Talk:Frank Hamer

message: Perhaps if you were a family member of one of the officers killed you might not be as simpithetic about the "Two poor kids from Texas".
Perhaps, but I don't honestly believe I am being sympathetic - I am just trying to tell the truth on the way the ambush happened.  have you read the books in teh bibliography?  Hinton's is generally considered by historians the best account of the ambush, and Hinton makes clear that there were considerable reservations by some of the posse about firing on Bonnie without warning. (Clyde noone worried as much about, considering all the men he had murdered!)  He also made clear hamer had planned to fire without warning in advance, period, and the "lurch" excuse is just that.   And as you pointed out in your citing of some of Hamer's statements -- but you did not cite them all, because he openly admitted his intention to kill her was formed prior to her arrival. HE YELLED SHOOT WHEN THEY DROVE UP.  Hinton's book specifically refutes the "lurch" theory, and Hamer's own statements like "they weren't gonna ride away this time, period, we were gonna put em in the ground."  Blunt sad fact: the girl was not wanted for any crime that excused shooting her.  Now Clyde -- a plain killer.  Anyway, you made some good points, and hope you will consider the other side, not from someone who sympathizes with criminals, but believes in the law, and when a law officer makes his own, he is no better than the criminal he pursues. old windy bear 06:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 

message: I am sorry if the article has what you perceive as an anti-Frank Hamer bent to it.  I disagree, the facts are what they are.  If you can show us something in writing from a respected historian that disputes what Hinton's son says, or is in the accepted accounts by Milner and the other experts on the era, it will be placed in the article.  But your personal opinions are POV and cannot be placed in the article.  Nor can you give us original research with what you allege are family papers.  I am not taking sides, just trying to write the article by wikipedia rules.  Stillstudying 12:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't speak for anyone but myself, but as the editor who started this article, my intention was never to paint your great grandfather as a villian.  I simply put in the article what is in the history books.  If the experts are wrong, and you can point me to existing works with the information you cite in them, I would personally be glad to see it included in the article.  Please do not mistake following wikipedia rules, which require that we cite written works rather than simply collecting letters from you and using that information, (that is called original research) for taking one side or the other.  I was not there.  I have to rely on Treherne, Milner, Blanche and Marie Barrow - the people who were there, or have written on it after studying all known information.   Wikipedia simply does not allow original research.  While I find your claims interesting, they are of no use to us in the article because they are unpublished, so I would respectfully suggest you take them to an author, and get them published.  old windy bear 10:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but for the record, I wrote this article to begin with.  I never put in any claim that your greatgrandfather converted to Judism, or some of the stranger things put in by other editors later on.  I feel your information as to Methvin is both relevant, and interesting, but it cannot be printed in the article, and should not be, as it reflects the family's viewpoint, rather than any accepted history.  It is in the right place, on the talk page.  I have not a clue whether or not Frank Hamer tied up Methvin's father, or what deals he made, or did not make.  I read the available books on the man, including the biography, and if you check, I think the original article was accurate based on what is published as accepted history.  (not that it was perfect, as I look back on the record, there were some issues, which were corrected - but no where in the original article was any claim he had converted, et al.  I don't think most editors "hide" behind any rules, we just try to follow the basic tenets of encyclopedia writing, which is that you cite written histories, and avoid original research.  I don't think John Treherne and E. Milner (to name just two!) are biased historians - certainly no reputable historian I have heard of accuses them of any bias.  old windy bear 02:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Stillstudying I am just trying to see that a fair and impartial article in written.  Obviously, like everyone else, I have opinions, but I honestly try to keep them out of my articles.  The current article is, I believe, a fair reflection of what dispassionate historians have written about Frank Hamer.   I don't mean to critisize you - you usually support me, lol! -- but I don't see any reason to label Hamer, even on the talk page, as a murderer.  Were the circumstances surrounding the ambush quite questionable?  Yes, but he was never convicted of a crime relating to it, or any of the other questionable activities which he engaged in.  I understand his family wanting to paint him as a good man, and certainly an argument can be made that a hard man was needed in hard times, though I would counter that with a note that when lawmen trade pardons for murderers it is a sad day for the law.  I believe they have every right to put their opinions on the talk page, and let us not engage in a name calling contest by labeling Hamer a murderer.   (Please?) old windy bear 20:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Stillstudying Excellent point - as you noted in the Bonnie and Clyde article, the Supreme Court has said repeatedly that deadly force can only be used to stop a suspected felon from escaping when 1) it is the only way to prevent the escape, and 2) the felon must present an immediate risk to the life of the officers or the public.  No one can authorize "any means necessary" unless the President has suspended the Constitution, which the President certainly had not when Hamer ripped it asunder to shoot a girl twenty-five times when she was wanted only for assisting in the interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle!old windy bear 01:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: “The Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspected felon unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” 
I think that clearly answers any false claim that Hamer could legally use "any means necessary."  the fact he was not prosecuted simply shows his political clout, not that his means were legal, they clearly were not. Stillstudying 12:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Travis Hamer, Frank Hamer, "Alleged" Misformation and POV

message: I deleted the link to Joseph Geringer's tremendously flawed piece "Romeo and Juliet in a Getaway Car." It has more than twenty blatant errors in it (I counted that many from a light skim-through), and more importantly, it is clear that Mr. Geringer is plainly (if unconsciously) writing about the movie couple, not the real people. As a result, his narrative, and his conclusions, are valueless for our purposes here. I have written more about this piece's shortcomings at the Bonnie and Clyde discussion page. 
This error-filled composition shouldn't even be used by editors as a source, let alone directing readers to it. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted link to Geringer ("Romeo & Juliet") piece 

message: The beefiest paragraph in this whole article is the one discussing the two murders at Grapevine, TX on Easter Sunday 1934 -- which has nothing to do with Hamer, this article's subject. The paragraph is yet another of the many polemics about Bonnie's nonparticipation in gunplay. There might be some small value in the mention that the Grapevine business further turned public opinion against Barrow et al., but even that doesn't contribute to the tale of Hamer, who was already more than two months on the trail by Easter.
I'm not saying we should cut it completely, but anyone mind if I trim it back? --HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Having heard no objections, I trimmed it.--HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grapevine murders paragraph 

message: In "I'm Frank Hamer"; Hamer says he yelled :"Stick 'em up!" to Barrow and Parker when they were ambushed in LA.  Both then pointed their guns, and his men first opened fire, then him.  Whether this is true?..
When the couple killed two  highway patrol officers in Grape Vine, Bonnie pointed her shotgun over a dying one's head and fired. "Look a there"; she said "His head just bounced like a rubber ball!" ("I'm Frank Hamer".) How could she NOT be wanted for murder after that? She was more vicious than the rest of the gang.  Hamer mentions she was : "a sort of a ...female dog."  ("I'm Frank Hamer.")  Apparently, Hamer didn't believe in cussing.68.231.189.108 (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The Bonnie and Clyde wiki entry, linked at the top of the Ambush section, is laden with the specifics of their grisly deaths. None of it is relevant to Frank Hamer.
This information could be removed without damaging the Hamer article. LaNaranja (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See no objections, so I removed it. LaNaranja (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shooting details aren't relevant to this article. 

message: Pv86, I finished Ambush and reread Milner, and Im still puzzled by some of the contentions in your posts above. I'd expected Ambush and Milner would support them but they dont. So I'll ask you to set me straight about them.
*First.... you know this wasn´t the only ambush ever attempted on B&C. 
*If Bonnie wasnt wanted for violent crimes after Grapevine and Commerce -- or even after W.D.´s confession -- she wasnt wanted for them at Sowers either, for example.
*Louisiana didnt hesitate to clear the way legally for B&C to be "taken off the road" as Smoot put it, if there had ever been an impediment at all -- the sheriff of Bienville Parish had been part of the team for months.
*"Hamer's decision to fire without warning", "Hamer made the decision alone" -- Not sure what you mean by "decision" and "alone". Did someone from the posse say this? Did any of them ever say that no warning was given?
*By "the posse's considerable disagreement", "part of the posse disagreed with it" -- do you mean that members of the posse -- who? -- spoke up before the ambush and said they thought it was a bad idea, or suggested a strategy to take Bonnie alive? If they were criticizing after the ambush.... what meaning does that have after 9:16 a.m. 5/23/34? They all shot her. If they felt conflicted later, well....
Ill be waiting for another week or so for my library to track down a copy of Treherne´s book, but Im not finding in the other three books, or in the memos and correspondence released by the FBI, any discussion of firing without warning, or that Bonnie´s inclusion was ever questioned -- whether that was or ever is a presumption of guilt isnt germane to these Wikipedia articles. If you could give me quotes or page numbers for your sources I´d appreciate. Meanwhile, hope your new year is off to a great start -- LaNaranja (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: LaNaranja, hi, I am still in bed, (heart problems) but will be up and about by the weekend.  I will post specific quotes - especially from Ambush and Treherne's work - and we can discuss this further.  Thanks for being patient.  (getting old is really no fun) Pv86 (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting a little concerned here.  

message: This paragraph is near the end of the article: Of course, according to Jason Matteson, some people saw Hamer as simply an enforcer for Stevenson.[34] 
First: who is Jason Matteson? What are his qualifications to be cited? Second: I thought I saw a reference in an earlier draft that footnote [34] came from an undergraduate research paper. Is this true? What is "Texas Bandits: A Study of the 1948 Democratic Primary". Why is there no ISBN number?  Third: Couldn't we be more expansive than "simply an enforcer" — what exactly does that entail? Fourth: Why does it begin with "Of course"? That's usually used when it's something everyone knows. 
A lot has been written about Hamer and Stevenson in 1948. Tantalizing detail and higher-quality cites shouldn't be hard to come by. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Harry, and good questions.  I did not originate the use of that paper or quote, but I restored it, and I should have checked his credentials.  I am still recovering, (you should sympathize! :) and hopefully next week I will go to the library and the local University, and begin some real research.  You do think up good questions, my hat is off to you...Pv86 (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I found Matheson's paper online - it does not say it was an undergraduate paper, only that he was in college when he wrote it.  It is well sourced, and I need to pull those sources.  A lot more research needs to be done in general on this article, for instance, on Hamer's five murder trials, I find it somewhat sad that he had five warrants on him for first degree murder, to Bonnie's none for any violent offense.  Something is very wrong with that picture! Pv86 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction, it does say it was for a class, and also, it certainly does not support the current statement as it is in the article, so I am editing it.  Then I am laying back down! Pv86 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Final note, I see you already removed that statement.  However, I removed the weasel words that Hamer was linked to conservative integrity; first of all, Stevenson was known to steal votes as well as Johnson, so integrity was not he hired Hamer for, and secondly, there is no cite linking Hamer to conservative integrity - if ever there were POV weasel words, those are such. The rest of the adoring article, which fails to mention his murder trials, etc., remains intact, sigh. Pv86 (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

text: There are plenty of other sources, which paint a far different picture.  The sad truth is, I am too old, and too sick, to fight with you.  You have a particular viewpoint, and you have the votes here, so far, to make it a reality.  You ignore the facts that you dislike, such as Hamer's criminal trials, and make him virtually a saint.  Hopefully some other people will come along and gain enough votes to paint a fairer picture.  Fortunately, I do not think you will get the votes to weasel word and POV Bonnie and Clyde.   This article as is is a disgrace without any vestige of fairness.Pv86 (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Pv86, the James Matteson quote is still there, it's just been invisible-ized with < !--.  — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I'd also like to suggest that Pv86 consider "adopting" the Ted Hinton page. Pv86 is a fan of Hinton, and that page certainly needs an engaged, nurturing editor to develop it. Hey, Pv86 — think about it!   — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: God help us if you go do to Hinton what you did here.  I will stay here, I think, and try to balance out this love paen to a man tried repeatedly for murder, something you don't mention at all, and won't comment on. Pv86 (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jason Matteson 

message: how to paraphrase Footnote #1 and insert it into the body of the article I would greatly appreciate it. LaNaranja (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  If anyone can figure out 

message: I see that you inserted another gush of invective a few paragraphs out of sequence on the Hamer talk page, about the Hamer article being a disgrace and "gaining the votes" you need to take over control of the process. I think you need to concentrate more on editing and less on trying to run an election.
About three weeks ago, you announced your intention to revamp the Hamer article because you considered it a "puff piece" — which usually indicates a piece lacking substance, which the Hamer article definitely had. But, fine — I eagerly awaited for your edits, because my goal is for an interesting article. 
I have to say, Pv86, you didn't bring many chips to the table. You inserted a couple of unsupported, uncited "allegedly"s and an unsupported, uncited "may have" to try to soften some facts that were properly supported and cited. You inserted a vague, unfocused 16-word paragraph calling Hamer "simply an enforcer" — whatever that is, exactly — and used an undergraduate research paper as its cite. You inserted a repetitive clog of reiterations — five or so of 'em — that Hamer had issued a no-warning shooting order. You pronounced, unsupported and uncited, that Hinton's highly suspect book was the best source about the ambush; Guinn, by the way, calls it the worst. And for the crowning achievement of your revamp, you copy-and-pasted a clump of stuff from the main Bonnie and Clyde article that had no relevance to the Hamer article — a clump that I myself had written at B&C!
Hardly an auspicious revamp, Pv86, you must admit. Then you got sick and vanished for a while, and when you came back, rather than making constructive edits to the article you so despise, you wander back and forth between this talk page and the B&C talk page, waving your fists and calling for people to vote to establish a controlling majority.
Guess what? If you do research, come up with valuable contributions, properly cited, you don't need all the histrionics of talk pages and balloting and fist-waving. Your work speaks for you. But you gotta deliver the goods, Pv86, and when it comes to making contributions of value, I'm still waiting to see yours.
It used to be fun and rewarding working on these articles. Maybe it will be again. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: More of your usual lobbying Harry.  I put in well sourced edits from the Bonnie and Clyde article to try to balance your glowing - and wrong - tribute to Hamer, which you promptly deleted because they conflicted with your gooey eyed love paen to Hamer.  (The coroner having to tell him to stop people, for instance).  Your agenda is conservative let-us-hail the old west lawman, and anything disputing that, well, it has to go.  You say Guinn says that Hinton's book on the ambush is the worst source on it - when it is the only first hand account, and hailed by Treherne and Milner as such, and more.  Now, when I call you on your puff piece POV, you begin personal attacks.  Your editing is strictly POV, and wrong.  I will reinsert some of the edits which are well sourced later today in an effort to balance this article.  If you revert, hopefully an administrator will lock the article.  Fortunately you cannot do the same to Bonnie and Clyde, more people read it, more people want a balanced look.  Funny that you say it used to be fun to work on these articles - I guess it did when no one disputed your puff piecing and weasal words.  I was thinking that I would stop working on wikipedia altogether because it was so frustrating, but your rather cruel personal attack inspired me to stay and try to correct your excesses.  Pv86 (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, LaNarnja said it best, this version of this article pretty much comes from Frank Hamer's bio on the Ranger Hall of Fame Site.  Now there is an impartial source!   Pv86 (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  You really try the patience, Pv86... 

message: At page 305 of Bonnie and Clyde: The Lives Behind the Legend (2009) by Paul Schneider is an amazing gossip column item from  The Dallas Dispatch -- illustrating what showbiz celebrities "the gangland underworld" were in their day, at least locally. 
Helpful in understanding Bonnie's reputation, Hamer's and the general public's perception in 1934, and Dorothy Provine's career.
Page 305 at Google Books. 
(If that p. 305 link doesnt take you there, try searching the book for "parting of the ways.")
The Dallas Dispatch is no more, and isnt available online, that I can find. Tragically! Looks like it was a lulu. -- LaNaranja (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good morning LaNaranja, it looks like an interesting read - good find. Pv86 (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look-a there 

message: LaNaranja, did Hinton write that Alcorn called out to Clyde to stop? Or was it that Alcorn called out to the others that it was Clyde approaching? Thanks. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Harrington, it was both. Alcorn gave the signal to the others and Alcorn called out "Halt." In caps and with an exclamation mark no less. Whoever actually wrote the ambush section -- Boots, Larry, an editor at Shoal Creek Publishers or, the very dark horse, Ted -- wrote it in a specific way, as a long solid paragraph in the present tense, in a way to indicate the posse were caught up by bloodlust as well as to jazz up the one section they knew readers in 1979 would be interested in. It's quite skeevy, I'll copy it down for you later. You're welcome. -- LaNaranja (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad there were caps and an exclamation mark! I'd hate to think he did it in a Truman Capote voice. Thanks again. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinton, Alcorn, et. al.... 

message: Im not the tattletale type but you're really trying my patience with your troll-y edits to the article and your sniping in the Talk page that seem to be a ramp-up to more of the same time-wasting hysterics that fill this page up to about this last September and completely fill the MBCA Talk page archives. If you spent half your energy contributing in a valuable way this article would be much, much farther along. If you were to actually research the topic you'd know how absurd every one of your "citation needed" things are. 
Slow down and actually read, and understand what people are telling you  -- your replies at the Talk page (just to pick one, the odd response about the Hinton article) indicate that you constantly misunderstand. Im sure it's not a reading comprehension problem so I have to guess you just have no intention of fuctioning here in  good faith. 
I tried to head off this very thing starting back on December 29. Was my approach too subtle -- too mature? Trying to find out what exactly you wanted to express, trying to get clarification and citations, trying to figure out how strong and how valuable the arguments were, trying to figure out how best to express them? When I asked you to work with me you didnt answer. Was that because you actually didnt want to work out a responsible version of what you want to say? Eve, sometimes I think you keep things from me.
As is clear from the History I've only begun my edits to this article. You have no idea how I edit. Im well aware and then some of what needs to be cited and added. I've told you throughout that I want to shade this article honestly -- I had to tell you Hamer had been tried five times for murder. They're not recounted in the article yet because I havent found all the sources for them, and I'm not being paid for my time here by the way. Why dont you look them up yourself?
Either add to the article or leave it alone. 
Im sorry you need attention so badly. Please go look for it somewhere else if you cant contribute here. Maybe a social networking site?
Okay, no more from me unless and until you start adding constructively. I left in your addition about "even though she wasnt wanted...", now maybe we can get this show on the road. Several edits have hidden questions that await your response, please hurry up and address them or someone else is going to. And let's move TF on. -- LaNaranja (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My my, whining, crying, and having a fit.  Your complaining because someone does not agree with you and Harry sounds more like one of my former 7th grade students than an adult.  Are you sure you are not a 7th grader?  One person's (because you certainly don't sound grown up) trolling is another person's attempt to restore some balance to an article wildly and willfully adoring of a man whose legacy is somewhat clouded.  You did not have to tell me that Hamer was tried for murder - though honesty compells me to admit I had forgotten how many times.  I won't bother to reply to anymore personal attacks from you.  You obviously don't grasp wikipedia policy on civil discussion or personal attacks.  I did not attack either you or Harry personally, I simply said the article was biased, unbalanced, and not at all reflective of real history.  You two began the personal attacks.  I won't respond further after this, but for the record, you simply irritate people with this approach and end any possibility of civil discourse - not that you are capable of any.  I could give you some hints on better sentence structure, but why bother?  You are obviously not interested in good or accurate writing.Pv86 (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Count on it.  A number of my former students have expressed a desire to assist on cleaning up this mess, so hopefully we will have some company. Pv86 (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not call it disgusting, though the english is certainly poor.  In addition, whoever it is failed to state why they like the article as is, though the discussion page has requested input from people on possible changes.  If you are inferring that is one of my former students, it is not, to the best of my knowledge.  I am hoping anyone interested in this article, or that one, will take the time to read the books first - which is what I told two of my former students who are now teachers themselves - before doing any editing.  On that point, I think we agree, (though not on much else), that uninformed edits are not helpful to anyone. Pv86 (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I didn't revert the "hand he drew" edit at the time because it was only the second contrib of a new, IP# non-account and at the time I had sockpuppetry concerns. That edit was just a tinker job, or a spite edit. "Hand he drew" is vastly superior and I reinstated it just now. Good to see your tildes again, LaNaranja! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop vandalizing this article. 

message: Pv86 and LaNaranja, I can only find an abridged version of I'm Frank Hamer online, and I'm wondering about its title, which causes newbies to think it's an autobiography. Does anyone know if the title is a reference to the story where Hamer famously stormed the stage at a county fair display of the Death Car and confronted Dr. Demento (or whatever his name was) and in answer to the man's query "Who the hell are you?" boomed out "I'm Frank Hamer!"? The year was 1935 or 6 or so, when Cumie was still traveling with the show. If I recall, FAH had Manny BM Gault with him at the time.
Anybody know if the book title derives from this episode? Thanks. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Harrington, I dont know what the IFH authors' source was. The story was first reported in Austin newspapers and scattered into lore, books, detective magazines from there. The only other source for it that Im aware of is the Hamer chapter in the Walter Prescott Webb book on the Texas Rangers, published 1935. But Webb's version lacks the "I'm Frank Hamer!" opening bellow (and a cite). -- LaNaranja (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 'LaNaranja' and 'Harry', hello.  I am trying to run down the article, but the magazine article I recollect from the 50's related this story, and as I remember, it was Manny Gault who was with him.  It certainly sounds like Hamer, in any event! (and good to see you back, LaNaranja!) Pv86 (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''I'm Frank Hamer'' book title 

message: who reported parker's words?  who was close enough to hear anything?  two patrolmen had been killed!  who in their right mind would stand close enough to the trio to hear specific details of speech?  hamer used a lot of "bunk" to justify killing the pair.  he (hamer) was a cold blooded bounty hunter of the worse order.  the money on the two was substantial by 1934 standards. that whole report is so full of holes it wouldn't hald sand!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3B86:22F9:D90B:CD50:4190:D7CB (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  grapevine 

message: there is no definitive proof barrow and parker killed the two patrolmen, malcolm davis, marshall humphrey,bucher, the prison guard, and others of which they were accused.  every bit of conjecture is reported as hearsay from some rather dubious characters who may have been trying to save their own posteriors from the chair.  a bullet...the first bullet...hit barrow in the head "killing him instantly".  parker was screaming.  it is hard to believe it took another 166 bullets to get her to quieten down.  let's have history reported as it occurred.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3B86:A5A9:98CD:898E:92FB:2655 (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  proof?? 

message: Is it hard to believe that a certain element would look upon bonnie and clyde as folk heroes?  Putting it in pespective with current history, let's take a look at some of our celebrities and others as legends and great performers.  Some hold Hank Williams in high esteem. Montgomery erected a statue in his memory. Memphis has a monument to Elvis Presley.  Britney Spears commands a $15,000,000 salary.  A dog abuser is received with open arms due to the possible monitary value of his name and ability. This item could continue to include the idolization of Sir Paul McCartney, the throngs who visit John Lennon's grave, the multitude who pay homage to the Kennedy clan, etc.
What has happened to folk like M.L. King?  We barely hear his name mentioned.  We celebrate his birthday and drive down blvd's named for him but the true essence of this great man is rarely discussed...a true Hero!
Then there's Dr. Dooley who spent a good portion of his life administering to lepers in indochina and died of the disease...as did Padre Pio.  
And Mother Teresa!  Shall I say more?
B&C were here...they died... they are gone...Still we celebrate their legend along with Jesse James, "William Bonney", Wyatt Earp, Doc. Holliday, and others.
Just thought I would add my two cents to the issue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC5C:40B9:3D8A:9733:5829:30D7 (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  b&c as folk heroes. truehistorian 

message: Does anyone know how to contact Travis Hamer, grandson of Frank?  If so please have him contact me at scottwilleford@suddenlink.net
I do not know Travis, but I am seeking him as well. My great grandmother said her father was frank hamer.  She is listed in none of the records and i want to know why.  She told me herself before her death she was his daughter.  I am not close to that side of my family.  I am trying to piece together the family tree. if she was not his biological daughter and that can be verified i need to know so that i may locate the correct biological root.  She mentioned the last name ford as well.  I do not recall the details.  any assistance would be appreciated. h. gray oraclemache@gmail.com Oracle mache (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Travis Hamer 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Frank Hamer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091212013803/http://www.odmp.org/info/mission.php to http://www.odmp.org/info/mission.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091212013803/http://www.odmp.org/info/mission.php to http://www.odmp.org/info/mission.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article needs a lot of cleanup to meet encyclopedic standards in terms of treatment of facts (instead of legend), format, sentences, tone (reduce the drama and hero worship and stick to the facts), and citations.Parkwells (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing needed

message: All the unsourced paragraphs and quotes can be deleted. Editors must substantiate their content, especially controversial or speculative statements, by citations to pages in books, articles in newspapers or magazines, etc.Parkwells (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced content can be deleted

message: My edit was reverted that marked many paragraphs and quotes needing citations. It had also corrected for these numerous Error 404 headers. These have to be corrected again. All unsourced material can be deleted. Editors should bring their issues to the Talk page, as the article has a lot of activity and deals with controversial subjects. Editors should register for a name so we don't have to address numbers.Parkwells (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for trying to protect the article. Why not register with a name? It's easy to do. I haven't done too much work with going back to previous versions, either. We can make it work. I know recognize that material was introduced about Hamer and the Texas Rangers from a WA Post article by an historian (in response to the film The Highwaymen), but it was not sourced. May look at that article again to see what is usable; much had more to do with the Rangers overall rather than with Hamer specificallyParkwells (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Bring issues to Talk page

message: Agree that Lead needs to more adequately cover Hamer's life. I rewrote it, but someone is reverting my edits.Parkwells (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: References copied from Frank Hamer to The Highwaymen (film).  See former article's history for a list of contributors.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: References copied from Bonnie and Clyde to Frank Hamer.  See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution

message: This article was like this before the latest string of edits.  This dropped gobs of text and references.  I question the amputation (if not decapitation), but think we ought to review it here.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Major surgery

message: I'm not memorializing or criminally fantasizing about Bonnie and Clyde. They were a product of their time. Life was difficult. You had the option of slowly losing everything you had or becoming creative to hopefully live through it. I don't understand how anyone can call Frank hamer the best lawman of all time. He was sneaky at best. He did extensive investigation. He did however assault them without warning, a ruse of sorts. They weren't Robin Hood but they also weren't in the middle of committing a crime..hamer was essentially a rogue...as well as lawmen of that time... nothing was proven on most of the claims of robbery that Bonnie and Clyde did...it was mostly hearsay. .. much of which they didn't commit but blamed all the same. Cars doing a maximum mph, there's no way, if the timeline is correct, that they did all the crimes that were attributed to them. Frank hamer was satisfying his ego, not the law... when he gunned them down....his intention was murder, not intended to upholding law 75.168.99.233 (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @75.168.99.233 i guess threads like this are a prime example why wikipedia is not a discussion forum. 84.215.194.30 (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really?