Talk:J. Frank Dalton

Birth/Death
I can't believe he claimed to be Jesse James and resembled him to some degree when he supposedly died when he was 2 or 3. Jimmy Wang Yu: Version 2 14:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ...What are you talking about?? Jesse James died when he was 34... Skiendog (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have recently found a letter written to a older lady, who was my neighbor. The lady stated she knew J. FRANK DALTON, while in longview. Tx The letter is written to her son as a gift. The grandson was born in 4-10-43,   In the letter Frank is sending congratulations too " Dear cathleen  congratulations to both of you and best wishes to our newest texas citizen"  Few other lines  then signs off " Sincerely your friend - Frank dalton.   The person who wrote this also enclosed a 2x3in card board picture of himself and on back of picture ---Compliments of  Frank Dalton, Born march 8th 1848 to (sons name) Born april 10th 1943.   then at bottom he wrote (taken 1-1-1943...  So since there seem's to be no evidence of his story and remains lost...maybe some one has the signature of the real frank dalton or jesse james to compare,,,,   postage stamp on envelope  longview tx 7943 apr 14 4:30pm  A 3 cent purple stamp. 13:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Scott6899 (talk)scott689913:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Scott6899 (talk)

Regarding "New Evidence About the True Identity of “J. Frank Dalton”

“DNA evidence proves that J. Frank Dalton was John Frank Dalton, born ca. 1856.” No paper trail of J. Frank Dalton’s life prior to 1930 has been found. Frank Dalton, age 82, widower, was in Waco, McLennan County, TX, in the 1930 census. Frank Dalton, age 92, widower, was in Kilgore, Gregg County, TX, in the 1940 census. . He lived in Gladewater, Gregg County, TX, in 1935. Garland Farmer, editor of The Henderson Times in adjacent Rusk County, published articles written by J. Frank Dalton. . Some of those same articles were contributed to and published in The Crittenden Memoirs, by H. H. Crittendon in 1935. . H. H. Crittenden stated that Frank Dalton was 87 years old in 1935 when Dalton came to Missouri.

There are 5 records and documents that indicate J. Frank Dalton was born in 1848 in addition to the letter referenced by Scott (see above) 1. Dalton's pension application indicated that he had been a resident of Texas since 8 March 1848; he said he was 99 years old on 21 February 1947. 2. Dalton apparently told H. H. Crittenden that he was 87 years old in 1935; i.e., born in 1848. 3. He said he was 82 years old in the 1930 census; i. e., born in 1848. 4. He said he was 92 years old in the 1940 census, i. e., born in 1848. 5. The printed letterhead on the stationary Dalton was using on 7 June 1947 had a birth date of 8 March 1848.

DNA results confirm that a John Frank Dalton, Jr. (b. 1877), was the son of a John Frank Dalton Sr. (b. ca. 1856). John Frank Dalton Sr. (b. ca. 1856) and John Frank Dalton (b. 1848), the Jesse James impostor, had identical names. Identical names, without additional information, are insufficient to link John Frank Dalton Sr. (b. ca. 1856) to John Frank Dalton the impostor (b. ca. 1848). BBAhistorian (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)BBAHistorian 17 April 2016BBAhistorian (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. Frank Dalton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100719085854/http://class.csueastbay.edu/faculty/gmiller/3710/DNA_PDFS/mtDNA/mtDNA_JesseJames.pdf to http://class.csueastbay.edu/faculty/gmiller/3710/DNA_PDFS/mtDNA/mtDNA_JesseJames.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.jessejamesintexas.com/2Fraudulent_DNAMedia.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.co.hood.tx.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/945

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Revision
I am in the midst of a major review/revision of the article, which in its current form is not written in an appropriate encyclopedic tone and is chock full of extraneous details about peripheral characters. Agricolae (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I have it pretty well cleaned up. Let's try to keep it that way - a clear, tight biographical narrative rather than a collection of ephemera, speculation and material only tangentially related. Agricolae (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Mason
The only people reading Mason's article who would have known whom Mason intended would have been people already intimately familiar with the claim, so the publication of this article does not represent a noteworthy aspect of Dalton's biography. Were this Alternative theories of Jesse James' fate then clearly this would be within scope but that is not what this article is about. Had he actually introduced the Dalton claim to a wider audience in a recognizable manner then again, perhaps, but in not doing so he has left us having to deduce who it is, and that is going farther than Wikipedia editors should just to lay out a self-serving revisionist history from a family member that would not have even been understood by the vast majority of the readers as referring to our subject. Agricolae (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Dolby
The cited source quotes Bartholomew as saying that this man was going by Dolby and calling himself 'The Kid'. Bartholomew may well have been confused, but we, as editors, don't get to decide this. Agricolae (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Just to reiterate, as this got removed again, the cited source is not confused with a different Dalton. It is explicitly stated that a) Bartholomew was referring to the future Jesse James impersonator in claiming he went by Dolby, and b) that there was also a Jeremiah Dalton who went by Dolby but he must be distinct from the Jesse James imposter - Steele is not confusing them. Bartholomew may have been, but we as editors don't get to decide that Bartholomew was wrong when Steele considered him credible, unless you have a source that explicitly says Bartholomew was confused here.  To a degree the entire issue of how we deal with is origin is highly problematic, because the promoters can reach their desired result of him having an obscure origin simply by not looking very hard, while the critics seem just not to have been all that interested in wasting time on an obvious fraud. The information seems readily available, but would be WP:Original Research to pursue and incorporate it into the article. Agricolae (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)