Talk:Frank Hamer/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Frank Hamer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Stop Bickering; Fix the Article

Personally, I would consider attacks on one's grammar a personal attack as well.

I, by the way, added the NPOV and citations tags at the top. I found them necessary seeing as the article seemed written in praise of its subject and contains almost no citations or neutral sources. This article needs to be rewritten, with proper citations, using facts that didn't come from the subject's hack, ghost-written autobiography.

Now I do not have the proper historical knowledge to complete this task, but I'm sure the one claiming to be having lunch with giants of the historical community could properly research it, and the one with the eloquent grammar and long-winded diction could write it.

Stop bickering; fix the article. Sockey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.183.21 (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Again

First, the lawsuit was settled in 1971, for what was relatively a "small amount" simply to be rid of what the company regarded as a nuisence suit. If your "information" is that Hamer's son claims he got paid in a legal settlement with a suitcase full of $500 bills, you might want to cite Marvel Comics instead.

As to the rest of your poorly written and horribly spelled ranting, I told you wikipedia does not tolerate antics like yours, and I would listen to the person who just warned you. But then, I am not you, thank God.

As to the Hamer issue on his commission, please, you need to raise that on this talk page, or ask for a peer review, which you will lose. You need to present factual disputes properly and stop vandalizing - you need to list these alleged "errors" on the talk page, in order, or request a peer review. You obviously do not know the history, Hamer still had that commission when he retired as the only ranger to have such an active commission in retirement, but that is irrelevant for this article, since he was hired by Lee Simmons of TDOC to hunt down Bonnie and Clyde as a special investigator for the Texas DOC. Hamer's RANGER COMMISSION is posted online at http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/law/hamer-warrant.html Also go read Texas history online -http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/HH/fha32.html saying "In 1932 Hamer retired from active duty but retained his commission."

The highway patrol fallacy - long ago discredited. See the cites on Bonnie and Clyde.

As to your grand posturing on leaving, gosh, what a loss you will be! Hmmmmm, first, I know of no major university which deducts points for citing wikipedia as a source, but I am certain a master scholar of your stature knows some he can cite. (and it is "cite" not "citation" which is a legal term for referencing a case in a brief, just for your education before you go, a cite is a factual reference, a citation a legal one in an appropriate legal context. (Not that you understand either, obviously)

As for quoting the Rock, at least you know who he is, you obviously were not aware of the archives of the State of Texas, or Treherne or Milner's writing, (and they are the nationally recognized experts!) since they contradicted your every point. Wikipedia is the future, and while I will try to bear up under your loss, sniff, sniff, guess the rest of us will just have to lumber along without you.

By the way, "imbarresment?' It is spelled "embarassment."
"Sel-described" what is that? Are you trying to say self-described, or are you shortening sell-described? If so, whatever you are selling, no one here is buying.
"Porfessors?" Do you mean "Professors," or are you inventing a new language? You certainly cannot speak, spell, or write, english well.
"citation" of facts? You cite facts, citations are legal references. Again, if you wish credibility, you have to at least cease the insults, which lose power from your terrible writing, and obvious inability to correct reference anything.

As for my work, I let my peers here, and in the historical community judge it, and obviously, you are not either, since you cannot even spell the most basic of words. I was embarassed for you reading "imbarressed," "sel-described," and "proffessors." Is there not a word you cannot mangle? If you need help in learning spelling and basic writing skills, send me an email, and I will gladly mail you free a book on basic writing. You did not come here to contribute, you came to attack me. I suspect a sock puppet, but unlike the person who accused me, I chose not to go that route. Your "writing" is reason enough to bid you adieu. (that is french for see you!) In closing, let me bid you farewell, and I even spelled it correctly! If you stay, I would heed the advice of the admin who just warned you, and stick to the issues on the article, and avoid the personal attacks. I was serious about sending you a book on writing, you do need some help. old windy bear 22:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, sorry my typing is all you have in your life to help you feel good about being a hack. "This" is most certainly not the "historical community" but I will ask the giants of the field (that I am having lunch with tomorrow to discuss a project) what they think about this. If this, (& hacks like you) are the future, then I weep for it! Sayonara! (Japanese for good-bye, for YOUR education)

I would offer to send you the documents that prove you wrong, but then we both know you won't read them.

Put the documents in the mail, if indeed you have them

Au contrarie, (french for on the contrary), scan them and send them by email. I cheerfully acknowledge I am not the be all, end all, of historians. If you wish to scan documents which prove your point, and they check out, I will cheerfully post an apology, and edit the article appropriately, or encourage you to do so. What folks are trying to tell you, is that endless personal attacks here - and you started them - are not the way to address factual disputes. Especially when you cannot write effectively, or spell the most basic of words. Now to issues:

There are three ways to address factual disputes, but the first two are best:

direct communication between the editors - you say you have documentation for me, fine, scan and send it to me, my email address catches from my wikipedia address, and I will respond directly, if you do this civilly. If you are correct, and myself in error, I will gladly acknowledge that your history is superior to your spelling, and make the necessary edits;

post the factual disputes you allege - which so far the proof is lacking, on the talk page, and ask for consensus to change the disputed facts, after anyone, (and I am not alone in opposing your viewpoint), has an opportunity to respond and view the evidence submitted by all parties;

if the first two fail, request a peer review.

ironically, You may be right on the commission date which would change nothing in the article - since the article makes clear he was not hunting Bonnie and Clyde as a ranger, but as a special investigator for Lee Simmons of the prison system, and still was and is the only ranger to "retire" with an active commission;

if you want the commission date clarified, you need to scan the file, and forward it, or post it, though again, ironically, if the date on it is all you have, it changes nothing in the article, which again, makes clear he was not hunting Bonnie and Clyde as a ranger, but as a special investigator for Lee Simmons of the prison system, and still was and is the only ranger to "retire" with an active commission - as to the wording on the autobiography, you need to take that dispute up with his family, which marketed that hack job as made from his notes and recollections as relayed to the ghostwriters;

These are not difficult policies to follow. What you clearly cannot do is post lengthy diatribes that personally attack any person, myself in this case, but it could be anyone, while being long on rhetoric which is easily rebuttable, longer on vipurative personal insults and threats, and short on wikipedia civility. I will absolutely read any documentation you send, check it via the library of congress, and if you are correct, make the appropriate changes. So scan and send, if you have the documentation, and if you can manage it with civility, I will directly respond with what evidence I have, scannning and sending - and we can work together to edit the article. These vipurative personal attacks are simply a sign that an agenda is at work that has nothing to do with the article. If that is not the case, let us call a halt to the rhetoric, and send the documentation back and forth, and resolve this. Or, post it on the talk page. Your preference, but again, if you have evidence, send it, scanning and sending by email is done regularly here. The truth is the objective, and if you have proof something is wrong, I personally want to see it, and correct any inaccuracies. Right now, all you have said is strongly disputed the Texas State Archives, John Treherne's work, (regarded as the best historical source on Bonnie and Clyde), and Ted Hinton's son's accounts of his father's writings and knowledge. If you have other information, I would be delighted to see it, and if it is legitimate, act appropriately. Don't weep for the future, it is futile and a waste of good tears - work constructively to change it.old windy bear 00:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Your denial is pathological. You have the very documents that refute your own claims. As you are the one making them, the burden is on you to defend them. You can't, so you started the personal attacks, by referring to me as a vandal and immediately requesting to have me blocked out before answering my assertions, which you still have not done because it is factually impossible for you to do so. hence your resort to name-calling. Your bias is obvious and even admitted in the article itself and your pathetic attempts to defend it. Your ignorance of the documents that you cite is further proof of your incompetence as a historian. I explain in more detail below.

And their are no "folks" on your side in this debate(that would indicate plural / mutliple / more than one) You are the "lone ranger" on this venture. Not one person has risen in defense of your content other than yourself.

The only comment I have recieved has been regarding protocol, which being new, I was happy to recieve their input. All I have seen is a lengthy history of you being chastised for your caustic rehtoric, challenged repatedly on your "facts" and assertions, and being forced by admin to amend your articles, repeatedly. Oh, and you always replying to critiques with personal attacks rather than data. I noticed that the only time you temper such behaviour is with editors that you know can remove your articles, and wiht them you simply whine about irrelevant issues in order to mask the fact that you are avoiding the specific issue(s) at hand. That whole "Vietnam Veteran" farce was insult to all Vietnam Veterans.

If you want to forward an agenda, go to a site made for such nefarious purpose. If you want to report history, you need to begin by getting educated on the documents that you intend to cite, actually read those documents, never cite works by those who clearly have an agenda or who are otherwise easily reconizable as non-sholars.

You may continue to hide behind the burdensome beauracracy they have created here in order to avoid responsibility for the total lack of credibility of the information they have allowed to be posted, but, it will all eventually "come out in the wash" as it already has at least once this past year.

This old windy bear's attempts to defend his biased and inaccurate article are as replete with ignorance of the topic as the article itself. And the fact that he cries and whines about "insults" while he continues to lob them at all who offer critique of his articles further diminishes his already lacking credibility.

As he refuses to attach his real name and credentials for verification to this or any other article, I recommend that all articles by him be removed. A quick review of the discussion history around his "work" wiill easily provide your organization with justification to do so. He claims to be a "54 year old historian" but without specifics to verify, just as in his articles, I have serious doubts as to that claim as well.

The documents and other sources he cites all either contradict his claims, were produced by individuals with recognized biases and agendas in the matter, such as relatives of Bonnie & Clyde (check them out, it's true), or are even works of fiction by their own admission (The Gene Shelton book is a NOVEL)

His complete lack of knowledge on the topic of how rangers were commissioned in those days is frightening. He is continuing to argue in the face of over whelming evidence (the very document that he cites which shows itself to have been VOID Feb 1 1933) He claims that the fact that it is on file with the Texas State Library & Archive as "proof" that it was "permanent" No real historian could be so ignorant. The archive maintains ALL old ranger commissions from the period before the creation of DPS in Texas. (I bet old windy bear doesn't know a thing about what that signifies)

He argues that "scholars" have refuted this that or the other, yet conveniently, he never names any specific "scholars" and his article cites primarily non-scholars and works of self-described fiction.

He also is ignorant of the fact that the "special investigator" position created by Lee Simmons in order to hire Hamer did not come with any actual law enforcement authority at the time, which is why Hamer needed the state highway patrolman commission, so that he would have the powers of arrest and to carry firearms.

It is of significant interest that old windy bear both cites the book "I'm Frank Hamer" (by recognized scholars John H. Jenkins & H Gordon Frost - and you might want to review the list of contributing / assisting scholars in the acknowledgements, as well as the many sources in the bibliography, a feature many of the books that old windy bear cites don't even have) erroneously refers to it as an "autobiography" repeatedly in his "article" (the subject had been DEAD for 15 years - old windy bear also got the date of death wrong) and cites it repeatedly, but then, conveniently, disputes its veracity on points that undermine his claims and agenda. The only sources he has offered that have "long discredited" that work are by recognized NON-scholars: people looking to make a buck, or defend Bonnie and, or Clyde, and with no scholarly background, which is plainly evident upon review of their work.

If this site continues to pass the buck and take no action in this matter, it will be no surprise, although a disappointment, as I was hoping that you all had learned your lesson after having been so incredibly humiliated in the national press this past year.

You will not be able to say that you were not provide due notice.

PS - Old windy bear, name for me one major University that will accept wikipedia as a cite in scholarly historical research. be assured that I will contact any institution that you venture to name in order to verify your claim.

You want to appear educated,yet you quote a WRESTLER? I think that pretty much sums you up.

You are correct that if you are the type of hack they want on this site, I will certainly not sully my reputation by posting her any longer. Since this site has faced substantial scrutiny and imbarresment for factual errors already, I am certain it will not be long until the whole world acknowledges it for a farce, if indeed you are an example of their best work. Proffessors around the country are already warning students way from this site and even docking points when it is used as a citation. Just the kind of outfit that I definitely do NOT wish to be associated with! What does it prove that a few "editors" for the site know your real name, if you keep it hid from the public that you are so blatantly trying to decieve? And what childish threats to "meeet you anywhere" Please, you are so beneath me. 54 years old, you say? I was thinking you were about 12 when I read that, and the pathetic attempt to insult me by ridiculing my typing. OOOOHHH, that one really hurt! Especially from a guy who doesn't even read documents before he cites them and also cites sel-described novels as if they contain history!

Yes, but at least I can spell, which you cannot. "Sel-described?" There is no such word! Actually, even the Rock can spell! Even the Rock, a college graduate, knows this is not a citation, a legal reference, but a cite, of fact. I have asked you to post or forward the documents. Will you do so, or continue to rant with insults and incorrectly spelled diatribes. Would you prefer I quote Milner and Treherne, the acknowledged experts on Bonnie and Clyde? Have you read their books? Does the truth interest you at all? Would you prefer I quote Jung, and we discuss dream interpretation, or racial consciousness and what effect it may have on your postings? Or Freud, and how your childhood may have affected your inability to act appropriately in a group effort setting? Would you prefer we discuss Gibbons theory of how to write history? I doubt you could do so, frankly. If you have documentation, send it, and if wrong, I will gladly acknowledge same. In the interim, the ranting, misspellings, and general diatribe don't gain you credibility. You won't win a battle of wits with me, (you appear unarmed), and that really is not the point of this page, it is to ascertain the truth, so if you truly have evidence, produce it, and if you are correct, again, I will cheerfully acknowledge it and make whatever corrections the truth requires. old windy bear 00:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Education

Education, as Essjay says, is much overrated. Spelling and writing correctly are issues when it comes to ascertaining your credibility.

"repestedly" is spelled "repeatedly." I assume you were trying to say "repeatedly." If there is a pest here, it is you, repeatedly a pest, so I assume you could be a re-pest.

You also misspelled "anonymous" - a certain sign of a superior mind is the ability to misspell the simpliest of words, lol. But then, you said "anoymous" which may mean annoying to us, which would be accurate!

By the way, "imbarresment?' It is spelled "embarassment." "Sel-described" what is that? Are you trying to say self-described, or are you shortening sell-described? If so, whatever you are selling, no one here is buying. "Porfessors?" Do you mean "Professors," or are you inventing a new language?

"sel-described?" There is no such word in the english language! Your attempts to insult me merely show your own lack of knowledge, and if you actually have a point, undermines it.

Finally, you are editing talk pages, by erasing people's comments, or putting your commennts in the midst of someone elses, so stop. That will also get you banned. You came to wikipedia with bad faith. You chose to use an article to spread a personal message, which at best, contains very limited factual assertations, and a great deal of personal venom and POV. You may feel free to say what you will, but not in personal attacks, and you may not edit other people's, as in mine here, by inserting your comments in the midst of mine. Now I have told you I will gladly review your "evidence," if indeed you have any. Please scan and send it, or scan and post it on this talk page. I have explained how to properly raise factual disputes, can you cut the insults - which forces me to point out that someone who cannot spell professor is probably not a legitimate source of historical data and send the proof, or just keep endlessly diatribing? If you cannot stop the personal attacks, which frankly, since they show functional illiteracy, only undermine your credibility, you will end up banned. If you truly have a point, make it intelligently and without personal invectives.old windy bear 00:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hamer had an active ranger commission and the above POV statement is totally incorrect

This is yet another POV attempt at vandalizing this article. This unnamed user is wrong on the highway patrol ambush - go read Ted Hinton's son's interview on it, or Methvin's allocution to it when he accepted the pardon for killing them, or Treherne's exhaustive investigation into it, which found that the farmer's version was simply factually wrong. If this unnamed vandal wishes to cite facts, he should start with accuracy. Hamer had an active ranger commission, fact, was retained by Lee Simmons of TDOC, fact, and more. This person is WRONG on all counts.efan0 Sorry Kate, I am not asking you to mediate, just order him to present factual disputes properly and stop vandalizing - he needs to list these alleged "errors" on teh talk page, or request a peer review. He obviously does not know the history, Hamer still had that commission in 1934 when he was hired by Lee Simmons of TDOC to hunt down Bonnie and Clyde. Why do I feel I have to deal with fools constantly on these articles? This person vandalized the article, my user page, your user page, and never once posted facts that are not refutable. Hamer's PERMANENT RANGER COMMISSION is posted online at http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/law/hamer-warrant.html You need to present factual disputes properly and stop vandalizing - you need to list these alleged "errors" on the talk page, in order, or request a peer review. Also go read Texas history online -http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/HH/fha32.html saying "In 1932 Hamer retired from active duty but retained his commission." His lack of knowledge is embarrassing!The highway patrol fallacy - long ago discredited. Oh well, another night in wikipedia, with nameless vandals, lol old windy bear 01:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I fear the language and perspective of this article ("strike breaker thug", "man killer", "bounty hunter") is extremely far from NPOV. Until the general tone is rephrased and/or rewritten, we cannot truly accept this article as an example of neutrality, even if the facts described are completely true. Regards, Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} 23:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Phædriel When you get a chance -- and I realize how busy you are! - I would humbly request you take a look at the article now, and see if it is improved. I have 1) tried to remove the rhetoric, and report just the facts; 2) source EVERYTHING; 3) not say anything which could remotely be libelous, and 4) be fair, and simply present the issues which exist. Thanks in advance for your kind help! old windy bear 01:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The facts are true, but you are right, they should be reworded. let us make a stab at such now. My brother -- who taught history and was a real expert on the Bonnie and Clyde story -- carefully documented this article. nonetheless, I believe you ware right that he was way too biased in his wording. I have reworded it to reflect what is historically religiously correct, and this hopefully will meet the test of NPOV. All the words you mentioned have been removed, with a careful emphasis that the unions and labor viewed Hamer one way, management and big business another, and the facts are true. Labels have been removed. I wish my brother had written this, but he was ill, and the disputes over content drove him out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.50.125.89 (talk • contribs) .

Mac, can you please sign your name by typing four tildes in a row? Like this: ~~~~. When you sign your name by typing [[Mac]], it looks like you are signing as the username User:Mac, which is a different person. If you want to contribute significantly at Wikipedia, which I welcome, I would suggest you register for an account. It makes communication easier, and also gives you more privacy. Right now, when you edit, you're editing as an IP address (I fixed your address, above -- because when looking through the history files, that is the address from which you are contributing). Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 05:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I used my brother's notes to clean this article up. And appreciate your welcome, but have to say I thought you were cruel to my brother, a disabled Vet, who had spent considerable time working on wikipedia projects for nothing but a hard time. But then, that is all Vietnam Vets ever got, was a hard time. In any event, I will sign my name as you suggest, as for an account, I signed for one, but I saw what you did to my brother, so I wanted to let you know I don't think you are in any, way, shape, or form, unbiased. Your cruelty to a crippled Vietnam Vet who was just trying to contribute -- wrong, and I won't join the legion of people praising you. Sorry! I just used his work to clean up this article. I think you drove my brother from this site because he had the courage -- which he showed in a war people your age have long forgotten -- to try to write the truth, and you crucified him for that. You deeply hurt him, and you were wrong. I remember growing up in Texas with him, but i won't be exchanging Texas notes. I am here to use his research to correct things -- like this article -- until you drive me off too with personal attacks. I will say you did a good thing in removing the personal cruel things on ;">Phædriel</'s page. People are so cruel, for no reason i can ascertain. Anyway, I used my brother's notes to try to be fair to the union people who felt Frank Hamer was a paid thug, and the need for professional NPOV, I believed the article now fair and unbiased. it was sure well researched. Mac1953

Listen, I completely disagree with how you and Oldwindybear are portraying what happened. I harbored him no ill will, respect his service to America, and while I was firm, I was never anything but polite. I can hardly be faulted for (apparently, mistakenly) believing that he asked people from an outside forum to come to Wikipedia because he felt he was being mistreated or that the article was not being handled right; he SAID as much himself. This is all I'm going to say about this, I'm not going to rehash the past anymore and would ask you not to either. If you feel he's been that wronged, open a Requests for comment on my editing here. If you don't want to do that, I would respectfully ask you to simply drop it in the interest of getting on with our main purpose here, which is building an encyclopedia. Also, typing [[Username]] is not the same thing as signing your name, because typing four tildes in a row not only inserts your name, it also inserts a timestamp which is important because it retains the timing in which comments were left. PLEASE, please, please, sign your name using four tildes in a row. Thanks. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

>mrp</ you were right, and i was wrong. I have corrected much of the language that you and ;">Phædriel< rightly found far too politically opinated. I am hoping you will feel the present language fairer. Really, a person's view of Hamer inhis business dealings depended solely on your side: if you believed the company had a right to operate with scab labor, hamer was a hero. If you believed in the union movement, he was feared and hated. I have tried to present both sides, and will further cite sources page by page next week. The man himself was complicated, as were the times. old windy bear 08:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)oldwindybear

Totallydisputed

I also dispute this article as it is written's facual accuracy as well. Many, MANY assertions of fact in this article need specific citations, particularly ones that could be viewed as potentially libelous to Frank Hamer or his estate. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0<you were right, and i was wrong. I have corrected much of the language that you and ;">Phædriel< rightly found far too politically opinated. I am hoping you will feel the present language fairer. Really, a person's view of Hamer inhis business dealings depended solely on your side: if you believed the company had a right to operate with scab labor, hamer was a hero. If you believed in the union movement, he was feared and hated. I have tried to present both sides, and will further cite sources page by page next week. The man himself was complicated, as were the times. old windy bear 08:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)oldwindybear

Katefan0kate, when you get a chance, will you review this article, it is much more heavily sourced, and the wording far more neutral. Thing is, in the end, there is not a court with jurisidiction to declare this a murder. People have to look at the facts and what was reported by the posse, and decide for themselves, and that almsot applies to much of his record. To those who hired him, he was the great lawman, to the laborers, and strikers, he was a horror, a brute thug. I really tried to clean the article up, source it, and be fair. Let history judge! What do you think? A lot of people have looked at it, and so far, not a lot of disagreement.old windy bear 04:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey bear, I have glanced at it and my initial thought is that it's quite a bit better; thanks for the hard work! More does exist to be done, though. I just haven't had time to do anything today, and don't have the stomach for it tonight. But I'll look at it tomorrow and make some more detailed ocmments. Thanks again Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 04:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0 Thanks Kate, I really appreciate your help. i really did try, and would welcome the comments, and input, so it can be brought up to wikipedia standards. I made some additional changes this am to the ambush, based on Hinton's book, which is the best source -- I believe -- (though I think it self-excusing and biased). 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!) Anyway, further help from you is welcomed! I am working hard to make this accurate historically, and fair. To some extent, I truly believe all we can do is present the facts and let the reader decide if Hamer murdered the girl. We are not saying he did, we are saying the question has been raised, which it unquestionably has (and because of Hinton's book, the lack of any capital warrants on her, and the laws of the time, that cannot be libeleous to Hamer's estate, I have checked this carefully!) old windy bear 17:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Warning to readers!!! There are countless factual errors in this article. Who ever wrote it did very careless research, if any at all. There are so many that I do not have time to correct them at this time, but I will attempt to in the near future, as I will collect and post citations for all facts that I expose as misleading or false. Most of the errors are common mythology that has surfaced over the years regarding Mr. Hamer. One obvious example is that he was NOT commissioned as a Texas Ranger when he tracked down Bonnie & Clyde, but he was in fact commissioned as a state highway patrolman ("I'm Frank Hamer" (c)1968)Also check the Texas State Library & Archives, you can see his records online. And for the record, Frank never wrote an "autobigraphy", as he passed away in 1953, and the aforementioned book was written by H. Gordon Frost and John H. Jenkins with the permission of the Hamer family in 1968. Ask his son Frank Jr., if you dont believe me. Or try actually reading the book. BTW-The family sucessfully sued Warner brothers for that farce of a movie starring warren beatty for copyright infringement. To whoever posted this bogus info, please do your homework first, or don't post anything at all. It is a grave dis-service to the public. I don't know how to get this issue taken care of, but there are countless factual errors in the frank hamer article by old windy bear, and though I have provided him with specific example that he can not refute and that I have the documentation in hand and cited, he does not seem willing to acknowledge and correct these serious factual errors. apparently he has an agenda and he is sticking to it, as some of the past dicussion reveals. I will include my original notes and my reply to his comments below. You will see the seriousness of his errors. This site has a reputation for allowing bogus info to be posted (lot of bad press this past year) so I am sure you will address this issue promptly. Thank you

Warning to readers!!! There are countless factual errors in this article. Who ever wrote it did very careless research, if any at all. There are so many that I do not have time to correct them at this time, but I will attempt to in the near future, as I will collect and post citations for all facts that I expose as misleading or false. Most of the errors are common mythology that has surfaced over the years regarding Mr. Hamer. One obvious example is that he was NOT commissioned as a Texas Ranger when he tracked down Bonnie & Clyde, but he was in fact commissioned as a state highway patrolman ("I'm Frank Hamer" (c)1968) Also check the Texas State Library & Archives, you can see his records online. They disprove what the writer of the article below claims, even though he/she references them. And for the record, Frank never wrote an "autobigraphy", as he passed away in 1953, and the aforementioned book was written by H. Gordon Frost and John H. Jenkins with the permission of the Hamer family in 1968. Ask his son Frank Jr., if you dont believe me. Or try actually reading the book. BTW-The family successfully sued Warner brothers for that farce of a movie starring warren beatty for copyright infringement. PS - Bonnie Parker was implicated by eye-witness in the cold blooded assasination of two highway patrol officers in grapevine texas on April 1st 1934. She Walked up to the one survivor and shot him point blank, then proceded to desecrate the corpse in an unmentionable fashion. She was anything but innocent, as she was suspected in numerous other murders & robberies, reveled in being photograped posing with guns, and sported a tatoo memorializing her 1st marriage to a man who was serving a life sentence in prison.(the eye-witness is named and his account provided in the aforementioned book, however the desecration I referred to was so vile that it is not included there, or in any publication) To whoever posted this bogus info, please do your homework first, or don't post anything at all. It is a grave dis-service to the public. His full given name was Francis Augustus Hamer. I am willing to accept that the gross errors you made in the Frank hamer article may have been made in good faith on your part, but the fact remains that they are indeed errors. Significant errors such as the example I gave that you are completely unable to refute. You didn't even try. Go to the texas State Library & archives website and actually review Hamer's entire file like I have, the read the entire book, "I'm Frank Hamer" that you erroneously referred to as an autobiography, then talk to me. You are wrong on those facts I noted and many, many others. Please be assured, I will not let this go until you correct those mistakes. This was my first experience with this site(very disappointing, to say the least), so I will have to learn the protocol, but you will save yourself much grief and embarrasment if you make these corrections yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.128.224.128 (talk • contribs)

Here are some more specifics, as he continues to cite incorrectly without actually reading what he cites. first here is the link he provides to defend his claim that hamer had a ranger commission in 1934.... http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/law/hamer-warrant.html BTW - you need to take a closer look at the document that you provided the link to below.....the dates are 1931 - 1933.....When were B & C killed?.....1934......once again, attention to detail would save you much embarrasment

I suggest you open those books and read them then. He DID NOT have a ranger commission. If you really are a historian, your colleagues will be ashamed because they have been aware that that popular myth is false for 30 years! OPEN THE BOOK if you actually have it, page 210....do I really have to spoon feed it to you like this? Let your agenda go and report the facts, that is what REAL historians are supposed to do. Got to the state library and archives website like I suggested, 3-4 times now. YOU ARE WRONG! Deal with it and make the corrections. To User:Katefan0 Will you take a moment to look at Old Windy Bear's own citations that refute his own claims. The link he keeps providing shows that Hamer's last commission ended in January 1933, a year and a half before the Bonnie & Clyde job. This error of fact is particularly important because your writer goes on to make some far-out claims based on that factual error. And as for his criticims of the "I'm" Frank Hamer" book, he is so ignorant that he refers to it as an autobiography even though hamer died 15 years before it was written by John H. Jenkins & H. Gordon Frost, two highly esteemed Texas historians of their generation. You can verify their reputations with the UT-Austin History department if you like. And furthermore, his claims about the timing of the book are erroneous as well, as is his claim that the settlement the family received was insignificant. The terms of the settlement included a confidentiality clause, so make him provided documents to rpove that claim as well. I do know this, the first payment came at the signing around 1970, a suitcase full of wrapped stacks of $500.00 bills. Frank Jr still has the suitcase and wrappers if you would like to see them. And finally, your writer cites a self-described NOVEL, the one by shelton, as if it were a work of history. He might as well cite the warren beatty movie then! I have reviewed his discussion pages and see that he has been REGULARLY criticized for his factual errors and obvious bias when writing articles. Perhaps it is time that your company ban him altogether and remove any & all articles that he has posted in order to spare yourelves further embarrasment in the media? I noticed that you have addressed Old Windy bear's lack of objectivity in his Frank Hamer article before, so I was hoping that you could assit me mith correcting the gross factual errors that he refuses to edit in the face of overwhelming evidence, particularly some of the very documents that he cites! I am including a post I made to Katefan ( a person he keeps asking to freeze me out) for you to review, but it will probaly behelpful to go to the article page and see all the discussion linking to various pages. I will check back her for your response. Thank you To User:Katefan0 Will you take a moment to look at Old Windy Bear's own citations that refute his own claims. The link he keeps providing shows that Hamer's last commission ended in January 1933, a year and a half before the Bonnie & Clyde job. This error of fact is particularly important because your writer goes on to make some far-out claims based on that factual error. And as for his criticims of the "I'm" Frank Hamer" book, he is so ignorant that he refers to it as an autobiography even though hamer died 15 years before it was written by John H. Jenkins & H. Gordon Frost, two highly esteemed Texas historians of their generation. You can verify their reputations with the UT-Austin History department if you like. And furthermore, his claims about the timing of the book are erroneous as well, as is his claim that the settlement the family received was insignificant. The terms of the settlement included a confidentiality clause, so make him provided documents to rpove that claim as well. I do know this, the first payment came at the signing around 1970, a suitcase full of wrapped stacks of $500.00 bills. Frank Jr still has the suitcase and wrappers if you would like to see them. And finally, your writer cites a self-described NOVEL, the one by shelton, as if it were a work of history. He might as well cite the warren beatty movie then! I have reviewed his discussion pages and see that he has been REGULARLY criticized for his factual errors and obvious bias when writing articles. Perhaps it is time that your company ban him altogether and remove any & all articles that he has posted in order to spare yourelves further embarrasment in the media?

Response to Anonymous Poster

I believe after the warnings you have received on your talk page, and your posting FOUR times on this page a lengthy diatribe which attacks me personally, and the warning from Kate, this is going to stop soon, and in any event, you reference no cites of facts and references disputing them except:

you claim Hamer's commission expired in 1933, which is a moot issue even if true - the Texas State Archives still list him as the only ranger to retire with an active commission;
he was hired by Lee Simmons of TDOC to hunt down Bonnie and Clyde after the January 1934 Eastham prison raid by the duo, as a special investigator for TDOC, not as a highway patrolman, as you incorrectly claim;
you make various claims about Hamer's ghosted autobiography, which, as I explained to you, was released as such by his family to cash in on the movie, claiming it was from his personal notes and recollections as relayed to them;
you claim they got a huge settlement from the movie company in 1970 (the settlement was actually in 1971), a "suitcase full of $500 bills" claiming Hamer's son as the source - anyone with any knowledge of the legal system knows settlements are not made in suitcases!
you claim Bonnie was the killer in the highway patrolmen murders, see Treherne, or Ted Hinton's son's account, at http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/spe/2003/bonnieclyde/story.html

You may post your warning ONCE on the talk page, and then see what others say, I would suggest instead of your ranting - I would listen to User:Katefan0 - I know I am and am restraining myself from responding to your ceaseless personal attacks. By wikipedia rules you cannot post warnings FOUR TIMES, nor make personal attacks. Next time I will ask you be suspended for 24 hours, and believe you will be. I pretty much have listed your issues for you, and people can debate them and reach consensus. Where are your records? I told you scan and send! old windy bear 15:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

First crack

I've copyedited the first couple sections. Haven't even looked at those following. I removed quite a bit of text that fell, broadly, into a few categories: biased, or using unencylopedic language, or speculative, or unsourced, or a combination of those things. The worst of it I've just excised. What I felt could be salvaged, I've placed requests for those assertions to be backed up with sourcing. First few steps! Thanks · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 01:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

>(scribble)Kate, You did a good job on the first few sections, (though obviously I felt the essential issue is legitimate to raise, the shooting of Bonnie without warning, especially after Clyde was dead --as you know, this issue has arisen in many places, on the legality of shooting Bonnie; and I will get you the specfic sourcing you indicated. How do we handle the issues of the laws? Kate, there is no question from anyone that Bonnie was not wanted for murder, nor did the laws of the time provide for accessory in the first degree, etc. The fact that no murder warrants were out for her is a matter of public record -- well, I will ask you more on wording/Will i need the actual number of the Code section in effect at the time in the states involved, (which I can get easily enough) or how would you prefer this to be handled? On the ambush itself, the information on placement, firing orders, (Hamer explicitly ordering them to fire without warning PRIOR TO THE CAR'S ARRIVAL, and some of them questioning that plan, are all in Ted Hinton's book - again, the best source on the ambush itself. Will it be sufficient to have the book, or do you need page numbers?) Thanks for the help, and it will get done. Ted Hinton's book makes clear that the posse, many or most of them, raised teh question of firign without warning, that Frank Hamer personally ordered it done, and had planned it that way prior to the arrival of Bonnie and Clyde. To me, that is the central issue of the article. By the way, I did not put those quotes in from Hamer, that was another user. Resourcing has begun, as you will notice when you work on the next sections, hopefully the specific cites will help. Hope you had a good weekend, old windy bear 01:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Bear, thanks a bunch. Some of that information no doubt can be revived, but probably in the B&C section rather than in the "early years," it doesn't really directly apply to that particular section. Sorry I haven't had a chance to look at the rest yet! Best · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0 Kate, you are doing a great job, and you are right, it is probably more appropriate in the B & C section - and all that is important to me is that we get the information out, in appropriate form. Thanks a bunch for your help, and I ordered a book via Amazon on the Tudors tonight, (should be here in 3-5 days) so I will be doing something there also. I will be at the library tomorrow, but I wanted something more. Thanks a bunch for asking me to help with the Tudor project, it doesn't look like I will be involved with the military project, so I will certainly have the time to go wherever you send me to help, and am honored to do so. old windy bear 01:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0 Kate, I have heavily sourced this article now, so what it needs when you have time, is your magic touch as to what you want in, and what not. The legal stuff, as you indicated, belongs in the Bonnie and Clyde section, and I am putting it there, and you can decide what we word and how. old windy bear

Just looked a bit at the fact tag stuff you were cleaning up -- I'd still like to know what exacxtly these books say. We sort of throw out there "political connections" and "problems with the political establishment," but with accusations like that we need to be very specific. In BOOK X, AUTHOR said that Frank Hamer quit the rangers because he X (whatever -- got into an argument with someone, disliked their operating practices, etc.) Can you tell us briefly what these books say on these subjects so we can get a bit more specific? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0 Kate, no problem. I am trying to finish the Battle of Tours first, and then it is back to work on this one. Yes, i can and will do exactly as you say, and make the citation more specific than simply stating the name of the book. I will do as I did in the B & C section where I said "Hinton said xy and z, and Fruits said a, b, and c in such and such books." Also, have you had a chance to look at the section I put in Margarat Tudor? But on this article, no problem, I will make sure the sources are exactly as you need them. Hope you are having a good weekend...old windy bear 20:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Still not quite there

It's not clear to me what this is referring to. Does Shelton's book suggest that it was unusual, or are you using it as a source for the fact that the state kept a copy, or for the speculation about calling him back into service? This needs to be made more explicit. Again we come back to the question of what exactly does Shelton's book say. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed a tremendous amount of extraneous detail about Bonnie and Clyde's capture and shooting tha tdon't really have much to do with a biography of Frank Hamer. More appropriate, potentially, for the article about the pair. I am also of the opinion that the "aftermath" section needs a lot of trimming, if not completely erasing. Does anyone actually argue that Bonnie was killed illegally? You seem to have a lot of "supporting facts" (bordering on no original research, frankly) without any source that actually argues that there was something amiss. Can you produce such a source? If so, then the rest of this information becomes a little more relevant. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

(scribble) Hi Kate! Shelton's book suggested that it was unusual, to answer that question, and NONE of the cited sources believe Hamer had the legal authority to fire without warning; John Treherne travled the country, and found not one warrant for Bonnie's arrest for murder. Without her having a warrant for a capital crime, there were no grounds to use lethal force for her capture. But, as the sources say, Hamer never bothered about the nicities of the law! Also, see the sources for teh posse's reservations about firing on her without warning! I think at the least, it needs to say that questions have been raised about the legality of the ambush -- that is certainly safe encyclopedic language!old windy bear 03:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

(scribble) John Treherne's book The Strange Lives of Bonnie and Clyde atually searched every jurisdiction and could find no warrants for murder for Bonnie, that being the case, he, and pretty near everyone else who writes about the pair, questions Hamer's firing on the duo without warning, and even Hamer admitted in his press conferences that he was not concerned about the "nicities of the law." Also, remember that in his own book Ambush, Ted Hinton stated the posse had reservations about firing on Bonnie without warning - and were overriden by Hamer! I think it can be said something like "because there was no known warrant for Bonnie Parker for murder, shooting her without warning from ambush has been questioned by some historians for it's legality." That would be my suggeston - it really is encyclopedia language, and has teh virtue of being the truth! THANKS for all your hard work on this article. I do think, and humbly ask, that the horror of the aftermath of the shooting, with Hamer letting people cut off her bloody clothes and hair, till the coroner asked him to stop - that is sourced page number and all in teh article -- should stay in, but it is up to you! Kate, I think this paragraph or something similiar, needs to be in also, as it raises the legitimate doubts the posse had about Hamer's actions. "In his article "Romeo and Juliet in a Getaway Car" Joesph Gerringer writes of the ambush: "But, Hamer chose not to call out a warning -- not to Bonnie and Clyde...in a voice audible only to those around him, void of drama, void of malice, Hamer ordered, "Shoot!" Also in Hinton's book, the best source on the ambush, he makes clear Hamer had ordered firing without warning no matter what happened prior to the car's arrival. The car was hit over 130 times, with the entry in the passenger, or Bonnie's, side. Hinton's book records Bonnie uttering one long agonized scream , saying in "Ambush," Hinton tells the rest: Hamer says Shoot! then "...Bonnie screams, and I fire and everyone fires!" At no point did anyone in the posse ever claim that they told Bonnie and Clyde to halt or surrender. Hamer himself admitted in I'm Frank Hamer that he intended an ambush where the duo would have no chance. In The Strange Life of Bonnie and Clyde John Treherne also records the ambush as having the posse simply opening fire on Hamer's command without warning. No reliable account of the ambush has ever claimed the posse called out a warning, or intended to, in fact, the opposite, all claim Hamer planned the ambush exactly as it happened. According to E.R. Milner, citing in his book as his source for that quote the Dallas Morning News of May 24, 1934, Hamer gave a press conference at 2:15pm on that day in front of the courthouse in Gibsland, with Tom Simmons of the Texas Department of Corrections, and described in detail the ambush. He stated flatly that they had planned the ambush with the intention of firing without warning, pointing at a bench in front of the Gibsland courthouse and saying "a few weeks ago I sat on that seat and mapped out the plan that was carried out this morning." These two issues, the firing without warning on someone WHO WAS NOT WANTED FOR A CAPITAL OFFENSE, and the incredible aftermath, where people were allowed to cut the dead girl's bloody clothes and hair -- these two need to be in, though languaged appropriate to an encyclopedia. old windy bear 19:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Kate's edits on this article

User:Katefan0 hi Kate, I just read your edits of the aftermath - very fair. Thank you. I think you did, in a very professional way, raise the issues which have become more and more public, while not doing so in a way that raises issues outside the biography of this man. Good job,VERY good job and I hope my work helped at least a little...old windy bear 22:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

A BETTER IDEA

Since you and "Old Windy Bare" are so saddened about a pschopath and his moll (who was guilty of aiding and abbeding a fudgitive, even if she had never fired a gun-she could have left at any time, she chose to be where she was on may 23, 1934 and deserved to die, ulike the eleven law officers and two civilians they killed) <personal attack removed> Randazzo56

I removed a personal attack; please read the guidelines here which prohibit personal attacks. Comment on content, not on contributors. If you see an error, feel free to fix it. For myself, I don't much care about the personalities involved, though it is an interesting bit of historical trivia. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

restoring article to last version by Katefan0

I have attemtped to restore the article to the last version by Katefan0, and restore the information deleted wholesale by My2cents, who seems determined to whitewash the aftermath of the ambush of Bonnie and Clyde, and any negative information about Frank Hamer, and cites no sources for doing so. My2cents declines to discuss his reasons for his unilateral rewriting of history, he just writes it to his own POV, and that has to stop. I have restored the last version Kate wrote, and slapped a dispute tag on until arbitration. old windy bear 12:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the 'totallydisputed' tag. The Frank Hamer page, as it stands now, is a POV mess! But; I would encourage all wikipedians to 'be bold' in editing this page for NPOV and to clean up the long, rambling prose. Please remember old windy bear, we edit by consensus. Wikipages are judged by how they are written, not by who writes them.

Mytwocents 19:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents I could not agree more on the totally disputed tag. Mytwocents at no point have you said what is historically inaccurate in the section on the aftermath of the ambush. Are you disputing that E.R. Milner wrote of the scene the coroner reported? Are you disputing people cut off pieces of Parker's clothes and hair, blood soaked, and sold them as souvenirs with Hamer looking on? Are you disputing that Ted Hinton posthumously claimed that Hamer literally kidnapped Henry Methvin's father, tied him to a tree, and made a deal to avoid kidnapping charges, that he, hamer, would obtain a pardon for Methvin's son for the highway patrolmen murders, in return for the elder Methvin's silence? Are you disputing only one warrant exists for Parker in the FBI database? Are you disputing the facts John Treherne wrote about? I also urge all wikipedians to be bold and resist the kind of personal viewpoint that My2cents is trying to force down your throats without even offering one scintilla of evidence that any of the sections he seeks to delete are historically inaccurate! I have asked for arbitration on these two articles because I will boldly resist My2cents revisionist view of history. You seek to whitewash the ambush, and eliminate facts from the article. This kind of revisionism must be resisted. Wikipedia is a wonderful repository of FACTS - not opinions! The Frank Hamer page you left was a complete POV mess, and i would have tagged it so, except that Katefan0 had spent a huge amount of time working on this article - after it had been heavily discussed as to history and sources - and it deserved to be returned there, since you offer no history, no sources, no proof, just your desire to delete facts from the articles. I am sorry you cannot see that this is not just wrong, but censorship of the worst kind, because you won't even offer any historical facts or sources to justify your chopping good articles to bits to reflect your own POV. By the way, i agree, we write by consensus - but you make no effort to cite what FACTS are wrong, and not one person has written in support of your chopping the articles to pieces. old windy bear 19:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Same situation here as in the B & C article: wholesale deletion of facts, including, but not limited to:

that E.R. Milner wrote of the scene the coroner reported;
that people cut off pieces of Parker's clothes and hair, blood soaked, and sold them as souvenirs with Hamer looking on;
that Ted Hinton posthumously claimed that Hamer literally kidnapped Henry Methvin's father, tied him to a tree, and made a deal to avoid kidnapping charges, that he, hamer, would obtain a pardon for Methvin's son for the highway patrolmen murders, in return for the elder Methvin's silence;
that only one warrant exists for Parker in the FBI database;
the facts John Treherne and Milner wrote about Parker's lesser role in the gang than was generally believed;
the sworn testimony of other gang members who said Parker did not participate in the gang's gun battles;

"Consensus" means you "Consider using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating." as wikipedia rules state...which you certainly did not do here. Hopefully you will now try to do so. old windy bear 21:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The problems escalate from mis-understanding. I have explained my edits, and I will in the future. The Frank Hamer page, as it is now, is POV a mess. It needs to be cleaned up and to treat the late Hamer in a fair light. The B & C issue is covered on that wikipage.

Mytwocents 21:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents I am certainly willing to work with you to portray the late Mr. Hamer in a fair light, but I have to say, that time has not treated his ambush kindly, nor have the historians who have examined it. But let us work together, and find some common ground, which should be possible for two intelligent people who both want the same thing: we share the goal of wanting the best possible article in wikipedia. Just as you will explain your edits, so will I, and where we differ, surely we can find some common ground - a section with contrasting views? -- and find consensus. I am willing to work with you, but will insist the facts be presented, and the truth told. YOu spoke of presenting Mr. Hamer in a "fair light." That light will include Ted Hinton's accusation that he bribed a man with a pardon for his son who had cold bloodedly murdered two highway patrolmen. That light will include Hamer's allowing people to cut the bloody hair and clothes off a woman not wanted for any capital offense, whom he had refused to allow to be taken alive. Those are brutal but honest facts that will be presented,along with others that are not pleasant. A fair light does not mean we whitewash Mr. Hamer. old windy bear 21:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is my NPOV edit of the Frank Hamer article. I removed 'Aftermath of the Ambush of Bonnie and Clyde' section, this section just mirrors what is already in the B&C article. I added a main article pop-up to the B&C section. Trimmed for brevity and NPOV the Strike Breaker section. I hope this is seen as a workable compromise. Mytwocents 05:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents As long as the aftermath section basically remains intact in the Bonnie and Clyde article, yet, this is a reasonable compromise. I would prefer to keep it here, but "compromise" means give and take. (I did add one sentence that says controversy remains, but it is addressed in the B & C article). If you are willing to leave the information in the aftermath section in B & C, this is a reasonable compromise. I would prefer to work with you, rather than argue. old windy bear 11:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Restoring controversy section to this article on the ambush of Bonnie and Clyde

The agreement with My2Cents proved fleeting as he has attempted to impose his POV on the Bonnie and Clyde article, and remove any trace of the very real questions that have existed for 72 years on the legality of the ambush, and it's horrific aftermath. I have restored the controversy section to this article, because it needs to be here, and needs to be seen, and the efforts of a single, very POV'd user should not outweigh the absolute obligation to tell all the facts we know on any subject on wikipedia. old windy bear 22:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Oldwindybear, I have no problem with the idea of the section, but you need to rewrite it quite a bit. Right now, it reads like an essay. Question marks do not belong in a Wikipedia article. The last sentence in particular makes conclusions based on research and again, we don't want that here. Making conclusions like that is considered original research. Stick to the facts. You know more about this topic than I do, so I'm not going to tackle it yet. But please try to make it more encyclopedic if you can. What's there right now is POV. --Woohookitty^(meow) 23:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty As I hope you know, I have a great deal of respect for your writing, (better than mine!) and editorial skills. I have therefore removed the last paragraph completely, and am reworking the entire section, please send me a message and let me know if it is improved enough to not be POV. Since this would also apply to the same section in the Bonnie and Clyde article, i went there, and reworded that as well, to remove all question marks, and correct the errors you point out. THANKS! AND PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF IT IS ACCEPTABLE. The facts are not in dispute, so the language needs to be precisely correct, as you point out, for an encyclopedia article - and I am trying! old windy bear 00:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not perfect, but it's a definite improvement. Thank you. For now, all I did was some grammar and spelling fixes. Nothing big. What's there now isn't gorgeous by any means, but it's good enough so that I'll let you guys go back to hammer this out. :) It's SO nice to have someone listen to me for once on here. With all of the stuff I deal with on here every day, you have no idea how much I appreciate your attention to this matter. Thank you! --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty Thanks, I do listen to you because you are highly intelligent, fair, and a better writer than I am. Therefore, I do the research, and hope that you and folks like you and User:Katefan0 will help me with the wording aspects. I am grateful for your help, and respond immediately to your very helpful suggestions. I also took your improvements and added them to the Bonnie and Clyde article, thus killing two birds with one help from Woohookitty! THANKS! old windy bear 11:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

WHO

Took out the part about Bonnies shortness of stature prevented her from firing a B.A.R.? user name witheld as user currently under ban.

Who do you think? Your friend and mine, MyTwoCents. I put back in the fact that the gang only used a BAR because of it's obvious relevance to her size - but could not reinclude her not being able to probably fire it, because that is considered "original research." I have to hope that people see what you meant, that no one 4'10" and 90 pounds could possibly fire a BAR - hell, it kicked me like a mule, when I was 18, before Vietnam, and 190 pounds of muscle, at six feet! I fired a 20 round clip, like Clyde used, (actually, he would use more, taping them together!) and that one clip literally carried the rifle firing striaght up into the air. I did my best to restore what i could.old windy bear 10:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Old windy bear it wasn't me, please keep me out of this.

Mytwocents 17:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents You whined, moaned, complained, cried, and then lied about each and every thing in every one of these articles. PERIOD, and I will speak my mind where I chose, without a lecture from someone who:

launches constant unending personal attacks such as your soon to be proved sock puppet fantasy;
falsely accusing me of sock puppeting;
lying about me to editors;
calling me names on an administers talk page;
edits talk pages and deletes sections as though you are some master of the language - where are your credentials to do such? You have none except a vicious personal agenda against those who disagree with you;
attempting to bully, harass and intimidate every person who dares disagree with him - I have gotten two private emails from other members applauding my refusing to be bullied by your vicious, unending, vile personal, attacks - make that three, got another one!
why is it that every other user got along fine with the peer review On Bonnie and Clyde except you? BECAUSE HE COULD NOT GET HIS POV WAY. You asked for a peer review, then whined, cried, moaned, and launched every vicious personal attack you could on me when others did not see things his way;
You should NOT be on wikipedia in any capacity, and I beg the committee, once the check/user is done, to punish you severely for the false accusation, and unending personal bile;
I am quoting directly from one of the emails: "this person is the most arrogant and meanspirited person on wikipedia, and hopefully after this phony sock puppet charge, they will finally kick him off." I will gladly forward the emails to the committee, or anyone who wants them! Other people are tired of vile neverending personal assaults that typify you.

Since you feel free to lie about me, and call me names, make phony accusations, I will set the record straight wherever the issues come up - besides, you said you were going away, scat now! old windy bear 00:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Old windy bear, Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. , Mytwocents 03:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytwocents No lectures on wikipedia policy from someone who calls people names like "ass-over-nuts." (behind my back, of course!) You engage in:

launching constant unending personal attacks such as your soon to be proved sock puppet fantasy;
falsely accusing me of sock puppeting;
lying about me to editors;
calling me names on an administers talk page;
edits talk pages and deletes sections as though you are some master of the language - where are your credentials to do such? You have none except a vicious personal agenda against those who disagree with you;
attempting to bully, harass and intimidate every person who dares disagree with him - I have gotten two private emails from other members applauding my refusing to be bullied by your vicious, unending, vile personal, attacks - make that three, got another one!
why is it that every other user got along fine with the peer review On Bonnie and Clyde except you? BECAUSE HE COULD NOT GET HIS POV WAY. You asked for a peer review, then whined, cried, moaned, and launched every vicious personal attack you could on me when others did not see things his way;
You should NOT be on wikipedia in any capacity, and I beg the committee, once the check/user is done, to punish you severely for the false accusation, and unending personal bile;
I am quoting directly from one of the emails: "this person is the most arrogant and meanspirited person on wikipedia, and hopefully after this phony sock puppet charge, they will finally kick him off." I will gladly forward the emails to the committee, or anyone who wants them! Other people are tired of vile neverending personal assaults that typify you.

Since you feel free to lie about me, and call me names, make phony accusations, I will set the record straight wherever the issues come up. DO NOT lecture me on wikipedia policy on personal attacks when you are the master of personal attacks. Why don't you join my request for mediation, oh personal attack master, and let one of us be banned? I will not EVER let you come and lie without responding, so Go away, as you promised, and cease disrupting these talk pages. As long as you come and lie, or give one of your pompous lectures, daring to quote wikipedia policy from the ULTIMATE violater of same in unfounded personal attacks, I will set the record straight. You violate EVERY tenet of good faith and damage the community in EVERY way possible by your agendas and personal attacks. Go away now, as you promised, and this discussion can end.old windy bear 10:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

WHAT

about the sawed off and otherwise altered twenty gauge shotgun that was supposed to be Bonnies'? The one she pointed at Clyde in one of the photos. Being that this gun existed, she would have used it instead of the B.A.R., which she could not handle. None of the victoms were killed by a twenty gauge, nor was anyone wounded by the Barrows with such a gun.

I know

You are right, and I fought for that. Nobody ever saw Bonnie fire a gun at all, period, except Blanche's discredited claim - and both you and I know she could not handled a BAR anymore than I could handfire a nuculear missle. If she would have used a piece, it would have been the shotgun, a 20 gauge, (the smallest of the shotguns) which held properly, a person that small could fire. But a BAR? PLEASE! But what can you do? We are dealing with an agenda, and the truth is not on it.old windy bear 00:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to accept that the gross errors you made in the Frank hamer article may have been made in good faith on your part, but the fact remains that they are indeed errors.

Significant errors such as the example I gave that you are completely unable to refute. You didn't even try.

Go to the texas State Library & archives website and actually review Hamer's entire file like I have, the read the entire book, "I'm Frank Hamer" that you erroneously referred to as an autobiography, then talk to me. You are wrong on those facts I noted and many, many others.

Please be assured, I will not let this go until you correct those mistakes. This was my first experience with this site(very disappointing, to say the least), so I will have to learn the protocol, but you will save yourself much grief and embarrasment if you make these corrections yourself.

Threats don't frighten me much, bring some real facts

Threats have never frightened me much, especially by people who do not know what they are talking about. Hamer's active ranger commission is displayed online, if you had bothered to actually check the facts http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/law/hamer-warrant.html Hamer's PERMANENT RANGER COMMISSION is posted online at http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/law/hamer-warrant.html You need to present factual disputes properly and stop vandalizing - you need to list these alleged "errors" on the talk page, in order, or request a peer review. Also go read Texas history online -http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/HH/fha32.html saying "In 1932 Hamer retired from active duty but retained his commission." His lack of knowledge is embarrassing!The highway patrol fallacy - long ago discredited. Oh well, another night in wikipedia, with nameless vandals, lol old windy bear 02:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As to your claimed other errors, bring them on. I enjoy folks who think they know the "facts" and are then proven incorrect, such as your claiming Hamer did not have an active ranger commission. As to statements in his AUTO (you do know what that phrase means in conjunction with a biography, which was ghostwritten, means, don't you?), they are accurately stated. Again, bring your "facts" if they are as wrong as the commission issue, I won't be anything but amused by this. old windy bear 01:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

to whoever vandalized the Frank Hamer article

YOU need to go read the books. Treherne exhaustively investigated the highway patrol shootings, in addition to Hamer's status. Ted Hinton's son also investigated - you do know how Ted Hinton was, right? - and Bonnie was asleep in the back of the car when those shootings occurred. Also Methvin allocuted to those shootings, when he accepted a pardon, or are you aware of that? If you cite Treherne, actually quote his book if you want the cite the farmer incident, because Treherne, who wrote the most exhaustively researched book on the duo, disparaged it as untrue after an exhaustive investigation. If you want to come back and correct, fine, post your factual disagreements on the talk page, and they will be debated, and I will debunk the junk you posted cite by cite. Hamer was hired by Lee Simmons of TDOC, and he still held his active Ranger commission at the time. No one ever said he "wrote" an autobiography - do you know the definition of what the "auto" means added to biography? If you have problems with the article, post them here, follow wikipedia policy, and debate them - MyTwoCents - instead of vandalizing the article and failing to file allegedly wrong facts that need discussing here, or request peer review.old windy bear 23:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Katefan0 Hey Kate, can you lock the Hamer article from vandalism. if you look at the history, someone, probably MyTwoCents, vandalized it in whole, from an ip address rather than signing in, can you protect the article, while any disputed facts are raised here, or in a peer review, if someone wants one? Thanks! old windy bear 23:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The book "Im Frank Hamer" was written in a hurry immiediatly after the movie came out in an attempt for the Hamer family to attempt to "Save Face". the book is full of historical falshoods. The account of Bonnie shooting the Highway patrolman by a farmer named Schiefer was discredited when Schiefer kept changing his story-neither Officer was shot with a .20 Gauge shotgun. The book also has Hamer standing in the middle of the road on ambush day as Clyde approached, total nonsense.

Yep. Ted Hinton's son, who had the best info, and Treherne, found that Bonnie, who only used that scatter, was asleep in the back seat when those shootings went down. The farmer was totally discredited after changing stories 200 times. You are right as usual. As to the permanent commission as a ranger, this guy cannot even check the texas history database, which not only shows a copy - see the above links - but says he kept it after retiring! As you say, more total nonesense. LOL, hope you are well tonight. old windy bear 02:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey buddy, "I'am Frank Hamer" is considered considered historically to be the worst of the "Bonnie and Clyde" books because practically everything in it is self serving and wrong. Hamer's family rushed it out in 1968 to try to take advantage of the movie and sue. (it was settled for a relative pitance to avoid nuisence litigation!) But the book is terrible - For instance, the ghost writers (Hamer is dead and does not have to explain his horrific actions after the ambush, etc.) "forget" to mention that Bonnie was not wanted for anything other than aiding Clyde in the interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle - no one wanted her for any murders, period. The highway patrol shootings this unnamed person babbles about? He should read Treherne, or Ted Hinton, or talk to Hinton's son, who says online in an article Bonnie was asleep in the back seat. (see the site in the Bonnie and Clyde article) Treherne found she approached the dying officers to try and help them after Methvin started the killings. Hamer's ranger commission was permanent in 1934, I have cited the state of texas's historial site, which lists him as retiring (he was actually forced to resign over political differences) but had enough political pull to be allowed to keep an active ranger commission, which was in force when Lee Simmons of the Department of Corrections -not the highway patrol - hired him to hunt down Bonnie and Clyde. Point to all this, (other than driving Kate crazy with more Frank Hamer trivia), is this really was someone who did not have a clue about the history - witness his insistance this one, self serving, rushed out after death book in order to sue a movie company, overrides the official archives of the state of texas! old windy bear 09:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

When confronted by facts, certain editors are quick to retreat205.188.116.203 03:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is funny that way. This person appeared out of nowhere, probably a sock puppet, and after a long and sometimes bitter battle over this same subject was just resolved by consensus, tries to bully it changed by personal attacks. If you - and I am sure you have - review his overwriting the article, it contained personal attacks on me, rather than following any form of asking for factual review. I have asked for any documentation he claims to have, and will personally verify it via the Library of Congress, if it exists, and it is found the article needs correcting, it will be. Essentially he claims Hamer's commission expired in 33, which still left him the only ranger to "retire" with an active commission. No one ever said he was hunting Bonnie and Clyde as a ranger, he was acting as a special investigator for the Prison system, under Lee Simmons. (this person claims he was working for the highway patrol - wrong!)In any event, his claims on Bonnie Parker are totally wrong, period, and refuted by every major scholar on the duo. (the highway patrol shootings and that farmer's claims have been religiously rebutted, by every expert on the duo) But as I said, if he has factual disputes, they need to be resolved without his using the article to call me, or any other editor, names. And frankly, it does not help his credibility that he can neither write nor spell with any degree of literacy. He may be right on the commission date which would change nothing - since the article makes clear he was not hunting Bonnie and Clyde as a ranger, but as a special investigator for Lee Simmons of the prison system, and still was and is the only ranger to "retire" with an active commission - but his methods and incredibly poor writing undercut any credibility for even this technicality. Wikipedia requires we work in a group effort, not this sort of personal garbage. I probably should not have pointed out that he cannot spell or even properly cite facts - a citation as you know is a legal reference, not a factual cite. But the complete lack of literacy, coupled with unending personal assaults beginning before any attempt to resolve this with wikipedia policy on the talk page, does raise serious questions about agendas. This unnamed user began by posting a very personal assault and POV attack, replacing an article with his personal opinions and insults, (most of it quite misspelled), without any effort to list the facts in dispute properly. And you have to ask yourself if someone who spells embarassing "imbarrassing" really is a scholar, lol. But as you said, he appears to have disappeared once facts emerged...old windy bear 11:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Enough

I said I won't mediate this article, and I won't. But I will block anybody that continues to troll, spew, soapbox or otherwise uses this talk page from which to launch the least bit of incivility. Count on it. It stops now. Talk fruitfully about the article, but longwinded diatribes full of personal comments will be reverted going forward. The next posting here that even references someone in a personal manner instead of dealing with a substantive dispute over article content will get the author blocked. Find another way to resolve your disputes. · Ka t efan0 ^(scribble) 15:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the support

Thank you for the support - User:Katefan0 is right that the issues are the matter for discussion, so I have tried to go through and come up with what issues he raises, and here they are, I think they are pretty clear, that he is in error, as you do, but I am of course hoping, (and again thanks!), for consensus:

he claims Hamer's commission expired in 1933, which is a moot issue even if true - the Texas State Archives still list him as the only ranger to retire with an active commission see the state archives statement at http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/HH/fha32.html saying "In 1932 Hamer retired from active duty but retained his commission." which is what is relevant to this article, the unique fact that he alone of all rangers was allowed to "retire" with a commission not revoked at retirement;
he disputes that Hamer was hired by Lee Simmons of TDOC to hunt down Bonnie and Clyde after the January 1934 Eastham prison raid by the duo, as a special investigator for TDOC, not as a highway patrolman, as he incorrectly claims;
he makes various claims about Hamer's ghosted autobiography, which, as I explained, was released as such by his family to cash in on the movie, claiming it was from his personal notes and recollections as relayed to them in lieu of the dead man -- thus it was marketed as an "autobiography" (thus the title, "I'm Frank Hamer");
the book was rushed out 13 years after he died, not 15 as the unnamed user claims, to take advantage of the movie, and position the family to sue; just as you had the settlement occuring in 1970, it happened in 1971 - his dates are simply wrong;
he claims they got a huge settlement from the movie company in 1970 (the settlement was actually in 1971), a "suitcase full of $500 bills" claiming Hamer's son as the source - anyone with any knowledge of the legal system knows settlements are not made in suitcases!
he claims Bonnie was the killer in the highway patrolmen murders, see Treherne, or Ted Hinton's son's account, at http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/spe/2003/bonnieclyde/story.html and he fails to mention there is only one warrant for Bonnie in existence! (aiding Clyde in transportation of a stolen vehicle!) His insistence she was a "suspect" beggers the point - we cannot list someone as a suspect - historically it boils down to "was there a warrant or grand jury indictment? Was she arrested, or tried, for any major offense?" The answer to all the foregoing is a resounding "No."
he seems to feel I am pro Bonnie and Clyde. We went through all that on a good peer review on the Bonnie and Clyde article, and consensus was achieved through 4 people working very hard on the article, and no one felt it - which is far stronger than this one - was "pro" anyone, it ws the truth as relayed by the historians and eyewitnesses, especially Ted Hinton for the later, and Treherne, Milner, and Geringer for the former. No one is "pro" anything except pro-wikipedia, which is to say, pro truth, wherever that leads. This user does not even mention the ambush - which we did not use stronger quotes on, which state that today Hamer would be charged and convicted of murder and civil rights violations - or the aftermath, in which he held forth to citizens on his great career while souvenir hunters cut the blood soaked clothes and hair off a dead girl. Nor did we dwell at length on Boots Hinton's stunning posthumous revelation by hs father, Ted, that Hamer kidnapped Methvin's father, and in return for not getting charged for that crime, traded a pardon to Henry Methvin for the murder of the two highway patrolmen. We mentioned it, but again, left out far more incendiary quotes on the ethics of a man who would trade a murderer a pardon to avoid criminal charges that would have ruined him. That is the sad, but blunt, truth. We did not use the stronger quotes on Hamer's pontificating during the savaging of dead bodies either, though he only stopped that unbelievable activity when the coroner ordered him to - in an effort to be NPOV. NO one disputes he ordered automatic weapon fire on a girl not wanted for any major offense, period, and then let people cut off her bloody clothes and hair for souvenirs, and he and some of the posse took even her personal possessions, selling them for souvenirs, which I believe speaks for itself. Actually, we had to work hard not to use incendiary quotes on Hamer's conduct far stronger than those we used, again, to try to be encyclopedic. But the truth is what it is.
finally, he raises the issue of demanding my academic credentials, while not even revealing his name - telling me he is probably a sock puppet, but more importantly, while I have four, Essjay, who has far more, including two earned doctorates, makes a vital point that education is not the measure of value here, it is your work. I believe since - if you look at my talkpage - I am regularly asked to work on projects, that speaks to that issue. I am absolutely complying with instructions not to respond to personal attacks, and let this user's work speak for him here, as I will and have, mine.

He claims to have files proving his points, and I offered to check them, verify through the library of congress, and if they have some shocking revelation, it would be noted and posted. They can easily be scanned and emailed. But to rely on the Hamer book? That was a pure hack job, done for money, to ride on the back of the movie, and to provide background for what was essentially a nuisance and frivilous lawsuit, which was quietly settled to avoid the aggravation.

His claims that wikipedia is not accepted as a reference site for papers at the undergradute level, especially in history papers, is absolutely wrong, and the general attack against wikipedia is an insult to everyone, including so many of us, Kirill, Kate, Steve, Pat, Andy, Crystal, Srnec, Ewulp, Essjay - just to name a few of us, who spend a huge number of hours trying to write good articles, or admin this site, and do it for the belief in wikipedia. But I won't get into that. Kate is absolutely right, the issues are what that counts. All I ask is he list FACTS, and references...and then anyone out there interested can weigh in and we will strive for consensus on the ISSUES and any FACTS IN DISPUTE. Obviously, anyone who wishes to enter this debate, your input is welcome, and with it, we will debate the issues civilly, in wikipedia fashion, and achieve consensus. old windy bear 00:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A Thought

I am very reluctant to offer an opinion on this, least I be again accused of being someone's puppet. However, in reviewing this and the Bonnie and Clyde article, it is apparant to me at least that this is essentially a battle over philosophy, not fact. The articles make clear Mr. Hamer did not hunt Bonnie and Clyde as a Ranger, but rather as an Investigator hired by Lee Simmons of the Texas Prison System. It is also clear that Mr. Hamer was the only Ranger known to have retired with an active commission. The issues really center on one side's wish to portray Bonnie Parker as fully as evil as Clyde, and the other's desire to portray her as history has shown her to be, "logistical support," as the Bonnie and Clyde article says, or, in John Treherne's words a "lovestruck girl who followed a psychopath." Wikipedia cannot list crimes people are "suspected" of committing, it has to list what they actually did, or were charged with, or convicted of. In closing, I will say the tone of this debate until an administrator came and laid down the law was deplorable. No person should be allowed to delete an article to list a "warning," which is one long personal attack against a major contributor to this site, and list the same warning repeatedly everywhere on the talk page, and equally, despite being sorely provoked, oldwindybear, you cannot allow yourself to respond sarcastically to personal attacks. Let the adminstrators defend you, which they will. I will only say that we should stick to the facts, and so far, I don't see any in this article which are untrue, though many will disagree with the philosophy. I will add that the terrible circumstances of the aftermath of the ambush leave an indelible stain on the name of Frank Hamer that no spin can erase. Max 14:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stillstudying (talk • contribs)

Small note: Make sure to sign your talk page comments by typing four tildes in a row (~~~~); when you hit save it'll fill out your userid and a time and datestamp. · Ka t efan0 ^(scribble) 14:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I am still new at this. I will remember the four tildes from now on! Max 15:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's no problem, learning WP norms can be a challenge. Don't forget the tildes -- this last comment wasn't signed using them. · Ka t efan0 ^(scribble) 17:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

efan0 Well Kate, one thing is obvious. Since you laid down the law, and demanded we stick to facts, and issues, and I listed same, there has been exactly one response, which I partially agree with - I am not sure this is a philosophical difference, as much as several (relatively minor) factual ones, but in any event, the unnamed user has not returned with references or facts to dispute, and there has been no response but one, which was mostly supportive of the article. I won't declare consensus, obviously, until everyone has a chance to read the material, check the sources, etc., but it seems fairly obvious that the facts surrouding the critical issues, are simply not disputable in any major way:

Hamer's family rushed the ghosted "autobiography, allegedly taken from his notes and recollections to them," 13 years after his death, to take advantage of the movie and position themselves to sue, and no settlement - which occurred in 1971 instead of 1970 as the unnamed attacker claimed -- included any "suitcase of $500 bills" (no court settlement in US history has been made that way), and what if anything, Hamer's son declares, this was a court case, which is simply not settled by handing over a suitcase of money! The company paid by check, and the deal was made in lawyer's offices, signing a contract including confidentiality clauses, so we will never know the exact amount, except the movie company did not list any large legal expenses that year in it's annual reports, so it could not have been very large;
Bonnie's real role in the Barrow Gang is religiously documented, and was logistical, and she was simply not wanted for any major crime prior to the ambush;
the ambush was, and remains, highly controversial for Hamer's decision to fire without warning, shoot to kill both, especially on a person not wanted for a capital offense and on two people not committing any instant crime;
the aftermath of the ambush is the most horrific law enforcement act in US history, allowing people to cut off a dead girl's bloody clothes and hair and sell them for souvenirs, the posse stealing and selling her personal property for souvenirs stained (I like that word, still, so i am borrowing it!) that act forever as one of absolute horror;
Hamer was the only ranger known in Texas history to "retire" with an active commission, whenever that ended;
Hamer hunted Bonnie and Clyde as a Special Investigator for the Texas DOC, and was hired primarily for his reputation as a bounty hunter, if you check the cite in the article, his reputation essentially as a mercenary available for mean and dirty jobs, a hired killer, a bounty hunter, though I rephrased it to be NPOV.

Anyone with any info, your input is welcome. Please just observe basic wikipedia policies on civility, edit wars, deletion of articles, personal attacks, etc. Thanks! old windy bear 10:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this the extent of any disagreement? The facts then must not be in dispute. StillstudyingMax 14:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You Sure?

this guy was Jewish?

No. Frank Hamer's grandson visted my school and assured he wasn't. I have no idea where this "Jewish Hamer" came from. IronCrow 01:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Need Better Facts

As seen on the Texas Ranger Hall of Fame website, Hamer is NOT burried in Dallas, but at Austin's Memorial Park. Not only that, but nowhere, not even in many of the books I have found about Hamer, I have not found a single source that is viable that refers to him as converting to Judaism, not have I found from his grandson that he was not Jewish, nor ever converted. I asked a historian who is an expert on Hamer as well, about where he was buried and what religion he converted two, and he stated that he was Christian (not deeply religious, but still following that faith), and that he was burried in Austin. I also asked my teacher, who's a big fan of Hamer, and she replied that he was not buried in Dallas, but she was not sure what religion he followed, but she guessed Baptist Christian or some Christian denomination, as the grandson is a religious follower of the Baptist denomination. I even resorted to Google, finding nothing clarifying that he was Jewish at any point in his life. Type in "Frank hamer Jewish" without the quotes and you get nothing implying that he was Jewish. I went to the History Channel, and they have little to offer on Frank Hamer. Re-check your sources, and get them from VIABLE places please, not stuff just "lying around." Check his book, if you'd like, as well. I am taking a trip to Austin soon, and the Memorial Cemetary there is along the way, and I'll search. I'm pretty sure, infact, 95% sure he wasn't Jewish or converted to Judaism, and I am about 80% he wasn't buried in Dallas. The reason about this is that a friend was in the Texas History Fair, and they said that the information about Frank Hamer being Jewish was not backed by viable facts (He used Wikipedia as a source, which they said was an open source, and therefore, invalid in the National and State history fair). My friend lost, as they said 2 things to him. 1. He wasn't buried in Dallas. 2. He never converted to Judaism. These "facts" stating the above two details are just not true, according to the historians judging the contested at the history fair. Not only that, but his own decendent says it is untrue. IronCrow 02:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not looked at this article for a time, and was astonished when I returned to it to find out that someone had claimed Frank Hamer had converted to Judism. This certainly was not on the article when we were debating his role in the Bonnie and Clyde ambush. I would like whoever put it in the article to source that claim. old windy bear 02:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearing up some of the misinformation.

Being the great grandson of Frank Hamer, I believe I can add some beneficial information to these arguments. I added something to the article, but realized it was better suited to this section of the website. I'm new to Wikipedia.

1. The Biography of my grandfather was never marketed as an auto-biography. It is an authorized biography. It was published in response to the movie, as a sort of damage control measure, but was written with full cooperation of the family (My grandfather, and Frank Sr.'s widow, Gladys.) The Hamer family did settle with the movie studio, not for a brief case of $500 bills, but $10,000. I have the paperwork from the settlement.

2. According to family accounts (from my grandfather and father, my great grandfather died well before I was born), Hamer did not give any warning, and never intended to. He believed in upholding the law, but also believed in self preservation. I am not implying that he was a coward(all accounts are to the contrary), but that he was smart. Most succesful Texas Rangers were. My grandfather told me this story of when his romantic notion of noble Rangers was shattered. He asked a workmate of his father's what type of gun he would bring to a duel with a bad guy. The Ranger asked "I know this guy is coming to fight me, when it's going to happen, and where he's going to be?" My grandfather nodded. The Ranger replied,"I'd bring a sawed off shotgun, get there 15 minutes early, find a good hiding spot and shoot the S.O.B. when he walked past." My great grandfather was a brutal man, but the times were brutal. He was not a mercenary, or a killer for hire. That stood against everything he believed in, and is defamatory. Show me one shred of evidence to the contrary. He did not go after Bonnie and Clyde for the money, but because he believed they were psycotic criminals that needed to be stopped. His actions in busting up the banking institution's murder for reward ring should note that. Naturally, this is my opinion, and I am not completely without bias. But the letters I have that are from people he arrested, then helped to turn their lives around point to a man of compassion.

3. My Great Grandfather never converted to Judaism. He was a member of the Free-masons, however.

4. Nothing in the letters I have from Henry Methvin or his father point to Methvin's father having been tied up. Methvin's father pleads on his son's account that he had lived up to his end of the bargain, and that my great grandfather needed to live up to his (which he did, getting Methvin pardoned twice).

5. My grandfather recounted many times the horror my great grandfather felt when he saw that people were looting the corpses of Bonnie and Clyde, even going so far as to try to cut off their fingers. He put a stop to it as soon as he saw it. To imply that he was letting it happen is wrong.

I hope this brings a bit of a different perspective to my great grandfather. I remember him not only as the man who shot Bonnie and Clyde, but who sat on the back porch of his Austin home, eating watermelon with my father when he was a child.

24.243.122.110 02:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Travis Hamer

Thanks for the humanizing touch on Frank Hamer. The article did not mean to imply he was some sort of psychopath, but he was, as you noted, a brutal man. old windy bear 22:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to finally find some info on Frank Hamer. Frank Hamer is my great grandfather's(James Edwards) cousin. Thank you. sk8rchick245@yahoo.com

This article is an excellent one, which reflects the printed record on Frank Hamer. It is understandable if his family does not like it, but this is the simple truth, as presented by the history of the period. Stillstudying 18:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

revisionism

This article is an example of historical revisionism. Some people adore Bonnie and Clyde, and view the people who brought them to justice as villians. Clyde was a murderous thug, and Bonnie Parker was his accomplice. Under the law, she was as guilty of those murders as the other gang members. Frank Hamer did what no other offices of the law were able to do. He was acting under the authority of legal officials. He was not formally charged with any crimes, and in fact received U.S. congressional recognition and honors for his actions regarding Bonnie and Clyde. Among law enforcement circles, his actions were regarded as heroic. He was a man of his times, and provided many great services to the state of Texas and the United States. He even volunteered to lead a company of Rangers to assist the British during World War I. To glorify two amoral criminals while villifying the man who brought them to justice is absurd. Fortunately, true students of history can and will read the facts, and make up their own minds on the subject of Frank Hamer, instead of just accepting the opinions this article puts forward.

67.166.16.62 (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Travis Hamer

8/17/08 --- The article is much less biased at the current moment, and I feel it is a much better representation of my great grandfather. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.236.84.66 (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)