Talk:Frank Hamer

Dispute

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)

Oldwindybear, you might be interested in Stephen Hunter's more sympathetic take on Frank Hamer's approach (See "Clyde and Bonnie Died for Nihilism" in Commentary Magazine at www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/clyde-and-bonnie-died-for-nihilism-15205).

In the "Later years as a strike breaker" section, I don't understand the sentences: "He was called again to Ranger duty in 1948 by Governor Coke Stevenson to help "check" election returns in Jim Wells County and Duval County during that year's U.S. Senate race. Yet despite Hamer's efforts, Stevenson lost to Lyndon Johnson." Why the quote marks around "check"? Is the implication that Hamer was involved in vote fraud on behalf of Stevenson? If so, is there a citation to back up this implication? Hickorybark (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Travis Hamer, Frank Hamer, "Alleged" Misformation and POV

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)

I'm not trying to get the article changed. The fact that I have letters from Methvin and his father that dispute the "accepted" accounts of Hinton's son,(whom is just as biased in this regard as I am) and experts of the era is enough for my personal satisfaction. There is a popular view of the incident, which is not truthful, but which is the currently accepted by a certain portion of the population. So be it. It is not harming my life or my family's repuation in any meaningful manner. I posted in the discussion section of the article to provide some perspective from someone who has a direct connection to Frank Hamer, who has access to his papers, journals, and correspondance. I believe it may be of interest to some of the more objective viewers of the article, not the people who defend it, who have already made up their minds about my great grandfather and the part he played in the ambush of Bonnie and Clyde. ----Travis Hamer

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)

Good morning bear. I did not realize you had started this article. I will echo your statement to Travis Hamer that the article merely reflects what is historically accurate. I agree with you also that if he feels the perception of his great grandfather is biased, he should take the materials he has to E.R. Milner down there in Texas, or another of the accepted historians, and see about getting them published. Simply making the claim on a wikipedia talk page does interest readers, but it is meaningless in terms of historical accuracy since he cannot be cited directly to one of us, (as you noted, original research). I don't think he understands wikipedia's rules on original research and POV. Stillstudying 11:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat that I am not trying to get the article changed. If I were interested in doing that, I would point to his official biography, which is a printed work, but is not accepted, because it considered basically propaganda and innaccurate. Most of the books regarding Bonnie and Clyde have biased perspectives, however. When I first came here, I did not understand Wikipedia's rules. That is why I moved my comments to the discussion page instead of leaving them in the article. I thank God for the discussion page, an area where we can expand on the topics without being burdened by the strict rules of the articles themselves, and where people cannot hide behind those rules to prove their point. Again, I am personally satisfied with the information I have refuting claims that my grandfather tied Methvin's father up. 24.243.122.110 19:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Travis Hamer

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)

Hey Bear, you are way too diplomatic. I think Frank Hamer was a murdering thug, no better than Clyde Barrow - heck, worse, Barrow did not shoot women! Hamer shot a girl who was not wanted for any crime other than assisting in the interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle. Worse, he shot her from ambush without giving her any chance to surrender. He was a murdering thug. Who cares that he sat on the back porch eating watermelon? I almost vomitted when I read that! So his great-grandson does not like the way history portrays a murdering thug? The historians just record the truth. Time has not looked favorably on a man who shot a girl not wanted for any violent crime to pieces from ambush. That is the plain truth, which we sugarcoated in the article. Now his family wants us to ignore the facts, and print some glorified fable where he gets to be a hero - no way! Stillstudying 12:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Bonnie Parker was part of a gang of murderous thugs. She was a willing participant in their crimes, even if she did not pull the trigger herself. I find it quite ironic that still studying considers my Grandfather's story to be a glorified fable, considering the romanticized treatment Bonnie and Clyde get. To call my grandfather a murdering thug shows a lack of historical perspective. He was a violent man, in violent times. Many people hated him, and still do. There were places, immediatly after the ambush of Bonnie and Clyde, where he was run out of town. He had many enemies, some envious, some political, some criminal. He really didn't care about his overall reputation. He cared about where he stood with the people he loved, trusted and respected. Among those people, he stood quite high. Among most law enforecement circles, he stands quite highly. Stillstudying, to say that historians just record the truth also demonstrates a level of naivity on your part, as well, in my opinion. Again, I believe that alternate perespectives can do nothing but improve the overall understanding of a subject, and help people form their own opinions. 24.243.122.110 03:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Travis Hamer

Travis, I support your right to put any opinion you have on the talk page - it is appropriate for wikipedia rules to have it here, but I question whether it helps the uninformed reader to improve their understanding to have the family (whose opinion of the man obviously is different from dispassionate observers) confusing the issues with unpublished claims.

As to the issues themselves, you claim that your greatgrandfather had the right to lie in ambush and shoot a girl at least 25 times not wanted for any crime other than helping transport a stolen car because she was "part of a gang of murderous thugs." Travis, without being cruel, we are a country of laws. One of our laws is that a person is innocent until they are proven guilty. Bonnie Parker not only was not convicted for any serious crime, she was not even charged! Your greatgrandfather's actions were every bit as much murder as Clyde Barrow's shooting of various people. I understand why oldwindybear could not put that in the article, because just as Bonnie Parker was not convicted of any crime, neither was Frank Hamer. But on the talk page, where we can discuss things without encyclopedia rules, we can state the facts in plain english, and let people decide as they will. So let us be very clear: there was a very real legal difference between Bonnie Parker, not wanted for any major crime, not convicted of any crime other than the minor offense she served a few months for at the beginning of their relationship, and Clyde Barrow, who was wanted for at least 10 murders.

Even if you say that it is acceptable police tactics to shot people without warning because they are dangerous, Frank Hamer had absolutely no right to shoot Bonnie Parker, who was wanted for nothing other than assisting in transporting a stolen car!

Nor is this the only reason I find Frank Hamer a despicable excuse for a human being. He was well known in Texas as a paid strike breaker, and vote stealer. These are not my opinions, see Lyndon Johnson's Victory in the 1948 Texas Senate Race: A Reappraisal Dale Baum, James L. Hailey. He was a paid thug, available for dirty jobs if the money was right.

Finally, the issue of historians being biased against him - are you seriously accusing Doctor Milner, or John Treherne, for instance, two very well respected historians, of being biased against Frank Hamer because they told the truth about his ambush of a girl not wanted for any major crime, and the terrible aftermath, where Hamer allowed people to literally cut off her dress for souvenirs?

The bottom line is that Frank Hamer was a paid mercenary who killed people for money. He no more followed the law than Clyde Barrow! If anything, this article is way too kind on him, but I understand oldwindybear's feeling that he must follow encyclopedia ethics, and only write that which is proven facts and substantiated by accepted written histories. (see the wikipedia rules on writing![1] I agree that you have every right to present your viewpoint on this, the talk page. I just want to point out to those readers you appeal to that your viewpoint is (understandably) biased as one of a greatgrandchild trying to rehabilitate the image of a paid killer. Stillstudying 11:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Without getting into a fruitless debate (too late), My great grandfather was acting with legal authorization to use any means required to stop Bonnie and Clyde, thus he was not guilty of murder. As you said, we are a country of laws, and he was acting as an agent of those laws. Second, he did not allow people to loot the bodies, it happened while he was not there. Third, show me one piece of evidence, besides someone else's opinion, that my grandfather was a hired thug, let alone a paid killer. Tecas elections at that time were notoriously crooked, and his involvement was on behalf of politicians he believed in or who were friends, not to the highest bidder. Naturally, the political opposition would have a seriously negative opinion of him. Show me proof that he was involved in any illegal activity involving an election. It doesn't even have to be published. And show me one shred of evidence that he was a paid killer. He killed over 50 people. He was tried for murder 5 times. He was cleared every time, because it was in the line of duty or self defense. Those are the facts. Anything to the contrary is insinuation or character assasination. That is plain and simple. 24.243.122.110 03:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Travis Hamer

In our system of laws, no one can authorize a police officer to use “any means necessary.” On the face of it, such authorization is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional. (Though I suppose one could argue the President has such authority to suspend the constitution in times of national emergency – but this was not such an occasion!) Did Lee Simmons of the Texas DOC tell Hamer to use any means necessary? Hamer certainly maintained he did, and acted as though he was above the law. But even if Simmons, a Texas official, did issue such an order, it would have had no legal standing in Louisiana! And that, not Texas, was where Hamer ambushed and shot to pieces a 24 year old girl! Very brave of him! Hamer was not charged for his killing of Bonnie Parker, so technically it cannot be called “murder” but neither can anyone possibly claim that the ambush took place under aegis of Louisiana law! As far as his being gone when people began looting the bodies of Bonnie and Clyde, he had returned and continued to allow the defacing until he was ordered to stop it. The coroner had to order him to stop the looting! (see Milner’s book, page 146!) As to his actions in the election of 1948, you need to see “Texas Bandits: A Study of the 1948 Democratic Primary” by Jason Matteson. Hamer was the governor’s hired thug in trying to steal the election. Stillstudying 11:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

The Supreme Court of the United States answers any question of Hamer's being able to use "any means necessary" by saying in Tennessee versus Garner in 1985 that:

“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)

Citing the deadly force rule established in 1985 as applying to a shooting in 1934 is anachronistic. Tennessee v. Garner (1985) was about shooting to stop an unarmed fleeing subject. At that time, "if, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest." Before Garner 1985 that included deadly force. On 23 May 1934 Frank Hamer was dealing with the Bonnie & Clyde gang who were believed to have killed at least nine police officers. That day Bonnie and Clyde were riding in a car with several BARs, shotguns and handguns and over a thousand rounds of ammunition, much of it ready in loaded magazines. This was an ambush without a surrender callout of armed suspects with a history of shooting it out with police. Now it may not have been kosher post Garner 1985, but we are talking about the standards of 1934. Hamer probably did not read suspects their Miranda rights either. Naaman Brown (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted link to Geringer ("Romeo & Juliet") piece

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)

Grapevine murders paragraph

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)

Having heard no objections, I trimmed it.--HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

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)

Shooting details aren't relevant to this article.

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)

See no objections, so I removed it. LaNaranja (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

moved key paragraph up

I moved an important paragraph, the one that begins, "Hamer refused substantial money on principle to tell his life story", to the top of "Law enforcement career" -- it's a good summary of all that follows, his quest for justice as he saw it and why he moved jobs so much (one well-documented reason for which, that he'd drop out of the Rangers when he didn't like the prevailing political structure (not just Ma Ferguson) and rejoin when he felt more comfortable, needs to be added there actually). LaNaranja (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

LaNaranja (talk) I made a number of additions and edits to remove POV from this article. I don't believe my changes affected your edits, but wanted to alert you I am working on this article, which essentially was a puff piece for Hamer, without mentioning that many historians and authors condemned his actions through the years, and certainly a large segment of the public did. Hope you are well and enjoying the holidays! Pv86 (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Pv86, what are you doing over here? Would you please give links or titles to resources that will answer these questions about the Bonnie controversy? Thank you.

1. What exactly is it? Please refer me to published sources that define it and discuss it -- or them, if there are more than one.

2. Has any part of it been the subject of a lawsuit, or discussed in a law journal?

3. How big is it, and how recent? Jeff Guinn doesnt mention one at all, nothing about warrants or indictments or "Halt" or any legal impropriety. But in one of your edits you say it's enormous. Please direct me to enough published sources to give me an idea of its scope.

Thanks again - LaNaranja (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello LaNaranja! I am over here trying to add some balance to the article. It had become essentially a puff piece for Frank Hamer. I cannot answer all your questions fully this am, but will try, and will return by the weekend with additional specific quotes out of the histories.

1. The controversy is the ambush itself, and Hamer's decision to fire on Bonnie, especially after Oakley had killed Clyde, without warning. Every major historian who has examined the case has found no warrants or indictments for her for any violent act, and in Hinton's account, Ambush, he specifically states that the decision to shoot her was controversial, that part of the posse disagreed with it, and that Hamer made the decision alone. Hinton makes clear the decision was one he found personally distasteful, at the least.

2. To the best of my knowledge, no law suit was filed by anyone at the time, and I doubt any law journel discussed this, (but will check further, since you asked), however, virtually every writer who ever wrote about the ambush has, including most importantly, Ted Hinton. (but also Treherne, Miler, and Guinn) Why is Hinton so important though? He is the only posse member to directly write about the ambush, and he was a man of considerable stature in Texas law enforcement. His considerable contempt for Hamer's methods shine through in the book, and the fact Hamer's family never challanged his account, (Hamer himself was dead, as was every other posse member, per the agreement Hinton claims they all made, the book was published posthumously) does have historical impact.

3. Both Treherne and Milner - and both are considered first rate Bonnie and Clyde scholars - did extensive searches to try to find out whether Bonnie was actually wanted for anything which would have justified the use of such lethal force. They found nothing, and in fact, both found that her role in events was way, way, overstated by the media of her times.

I will add additional sourcing in the next few days, but I have no problem with your removing the word "enormous" if you find it POV slanted, if that is your quarrel with the edits I made. (actually, I think I will do so, as in retrospect, I think you are correct) Every other edit was exhaustively sourced, see above. Let me add that I have no personal viewpoint on this matter, my problem with the article as it stood was that it had become a Hamer love song, and it minimized Hamer's role in the decision to fire without warning, when he himself never denied making the decision, and every historian says he did. Was it illegal? That you would have to ask historians who are also attorneys. As simply a retired history teacher, I believe until Tennesse v. Garner the Supreme Court had not spelled out that you cannot fire on someone not wanted for a felony without warning minus exigent circumstances that endanger the public or law enforcement. I would think this explains why there is a controversy in the first place. Hope this answers your queries, but I will post more in coming days. Pv86 (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I went back over the edits I made, and removed additional language which needs better sourcing. I do think extreme care needs to be taken with this article to reflect history accurately. Do I personally think Hamer was "wrong?" Probably not, but my opinion does not matter, only the fact that Hinton, for instance, strongly dissents from the Hamer party line in his book, and that needs relating, matters. Or the fact no one has found a warrant or indictment ever for Paker for any violent crime. In any event, thanks for bringing these issues up -I needed to reevaluate some of what I had done. Pv86 (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere

Pv86, I think we're at a point where we can start to determine, and agree on, exactly (1) what we want to accomplish in this article and (2) how to get it done.

And thank you so much for your detailed and thoughtful reply about the controv. It's extremely helpful.

The overall impression I get from your edits and from your generous explanation is that you want to put across:

• that including Bonnie in the ambush was -- illegal? if not illegal, what? -- because she had no warrants or indictments for violent crimes, and
• that Hamer (alone?) mishandled (the setup and?) the ambush.

Correct? More?

And the key sources we're using are:

• Hinton: Ambush
• Treherne: Strange Case of...
• Milner: Lives and Times of...
• Guinn: Go Down Together

Correct? More?

Let's square away these basic building blocks before anything else. Thank you again for being so forthcoming. LaNaranja (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi LaNaranja, thank you for the nice and thoughtful summary. Yes, basically, my points are:

• Including Bonnie in the ambush was probably not clearly illegal - again, if my understanding of the law is correct, (attorneys with a history background, help!), that until the Supreme Court issued it's opinion in Tennesse v. Garner it was not spelled out that use of lethal force on a person not wanted for a felony and without the presence of exigent circumstances was criminal conduct. In other words, it would have been up to the state of Louisiana to determine whether or not Hamer crossed the line into criminal conduct minus a clear bright line by the High Court, and politically, that was not going to happen.

• But including her was certainly, at best, questionable judgement, and according to the sources cited, a source of considerable disagreement among the posse first, and the public after.

• The fact that no warrants or indictments existed for her for any charge which could have justified lethal force, combined with Hinton's protest of firing without warning, and posse disagreement with Hamer's decision, is vital to the article.

• The key sources we should use to discuss the controversy and attached issues are:

• Hinton: Ambush
• Treherne: Strange Case of...
• Milner: Lives and Times of...
• Guinn: Go Down Together

Hinton is particularly important because he was so highly thought of in Texas law enforcement - he acts as a professional counterweight to Hamer - and the salient fact he is the only posse member to directly write about the ambush, and the facts surrounding it.

Thanks again for thoughtfully summarizing this, and I am delighted to work with you. Thanks, Pv86 (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pv86, sounds great. I like that about Hinton and Hamer as counterweights, do you mean that their experiences made them opposites in approach? I dont have Hinton's book but will get it from the library. And will have to get Treherne's via interlibrary loan so that could take a little while, but the reviews of it at Amazon all note that it talks at length about Bonnie in the ambush -- the same controversy. Do you have all four books?

Look at this wonderful title -- tragically, it's out of print! The blood-soaked career of Bonnie Parker: How bandit Clyde Barrow and his cigar-smoking moll fought it out with the law, by WR Draper (1946).

I'll be away from the computer for a while, back tomorrow afternoon no doubt. LaNaranja (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi LaNaranja, I am getting ready to go to bed - the joys of being old! I think that Hinton simply did not look at life the same way Hamer did. Hamer was very much a product of the old west, and Hinton was more of a modern peace officer. I think that dicotomy comes out very clearly in ambush. Hamer had no problem with collateral damage, and Hinton had a problem with it. Yes, I have all four books, and you will enjoy Hinton's for the personal recitation of the ambush; (it is hard for me to believe Hinton is lying, he had great professional credibility in Texas). Treherne does indeed talk at great length about Bonnie, the ambush, and the absolute horror afterwards as people literally cut the clothes off the backs of both Parker and Barrow for souvenirs. You will enjoy his also. Well, again, thanks for working with me, this is my first wikipedia collaberation, and I am lucky to have someone like you to work with. I hope you have a fine evening! Pv86 (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This can be an exciting, important addition if we thoroughly research it and set it down NPOV. I think if we have clear in our minds what points we want to make -- say there are four major points, just to pick a number -- we can take care of it "just perfect," here and also at the main B&C article, where an extended version could go. Agree?

If you do agree, when you get a chance would you like to distill the points down into a list (or an outline or paragraphs, or however you want) of discrete topics, and note any peripheral things you'd like to include? I dont feel I can write one myself until I've read all the source material and [deleting big list] then some.

Okay, Im off to the library. LaNaranja (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello my friend, just a quick note to apologize for being offline. I have been in bed, (getting old is really no fun!), and hope to be back working on monday. Have a good weekend, hope you are enjoying your reading! Pv86 (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Getting a little concerned here.

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)

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)

Just get better, this stuff isnt important. LaNaranja (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Pv86, I finished the Treherne book and I dont see talk of a controversy regarding Bonnie, warrants, violent crimes etc. Maybe I missed it, but I dont see it -- please give page numbers. Is there another book that talks about it? -- LaNaranja (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

changes

Pv86, I hope you're well. Since you havent been back Im taking it upon myself to change those of your edits that I feel need to be changed. I'll add <! -- hidden -- > explanations as I go so as not to jam up the Talk page. If you disagree or would like to talk about the changes, please say so here at the Talk page first and -- let's talk about them! :)

But most important I hope you're all right. -- LaNaranja (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Not as polite as LaNaranja, I have just finished making some changes, based on POV-eliminating edits that several editors used to make the main Bonnie and Clyde page more objective. Of course, I'm certainly agreeable to discussing them here.

I too hope you're feeling better, Pv86 — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

LaNaranja, nice work on your Jan 10 edits — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Pv86, objective is objective, it doesnt matter what other people write at some other article. This article stands on its own. I hope no editors will steal from it or remove pieces from it to improve their own somewhat related articles, but I dont know the Wikipedia rules about that -- maybe they can, yuck who knows. -- LaNaranja (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering that several lines added to Frank Hamer were copy-and-pasted from Bonnie and Clyde, then parallel refutations are not out-of-order, because objective is objective. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Take them out then and let the part be rewritten; two wrongs dont make a right. LaNaranja (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You already took them out — part of my "nice work" comment above — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

> Sorry, I dont understand. Are you saying that your changes to the F Hamer article are things you copied from another article, therefore they should be in this article? -- LaNaranja (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Pv86 fetched 'em from B&C, inserted them in F Hamer, and you and I removed 'em. Clearer? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

LaNaranja (talk) I am sorry to say I am still sick, and could not debate this until next week, when I am out of bed, even if I thought it would do any good, which I do not. I will say briefly, that I believe while you and Harrington did some nice work on B & C, you have turned this into a puff piece for Hamer. You two have removed, in your original edits, and in removing mine, virtually all the material relating to his ordering the "fire without warning" in the ambush, and the later questions of his activities for Stevenson, which were sourced. I think this article is highly POV slanted, and basically the result of two editors imposing their views on everyone else. You both seem nice personally, and frankly, I am too old and ill to fight with you over this. I don't think it is possible to reach an agrement - you two simply work together to create a "consensus" since relatively few editors appear interested in this article. As is, this article is highly POV, and I will mark it such later in the week, and ask administrators to look at it. Hopefully one of them will make changes. Pv86 (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Pv86, if you think my contention is that he didn't order "fire without warning," then you have my argument all wrong. I'm the first to admit, he probably did order them to "shoot first, ask later" — which was the approach suggested by his client, the TDOC, and their boss, the Governor of Texas. My contention is that that was — in 1934 terms — the most expeditious way of putting Clyde and Bonnie out of business, and that by the standards of the time, the posse's work at Gibsland was seen as heroic — the contemporary response to it proved that: Hinton, Hamer, et. al., were universally applauded for what they did.

My admonition to you when we commenced this edit attempt was that you not judge the posse's 1934 actions by your own 2010 sensibilities. If Hamer operated within the sensibilities of his time, then he's not the evil figure you're seeming to want to paint — brutal, yes, but not evil; nothing less than a brutal man would have succeeded at stopping Clyde Barrow. To make this point, you're going to have to find contemporary, 1934 sources that condemn Hamer's tactics (which were also Hinton's and Simspon's and Ferguson's and Schmid's tactics). They can be interviews, straight reporting, or op-ed pieces, but without them, you're using the standards of your own time to condemn a man who was lauded in his own.

As far as my edits of your late-December edits, I removed some "weasel words" — like "allegedly" and "may have" — which you inserted to impugn a perfectly respectable cite source. I also removed unnecessary polemic (which I myself had written at the Bonnie and Clyde page and you copy-and-pasted into the Hamer article) because the events at Grapevine were not important, only their effects on people's perceptions of Bonnie Parker. I made no changes to the Coke Stevenson section.

I'm not looking "to fight with you over this." I'm looking for consensus. But to get consensus, we need to be addressing the same issues. So, yes, Hamer probably did — probably did — issue a "fire without warning" order, we'll never know for sure. But did he operate outside the standards of his time? Proving that is what it will take to win your Hamer-is-evil argument. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to call me Harry, by the way. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Harry, I will say first that you are an extremely polite person, and seem to be a very nice one as well. So please, do not take my disagreement with you personally, because I certainly do not mean to impugn your hard work - I just think you are wrong on some things. (Others, like the vast majority of your work on B & C, you have done an excellent job on)

First, I do not think I judge the 1934 ambush, and public reaction to it, by a 2010 standard. Quite the contrary, actually - I have to be careful not to judge it by my youth in Texas in the 1940's and 50's. Harry, I am nearly 70 years old. I was born only a few years after the ambush in Copper's Cove, Texas. Like most children of depression era parents, I heard a great deal about those years, and of course, about Texas's own Bonnie and Clyde. I remember very clearly that as Milner says, to most of those who were unemployed during the Great Depression, and who suffered the worst of it, Bonnie and Clyde were still heroes. (And for the record, my parents were not among those folks - my Dad was a Deputy Sheriff, who sympathized with Hamer; my Grandma, on the other hand, who lost her home and land, was a dyed in the wool Bonnie and Clyde supporter - as Milner notes, it really depended on where you were economically during those years!) It is this well sourced fact that I think you are overlooking in it's entirity. You say "My contention is that that was — in 1934 terms — the most expeditious way of putting Clyde and Bonnie out of business, and that by the standards of the time, the posse's work at Gibsland was seen as heroic — the contemporary response to it proved that: Hinton, Hamer, et. al., were universally applauded for what they did. Harry, this is simply not true. Were they hailed as heroes by many? Absolutely, and certainly by the political establishment! By not by all, not by a very large segment of the population, as Milner so careful notes in trying to explain their appeal.

What troubles me in addition was that Frank Hamer was known in Texas as a brutal gun for hire, a strikebreaking thug. That was his role for Stevenson, who was every bit as crooked as Johnson, just not as good at it! This article makes it appear that Hamer was universally hailed as a hero, was beloved by all, and a fine example of what law enforcement should be. This is simply wrong in fact. Did many, especially the establishment, hail him? Yes. Did the poor, labor unions, and generally disenfrancised see him otherwise? Absolutely, and this article simply does not reflect that.

You mention as justification for firing with a warning on a woman not wanted for any violent offense the fact that superiors suggested he do so - and they did not order him, only suggested. Contrast that to Hoover's ORDERING that Helen Gillis be killed, period. Let us contrast this to the apprehenson of Helen Gillis. I do think if we are going to set someone up as a sterling example of what an agent of the law should be in apprehending someone during the depression, we should, for instance, mention that agents had orders - not suggestions, orders --from J. Edger Hoover to kill Helen Gillis on sight, no warning, no questions asked. She was the wife of Baby Face Nelson, and his companion every bit as much as Bonnie was Clyde's, (present at the Battle of Barington, for instance, where Nelson killed two FBI agents). Instead of obeying Hoover, law officers brought her in alive, where she served a year, and retired to obscurity. What they did not do, was let people cut off her clothes after shooting her, as Hamer did to Bonnie, or take her possessions and sell them for souvenirs.

I certainly think the article should and can reflect that the establishment and part of the public approved of Hamer and his ambush. But equally, Milner, Treherne, and others say a large part did not. I think the article, as is, is pure POV. I do not think you mean it to be, but I think it is. Harry, you are the one ignoring the public mood during the Great Depression, and what Bonnie and Clyde, rightly or wrongly, meant to a great many people. In no era, 1934 or otherwise, was it ever considered good police work to let people cut souvenirs off the dead while law enforcement officers helped themselves to everything mobile to sell.

Thanks for talking to me, instead of just being critical. You are a good editor, even if you are wrong on this article! Pv86 (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Pv86, I hope you'll be feeling well again soon. Im going to stick with the "Later years" and "Law enforcement career" sections for awhile, when I come through here. I know you all will work this out happily :)

May I make a suggestion? What about researching Hamer and the Texas Rangers of his era(s) and adding information that shows other parts to the man - darker stories? He's got a lot of em. (For example, he was tried for murder five times.) It would be great to get a well-rounded fair picture of him here. Im going to try to find some sources for this.

Anyway feel better -- get some breakfast :) LaNaranja (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi LaNaranja! I am going to try to eat normal meals today. Let me tell you, getting old, and having heart troubles, are no fun. (On the other hand, the alternative, being dead, is no fun either!)

I agree with you absolutely on further research on Hamer, and that is the point I am trying to make with Harry - this man was viewed negatively by a significant amount of the population, with good reason. He was indeed tried for murder, repeatedly, because he tended to kill as a solution to all law enforcement issues. In addition, his later career as a management thug left a foul taste in virtually every working man's heart in Texas. Finally, his actions after the ambush of Bonnie and Clyde were despicable, letting the bodies become foder for souvenir hunters, looting their effects for souvenirs to sell, etc. As to his shooting a woman not wanted for any violent offense - after Clyde was thoroughly dead - contrast that with law officers allowing Helen Gillis to surrender, despite Hoover having personally ordered her shot on sight and without mercy! I understand Harry wanting it said that many people, certainly the establishment, viewed Hamer as a hero for the ambush - but that feeling was not universal, and I think that needs to be said also.

Thanks again for your concern for me. Pv86 (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Pv86, it's good to see you pumping out some keystrokes — hopefully it indicates you're on the mend. I'm a cardiac patient myself, so I know how an unusual flutter "in there" can get you thinking, "Oh boy, is this one going to be it?" And when it passes and you find yourself thinking about peanut butter cups again and itching to tap out some keystrokes, it makes everything seem a little brighter.

It might surprise you to know, I am not a Frank Hamer loyalist, and would love to see a more rounded, even a darker, story told here; the last thing I want this article to be is a hagiography. You're going to have your work cut out for you, though, finding contemporaneous material that's critical of the actions of Hinton, Hamer, et. al. in 1934, and that's going to be the backbone of making your case, especially at Wikipedia, which requires cites for every contention you make. I've read every contemporary piece I've been able to find about Clyde and Bonnie for 42 years, and I'm here to tell you — those critical pieces are hard to come by.

I do need to disabuse you of something you're incorrect about: Hamer's "despicable" allowing of the crowd to loot the bodies after the ambush. He wasn't even there, Pv86! As the smoke was clearing, Hamer, Jordan, Oakley and Hinton drove into town to use the telephone, and in their absence, Gault and Alcorn lost control of the ambush scene to the gathering throng. When Hamer returned, he shooed away the scavengers and secured the site. We need to put that oft-told inaccuracy to bed right away.

Take care and feel better; I'm sure we'll be batting the shuttlecock back and forth soon. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Harry, I was sorry to read you are also a heart patient. No fun, is it? I have to say, when the old heart shudders, I really start sweating! In addition to that, my arthritis is a growing worry. All in all, I have to say, growing old is not fun...

It does not surprise me that you are not a Frank Hamer loyalist - I think you are a really good editor who tries to go where the truth leads you. That does not mean we will always agree, because one of the wonderful things about the world is that different people perceive the truth differently - look at the books on B & C! Treherne and Milner certainly do not agree on every detail.

On the aftermath of the ambush, I knew that Hamer and all but Alcorn and Gault went into town. I know the mess started with Hamer gone. But I thought Hamer had returned, was still allowing chaos, and the coroner ordered him to clear the area. I am still in bed, (my books are downstairs, and a day or two or three away!), but if you can check sooner, I am fairly sure he had returned, and things were still grossly out of hand when the coroner intervened. If I am wrong, I apologize.

Once I am back on my feet, I will be back in the books, and we will bat this around. I apologize for what I said about not being able to reach consensus; I think you (and LaNarnja) are both very nice people, and I am sure we can find common ground. You are right that it has to be exhaustively researched and cited. I am also sure we can find something to demonstrate that the adolation after the ambush was not universal, and his methods were viewed with abhorance by many in Texas. (Being tried for murder five times is certainly a strong indicator that something was wrong - being found not guilty is not the same as innocent, as you well know, and that means he had five warrants for murder issued against him, five more than Bonnie Parker ever had!)

I must put this laptop up. Thanks again, and hopefully, by the weekend I will be back up! If you find anything - check Treherne in particular - on the coroner intervening after Hamer's return, I would love to know whether my memory is correct! Pv86 (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm old too! *crashes the party*

And Harrington is a patient heart, as well. -- LaNaranja (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Pv86, if it makes you feel any better, Guinn (p. 344) implies it was only two fellas with pen-knives going after ear and trigger finger (both thwarted), and just one lone scissor-wielder scoring snips of Bonnie's hair and dress.

Consider also that Hamer was a "Special Investigator" who was charged with "getting" the outlaws — which he had already done. The more mundane duty of keeping order in the aftermath was much more within the purview of Jordan and Oakley than of the out-of-staters. There's enough to fault Hamer in this business — let's hang this charge on Jordan.

You know how I'd like to see this story — and the main B&C article — wind up? That the Barrows were actually more Old West outlaws than 20th Century outlaws. They had traded in their Appaloosas and chestnuts for sedans and coupes, but they ranged over vast territories, stealin' and robbin', like the Youngers and the Hole-In-the-Wall Gang. And because of who they were, it took a somber Old West lawman like Hamer to get 'em. Everyone involved, ghostly anachronisms locked in a death struggle in 1934-going-on-1885.

Romanticized view, I know, but not out of the question. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Harry, I had to write back and say your vision of them as old west outlaws is not far fetched - did you read Bonnie's poem about Clyde and Billy the kid? [[2]] It is obvious that she at least saw a connection to the old west...Pv86 (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And the incident with the coroner is a fine example of your sugarcoating Hamer. He was supposed to be in charge. He was a lawman. He returned, and continued to allow souvenir collecting, collected some himself, and had to asked - Hamer was asked - by the coroner to stop it. Yet you come up with more excuses, "he was paid to get them," etc. This article is the worst excuse for a POV puff piece on wikipedia. Pv86 (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Synchronicity....

A movie is set to be made about Frank Hamer and Manny Gault called The Highwaymen.

A description of The Highwaymen from the man who wrote the script is at page 230 of this book at Google Books.

The question is, Did we make this happen?!!

Im reading at Google Books and Wikipedia, trying to get an understanding of those areas in & before Hamer's day, Hamer and his personae, the TX Rangers, border wars with Mexico. I see what you mean Pv86, this article is surface and basic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaNaranja (talk • contribs) 03:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the B&C ambush section of this article is disproportionately long and detailed? I like this version FAR better than the main B&C article's, but what if we incorporated this one into the MBCA? Just wondering. -- LaNaranja (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You might suggest, on the B&C Talk page, that people give a look to the Hamer page treatment of the ambush, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for folks to embrace it. There's a lot of editors with a lot of hours invested there (if you doubt that, just look at the patchwork quality of the article). If you want satisfaction, toil here... if you want eyeballs, toil there.

As for this piece's ambush section, I thought it was a whole lot better the other day, before you restored those cuts you had made. There's a reinstated paragraph that has the same sentence recapitulated three different ways in a row about Hamer's purported (purported because it's uncited) order to fire without warning... There's unsupported polemic about Ambush being the best source... Even my own addition about 130 rounds stinks... Well, we have work to do on the stuff covering the actual ambush.

If it were my planet, we'd talk (in about 100 words) about the three factions, the disparity of their agendae, the irreconcilability of their differences — in other words, unknown and unknowable. The section on the actual ambush would be short. There's a contingent of readers who are interested by the specifics of the ordnance involved, so even though it bores me, I suppose we should leave it in for them.

I still think the story of Hamer's pursuit of the pair — down to having the same kind of car, and living out of it — is what makes this tale interesting. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

IMDB's totally mum about The Highwaymen, but it is intriguing, innit? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

More synchronicity! I just this second read "If it were my planet," and at the very same moment the Gmail notifier popped up to say I had a new email msg, from some UK place and the subject line is "If I were prime minister...."

The Highwaymen -- well maybe it's still in pre- pre-production, but it seemed to me further along than pre- pre- pre since the director is hot currently and he mentioned that he's working on it in an alumni update in November. I guess we'll see... but it is synchroni-cious isnt it.

Cuts and changes -- I restored the page back to what it had been because the unexpected response reminded me that I do not want to be involved with a tar pit like the main Bonnie and Clyde article. My changes arent permanent and unassailable, just change em. The problems you talk about in the second paragraph shouldnt still be here all this time later, we should just be...editing and writing, and the Talk page should be where we work out how to get where we want to go. By now it seems it would be easier to just write a book though.

I think it's obvious that I've been trying to come up with a constructive approach to solving the problem at this page. It should be undeniable to everyone by now that everyone's goal is to create an honest picture and fit it into a small space. We can all get it across NPOV'ly and effectively with good research and good writing. Or, we can wind up with another frightened frozen patchwork. It doesnt have to be this difficult.

"But I tried, didnt I. Goddammit. At least I did that."

Ill continue reading to try to get a big picture, or a few big pictures, in mind and will bring em back here with sources for you all to read and consider. (Rereading later -- that is to say, please everyone else read and bring back information and book titles for all of us to read and consider! LaNaranja (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC) )

The important stuff. Yes, absolutely agree about Hamer's pursuit of the pair, it was the crescendo of Hamer's puzzle solving and detective work -- and angel of death sadism -- from the Mexico border days, in the modern 1934. -- LaNaranja (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Jason Matteson

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Check the edit list — it was not I who removed the paragraph. I wouldn't have started this thread if I were going to remove it.

Try Robert Caro's 1990-ish Means of Ascent book as a source. It's entirely about the 1948 Senate election and is everything you need on Hamer-and-Stevenson, all in one place — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

Pv86, regarding your post "This article is a terrible example...", I can tell you that I didnt know ANYTHING about F Hamer when I first started editing this article. Im just learning about him lately.

I am reading as fast as I can to "get my mind around" the complex stories of Hamer and his times. Just be patient and dont see a conspiracy in everything. Everything is all right.

I posted this on this page on Jan 12 -- "Im reading at Google Books and Wikipedia, trying to get an understanding of those areas in & before Hamer's day, Hamer and his personae, the TX Rangers, border wars with Mexico. I see what you mean Pv86, this article is surface and basic."

The version of this article we're working on currently (at least, since whenever I started working on it; HSmith began working on it around the same time) appears to have come from the Frank Hamer bio at the TX Rangers Hall of Fame site, so naturally it's not going to have a lot of ugly stories.

You can look up sources and read them too, you know, and develop the article. Try Google Books. -- LaNaranja (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

If anyone can figure out

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)

You really try the patience, Pv86...

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)

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)

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)

I know the Bonnie and Clyde stuff you put in was well-sourced — it was my own work, copy-and-pasted! It just wasn't germane to the Hamer article; he was already on the case nearly two months when Grapevine occurred — that's why I deleted it.

Regarding the Hinton book: the fact that it is a first-hand source is what makes it troublesome — first-hand carries many more personal agendas and has more axes to grind than a work by an actual historian who uses a more balanced, objective prism to examine a subject. I'm not just talking about Hinton here, but about Marie Barrow and Cumie and W.D. — all of 'em — as well. But Hinton is particularly troubling: he admits to having had a crush on Bonnie in her waitress days, then at Sowers he tried to kill her with a machine gun, and at Gibsland he shot a BAR at her, probably hit her, and possibly killed her. And then had forty years to mull it over before writing the book. C'mon, Pv86, you've been a history teacher! That's not going to be your most objective source!

Finally, if you're going to use terminology, please learn the proper definitions, e.g., "puff piecing and weasal [sic] words." A puff piece is a light, airy froth that has no substance — that was not the Hamer piece, your ill-informed protestations to the contrary. And weasel words are qualifiers — lawyer-style talk — that attempt to soften a well-supported fact. You should know all about 'em, 'caused you used 'em to try to refute (or at least soften) facts in the Hamer piece. "Allegedly" and "may have been" would be two examples.

Pv86, as I keep trying to tell you, introduce valuable edits, well-sourced, and I'll be the first to welcome them. Why not start working on the five murder accusations against Hamer? I'd love to see them in the article. Just please don't trot out the same tired ambush-scene chaos stuff again — there are so much better cases to make against Hamer than that. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Look-a there

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)

Good morning LaNaranja, it looks like an interesting read - good find. Pv86 (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hinton, Alcorn, et. al....

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)

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)

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)

Stop vandalizing this article.

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)

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)

Glad to see you're feeling better this lovely day. Look forward to your useful contributions to this article. -- LaNaranja (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

Like Texaslivein? Im sorry, I wont be back here for awhile. This is disgusting. -- LaNaranja (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

In the cold light of a week later, sorry to have lost my temper with you, Pv86. The Treherne book has come in at my library finally. I look forward to reading it. Thank you for recommending it. -- LaNaranja (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no, you guys didnt like"Though the hand he drew disappointed Barrow"? I thought "the hand he drew" emphasized pretty nicely the randomness of it, and the gamble of it -- he was working in a fog in more ways than one. Seemed to flow pretty smoothly to me, too. But, oh well. Glad you kept in the "disappointed" anyway :) -- LaNaranja (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ive been reading about the "Texas Revolution" of 1915-20, aka the plan de San Diego, and Hamer's harassment of Rep. Jose Canales -- recommend all information you see about that time. -- LaNaranja (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

"Spit edit," I know. Im happy to be back shaking the tildes. Hope this morning finds you well, HS. -- LaNaranja (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm Frank Hamer book title

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)

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)

'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)

most corrupt

In 1948 he was called again to Ranger duty to play a small role in a notorious episode in an election acknowledged to have been one of the most corrupt in Texas history This sentenced is referenced to a book about the 60s and a small town local paper. If it was really one of the most corrupt in Texas history one would expect a better cite. In an earlier election mentioned in the article all of the state police were either fired or quit and yet this one was more corrupt? Nitpyck (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the election to which the references refer?

In the Frank Hamer article, corruption in the Ferguson election isn't discussed. The Johnson-Stevenson race is only noted as "one of the most corrupt," though it well might have been "the most corrupt."

By "a book about the 60s," do you mean Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960?

The fact that the Victoria, Texas piece, by a Texas historian, was published on an Election Day fifty years after the event certainly indicates to me the impact of the Box 13 story on Texas history.

Your complaint led me to an article about it in the NYT in regard to Robert Caro's Means of Ascent: Tolchin, Martin. How Johnson Won Election He'd Lost Feb. 11.1990. I'll add it as a reference actually, thanks.

Besides Lone Star Rising and Means of Ascent which cover the scandal in detail, there's at least one entire book about it: Ballot Box 13: How Lyndon Johnson Won His 1948 Senate Race by 87 Contested Votes, by Mary Kahl.

Not really sure what you're displeased with. If the references aren't substantial enough for you, please provide others. If you have a source that states the 1948 election was not one of Texas's most corrupt, please provide it. -- LaNaranja (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Having some knowledge of elections in the US calling any election "one of the most corrupt" needed better citations, which this article now has. I do note that the new article also mentions ballot fraud was common in the late 1940's in some parts of Texas but most importantly for this discussion the Johnson campaign of 1948 raised it to a new level. Nitpyck (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• It's "Texas history" in the sentence you quoted from the Hamer article, not "US history."

• It's a two-volume biography of Lyndon Baines Johnson, not "a book about the 60s."

• The sentence you quote with approval is the reviewer paraphrasing Caro; the same material is in the Dallek book. -- LaNaranja (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC).

"One" can't have too much knowledge of elections in the US if "one" is unfamiliar with Robert Dallek and his work; he's an A-List historian whose Lone Star Rising and JFK: An Unfinished Life were both, at their publications, definitive works about their subjects. If one "expects a better cite," one will have a long wait. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

When I looked at the statement and made the comment there were 2 cites one to a small local paper and another to some book about the 60s. Was I confused about the 2nd cite hey anything is possible. When I checked back a cite that proved the point had been added. LaNaranja unless something has happened in the last day or two like it or not Texas is part of the US. HarringtonSmith are the books you mentioned really about corrupt elections in Texas? From the titles that seems unlikely. And what's with the "one" in quotation marks? Is there something ironic about 1? I asked a question and got a solution and I believe the article is better for it.Nitpyck (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice try. -- LaNaranja (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You answered your own question, Nitpyck. You adopted a haughty tone and questioned the value of "some book about the 60s" as a cite. Well, that book was Dallek's Lone Star Rising, a definitive biography of Lyndon Johnson, one of the contenders in the election in question. There is no better cite than a definitive work, even if "from the title that seems unlikely." Try reading the book before gauging its suitability as a cite. You need to be better informed about what you're discussing before you go picking nits with other people's work. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you took my tone to be haughty. I regret if I took comments like- It's Texas history not US history- to be kind of arrogant and parochial and took - "one" cannot have too much knowledge of political corruption if one hasn't read Dallek - to be an overstatement.

But the really strange thing is that the cite was not to Dallek; as far as I can tell from the History page, the only cite was 34 ^ Olson, p. 252; Plantinga, p. 152; Wolff, Henry Jr., "Box 13 Is a Black Mark on Texas Politics." The Victoria Advocate, November 8, 2000. But we both clearly, and apparently incorrectly remember there being a second cite. Nitpyck (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"one" cannot have too much knowledge of political corruption if one hasn't read Dallek - to be an overstatement.

You misquoted me twice regarding "Texas history," now you're misquoting HarringtonSmith. Why? Is it deliberate? Four times so far you've pretended A was actually B, and addressed B. What is the purpose? We can read, you know.

But the really strange thing is that the cite was not to Dallek; as far as I can tell from the History page, the only cite was 34 ^ Olson, p. 252; Plantinga, p. 152; Wolff, Henry Jr., "Box 13 Is a Black Mark on Texas Politics." The Victoria Advocate, November 8, 2000. But we both clearly, and apparently incorrectly remember there being a second cite.

Now this is getting irritating -- don't try to include other editors in your own mistakes. -- LaNaranja (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

grapevine

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)

proof??

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)

b&c as folk heroes. truehistorian

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)

Travis Hamer

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)

Possible copyright problem

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing needed

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)

Unsourced content can be deleted

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)

Bring issues to Talk page

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)

I'm sorry, that was probably me with the reversion. I noticed one of the headers had an embedded link to a very suspect page, so I tried to go back to a version without the link to save random people from catching a virus or whatever else might be at the linked site. I guess I went too far back? I'm really not familiar with the editing gui... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.248.241 (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

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).

Lead

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)

Attribution

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)

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)

Major surgery

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)

Really?

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)

@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)