Talk:Bonnie and Clyde/to do/Archive 1

This is just an example. This is not a true issue that exist. Right here I would place my opinion and sugest a methode of correction. Or better yet I will have correct the issue. You should cover the first 4 items. You should then sugest options and add 2 more.


 * 1) Statuquo: Remain the same because they are gay fucks and this is the majority POV
 * 2) Remove: This is a strong POV that violates blah blah blah. Minor view.
 * 3) Clarify: add more to explain...
 * 4) Cite: Source, verify, etc....
 * 5) Edit/Change to: I sugest we remove blah blah
 * 6) Edit/Change to 2: I suggest we could also keep blah blah but add blah blah instead.
 * 7) Ignore this issue or postpone

Pick one and sign your name. I pick 7, because this is a fake example. --CyclePat 02:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

#7, pick your issue, source your concern, and then leave it for the editors, is best

 * 1) 7 is best, where issues are stated, sourced, and that is all. ALL personal talk, including mine, should result in the banning of hte user.

Wikipedia policy says: "Wikipedia follows the writers' rules of engagement: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Stay cool when the editing gets hot; avoid lame edit wars by following the three-revert rule; remember that there are 1,015,193 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith by never disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume the same of others in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. Don't use sockpuppets to do wrong or circumvent policy. Be open, welcoming, and inclusive." See wikipedia policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:5P

So we need to reserve the Bonnie and Clyde talkpage for Bonnie and Clyde issues, and stop everyone, me included, from fighting. NO personal statements about another user should be allowed, period. ONLY Bonnie and Clyde issues, and then pithy specifics, such as: There are two simple issues left for this article, when you boil down all the rhetoric: I suggest all cursing, personal attacks, personal opinons, personal issues, be grounds for instant banning. In the interim, I suggest that sufficient documentation and sourcing has been offered to justify arguing Bonnie's participation was probably quite limited, that she was not wanted for murder, and that historians have come to question the legality of the ambush and the horror of it's aftermath. old windy bear 12:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) what was the level of participation of Bonnie Parker in the "Barrow Gang" Crimes?  I believe this has been argued to death.  Now Pat and Kate need to decide whether or not the complete lack fo criminal warrants for Bonnie for murder - John Treherne traveled the country adn found none -- trumps the one viable claim Bonnie shot at anyone, by Blanche Barrow.  But that claim would have you believe 2 women machine gunned a crowd on May 12, 1933 in Lucerne, Ind,. without any of them filing even so much as a complaint to the police!
 * 2)Given no capital warrants for Bonnie, was the horrific aftermath of the ambush justified? E.R. Milner describes a scene from hell in his book pages 145-147 where people are literally cutting off Bonnie's bloody clothes adn hair for souvenirs, while Hamer first goes off to arrange a press conference, then, when he returns, does nothing to stop it until the coroner demands he do so.