnie, one on Clyde and one on Ray Hamilton, but didn't put them in the article. I tried also to present a balanced look at Hamer. Hope you found that aspect satisfactory. Wildhartlivie and LaNaranja have both retired, the former formally and the latter by fewer and farther-between check-ins. LaNaranja did a terrific job on W. D. Jones which you might enjoy looking in on. Also, I expanded Red Crown Tourist Court, the Platte City, MO shootout, which you also might enjoy. There's a Bonnie and Clyde website called Boodles Board (Clyde's nickname for Henry Methvin) which you might like. There's some real knowledgeable people there, and terrific in-depth historical discussions. I asked around there about those murder trials for Hamer, but no one had ever heard or read of them. LaNaranja also searched extensively and came up dry. Glad to know you're still among us, Pv86. Be well. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * HarringtonSmith Harry, how nice to talk to you! Thanks for the sites - they are extremely interesting, especially, Boodles Board  Congratulations again on a really terrific job on Bonnie and Clyde.  I also thought you did a good and balanced job on Hamer.  I really tip my proverbial hat to you on the quality of your research - again, I thought I had read widely on Bonnie and Clyde, and I knew nothing of the warrants you found.  That is really first rate work.  Thanks for thinking about me while you were working on the article - I was laying in a hospital bed (and then a rehab center)much of the time, thinking about many things, including you also and wikipedia.  I really thought i was not going to make it, so I am really glad to be back!  I am sorry Wildhartlivie and LaNaranja have both retired, they were great editors.  I don't know what to say about the Hamer trials, perhaps that was simply wrong information.  Later today I will look at the FBI files, and see what his has, unless you have already done so, which you probably have!  Take care, and I hope to see you here again.  Pv86 (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Good to know you're still hanging tough, Pv86. Have you joined the Zipper Club this last time around? My procedures went in through my jugular so my Weissmuller chest is still unblemished. Glad to know you made it through. Not much new since your last check-in, though the main article got over 75,000 hits in one day on May 23rd, the ambush anniversary. You might enjoy the color additions to the main B&C article down here near the end and some photos and expansion to the article on the movie. If you're interested in getting back to some editing, the Joplin shootout is still in need of its own article, and Ted Hinton and Raymond Hamilton both still need work; there are abundant sources for all three. Welcome back to the fray. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * HarringtonSmith yes, I joined the zipper club this time around! (Ouch...)  I am interested in returning to editing - do you recommend any background reading, and which article would be best to start with?  I did wish to say again what a truly wonderful job you did on Bonnie and Clyde.  You turned up much great information that many others, not just myself, had missed.  You really deserve an enormous amount of credit for hard, and good, work...Take care, and it is good to "talk" to you! Pv86 (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. There's still plenty of work to be done, since you asked. As I said above, Ted Hinton and Raymond Hamilton would be good to warm up on. I'd start with Hamilton, after looking at W. D. Jones which is a perfect model for what the Hamilton page should be (it's the work of your old friend La Naranja). Here's the rundown on sources: John Neal Phillips is the gold standard of B&C scholarship; his two books are Running With Bonnie and Clyde and My Life With Bonnie and Clyde. The notes are the treasure troves of these two books. Also indispensible is Jeff Guinn's Go Down Together, which is the newest book and is really comprehensive in its detail. A little pricey at $50 (used, I paid $80 new), but a true must-have, is On The Trail of Bonnie and Clyde Winston Ramsey, editor. This is a day-by-day timeline of every known sighting of B&C throughout their careers and features a lot of 1933/4 newspaper clippings that are real important to understanding their contemporary images (plus nifty shots of what all those locations look like today). Finally, get Bonnie and Clyde: A 21st Century Update by James R. Knight and Jonathan Davis. These five are really all you need, and each one is a great book to have. Books to avoid: Trehearne's Strange History of B&C, Paul Schneider's B&C: the Lives Behind the Legend and Milner's Lives and Times of B&C. None of them is good scholarship; if you find 'em at the library, read 'em, but don't spend good money on them. I know you like Milner's paragraph in the "Historical Perspective" section of the article, but trust me, the book is too pulpy to be scholarly and is not even good pulp. The most telling thing about Milner is that no one else ever quotes him, thanks him, alludes to him or even mentions his book. And you know what I think of Hinton's as-told-to book Ambush — Hinton himself had very little to do with the book and the sharp scholars say the people who did were taking the extreme positions to try to sell more books.

Once you're ready to tear into a big job, the Joplin gunbattle needs its own article. Take a look at Red Crown Tourist Court article as an example. I'd start it with Buck's parole, then the meeting at Blanche's mother's place, then the rendezvous in Okla, the two weeks they spent "vacationing" before the shoot-out. All that stuff is well-discussed in Phillips and Guinn. Then the gunfight itself, which will be a little tougher because there are several, equally-convincing accounts of it. A comprehensive article would include discussions of all of them. Also, there's an editor called TommyBoy who's a local Joplin historian who started the page Joplin Police Department and might be of some help — evidently he made it through the tornado okay because he's made recent contributions.

Anyway, good to have you back. If I can help you in your editing, just ask. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * HarringtonSmith It is good to be back - for a time, I did not know if I would be anywhere on this earth again, but you know how that feels! I think you are absolutely right that the Hamilton article would be a nice place to start, and to that end, I have ordered the books you recommended most highly.  They should be in next week, and I should be up to speed fairly quickly after that!  I had to chuckle at your pithy description of Milner's book.  I agree, and the only thing I really liked out of it was the quote at the end of the current B & C article, and that because it explains as well as anything does the enduring appeal of a duo who were really just a vicious killer and a foolish girl.  Thanks again for your offer of help, and it is really really good to "talk" to you!  I will touch base as soon as I am ready to begin on Hamilton, if you do not mind, I would like your keen review of my proposed changes.  Pv86 (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed that my name was mentioned in this discussion as a possible "expert" on Bonnie and Clyde due to my Joplin residency. As a point of clarification, the only information I have on the subject of Bonnie and Clyde is their historical connection to the Joplin Police Department as noted in the Joplin, Missouri article. --TommyBoy (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

TommyBoy: Sorry to have made you feel mischaracterized, though I never used the word "expert" despite your having "quoted" me. Perhaps "local Joplin history buff" would have been more accurate. That you can quote me on. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)