| Revision as of 19:29, 14 March 2006 editOldwindybear (talk | contribs)5,177 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:31, 14 March 2006 edit undoOldwindybear (talk | contribs)5,177 edits →To Do list: Verify Neutrality and AccuracyNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| :'''comment''' Interesting enough wiki is a place for many facts, however I remember reading that there are actually instances that exist where some people will argue that it may not belong in the article. WP:NPOV actually says that "regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not;" an extremely small view should not be in wikipedia. The idea here is to know on whether it belongs in the article or not because of it's predominant status (acceptance) in our society. I think an article that we should evaluate could be the ] . I'm not sure if that is the best example but it could be a good start. ] should be observed. This being said I would avoid using terms such as "a scene from hell." However.... heading down into ] you may be able to leave such a comment. It must be well ] sourced criticism. It is important for the construction of the article and for people understand who is saying this! Summary: determine the importance and see if it is a viewpoint held by a Majority, a minority or an extreme small minority. If it the 2 first then we should include according to ]. I would suggest placing it in a section that where it won't be contradicted right away. That means if there is another controversial view then I would put that in its own well sourced section. --] 03:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC) | :'''comment''' Interesting enough wiki is a place for many facts, however I remember reading that there are actually instances that exist where some people will argue that it may not belong in the article. WP:NPOV actually says that "regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not;" an extremely small view should not be in wikipedia. The idea here is to know on whether it belongs in the article or not because of it's predominant status (acceptance) in our society. I think an article that we should evaluate could be the ] . I'm not sure if that is the best example but it could be a good start. ] should be observed. This being said I would avoid using terms such as "a scene from hell." However.... heading down into ] you may be able to leave such a comment. It must be well ] sourced criticism. It is important for the construction of the article and for people understand who is saying this! Summary: determine the importance and see if it is a viewpoint held by a Majority, a minority or an extreme small minority. If it the 2 first then we should include according to ]. I would suggest placing it in a section that where it won't be contradicted right away. That means if there is another controversial view then I would put that in its own well sourced section. --] 03:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ] Hi Pat! You are right about the phrase "scene out of hell" which is why it is NOT in the article. I think actually that Kate, and then Kelly, did an excellent job rewriting the article, preserving those issues I thought important, while giving it less of a POV outlook. In short, you are right on that phrase, and i would never add it to the article, it is just my personal opinion, which has NO PLACE in the article. I think most people agree with the current way the article is presented, and the facts are certainly correct. I have stood aside and let others rewrite, and like the result. ] 19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC) | ] Hi Pat! You are right about the phrase "scene out of hell" which is why it is NOT in the article. I think actually that Kate, and then Kelly, did an excellent job rewriting the article, preserving those issues I thought important, while giving it less of a POV outlook. In short, you are right on that phrase, and i would never add it to the article, it is just my personal opinion, which has NO PLACE in the article. I think most people agree with the current way the article is presented, and the facts are certainly correct. I have stood aside and let others rewrite, and like the result. Pat, even at the time of their deaths, almost half the country did not agree - if you believe the histories - with the way they were ambushed, and the aftermath, especially considering Bonnie was not wanted for murder. But you are right on the wording. "Scene out of hell" should be reserved for Auswitz or Treblenka. ] 19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:31, 14 March 2006
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bonnie and Clyde article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
|
Clean slate
Archived. · Katefan0/poll 14:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
To Do list: Verify Neutrality and Accuracy
The TO DO list is there because for the last few weeks we have been trying to fix and verify the neutrality and accuracy of the article. Any other comments you feel should be include and or are directly related to the fixing of the article, in regards for example to neutrality and accuracy should be discussed here. --CyclePat 06:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- A sugested format of presentation is as follows:
- "quote section of arguable info" -- WP:Policy -- Explanation of the policy in 5 to 15 words. -- Link to issue %-- signature
- --CyclePat 06:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. --Woohookitty 07:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
CyclePat Reasonable enough. I have only two sections that I think there is any significant controversy on, and I stand by the wording and sourcing presently in those sections. Those two sections, and issues, are:
- 1) the level of participation of Bonnie Parker in the "Barrow Gang" crimes. Everyone has conceded there were no warrants for murder out for Bonnie, and the surviving gang members, with the exception of Blanche, claimed she never fired a shot, and her role was limited strictly to "logistical support." Blanche's claim she fired on a crowd is backed by a newspaper clipping, BUT, no one from that supposed crowd ever filed even a police complaint! Realistically, no one can tell me that two women used automatic rifles on a crowd of people, wounded some, and NOT ONE SOUL ever filed even so much as a complaint, let alone took out a warrant?
- 2) The order by Hamer to fire on Bonnie Parker without warning is undisputed. Also undisputed is that in recent years historians such as Milner have questioned the legality of that order. (Ted Hinton questioned it, as did other posse members, at the time!) Further, in Milner's book, pages 145-147, describe the aftermath of the ambush, a scene from hell, as people cut off locks of Bonnie's bloody hair and her clothes, and a man tried to cut off Clyde's ear. Hamer was too busy talking to people to stop this until the coroner asked him.
Some folks have implied that putting these facts in an article on Bonnie and Clyde implies sympathy for Bonnie -- not so. They imply only that wikipedia is an encyclopedia with an obligation to recite the facts as best we know them. Bonnie level of actual participation is an important facet of the article on Bonnie and Clyde, and the horror of the ambush is also vital to the article. I think the two sections, on Bonnie and her level of participation in the crimes, and the ambush and it's aftermath are good sections, well sourced, and factually and legally accurate. old windy bear 16:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- comment Interesting enough wiki is a place for many facts, however I remember reading that there are actually instances that exist where some people will argue that it may not belong in the article. WP:NPOV actually says that "regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not;" an extremely small view should not be in wikipedia. The idea here is to know on whether it belongs in the article or not because of it's predominant status (acceptance) in our society. I think an article that we should evaluate could be the Holocaust Cruelty. I'm not sure if that is the best example but it could be a good start. WP:NPOV#Fairness and sympathetic tone should be observed. This being said I would avoid using terms such as "a scene from hell." However.... heading down into WP:NPOV#Characterizing opinions of people's work you may be able to leave such a comment. It must be well WP:CITE sourced criticism. It is important for the construction of the article and for people understand who is saying this! Summary: determine the importance and see if it is a viewpoint held by a Majority, a minority or an extreme small minority. If it the 2 first then we should include according to WP:CITE. I would suggest placing it in a section that where it won't be contradicted right away. That means if there is another controversial view then I would put that in its own well sourced section. --CyclePat 03:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
CyclePat Hi Pat! You are right about the phrase "scene out of hell" which is why it is NOT in the article. I think actually that Kate, and then Kelly, did an excellent job rewriting the article, preserving those issues I thought important, while giving it less of a POV outlook. In short, you are right on that phrase, and i would never add it to the article, it is just my personal opinion, which has NO PLACE in the article. I think most people agree with the current way the article is presented, and the facts are certainly correct. I have stood aside and let others rewrite, and like the result. Pat, even at the time of their deaths, almost half the country did not agree - if you believe the histories - with the way they were ambushed, and the aftermath, especially considering Bonnie was not wanted for murder. But you are right on the wording. "Scene out of hell" should be reserved for Auswitz or Treblenka. old windy bear 19:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Category: