Talk:American gangsters

Title of Section on Dillinger
Why is the section on Dillinger called "The Capture"? The article is on gangsters, not just Dillingers.JohnC (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Cause of organized crime?
The first sentence of this article states, without citation, that the cause of heightened criminal activity during ertertertertheterterimplies that people were resistant to prohibition because the social scene "discouraged" it. I suggest that this statement besrgteger altered to reflect the more accepted position that prohibition itself resulted in bootlegging and organized crime - http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/organized_crime1_final.html, http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/402.htm , http://www.1920-30.com/prohibition/ UranianPoet 01:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This Page is Absolute Garbage
This page is utter garbage and should be deleted.

It reads like a half-assed, uninformed essay written by a 6th grader.

For example, tuytut and people of the 1930's incorrectly in the 1920's.

Al Capone was not a bank robber, and John Dillinger, Bonnie Parker, Clyde Barrow, and Baby Face Nelson were all criminals of the 1930's not the 1920's.

This entire page needs deletion. It's completely unneeded and 95% false. You can't fix something that is inherently screwed up.

72.208.97.129 (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree that it needs improvement. It may be poorly named. Confining it to the 1920s and naming a bunch of articles after a time period seems like poor encyclopedia, but I don't have sufficient perspective to suggest a more comprehensive (more encyclopedic) title. Editors seem to hate improving titles anyway. Student7 (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How about just renaming it "American gangsters" and redirecting to Gangster?--I.C. Rivers (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing how it's been nearly 3 weeks since I made this suggestion, and no one's objected (or commented at all for that matter), it's seem a safe bet that moving the page and redirecting would be uncontroversial. Even more so considering that vast majority of edits tho the page for past year or so have been vandalsim and the reverting of it. So one seems to willing to clean up the page, which is understandable since it would probably be a massively time consuming task. So i'll go ahead and move and redirect. If anyone makes a reasonable objection to it, it can be reverted, but it's not likely to meet with much opposition.--I.C. Rivers (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)