Misplaced Pages

Talk:Leo Frank

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bus stop (talk | contribs) at 00:50, 30 May 2015 (→Discussion of the issues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:50, 30 May 2015 by Bus stop (talk | contribs) (→Discussion of the issues)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Leo Frank is currently a World history good article nominee. Nominated by Tonystewart14 (talk) at 18:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.


Leo Frank received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconGeorgia (U.S. state): Atlanta Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state)
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Atlanta task force (assessed as Low-importance).
Atlanta task force To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJewish history
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Former featured article candidateLeo Frank is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 14, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 12, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate


Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 17, 2007, August 17, 2008, and August 17, 2011.

FA candidate

This article was proposed for FA status back in 2004, but only seems to have missed it fairly narrowly. Is it worth re-examining the issue? PatGallacher (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I currently have a peer review request for this article. Since the FA nomination was ten years ago, it would be worthwhile to solicit outside feedback and get it to GA status before going to FA. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I've nominated this article for GA status, and if successful will nominate it for FA immediately afterwards. The peer review helped the article some, but I feel that the GA review will also clean up the article considerably and help the chances of a successful FA nomination. I'd like to have this article be Today's Featured Article on August 17, 2015 (the 100th anniversary of Frank's hanging) if it gets to FA. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Given the huge amount of properly resourced facts and evidence concerning this case that was capriciously and unjustifiably removed from this article in November 2013, which merely served to preserve this article as a POV whitewashing of Leo Frank, renders any nomination for GA status as nothing less than ridiculous.64.134.71.95 (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, to the version mentioned by the IP above. At the time, this article was 130 KB long and the edits were promptly reverted by other editors. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
That Misplaced Pages articles have no set size restrictions, the above argument is merely a nonsensical attempt to justify the unjustifiable removal of pertinent, well sourced, and relevant information crucial to a reader's thorough understanding of the subject at hand. The obfuscation of such relevant, and properly sourced facts was, and continues to be a disgraceful act of POV vandalism, and nothing more.64.134.71.95 (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
No, that's a ridiculous level of detail that makes the article difficult to navigate, and slow to load on older systems. Misplaced Pages:Article size suggests 50k as a good cut-off point. If there were a reason to go into that level of detail, which there is not, this info would hypothetically need to be split-off into multiple articles. That version is also overflowing with WP:PEACOCK terms and other WP:NPOV problems. Grayfell (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Yet one more attempt to justify the unjustified and blatant POV vandalism complained of before... and just for the record, the correct link to the material And no claim as to any "level of detail that makes the article difficult to navigate, and slow to load on older systems" is sufficient to excuse the wholesale removal of properly referenced, relevant, and pertinent facts which, as stated before, are crucial to any reader's thorough understanding of the subject at hand... no matter what kind of system they use. It was, is, and shall remain a blatant act of POV vandalism until it is recognized as such, and subsequently corrected.64.134.71.95 (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
You're obviously a POV warrior with a racist agenda to turn the Leo Frank article on Misplaced Pages into a longwinded-diatribe by elaborating about every minute forensic detail of Mary Phagan's murder and events in the aftermath. You also seem eager to insert all the evidence proving Leo Frank's guilt where ever you can in the article, basically going against the prevailing consensus of historians that Leo Frank was innocent and framed because of Antisemitism. My advice for you is to goosestep somewhere else with your Antisemitism, like metapedia.org where they would be more than happy to have you create hundreds of excruciatingly meticulous individualized pages expounding about every single twist and turn of the Frank-Phagan affair. And then you can become an author by writing a 4,000 page loquacious telephonebook size tome called, 'The 12-Volume Unauthorized Biography of Little Mary Phagan'! But Misplaced Pages seeks to keep its articles under 50K and without POV pushing. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello GingerBreadHarlot and thanks for joining our discussion. However, I think there is a way to state your position without ranting and calling other participants names. You might find it interesting that the question of anti-Semitism in the Frank trial is by no means a matter of broad consensus. The charge was fist brought up at trial by Frank's attorneys, as one of many avenues of defense for their client (including one that his case was prejudiced by his "odd" looks). Since the trial, the charge of anti-Semitism has become the main focus for some. It has a number of passionate supporters. But historians like Albert S. Lindemann, who delves into the matter in great detail, come up with serious doubts about the veracity of that charge. And, of course, there are others who see it as completely insignificant. When I first read about Frank, and with a superficial understanding of the case, I too assumed that anti-Semitism was the entire sub-text of the trial and conviction. With more reading, and research, that assumption has been significantly challenged. I now find the Frank case far more interesting. It has become something of a cultural Rorschach test, and it evokes strong opinions like some of the comments we see here. It's fine to have an opinion, but please try to remain civil, and have faith that only statements from reliable sources will find their way into this article. Gulbenk (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There was a lot of Antisemitism surrounding the Frank case during his appeals leading up to his lynching. See Watson's Magazine August, September, 1915 at IA (Internet Archive). GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The OP's entry is most telling indeed, and actually serves to validate the primary point as well as most other aspects of this complaint. It well illustrates both the major problem with this article, and a number of clear examples as to the reason why fixing it has remained so consistently problematic. Here we have an open admission to the obvious fact that the material removed from the article in November 2013 contained "all the evidence proving Leo Frank's guilt" - the only inaccuracy being that not "all", but only a portion of the evidence "proving Frank's guilt" was included in the article prior to its being vandalized.
Immediately following this is an appeal to a select authority, and the only authority appealed to, as "the prevailing consensus of historians", are only those "historians" which promote the idea that Leo Frank was innocent. Any other authority, from then or now, which disagrees with this biased point of view has simply and repeatedly been removed from the article and dismissed as an "unreliable source". What the OP as well as others of the same persuasion fail to realize is that if the facts and evidence in the Frank murder case run contrary to "the prevailing consensus of historians", then those "historians" along with their "consensus" must logically be in error, because true history is composed of unbiased fact, whereas "consensus" is merely a point of view based upon a collective opinion.
Then there is the vicious name-calling throughout which is typical of those who haven't the weight of logic or evidence to support their position in an argument, so they resort to such ad hominem attacks in an attempt to discredit their intellectual opponent. Such behavior, if not a result of any kind of agenda-driven, or profit-driven motive, most certainly belies a state of cognitive dissonance, as in the minds of those who cling to irrational beliefs as a matter of faith, rejecting as "evil" any inconvenient truth which would tend to undermine their pre-conceived notions.
There is also an unwarranted attack upon, and callous diminutive comments about the victim of the murder herself, which strongly implies that the life of a young working-class girl was relatively unimportant, or of no consequence whatsoever, in comparison to the resultant injury to the reputation of her lawfully convicted murderer.
Then there is the cheap, underlying appeal to racism throughout, which parallels the position of Leo Frank's legal team. As Reuben R. Arnold accused James Conley of Mary Phagan's murder, he made the following statements to the trial jury:
"Why, negroes rob and ravish every day in the most peculiar and shocking way. But Frank's race don't kill. They are not a violent race. Some of them may be immoral, but they go no further than that."
So what Arnold, and by extension, the OP and other like-minded editors are really saying here is that Jim Conley should have been convicted of the murder because he was a negro, and Leo Frank should have been acquitted of the crime because he was a jew.
Such a level of blatant, unmitigated hypocrisy simply boggles the rational mind, but nonetheless serves to reveal where the true source of any such "racist agenda", or "POV pushing" actually resides.
Finally, we again have the often stated argument... or rather, the weak excuse, that the material removed from this article was removed in order to abide by certain size restrictions, when there exists many articles on Misplaced Pages which consistently far exceed the size of the Leo Frank article as it was prior to the POV vandalism that is the subject of the original complaint, and the material removed is absolutely crucial to any readers' understanding of the matter of Leo Frank. (One must wonder what the reaction would be had if someone should assert that Leo Frank should have been forced to drastically abbreviate the length of his trial, or reduce the number of issues he could raise as a defense, or limit the number of his appeals in order to save time and space in the legal system, yet this is not far at all from what Frank's proponents want the public to do with the record of this case in order to posthumously pardon Frank and convict Conley instead.)
What makes the present article the result of an act of POV vandalism -
The removal of nearly all mention of the major part of the evidence against Frank which led to his conviction.
The near complete removal and continued suppression of material crucial to any readers' understanding of the matter of Leo Frank. This includes the material concerning Mary Anne Phagan herself, or the public reaction to her murder, which tends to demonstrate that the public reaction to Frank's conviction, as well as the lynching of Leo Frank was not based upon prejudice or bigotry at all, but merely upon a fervent, collective wish to see that justice was done for the brutal murder of an innocent child.
What remains are entries that only tend to promote the idea that Frank was an innocent man, railroaded into a murder conviction as a result of some kind of a conspiracy of prejudice or bigotry. This is a clear and definite pushing of a biased point of view that actually conflicts with the facts and legal history of the case. Most telling in this regard is the repeated removal of official text from Frank's final U.S. Supreme Court appeal decision which contains the affirmation of the majority of the court that no undue influence upon the jury was involved in Frank's conviction. Instead, the only such text allowed to appear in the "Appeals" section is a misguided quote from a dissenting judge stating his contrary, individual, non-binding opinion. And more recently, the text which previously identified this quote as coming from a dissenting judge has also been removed.
This Misplaced Pages article has most obviously been, and continues to be crafted by proponents of Frank in a purposeful effort to exclude any facts or evidence which tend to support his lawful conviction. They must do so with the knowlege that in light of such facts or evidence, readers might come away from the article with the impression that Frank's conviction just might have been a result of something other than any kind of a conspiracy of prejudice or bigotry.
This conspiracy theory fails because there is too much evidence in the official record which supports Frank's conviction. This conspiracy theory fails because the grand jury which unanimously indicted Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan contained a fair number of members of Frank's own people who were part of that unanimous vote. This conspiracy theory fails because the jury that convicted Frank was one of the most closely examined juries of the period. This conspiracy theory fails because Leo Frank was well represented by a "dream team" of lawyers who had every right to seek a change in venue if such a conspiracy had actually existed, but did not do so for lack of reasonable cause. This conspiracy theory fails because the presiding judge of Frank's original trial was known to be a "model of judiciousness", and free of any prejudice or bigotry. This conspiracy theory fails because throughout the course of the Leo Frank trial, which became at that time the longest trial in Georgia history, and at each and every stage of his subsequent appeals, Leo Frank was afforded an extraordinary level of due process not available to the vast majority of Georgia citizens, and at every turn his lawyers failed to convince any court that any undue influence upon the jury was involved in Frank's conviction. Yet this conspiracy theory is the only theory which is accepted, and is actually being promoted by Misplaced Pages through its inclusion in this overwhelmingly biased, POV article on Leo Frank.64.134.43.3 (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

(Format edit.)64.134.43.3 (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe anti-Semitism was responsible for Leo Frank being suspected, indicted, convicted or having his appeals rejected, even though Frank's appeals make accusations of anti-Jewish prejudice. However Frank's lynching does have some clear elements of anti-Semitism behind it via Tom Watson and you can view Watson's Magazine issues August https://archive.org/details/TheCelebratedCaseOfLeoFrank and September https://archive.org/details/TheOfficialRecordInTheCaseOfLeoFrankJewPervertSeptember1915 to see for yourself. The problematic nature of the case is that the anti-Semitism associated with Frank's lynching has been repeatedly backdated and applied retroactively to the earlier events. My concern is that all the evidence suggesting Frank was guilty not be added to the article. If someone wants to flesh out the trial another article should be created for it. If someone wants to flesh out the appeals, another article should be created for it. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
We certainly don't need separate articles for the trial and appeals. For the IP's concern about old edits, that edit included excessive detail such as a paragraph solely on what Phagan was wearing and considerably lengthy quotes. This article shouldn't include every minute detail about the case, but give the most important information about the case. There is no set KB limit and any important information not already in the article should be added, but this was resolved in late 2013 and has stabilized since. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
There is so much information about the Leo Frank trial in the various books published over the last 100 years that there most definitely should be an article about the Leo Frank trial. It would help to flesh everything out about it that has been obscured for so long. There are many misconceptions about the Leo Frank trial, like claims there was no evidence against him, but only rumors and hearsay. Or people were screaming bloody murder through the windows at the the jury. I think it's time there was an article about his trial. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2015 TC)

In the argument, (User GingerBreadHarlot 01:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)) the OP offers no acknowledgement of the gross injustice of governor Slaton's actions in thumbing his nose at his duty to see that the laws of the state be faithfully executed, and over-stepping his bounds by attempting to overturn the courts by single-handedly re-trying the case to benefit one of his own law partner's clients, but only the same old tired emotional jargon whose original purpose was, and always has been, a dishonest, and purely opportunistic tactical legal maneuver in an attempt to demonize the people's cry for justice and make a martyr out of the lawfully convicted murderer of an innocent child.

Here the OP also invokes Thomas E. Watson, and makes the all too common mistake of confusing righteous indignation with mere prejudice and bigotry. I would suggest the OP, as well as other like-minded individuals put aside their own prejudice and bigotry long enough to read and digest the clear and correct arguments this well-seasoned attorney and statesman makes on these matters in the article beginning at page 182 of the August 1915 issue of Watson's Magazine titled, "The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank":

http://archive.org/download/WatsonsMagazineAugust1915Volume21No.4FeaturingLeoFrankMaryPhagan/watsons-magazine-august-1915-v21-n4.pdf

No one deserves a special pass to commit crimes and escape just punishment by simply claiming some sort of class-related victimhood. A criminal is a criminal, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, or national origin, and no one is obligated to excuse them simply because they claim to be a member of an "oppressed" minority. Leo Frank was lawfully convicted of the murder of Mary Phagan because of the weight of the evidence presented against him. As a lawfully convicted murderer, he was given a well-deserved "extrajudicial" hanging by outraged citizens of Georgia because the outgoing governor of Georgia, who was a partner in a law firm which represented Frank, in order to spare the life of their client, abused his authority in a serious conflict of interest by commuting his death sentence. So this often used defamation tactic of claiming "anti-semitism" is wearing more than a little thin, and Misplaced Pages is engaged in a disgraceful act of public deception as long as they continue the attempt to validate it through the consistent obsfucation of the evidence in the Frank case and thereby use this Misplaced Pages article as a vehicle to whitewash the image of Leo Frank. Even if "anti-semitism" were a factor in Frank's hanging... and it wasn't... the brutal murder of an innocent child trumps any kind of "thought crime" you can name... especially one that is made up out of whole cloth.64.134.71.235 (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

GingerBreadHarlot thanks for your observations. I agree that the trial and appeal could be separate articles, given the body of research on the subjects. With regard to the motivation of the lynch mob: I think that it would be best to see if we can find significant anti-Semitic remarks from the Knights of Mary Phagan, in order to attribute that motivation to the lynching. Watson was definitely making anti-Semitic remarks at that time, and trying to whip up that thinking among his readers, but he wasn't one of the Knights of Mary Phagan. Were they motivated by other passions? (Regional tensions/class tensions/the perception of Frank as a sexual pervert/or just anger at someone who nearly got away with murder). Or was the agitation of the northern press, perceived as a Jewish campaign to free Frank (along with Watson's remarks/responses) enough to anger rank and file Georgians, and put anti-Semitism foremost in the minds of the masses and the lynch mob? It is a really interesting question, one that probably should have its own article, as well.
Regarding the comments about Slaton: Even if he acted out of self interest, or some other impure motivation, lynching is never justified. We must respect the rule of law, even when the brutal murder of an innocent child is not perfectly avenged, and when justice is not completely served. Gulbenk (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Leo Frank was not "lynched" (See definition below). His lawful sentence was merely carried out by the people of Marietta Georgia. Yes, as you say... "We must respect the rule of law"... but that axiom applies not only to the people, but most especially to their elected public servants as well. In America, the people are the source of all power. They merely assign to public officials the duty of acting as administrators of that power for the benefit and general weal of the people themselves. When those administrators fail in that duty, particularly by illegal means, the people themselves are therefore entitled to act on their own, to see that justice is completely served. In 1913, the people of Georgia still well understood this concept, and acted accordingly... and that is why none of the participants in the so-called "lynching" of Leo Frank were ever prosecuted, or even charged with any crime. Governor Slaton most obviously understood this concept as well, and that is most likely the very reason he chose to high-tail it out of Georgia after the fact, for fear that if he remained, his own neck might also end up being put in the noose.64.134.71.235 (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I present incontrovertible proof that Tom Watson's successful attempts at erroneously blaming and falsely accusing the national press (particularly the northern press) for transmogrifying the Leo Frank case into a Jewish insurrection against Georgia's laws, a racist anti-Gentile cause celebre and media carnival of hate, were really nothing more than codewords for the century old anti-Semitic canard of "Jewish dominated media control" that played out in 'Watson's Magazine, October, 1915, Leo Frank and Rich Jews Indict a State, the Whole South Traduced!' See https://archive.org/details/RichJewsIndictTheStateOfGeorgia for yourself and tell me what I claim above is not 100% true. I challenge you to go to Internet Archive and read the three Atlanta daily newspapers (Georgian, Constitution and Journal) from April to August of 1913, and then tell me that these press reports didn't ruin any chance of Leo Frank having a fair trial. I implore you to look at Tom Watson's other writing in his Jeffersonian publications (Watson's Magazine and Jeffersonian Weekly newspaper) for definitive proof of undeniable inflammation of public sentiment against Leo Frank that can be retrofitted and back-dated. Watson called Leo Frank a Jewish Sodomite. Watson made ad hominem attacks against Leo Frank's aggressive animal jaw, averted eyes (Leo Frank had one lazy eye) and "fearfully sensual" satyr goat lips -- these are all timeless anti-Semitic stereotypes seen in many old cartoons and charatures of Jews. In world war two propaganda posters you can see caricatures of Jews with bloated camel faces, and plump purple bottom lips grotesquely protruding. Therefore Watson's anti-Semitism did not begin in 1915, it began in 1914, read the Jeffersonian newspaper https://archive.org/details/the-jeffersonian-050714-may-07-1914-volume-11-issue-19-pages-01-03-05-09-10 and Watson's Magazine January, March, August, September and October (1915) so that this point about anti-Semitism partly instigating the murder of Leo Frank becomes an objective fact no longer needing to be discussed and debated. What's missing from this encyclopaedic article about Leo Frank is the presentation of more evidence of anti-Semitism, which represents the consensus of the case and I suggest more examples of anti-Semitism be included in the article before the centennial of the lynching. The Samuelses', Leonard Dinnerstein, Elaine Marie Alphin, Donald Eugene Wilkes, Robert Seitz Fray, Jeffrey Paul Melnick, Matthew Bernstein, Stephen J. Goldfarb and more are in consensus this case has lineaments of anti-Semitism that run deep from the lynching backward to the trial. These source listed above should be used to create a Leo Frank trial page. I'd like to see you create a page for the trial once you have something to work with. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As to Watson's so-called "anti-semitic" remarks, the OP fails to make a convincing argument. Instead, we are merely treated to yet another brash conclusion, apparently based only upon the collective, retroactive opinion of a number of various biased jewish authors. It is here asserted as an "incontrovertible fact", or "an object fact no longer needing to be discussed".
The OP consistently bemoans Watson's remarks as being "anti-semitic"... a purely opportunistic, defamatory characterization that is shared by his mostly jewish proponents then and now, and further perpetuated by Misplaced Pages itself. Yet the OP does not shrink from the idea, which is promulgated in this article, that the execution of Leo Frank was the result of a conspiracy of prejudice and bigotry carried out by the gentile population of Georgia. This is the very height of hypocrisy, and Misplaced Pages is engaged in a disgraceful act of public deception, selective defamation, and anti-gentilism by letting it stand, and promoting it as if it were "incontrovertible fact".
Tom Watson simply spoke freely in the vernacular of the times he lived in, as did everyone else of that era. Writings of that time, as well as of times previous, are literally filled with examples where people were generally referred to in terms of their race, religion, natural origins, or other distinctions such as white, negro, jew, irish, catholic, french, english, men, or women. One can not presume to retroactively apply the principles of 21st century political correctness to anyone in the past, because those unnatural principles were unknown to them, and most likely would have been rejected by most all of them as an abomination against humanity... that is, excepting certain unscrupulous individuals who may have happened to see some kind of profit in it for themselves, or their own particular group.
The OP further claims, "What's missing from this encyclopaedic article is evidence of anti-Semitism." Here I would agree, and go even further to observe that the reason such evidence is missing is because it simply does not exist, and never did. For it to exist at all, it would have to be the result of a total fabrication. This is the reason the OP, as well as other like-minded Frank proponents must engage in such mental gymnastics as referring to "code words", "retrofitting", "back-dating", and "consensus" in order to "prove" an "incontrovertible", "object fact no longer needing to be discussed".
The only fact that is material to the issue of Frank's so-called "lynching" is that he was lawfully convicted of the brutal murder of an innocent young girl, and that fact was enough to justify the ultimate carrying out of the sentence imposed upon him by the courts which found him guilty. To prove that "anti-semitism" had anything to do with it, one would have to incontrovertibly show that Frank would have been hanged anyway, even if he had not murdered Mary Phagan. This, of course, is an impossibility, because the fact remains that the weight of the evidence proved that Frank did indeed commit the murder, and he was lawfully convicted for it.
Take note that the reason I, and others, refer to Frank's execution as a "so-called 'lynching'", is because the very definition of "lynching" is "to murder (an accused person) by mob action AND without lawful trial, as by hanging" (Webster's New World Dictionary - Emphasis mine). What happened to Leo Frank was certainly not "murder", by any means, but only the carrying out of the lawfully imposed sentence upon him by the people of Marietta following Governor Slaton's attempt to illegally circumvent it through a blatant violation of law. "Murder" is what Leo Max Frank did to Mary Anne Phagan... a fact that is consistently downplayed in this Misplaced Pages article to the obvious disgrace of Misplaced Pages itself... and Frank was duly made to suffer the ultimate penalty for his lawful conviction for that crime.
I thank the OP for mentioning the article titled, "The Rich Jews Indict a State! The Whole South Traduced in the Matter of Leo Frank" from the October, 1915 issue of Watson's Magazine:
https://archive.org/details/RichJewsIndictTheStateOfGeorgia
Within it, Tom Watson presents a rather thorough examination of how fabricated rumors of "mob spirit" evolved in the jewish owned press following Frank's conviction, in order to save the life of one of their own, and gave an accurate summation of the origin of the false quote attributed to the "mob" outside the courthouse, in their deceptive attempt to achieve that end. Watson correctly states (Parenthesis mine):
"Judge Roan had officialy declared that Leo Frank had had a fair trial. The Supreme Court had officially declared that he had been legally convicted upon sufficient evidence.
The verdict of the jury was six months old: and before it had been announced, Hearst's Sunday American had declared that the long trial of Leo Frank, stretching over a period of four weeks, had been as fair, as it was possible for human minds and human efforts to make it.
Nobody contradicted this deliberate statement of the Hearst Atlanta paper. Frank's lawyers did not; the correspondents of Northern papers did not. But when the Haas brothers, months afterwards, followed up the Cohen attack on the witnesses, the jurors, the judges, and the people of Atlanta, there arose a clamor about the mob, the frenzied mob, the jungle fury of the mob, the blood lust of the mob, and the psychic drunk of the mob.
That clamor grew louder and louder, spread farther and farther, became bolder and bolder, until millions of honest outsiders actually believed that the mob stood up in the courtroom during the month of the trial, and yelled at the jury:
'Hang the damned Jew, or we will hang you!'
It was not until John Cohen and James R. Gray, of the Atlanta Journal, had started this flood of libel against the State, that The Jeffersonian said one word about the case. Then the Jeffersonian did what no other editor with a general circulation seemed willing to do: I came out in defense of the Law, the Courts and the People.
Are the Laws not entitled to support? Are the Courts not worthy of respect? Are the People not deserving of fair treatment?
The Jeffersonian did not stoop to any personalities, or mean abuse, or malignant misrepresentation. We had given to Leo Frank as much as we had to give to anybody. We had measured him by the same yardstick that measures Gentiles before they are condemned.
We (the People of Georgia) could not kill poor old Umphrey, of Whitfield County, on circumstantial evidence, and then refuse to execute a Jew. The one was an aged tenant, aggravated by a dispute with his landlord, about his share of a bale of cotton; the other was a middle-age Superintendent of a factory, presuming on his power over the girls hired to him. We could not kill Bart Cantrell and Nick Wilburn— led astray by evil women — and then find a different law for the 31-year-old married man, led astray by his own lusts.
No! By the Splendor of God! We couldn't have two Codes in Georgia, one for the Rich and the other for the Poor."64.134.71.235 (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your observations, GingerBreadHarlot, but you only recount a few of Tom Watson's statements. You do not show the effect of those statements on the public, nor upon the Knight of Mary Phagan. Regarding Watson's timeline, in his publications his coverage of the Frank trial was sensationalistic. Yet it "rarely and only in inconsequential ways touched upon Jews" (that quote comes from Lindemann). After the conviction, Watson didn't comment at all for one year, during the appeals. When he resumed commenting, beginning in March 1914, his statements were unquestionably anti-semitic. But, again, that was Watson. That wasn't the Knights of Mary Phagan. So, for all your verbiage, I don't see your point. Gulbenk (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
IP why don't you create a user name and participate as a user. I just think a lot of these arguments smack of http://www.LeoFrank.org the Mary Phagan Leo Frank research library, which arguably is not be a source of mainstream reliable positions.GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If the arguments to which the OP refers to here "smack" of anything, they "smack" only of fact... and common sense. Let me state it again: This Misplaced Pages article has most obviously been, and continues to be, crafted by proponents of Frank in a purposeful effort to exclude any facts or evidence which tend to support his lawful conviction. This is clearly done with the knowledge that in light of such facts or evidence, readers might come away from the article with the impression that Frank's conviction just may have been a result of something other than any kind of a conspiracy of prejudice or bigotry, and this is what makes the article a poor candidate for GA status.

I would invite the OP and others to review the version of the Leo Frank page prior to the edits in question being made and compare with the version which was subsequently vandalized . Take note that nothing of substance was removed from that prior version. Information was merely added. What was added to the article was a number of fully referenced facts from the official Brief of Evidence , referenced background information from the 1987 book by Mary Phagan/Kean, along with a small number of properly referenced quotes from contemporary news reports, and that is exactly what was removed from the article, in total, by a deliberate act of POV vandalism. No prior discussion was had on the talk page. No debate over this portion or that. Just capricious, deliberate, wholesale removal.

The reason for such wholesale removal of this properly referenced, factual, and pertinent material is obvious. It is so damaging to the point of view regarding Frank that Misplaced Pages intends to promote here that it could not be left to stand. With a subsequent "protection" of the article, the information removed was intentionally kept out of the article for months, thereby preserving it as an obvious POV piece, and clearly demonstrating that the inclusion of such information in the Leo Frank article was unwanted and unwelcome, and would be met with the same or similar action should it be added again. This article was thereby constructed to cover up the evidence in the case, because the evidence serves to discredit the point of view the article intends to convey.

The near complete removal and continued suppression of material crucial to any readers' understanding of the matter of Leo Frank therefore constitutes an act of purposeful public deception through selective censorship, and clearly reveals itself as a strategy of pushing the obvious POV agenda that is presented by the "consensus" of the editors of this Leo Frank article. The conclusions of this "consensus", though presented as if they were "incontrovertible" truths, are shown by this act of vandalism to be dependant upon a coverup of the actual truth in order to appear convincing to casual readers. It is nothing more than a demonstration by certain privileged senior Misplaced Pages editors of their intent to take part in and promote the continuing effort to exonerate Leo Frank and completely absolve him of the crime for which he was lawfully convicted.

Most all of the so-called, "reliable sources" used to build this Misplaced Pages article on Leo Frank are extremely biased works of partial fiction and fabricated evidence (See Tom Watson quote above regarding media spin). However, a review of the site mentioned by the OP, LeoFrank.org, reveals to any reader a balance of information from all sides of the issues. Both the prosecution and defense positions are well represented, and references include not only the official records, but all of the "reliable sources" used to craft the present Misplaced Pages article on Leo Frank as well. For this simple reason, in total, LeoFrank.org is truly far more reliable than all of this article's so-called, "reliable sources" combined.

In light of this self-evident fact, it would certainly be interesting to know exactly why this particular source is supposed to be "unreliable", or as the OP puts it, "not be a source of mainstream reliable positions". So is it "positions" now? Is Misplaced Pages putting forward its "position" on the matter of Leo Frank? Is this "position" the only "reliable position"? Isn't this "position" wholly dependent upon the obfuscation of relevant facts? Is it the "politically correct position"? What other "position" can one take from the present Misplaced Pages article than that Leo Frank was an innocent man, railroaded into a murder conviction as a result of some kind of a conspiracy of prejudice or bigotry? And how does this "position" jibe with the much vaunted Misplaced Pages guideline of a "neutral point of view"? What other "position" can one take from a repository of all available information on the Frank murder case such as LeoFrank.org? Perhaps that the evidence, testimony, and facts surrounding this case, when honestly weighed by logical minds tends to support Frank's conviction of the murder of Mary Phagan? Is this "position" the "unreliable position"? Why?

The only "unreliable" thing about the site referenced here therefore appears to be the fact that it doesn't go out of its way to lead the reader to believe that Leo Frank was innocent, as the present Misplaced Pages article does by deliberate omission of pertinent facts, but instead presents all available information regarding Frank to the public, both pro and con. As a result, this site doesn't have to go out of its way to convince the reader of Frank's guilt, because the amount of testimony, evidence, and history of the case made available there is sufficient to do so on its own. So even if the site itself actually does openly convey the idea that Leo Frank was guilty, that idea is fully justified and supported by the testimony, evidence, and history of the case. So here again, the OPs charge proves the point made earlier... that the only sources considered "reliable" here are sources which, through deliberate and purposeful omission of fact, promote the false, unsupported, and heavily biased point of view that Leo Frank was innocent. This is obviously done in order to force an opinion, but this opinion can not be maintained when the facts of this case are revealed in light of its recorded history, as well as the primary testimony and evidence preserved in the official Brief of Evidence.

In order to even approach neutrality, which is a major qualification for GA status, this article must present more information than only that which supports the single point of view that is exclusive to Frank's proponents. What is needed, at the very minimum, are references to the following items of fact, testimony and evidence:

Under "Mary Phagan", these topics need inclusion or expansion:

1. Demonstrated Innocence of Mary Phagan. 2. Family and Public Reacts To Her Murder. 3. Little Mary's Funeral.

Under "Evidence Implicating Frank", these topics need inclusion or expansion:

1. Frank Denies Knowing Mary Phagan. 2. Frank Behaves Strangely. 3. Blood And Hair In The Metal Room. 4. Defense Attempts to Direct The Investigation. 5. Monteen Stover. 6. Minola McKnight / State's Exhibit J. 7. Nina Formby. 8. Lemmie Quinn. 9. Frank Incriminates Himself.

Under "Jim Conley", these topics need inclusion or expansion:

1. Conley's Testimony Corroborated and Sustained by Multiple Witnesses. 2. Conley's Testimony Corroborated and Sustained by Multiple Items Of Evidence. 3. Conley Not Charged With Murder Due To Lack of Sufficient Evidence Against Him.

Under "Hearings, sentencing, and clemency", these topics need inclusion or expansion:

1. Coroner's Inquest - Description with verbatum quote of the inquest's conclusion. 2. Grand Jury - Description with verbatum quote of the Grand Jury's decision. 3. Trial - Inclusion of much material with verbatum quote from Hearst's Sunday article on fairness of trial. 4. Appeals - Inclusion of verbatum quote of the final Supreme Court majority decision. 5. Commutation of sentence - Inclusion or expansion of criticisms claiming that Governor Slaton's actions were illegal.

A topic heading titled "Charges of Perjury, Forgery, Bribery, and Witness Tampering" needs to be created, and the following topics need inclusion and expansion:

1. Charges Against The Prosecution - Inclusive of those made by witnesses who changed their stories. 2. Charges Against The Defense - Inclusive of those made and prosecuted of witness tampering and planting of evidence.

Under "Lynching of Frank", these topics need inclusion or expansion:

1. Textbook Definition of "lynching". 2. Hanging Conducted in the Official Manner of State Execution. 3. Insider Narrative of Frank's Execution as Reported by Tom Watson. 4. Governor Slaton's Role.

Under "Aftermath", these topics need inclusion or expansion:

1. Lucille Selig Frank Refuses to be Buried Beside her Husband.

Under "Memorials and Historical Markers", these topics need inclusion or expansion:

1. Mary Phagan.

This would be a start toward making this article a reasonable candidate for GA status. But failure to include this information will only further demonstrate that Misplaced Pages is actively allowing and deliberately promoting a fraudulent narrative to the public.

It really shouldn't take an "IP" to point all of this out to the user names here. It really shouldn't have to be said at all. It should be glaringly self-evident to anyone of average intelligence who would simply compare this article with even a casual review of both the recorded history and the official record of the case that Frank's conviction of the murder of Mary Phagan was justified, and that his execution was carried out by the citizens of Marietta Georgia not as a result of any conspiracy of prejudice or bigotry, but only in response to Governor Slaton's attempt to illegally circumvent it through a blatant violation of law.

It isn't rocket science. One need only use common sense. 64.134.71.194 (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

(Links added) 64.134.71.194 (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

IP get a wikiname, you are bring Tom Watson's magazine and Jeffersonian newspaper into discussion, items which are considered outside mainstream. You bring up Watson's magazine oct-1915, and other anti-semitic topics from his magz known sept-1915, aug-1915, mar-1915, jan-1915, none are non-extremist. People should read Watson's magazine 1915 magz about Frank, they're anti-semitic poison; not worthy.GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

OP... Please read carefully what I have previously written above, because you have obviously missed something along the way.
I find especially interesting... as well as wildly amusing... the OP's claim that "I" am the one who "are bring Tom Watson's magazine and Jeffersonian newspaper into discussion", when it remains crystal clear, and easily shown upon a simple review of this very talk page, that it was actually the OP, and not I, who first brought Watson into this discussion. Here the OP demonstrates once again how brazenly Frank's proponents will exhibit their often repeated tendency to reverse facts in order to pursue or sell their agenda... as if no one would notice... and then the OP actually goes on to AGAIN recommend that everyone read Watson. Such an obvious attempt to deceive, such a nonsensical characterization of the work of Tom Watson as "anti-semitic poison", and such blatant hypocrisy repeatedly demonstrated by the OP is patently absurd.
But since the OP brought it up... let's talk about Tom Watson as a "reliable source":
Watson was a contemporary of Leo Frank. In other words, he was there when it all happened. He was aslo a well respected, and highly sucessful lawyer and statesman, who dedicated his life to the pursuit of truth and justice. The information he provided on the Leo Frank trial and its aftermath does not fail the test of fact-checking, as nothing of consequence that he reports upon can be proven to be untrue. This can not be said about the so-called "reliable sources" Misplaced Pages presently relies upon, like Leonard Dinnerstein, Elaine Marie Alphin, Donald Eugene Wilkes, Robert Seitz Fray, Jeffrey Paul Melnick, Matthew Bernstein, Stephen J. Goldfarb, and other extremely biased "authorities" who ALL rely upon the shameful obfuscation of relevant facts, as well as fabricated nonsense in order to push their common, and all too obvious, agenda.
For example... One question:
How, exactly, did the so-called "anti-semitic" "mob" of Atlanta intimidate both the Supreme Court of Georgia, as well as the US Supreme Court into upholding Frank's conviction?
These so-called "reliable sources" upon which the pro-Frank editors of this article rely have no answer to that.
Tom Watson does... He truthfully points to the fact that such a thing was impossible, and explains why, in fact, it never occurred, and never could occur.
I will not here go on at length to explain why Watson is THE most reliable source on this subject, because his writings regarding Frank speak well for themselves in that respect. I will only say that the reason he is not considered to be reliable by the so-called "consensus" of the pro-Frank editors here is because he actually IS the most reliable secondary source on the subject of the Leo Frank that ever existed, and that fact can never be honestly denied. 64.134.98.220 (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

And yet again, we may bear witness to another blatant act of POV vandalism as described above, which only serves to prove that this article is a sham again and again. For those who didn't get it the first few times around, let me spell it out for you one more time: This Misplaced Pages article has most obviously been, and continues to be, crafted by proponents of Frank in a purposeful effort to exclude any facts or evidence which tend to support his lawful conviction. This is clearly done with the knowledge that in light of such facts or evidence, readers might come away from the article with the impression that Frank's conviction just may have been a result of something other than any kind of a conspiracy of prejudice or bigotry, and this is what makes the article a poor candidate for GA status.

The link to this recent major act of vandalism is

Taking note of what was removed, and the quickness with which it was done leaves little doubt as to why it was done.

Yet the editor responsible for this particular act of POV vandalism had little to say about it other than the following three insolent quips:

1. "Ridiculously undue level of detail."

Really? And just what makes this "level of detail" so "ridiculously undue", especially when the overall tone and message of the article is devoted to the mere and unprovable speculation by heavily biased "historians" that Frank was "innocent"?

2. "Non neutral language."

Really? How so? What is so "non neutral" about it? Since no further discussion was offered, we are left to guess.

3. "Discuss on talk page, if you really must."

This final statement plainly demonstrates that the revert was made in bad faith, as the statement's obvious implication is that the editor responsible for this particular act of POV vandalism would rather not have any discussion at all, even though this was already made clearly evident by the very act of so quickly reverting the contribution without first discussing it on the talk page per the guidelines of WP:REMOVAL. Such is the arrogance displayed here by Frank's proponents, as they cling to their constantly changing interpretations of "the rules"... which are ever revolved to suit their own clear and obvious agenda.

Undue weight is given throughout the article to the idea of Leo Frank's supposed "innocence", which is totally based upon mere speculation and spurious claims made by Frank supporters, while the actual facts of the case are either given short shrift, biased interpretation, or no mention at all. And whenever the actual facts of the case are added to the article in good faith, they are quickly removed via POV vandalism as described herein.

Clearly, this needs to be addressed and corrected. So let us begin with an examination of every part of what was so quickly removed, and discuss each portion in regard to the my questions raised above. We'll start with the first portion, as follows, and progressively move on from there:

. . .

Suspicion falls on Frank

As Leo Frank was the superintendant of the pencil factory, he was initially questioned by the Atlanta police as a matter of course, before any suspicion was raised against him.

Suspicion against Frank was subsequently aroused by a string of circumstances and events which came to light during, and following the time of his initial questioning, and was further strengthened by elements of his own testimony, as well as that of a number of witnesses examined at the Coroner's Inquest.

Evidence Implicating Frank

Frank Denies Knowing Mary Phagan

Leo Frank initially told the police that he didn't know Mary Phagan, and that he would have to look through his payroll records to confirm whether a girl by that name worked at the factory. However, two days after the murder he informed Harry Scott, the Superintendant of the Pinkerton detectives, that an ex-employee of his, James M. Gantt, "knew Mary Phagan very well, that he was familiar and intimate with her. He seemed to lay special stress on it at the time. He said that Gantt paid a good deal of attention to her."

In his own statements to investigators, Gantt, who had known Mary Phagan since childhood, stated that although he knew her, he was not intimate with her. He later testified that Frank did indeed know who Mary Phagan was, and revealed on the witness stand that on at least one occasion Frank had commented upon Gantt's relationship with her, calling her by name, saying, "You seem to know Mary pretty well."

Phagan's friend and neighbor, 15-year-old pencil factory worker George Epps, stated at the Coroner's Inquest that Frank had flirted with Mary Phagan and had frightened her. Epps testified that Mary told him that on some occasions when she was leaving the factory, that "Frank would rush out in front of her and try to flirt with her as she passed." Epps also stated that she told him that Frank had often "winked at her, tried to pay her attention, would look hard and straight at her, and smile."

Another witness, pencil factory worker W.E. Turner, testified that in the middle of March 1913, he personally saw Frank approach, harrass, and frighten Mary Phagan, using his position as factory superintendent to pressure her into talking with him.

A number of other witnesses testified that Frank either knew, or flirted with Mary Phagan. One witness, Miss Dewey Hewell, claimed to have seen him standing next to, and talking to Mary on various occasions while she was working, sometimes putting his hand on her shoulder and leaning in close as he spoke to her.

. . .

If the pro-Frank editors cannot, or refuse to provide reasonable, justifiable answers, it will only confirm what I have been saying all along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.99.153 (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr. IP address, can you please create a wiki account with a name? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Category List of wrongful convictions in the United States (revert) January 1st 2015

Alas the cowardly Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles issued a shamefully patronizing & appeasing "Pardon" for Leo Frank in 1986 based on hokey technicalities (re: "to heal old wounds") and refused to actually address the real issue of his https://en.wikipedia.org/De_facto de facto *innocence* or de jure "guilt". The other of the technicalities listed was only half-hokey, the State failed to protect Frank so he could "continue further appeals", but unfortunately SCOTUS and GSC had already made their final decisions, refusing unanimously any further appeals in Dec 1914 & April 1915 respectively. Only part of the technicality, the failure to protect Frank was a valid claim, but had absolutely nothing to do with the kangaroo legal proceedings during the summer of 1913. Alas, Leo Frank was never officially absolved of murdering Phagan and his conviction remains https://en.wikipedia.org/De_jure de jure. However as we approach the centennial of Leo Frank's lynching (August 17, 2015), I hope the legal efforts to exonerate Leo Frank of the crime never loses steam. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That's true; they deliberated extensively but realized it would be impossible to conclusively determine Frank's guilt or innocence 70 years after the fact. I agree with removing the "wrongful conviction" category since it's impossible to prove that it was in fact a wrongful conviction, although many scholars believe this was the case. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The GBPP (Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles) also gave the official lie they were unable to address the issues of Leo Frank's guilt because the trial records had been lost. However, they were never lost https://archive.org/details/leo-frank-georgia-supreme-court-case-records-1913-1914 because Government researchers made the records available on microfilm. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


Seems like you are assuming - contrary to significant evidence, that Frank was guilty. Why do you assume that - because the story MUST be about a WHOLLY INNOCENT Jew and mindless, anti-Semitic goyim? This whole entry is slanted from the outstart.

does it occur to you that Frank was guilty and the mob primarily acting after the rape and murder of a little girl?

Because Frank was a Jews, however, we can expect that Jewsih/hasbara editors will make sure that Frank's death is spun, as much as possible, as requiring the ADL to form.... that group with along with the AJC, AIPAC, and others, spends so much time championing human rights regardless of race, and almost no time trying to get America to "support" a tiny foreign ethnarchy 99.9% of American soldiers and marines could not move to.

Seriously - this entire article takes the politically correct interpretation for granted. I don't know if he was innocent and neither do you - but simply assuming it because Frank, as a Jew, "could not be guilty" - and this must be more mindless, reason-less anti-Semitism, is the sort of nonsense making wiki unreliable on controversial topics, very much including entries which simply apply "anti-Semitism" to the conversation without meaningful argument or discussion.

50.252.249.155 (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)mpk40

Why don't you create a real account instead of an IP? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Snuggums

Snuggums is blitzing across wikipedia with this falsehood "Only nationality should be in the lead per MOS:BIO". According to MOS:BIO the notion of the absolutist modifier (also adverb, adjective, conjunction, idium) "Only" is a misrepresentation, there are relevant exceptions, re: "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Nothing in that statement that says "Only". In this affair, Leo Frank's ethnicity is decidedly relevant to the article because the consensus amongst scholars is that he became the lead suspect, was indicted, convicted and lynched because of anti-Semitism. Therefore Leo Frank's ethnicity / religion is very much relevant to the lead. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


50.252.249.155 (talk)really? that's the consensus, or the consensus youve gleaned from Jewish sources. Most of the documents from the period point to the fact he was fingered because he was guilty of murdering a little girl.

Why do you rule that out - because the "anti-Semitism" story is just too good as PR? This is conclusory, at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.252.249.155 (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

POV Reverts by Gulbenk

It is beyond doubt that historians have serious questions about Frank's guilt. Our article needs to give those questions proper weight. The article, after Gulbenk's edit, eliminated any reference to these questions from the article lede. He claims that the language describing Conley as potentially the actual murderer is "speculation." Maybe it is, but it is speculation by reliable sources (Lindemann and Woodward are cited) andwidely mentioned in the secondary sources of the Frank case (Oney and Dinnerstein to name just two)-- it belongs in the lede.

Gulbenk also wants to label Frank as a "convicted murderer" in the first sentence, saying it is a "factual statement." Based on the significant doubts about Frank's guilt, we can say he was convicted but cannot say in wikipedia's voice that he was an actual murderer. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Gulbenk reverted, stating ""Many" people (some with advanced degrees in relevant fields) mistakenly believe that 9/11 was a US Government conspiracy." This is nonsense -- he is comparing the dominant authorities on Frank with conspiracy nuts. Indeed, I believe Gulbenk has cited Lindemann elsewhere in the article. It is a serious POV violation to omit a significant subject covered in the major works on Frank. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Oney actually says ] in an interview "I’m pretty sure that Jim Conley murdered Mary Phagan" and his book makes the same case. A CNN analysis ] states, "The consensus of historians is that the Frank case was a miscarriage of justice. Crime scene evidence was destroyed, they say. A bloody hand print was not analyzed. Transcripts from the trial vanished. Perhaps someone can come up with scholarly or other reliable sources that do not dedicate significant portions of their discussions to the injustice of the entire process involving Frank. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Without any discussion, editor Solntsa90 deleted material needed for balance. Interestingly he added, yet again, the phrase "convicted murderer" to a sentence that already states that Frank was convicted of murder. Then he added this source which DOES NOT use his preferred phrase "convicted murderer" but DOES USE very similar language that Solntsa90 for some reason finds insufficient ("convicted of the murder", "convicted of murdering"). Very, very strange.

Then he deleted the references to the fact that significant sources have named an alternative suspect without ANY DISCUSSION at all. The lead now is totally inconsistent with the secondary literature on the subject which emphasizes the doubts that Frank ever murdered anybody. I have placed an appropriate POV tag on the lede until this issue is fully discussed. This is particularly important in light of articles such as and . Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

(North Shoreman) thank you for your willingness to discuss this issue at Talk, coming after your serial deletions. I think this is the best method to resolve differences, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter in detail. I would object, however, to your slur in labeling my edits as POV, when all I have attempted to do is keep the article factual. You wish to inject opinion into the lede.
I have a great deal of respect for the professionalism of both Oney and Lindemann. One says that he is "pretty sure" that Conley did it, the other says (without further details) that current evidence supports the Conley-as-murderer theory. Conley's attorney, 100 years ago, thought he did it. The CNN quote you cite simply says that the crime scene investigation was very sloppy by today's standards. I agree with that, but it doesn't point to Conley. All of that is just speculation, by some very interesting people. To balance that, we have authorities of the day (100 years ago), including two governors (with access to all the information, and extensive knowledge of the case) who are certain that the trial court reached the right verdict. The only governmental authority to review the case in detail, in recent years, could not find evidence that Conley did it, and did not absolve Frank of the crime. Frank remains, to this day, a convicted murderer.
Your serial deletions, and the placement of a dispute tag on the article appears to be an attempt by you to force your personal point of view, and is not helpful to the article. Your notice on my personal Talk page, accusing me of edit warring, appears to project blame on me for your serial deletions. I have asked you to stop edit warring.
Thank you, once again, for taking this matter here as the proper venue for discussion. Your editing, in the more distant past, has been helpful to this article. I hope that we can work together to improve the Leo Frank article, and advance it to Featured Article, if possible. Gulbenk (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Your reply is largely non-responsive to the issues I have raised. The fact is, analysis of facts by recognized scholars have always been considered reliable sources on wikipedia. You need to check out the policy on NPOV (see WP:YESPOV) which states:
"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
So when you tell me that I "wish to inject opinion into the lede", you're right. It would be unusual if legitimate opinions were not included in the lede. WP:WEIGHT is also an issue. The only sentence in the lede concerning Conley is:
"During trial proceedings, Frank and his lawyers resorted to racial stereotypes in their defense, accusing another suspect, James Conley – a Black factory worker and an admitted accomplice to the crime who had testified against Frank — of being especially disposed to lying and murdering because of his ethnicity."
The facts that historians consider him as the likely murderer, that his own lawyer identified him as the killer, that the belated ID of him carrying Phagan's body, and the fact that while in police custody for weeks he constantly changed his story all show that he was more than just "another suspect". All the other suspects fell by the wayside -- Conley is still considered a suspect. A second sentence simply stating, with appropriate footnotes, that some historians' (actually probably an understatement) analysis judge him to be the actual killer should not even be a controversial issue.
Similarly, the difference between changing "convicted murderer" and "convicted of murder" should not be controversial. Perhaps you can explain what the significance is of the change is. Going back to WP:YESPOV:
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
That Frank was convicted of murder is uncontested; that he was an actual murderer is contested. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(North Shoreman), 'Convicted Murderer' is a legal term, meaning that one is convicted of murder, and that they have been found guilty of the crime of murder by a jury of their peers in a court of law. In this instance, saying that Leo Frank is a 'Convicted Murderer' is completely factual. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I am very skeptical that "Convicted Murderer" is some "legal term" with a different connotation than the plain English meaning. Since most readers will read it as I do, it will appear that Misplaced Pages is ignoring the very real historical questions concerning the murder and saying, in Misplaced Pages's voice, that Frank did murder Phagan. Here is the first sentence of the article, the first boldface is what you added and the second boldface is language that was ALREADY in the article (you've already read this on your own talk page):
Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American factory superintendent and convicted murdererwhose widely publicized and controversial murder trial and conviction in 1913, appeals and extrajudicial hanging in 1915 by a lynch mob planned and led by prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia, drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States.
Since the sentence already contains the phrase "murder trial and conviction", isn't your redundant accusation unnecessary and overkill? Doesn't the phrase "murder trial and conviction" already tell the reader everything she needs to know? You could even replace "convicted murderer" where you placed it with "convicted of murder". What exactly is wrong with that?
You also deleted this without ANY EXPLANATION:
"Jim Conley is now believed by some historians to be the real murderer".
I asked you why you deleted this and this was your reply on your talk page:
Solntsa90 "The references you're pushing have their own agenda, and would not pass Misplaced Pages's measures for scrutiny. With that said, Leo Frank is a convicted murderer as he was found guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan in a court of his peers.
Furthermore, there is hardly a consensus that 'Jim Conley was the real murderer'. That is utter rubbish, nothing more need to be said about it".
Please tell us exactly what the agenda is of Albert Lindemann and C. Vann Woodward which disqualifies them from being considered reliable sources? Or Steve Oney who I reference earlier in this discussion and is often used as a source in this article? Or Leonard Dinnerstein, also used as a source in the article, who wrote "The new development which stirred Atlanta and those working to save Frank was the announcement, made on October 2, 1914, by William M. Smith, lawyer for Jim Conley, the state's key witness at the trial, that his own client had murdered Mary Phagan."
There is an historical consensus that Leo Frank did not murder Phagan. After years of contentious discussion on this page nobody has come up with reliable secondary sources that claim Frank definitely murdered Phagan. But for the purposes of this discussion, the issue is whether proper weight is given to the claims about Conley. Since our article already discussed it and most of the reliable sources mention it in detail, it should be included in the article lead. WP:WEIGHT is clear -- our article should treat conflicting ideas "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Ignoring any mention of Conley's potential guilt or the bigger issue of Frank's potential innocence in the article lead is a serious neutrality violation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

There is ZERO historical consensus about the Frank murder, and in fact, most historians believe he was responsible, with the defence relying entirely on bigoted racial stereotype of African Americans to pin the murder on Conley. Solntsa90 (talk)

Personally I believe the article should be reverted to by North Shoreman on 28 April. There don't need to be sources in the lead section, especially not to make a point about the "convicted murderer" part - the fact is not in question, but the placement and weight is. I do believe we should keep the lines about "jubilation in the streets" at Frank's hanging and the line/sources talking about Conley as the real murderer.
It might also be worth noting that the GA nomination has been open for 4 1/2 months and we should be getting a review in a few weeks. However, the POV banner and this dispute could derail the nomination. I hope we can reach a consensus soon. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
An equally serious problem for GA approval is the size of the lede (seeWP:LEADLENGTH). At the time of the completion of the peer review the lede was an acceptable four paragraphs -- it is now up to five paragraphs. Many of the changes involve excessive detail, especially the third paragraph that also has POV issues and a different slant from what the body of the article says. Many of the other changes also show a "POV creep" -- the new version reflecting a subtle shift toward making Frank appear more guilty. I intend to expand on this later but a clear example is the first paragraph. The current version says of the pardon:
Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986, which the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles described as "an effort to heal old wounds", without officially absolving him of the crime.
The boldfaced language was changed from "without addressing the question of guilt or innocence." The older shorter version also has important additional information to clarify that there was more than simply "an effort to heal old wounds." This version also said:
"On March 11, 1986, the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles granted Frank a pardon, citing the state's failure to protect him or prosecute his killers."
A more NPOV reworking of the existing sentence could say:
Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986. Unable to address the question of guilt or innocence due to missing records, the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles did admit that the state had failed to protect Frank (which prevented the exercise of further appeals) or prosecute his killers. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Strong dislike; they never absolved Frank of guilt, I don't think it was an oversight, and anything to the contrary is original research unless you can back it up with sources that aren't as POV-pushing as those you have placed attempting to absolve Frank of guilt. Solntsa90 (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing POV about stating that Frank was a convicted murderer, since he was most well-known for the murder of Mary Phagan (no matter how much we can dispute this, I trust the justice system's ruling) and his subsequent conviction and execution-turned-stay-of-execution by the governor who was Frank's lawyer's law firm partner, which led to the lynching.

This is what he is most notable for. If anything, saying he was a factory superintendent as the lead is POV-pushing. Solntsa90 (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I've revised the lead:

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American factory superintendent convicted of murder whose widely publicized and controversial trial for the murder of Mary Phagan and conviction in 1913, appeals, death sentence, and controversial stay-of-execution, as well as his subsequent extrajudicial hanging in 1915 by a lynch mob planned and led by prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia, drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States.

This is hardly POV, as it merely reflects the details of the case.

This article should be reverted to the version by KasparBot on 4 May due to the following:
  • User:Solntsa90 added the phrase "convicted murderer" back to the lead sentence and added two citations, but these citations miss the point. No one is arguing whether Frank is a convicted murderer, but simply that it is repetitive ("conviction" shows up later in the same sentence) and thus gives undue weight to the conviction. Also, as a general Misplaced Pages practice, citations are not required in the lead if the fact is cited in the body of the text, as it is in this case.
  • A "citation needed" tag was added later in the lead, and this is covered by reference #35 in the body. As I mentioned at the end of the above bullet point, a citation is not needed here.
  • Three unnecessary categories were added, and the latter one, "American murderers of children", is the most obvious POV issue.
For these three reasons, let's revert to the version by KasparBot and remove the neutrality tag at the top of the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's the problem with your appeal to reason. Solntsa says above, "There is ZERO historical consensus about the Frank murder, and in fact, most historians believe he was responsible, with the defence relying entirely on bigoted racial stereotype of African Americans to pin the murder on Conley." Of course, this statement is nonsense -- it makes an unsupported and unsupportable claim about what the reliable sources say and totally minimizes the real evidence against Conley. Basic facts are being ignored in order to pursue a regrettable POV. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not POV. He was an American murderer of a child, ergo the category stays. Solntsa90 (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that I was away, during all this excitement. I would like to commend and support the edits undertaken by Tonystewart14. He strikes the right balance, and moves the article forward. It is not surprising that editors with good intentions should have such varied and strongly held opinions about this article. So much has been learned/disclosed about the Leo Frank case in just the past few decades. Much of what we thought we knew is now shown to be wrong. One only has to read the 1983 NYT article, referenced below, to see how many wrong notions were presented as "fact" just a few years ago. Much of the credit for setting the record straight goes to Oney, who is likely the preeminent modern expert on this matter. Again, I support the Toneystewart14 edits. Gulbenk (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
At one point, Tony agreed (see ) the article should be restored to this edit . Is this what you are agreeing to? If so, I will consider this resolved enough to remove the tag -- assuming Solntsa doesn't revert. If not, we should go with an RFC or Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.
Separate from the POV issues is the fact that the lede is probably too long for a successful Class A review. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, North Shoreman. I mistakenly believed that it was Tonystewart14 who had changed the sentence from "convicted murderer" to "convicted of murder" which seemed to address your point about using the Misplaced Pages "voice" to say that Frank was, in fact, the murderer. I saw "convicted of murder" as a truthful and more neutral statement.

Regarding the placement of the sentence "Jim Conley is now believed by some historians to be the real murderer" in the lede. The best support for that sentence (without the word "real") is found in those two statements by Oney and Lindemann. Both are very careful in their wording. Lindemann, the historian, simply states that current evidence supports the Conley-as-murderer theory. I'm not sure if, by that, Lindemann is saying that he believes Conley did it, or if simply some recent "evidence" (like the Mann affidavit) points to Conley. Oney, the author/journalist, says that he is "pretty sure" that Conley did it. He doesn't say "It's clear Conley did it", or even "I believe Conley did it". He qualifies his statement with "pretty sure" which indicates a degree of ambivalence. The "some historians" sentence appears (almost intact), as one line in the extensive Conley section. The article also contains two references to William Smith's belief that Conley was the murderer, although it doesn't explain why (exactly) he believed that. If this speculation requires additional weight, it might be appropriate to add the Oney / Lindemann statements to the First application for pardon section, provided that another statement quoting the pardons and parole board is also added (for balance). There is a good quote from the board, stating that the Alonzo Mann affidavit is not impactful because (even if taken at face value) it only shows that Conley took the stairs, not the elevator. Other than that, the Mann affidavit only corroborates Conley's sworn testimony. So, again, placement of these beliefs and feelings in the body of this article seems appropriate to the degree that we have already undertaken. But the addition of the sentence in the lede, without further explaining that it's just a hunch, gives this speculation the weight of nearly conclusive fact, which diminishes the veracity of an otherwise commendable article Gulbenk (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"Just a hunch", huh? When folks such as Dinnerstein, Oney, Woodward, Lindemann, et al present their informed analysis it's much more than "just a hunch." In fact there is a large section on Conley in our article that shows that he consistently lied while in police custody. There are also significant discrepancies between his final testimony and other evidence. All four of the authors I listed spend considerable energy discussing Conley -- Oney has 28 separate listings under Conley in his index and "as murder suspect" lists 57 separate pages. Yet our article's lede contains a single sentence about Conley that only cites racial slurs against him by the defense -- interesting but nowhere close to the proper weight based on his coverage by reliable sources. Why is it more important to describe the characterization of Conley while hiding the UNDISPUTED FACT that he repeatedly lied? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
References
  1. Joyce, Fay (23 December 1983). "PARDON DENIED FOR LEO FRANK IN 1913 SLAYING". New York Times. Retrieved 29 April 2015.
  2. Dinnerstein, Leonard (1996). "The Fate Of Leo Frank". American Heritage. 47 (6). {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  3. For example:
    • Lindemann 1992, p. 254: "The best evidence now available indicates that the real murderer of Mary Phagan was Jim Conley, perhaps because she, encountering him after she left Frank's office, refused to give him her pay envelope, and he, in a drunken stupor, killed her to get it.
    • Woodward 1963, p. 435: "The city police, publicly committed to the theory of Frank's guilt, and hounded by the demand for a conviction, resorted to the basest methods in collecting evidence. A Negro suspect , later implicated by evidence overwhelmingly more incriminating than any produced against Frank, was thrust aside by the cry for the blood of the 'Jew Pervert.'"

Academic dishonesty or academic misconduct is any type of cheating that occurs in relation to a formal academic exercise. It can include 

   Plagiarism: The adoption or reproduction of original creations of another author (person, collective, organization, community or other type of author, including anonymous authors) without due acknowledgment.
   Fabrication: The falsification of data, information, or citations in any formal academic exercise.
   Deception: Providing false information to an instructor concerning a formal academic exercise
   Cheating: Any attempt to give or obtain assistance in a formal academic exercise (like an examination) without due acknowledgment.
   Bribery: or paid services. Giving assignment answers or test answers for money.
   Sabotage: Acting to prevent others from completing their work. This includes cutting pages out of library books or willfully disrupting the experiments of others.
   Professorial misconduct: Professorial acts that are academically fraudulent equate to academic fraud and/or grade fraud.
   Impersonation: assuming a student's identity with intent to provide an advantage for the student.

The key one is Fabrication when it comes to the Frank case. A lot of stuff is made up out of thin air with no proof from a lot of these authors. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Mary Phagan Picture

There is a more well known picture of Mary Phagan from the Adoplph Ochs collection at the New York Public Library that would be more apropos for the article. There is also a series done in blackface commissioned by Ochs that actually shows how Mary Phagan was really killed in that same collection. Would someone do the leg work to get those images added to wikipedia photo library collection? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Controversial

Moved from my talk page:

Regarding your recent revert of my edit. What are the controversial aspects of the Frank trial which you wish to highlight with this edit, and how do they eclipse the controversy of the Governor's commutation? Gulbenk (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

They both were controversial. Why did you remove "controversial" from the trial without at least adding a synonym? If you check the editing history you will find that the second "controversial" was added in an edit after the first one was already in place. Trying to deny that the trial in and of itself was controversial is more POV pushing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Tom (North Shoreman), you throw the POV accusation around with very little regard for the truth. I simply want you to explain your edit. So, again, I specifically ask you what you regard as the controversial aspects of the Frank trial. Gulbenk (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The most controversial aspect is that Frank was found guilty. I use the term the same way Jeffrey Melnick does in "Black-Jewish Relations on Trial: Leo Frank and Jim Conley in the New South" when he writes about Frank's "controversial trial". He describes, accurately, the current state of the historiography, "Unlike say, Sacco and Venzetti, or the Rosenbergs, Leo Frank’s guilt or innocence is rarely debated these days. There is near unanimity around the idea that Frank was most certainly innocent of the crime of murdering Mary Phagan; it is something like unspeakable to suggest otherwise." Now maybe you can explain why you don't believe the trial itself was controversial.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what I was looking for. You believe (100 years after the trial) that Frank was innocent, so therefore (in your opinion) the trial was controversial. I see Melnick expressing his opinion that there is near unanimity that Frank was innocent. I don't see any support for WHY he (or others) believe that Frank is innocent... when two modern tribunals didn't come to that conclusion. Nor did eight lawyers on the Frank defense team (who had significant funds and resources at their disposal) provide any convincing evidence (much less proof) that Conley was the murderer (other than saying that he was a monster liar and brute... which he may well have been). Nor did numerous courts of appeal, including the U.S. Supreme Court (twice) find reason for overturning the jury's finding of guilt. I don't believe that Governor Slaton (who had access to all the records, and who researched the case more than any modern historian) ever said that he believed Frank was innocent. He only said that guilt was not proven with absolute certainty. No judicial review or official government inquiry has declared Conley guilty or Frank innocent. But you want to insert your opinion of innocence into the lede by calling the trial controversial. One should not go about accusing others of POV violations when you yourself are a POV pusher. As I have said before, the matter of Conley's involvement is discussed extensively in the body of the article. We make references to those who believe that Conley was guilty. But it should always be clear that this is unsupported opinion. Gulbenk (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

What's relevant is the opinion of the reliable sources. What isn't relevant is your opinion of the significance of events of 100 years ago. If your opinions have any validity then you should be able to provide reliable secondary sources that share your opinions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A fact, even one from 100 years ago, is still a fact. An opinion is no more than an opinion. When you represent an opinion as fact, as you did, it is not only wrong but also dishonest. Gulbenk (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you actually disagree that the phrase "whose widely publicized and controversial trial for the murder of Mary Phagan" is inaccurate? If you do disagree, state your reasons -- if you agree why are you wasting our time? The actual language in the article is, after all, what this discussion should be about about.
Your latest comment is non-responsive to anything we have discussed. Opinions by reliable secondary sources, especially widely shared opinions, are relevant to this article as well as most others. You are being dishonest when you suggest that I am trying to present opinions as facts. How is this sentence (which you have deleted) opinion disguised as fact: Conley is now believed by many historians to be the real murderer. Surely you're not talking about using the word "controversial" -- that would be very hypocritical since you used the exact same word in the issue we are now discussing. I'm preparing to submit over a dozen reliable secondary sources that contest the accuracy of the verdict and the conduct of the trial. Can you produce ANY reliable secondary sources saying that the jurors got it exactly right and that the trial was perfectly fair. You keep avoiding naming any such sources -- why is that? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Heh, apt section header for this discussion. Why not remove the adjective and say something like 'the trial generated such-and-such controversy', being specific and sticking to what sources say? That way you "show don't tell."delldot ∇. 17:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd be glad to do that. What the sources say is that Frank was innocent and Conley was the likely actual killer. I have yet to see any reliable sources presented that contest either of these contentions. A reader of this article needs to know, up front in the article lede, that the historical consensus is that entire Frank case was based on a very flawed trial. Right now I suppose Steve Oney's book is the best recent source and he says of his work:
It was in no way a fair trial. It would be declared a mistrial very quickly by today's standards." "In the end, though, so much of the prosecution's case doesn't hold water. I think you can tell by the end of the book that I'm pretty certain Frank was innocent." "I'm 95 percent certain Conley did it. A year or so after the trial, Conley's lawyer, William Smith, conducted a study of the murder notes and became convinced they were the original composition of his former client. There are other things, too. During the trial, the prosecution said that Frank had assaulted Phagan outside his office on the factory floor and that she'd struck her head against a lathe, where some of her hair had been found. It turned out that the hair did not come from Phagan's head, and the prosecutor, Hugh Dorsey, knew it and withheld that information from the defense. The key physical evidence from the supposed crime scene was fallacious. To me, that's incredibly damning."
Dinnerstein, the author of an older and more scholarly work, wrote of the trial, The Frank case not only was a miscarriage of justice but also symbolized many of the South's fears at that time.
Albert Lindemann (who is footnoted 9 times already in the article wrote), "The best evidence now available indicates that the real murderer of Mary Phagan was Jim Conley, perhaps because she, encountering him after she left Frank's office, refused to give him her pay envelope, and he, in a drunken stupor, killed her to get it."
C. Vann Woodward, a Pulitzer prize winning historian and biographer of Tom Watson in which he devotes a full chapter to the Frank case wrote "The city police, publicly committed to the theory of Frank's guilt, and hounded by the demand for a conviction, resorted to the basest methods in collecting evidence. A Negro suspect , later implicated by evidence overwhelmingly more incriminating than any produced against Frank, was thrust aside by the cry for the blood of the 'Jew Pervert.'"Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I definitely agree that if there's a consensus today that should be clear in the lead, perhaps in a single sentence. If I understand Gulbenk right, they were questioning whether it was controversial at the time, right? At any rate, that first sentence is meandering and tortured and should be turned into two or three sentences. How about, for a compromise, using 'famous' or 'highly publicized' or something in that first sentence, then fleshing out the current consensus in a separate sentence in the lead? delldot ∇. 21:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
This is the version of the article right after a peer review was completed. Nothing in the peer review suggested the changes that were made. The first paragraph was clearer and the issue of the pardon was covered in more detail, although it was split between the first and fourth paragraphs. Using this old version as a starting point and your suggestions, I would propose the following rewrite:
Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American factory superintendent whose murder conviction and extrajudicial hanging in 1915 by a lynch mob planned and led by prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia, drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States. There is widespread disagreement that Frank was actually guilty of the crime. Without addressing the question of guilt or innocence since the state had lost most of the evidence from the trial, Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles. The Board cited the state's failure to protect Frank, preserving his opportunity for continued legal appeal, or prosecute his killers.
You can check out this very rough draft of the type of sourcing that supports the questioning of the guilt. My intention is to turn that info into a two paragraph or so subsection in the main article which would then support more fully the addition to the lede, although support already is spread out throughout the article. My original intention was to present the above in an RFC format due to relatively small participation in the discussion. Perhaps your participation will trigger such participation (there are 125 watchers of this article). Thoughts? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
IMHO the 'Without addressing the question of guilt or innocence since the state had lost most of the evidence from the trial' is too much detail for the lead. Also I would move the sentence starting, 'The Board cited the...' to further down in the article. But what do you think, Gulbenk? delldot ∇. 00:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
My problem is the POV of the present sentence which says, "Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986, which the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles described as "an effort to heal old wounds", without officially absolving him of the crime." Rather than the meaningless "effort ...", which suggests that there was no substance to the pardon, I felt that the more concrete reasons are relevant. As far as "without officially...", this suggests that the Board made a factual finding of guilty (which is not true). The best solution would be a simple statement "Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986", leaving it to the reader to go to the body of the article (Leo Frank#Alonzo Mann's affidavit, first application for pardon and the following section) for the details. The two sections should probably be combined and renamed to something simple like "Pardon" to make for easier navigation for the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by North Shoreman (talk • contribs)
I like the idea of the streamlined "Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986" for the lead with the detail below. What do others think? delldot ∇. 18:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Amazing. In his quest to label anything contrary to his world view as POV, Tom (North Shoreman) even attacks the direct quote of the Pardons and Paroles Board. He deletes their rationale, ("effort...") as well, for the same reason. Finally, he deletes, from the lede, the fact that they did not absolve Frank of the crime, by claiming their actions are not "official" (although he embraces the limited pardon). This is POV pushing in its most basic form. I most sincerely disagree. Gulbenk (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As for the Oney statement, this (more complete) quote might put it in context:

Q: The jury convicted Frank on the second ballot. Was that a reasonable verdict?
A: (Oney): Yes, I can see it happening.
I don't know what I would have done if I had been on that jury. All I can tell you is that when I was writing the book, I would come into the kitchen at the end of the day and tell my wife that Leo Frank was guilty -- especially when I was reading Conley's testimony. It was so mesmerizing and specific, I'd think: He could not make this up. Then I'd walk into the kitchen the next week and say, "Leo Frank is innocent. This is a completely trumped-up case.
In the end, though, so much of the prosecution's case doesn't hold water. I think you can tell by the end of the book that I'm pretty certain Frank was innocent. Gulbenk (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually I insist that if we do quote from the Pardon, then we use the language that addresses the substance of what they said -- you know, state failures, lost evidence. As far as the context of the Oney statement, the only thing it adds is that it shows he made a good faith final evaluation based on a thorough review of all the facts. The context serves to show how absurd your claims are that his views are just a "hunch". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The evidence was never lost, the trial brief of evidence and georgia supreme court records of the case are still with us. The prosecutors notes on the case are not evidence, because they are not official records. The consensus of the law is that Leo Frank is guilty. I would think the law is the final word on the matter. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles did not exonerate Leo Frank. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Good luck, GingerBreadHarlot, trying to convince Tom (North Shoreman). He would rather substitute his own unyielding view (based on opinion) for the facts. The fact that the official records are still intact, as well as notes from Conley's attorney (Oney used those in his research), doesn't keep Tom from saying otherwise, or from deleting statements that don't support his view (see his efforts with regard to the parole board, above). This article should not be a vehicle for folks, like Tom, to promote their opinions. It is an encyclopedia. If Tom wants to start a blog, or his own web page, where he can thump his chest, fine. Gulbenk (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Still don't understand about wikipedia and opinions, do you? Let me try again -- from wikipedia policy at Misplaced Pages:No original research:
A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.
Policy: Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.
Get it yet? You see when Oney, Lindemann, Dinnerstein, Woodward, Melnick, et al say that Frank was likely innocent, this is those authors providing their own thinking based on primary sources. These authors have looked at the facts and provided their own thinking based on primary sources. That's what historians are EXPECTED to do. Misplaced Pages in turn is EXPECTED to base their articles on their works. Seems clear. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Having looked closer at these authors, Oney, Dinnerstein (hasn't updated his book since 87) and Melnick, they can not be considered scholars or references on the Frank case. These authors have engaged in pseudohistoriography by putting the Phagan bitemark hoax into their book. There is no evidence from autopsy reports in the brief of evidence or georgia supreme court records of Phagan having bitemarks on her neck and shoulder (hoax origin: To Number Our Days by Pierre van Paassen, pages 237, 238 http://archive.org/details/ToNumberOurDaysByPierreVanPaassen on IA.) Dinnerstein wrote only half a page about Leo Frank's trial statement, this is not scholarship. Dinnerstein manufactured anti-Semitic hoaxes that people mobs of people were shouting anti-semitic death threats at the jury during trial proceedings through the window. This is pseudo-scholarship at its best, "The intense summer heat necessitated that the courtroom windows be left open, and remarks from the crowds could be heard easily by those inside. "Crack the Jew's neck!" - "Lynch him!" - were some of the epithets emerging from the more boisterous. Threats were also made "against the jury that they would be lynched if they did not hang that 'damned sheeny.'" (Leo Frank and the American Jewish Community (1968), Dinnerstein: http://archive.org/details/LeoFrankAndTheAmericanJewishCommunity on IA.) Oney says in his 2003 book (and dead shall rise) that dorsey convinced grandjury to indict frank on the basis that later he would provide the evidence. This is pure anti-scholarship. Grand juries dont indict people on basis that after they indict someone the evidence will be shown. Get it yet? Using pseudo-scholarship is not what makes a good encyclopedia. I'm sure there are a lot more examples like these. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible new lead section

I concur with Tom's comment in the previous section that the lead section of the article following the peer review last December was better in most respects than the current one. I think the rest of the article has had some improvements since then, most notably the addition of several photographs, but the old version of the lead was more concise and neutral.

I'm proposing a new lead that is similar to the old one, but incorporates some new improvements that change the sentence and paragraph structure to improve the flow. I've also removed some content that isn't central enough to the case to be in the lead, but is already in the body of the article. Let me know how this looks and I'll update it and remove the tag if there is consensus. Edited 5/18:

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American factory superintendent who was convicted of the murder of one of his factory employees, 13-year-old Mary Phagan. His conviction, appeals, death sentence, commutation, and subsequent extrajudicial hanging in 1915 by a lynch mob planned and led by prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia, drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States.

An engineer and director of the National Pencil Company in Atlanta, Frank was convicted on August 25, 1913 for the murder of Phagan. She had been strangled on April 26 of that year and was found dead in the factory cellar the next morning. The basis for Frank's conviction largely centered around the testimony of another suspect, James "Jim" Conley, an admitted accomplice who worked as a sweeper in the factory. Conley changed his testimony several times in various affidavits and admitted to fabricating certain parts of his story. After his conviction, Frank and his lawyers commenced a series of unsuccessful appeals, losing their final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in April 1915. Governor John M. Slaton, stating there may have been a miscarriage of justice, commuted his sentence to life imprisonment to great local outrage. A crowd of 1,200 marched on Slaton's home in protest. Two months later, Frank was kidnapped from prison by a group of 25 armed men who called themselves the "Knights of Mary Phagan". Frank was driven 170 miles to Frey's Gin, near Phagan's home in Marietta, and lynched. A crowd gathered after the hanging; one man repeatedly stomped on Frank's face, while others took photographs, pieces of his nightshirt, and bits of the rope to sell as souvenirs. Some modern scholars believe that the motivation behind the crowd's ferocity towards Frank derived from antisemitic prejudice.

His criminal case became the focus of powerful class, regional, and political interests. Raised in New York, he was cast as a carpetbagging representative of Yankee capitalism, a bourgeoisie northern Jew in contrast to the poverty experienced by child laborers like Phagan and many working-class adult Southerners of the time, as the agrarian South was undergoing the throes of industrialization. During trial proceedings, Frank and his lawyers resorted to racial stereotypes in their defense, accusing Conley – who was African-American – of being especially disposed to lying and murdering because of his ethnicity. There was jubilation in the streets when Frank was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging.

At the request of the ADL, a prominent Jewish civil rights organization founded in the wake of Frank's conviction, Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles. The Board described the pardon as "an effort to heal old wounds" without addressing the question of guilt or innocence due to insufficient evidence. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of good in your proposal -- you've eliminated excessive detail, much of it apparently added to promote a specific POV. However your end product still has significant POV problems and does not comply with Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section.
1. The lead guideline states that "the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." Leo Frank is notable because he was lynched, drawing national to antisemitism. This info needs to be in the first sentence. These two sentences do not need to be in the first paragraph:
"An engineer and director of the National Pencil Company in Atlanta, Frank was convicted on August 25, 1913 for the murder of Phagan. She had been strangled on April 26 of that year and was found dead in the factory cellar the next morning."
2. All references to Tom Watson or general rabble raising based on antisemitism have been eliminated. Your version says in the fourth paragraph that Frank "drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States" but doesn't say why.
3. The only critique of the trial itself is "Frank and his lawyers resorted to racial stereotypes in their defense." With all of the documentation available on why the trial results were tainted against Frank, the current proposal only mentions rhetorical misconduct by the defense that had very little effect on anything.
4. Your proposal still doesn't address any of the issues raised concerning Conley's probable guilt. Which is more significant to the case -- the fact that the defense said racist things about Conley or that Conley was the main witness against Frank, that he dramatically changed changed his testimony five different times while in police custody, and that he is considered by many as the likely killer.
5. The lead guidelines state that the lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies and " "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." Your version sustains the problems of the current version -- there is no mention of the controversy of the fairness of the trial, the consensus that Frank was probably innocent, and the probability that Conley was the actual killer. The themes of Frank's probable innocence and Conley's likely guilt is present throughout the reliable secondary sources on Frank. There are few if any reliable sources arguing that the jury got it right.
I've tried to generate a discussion of this focusing on what the reliable sources say. Unfortunately the two proponents of the status quo won't, because they can't, present reliable secondary sources to support their positions. Instead they dismiss the leading scholars on the subject as presenting "unsupported opinion" or "just a hunch", while comparing their research as akin to a 9/11 government conspiracy. The lead guidelines point out that "The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead." We have to get it right. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I have edited the proposed lead above with your suggestions. Although it might not be quite what you're looking for in terms of suggesting Conley was the likely killer, it does mention Conley's affidavits that changed his story and his later admissions of lying. Also remember that while many present-day scholars believe Frank was innocent, this is not a unanimous opinion (Mary Phagan Kean being the most famous example). I think the lead above is something that will be seen as suitable by yourself as well as Gulbenk and the others who have commented on this talk page. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the positive changes. I can live with not mentioning Conley as the suspect if the lead otherwise mentions the widespread belief among reliable sources that Frank was innocent. Mary Phagan Kean is not a journalist, not an historian, and is unpublished (I believe) except for the one book. I could find no reviews of her book on JSTOR and no scholarly reviews from Google. I did find a review (repeated at Amazon) from the Library Journal, which states:
The author is the great-niece of the murdered Mary Phagan. In 1913, Leo Frank, a northern-reared, Jewish manager of an Atlanta factory, was convicted of the murder of a 13-year-old employee, Mary Phagan. Frank, who was almost certainly innocent, was hung by a lynch mob; new evidence points to the likely guilt of the chief prosecution witness, a black janitor. Despite the author's evenhanded approach, this book cannot be recommended. Leonard Dinnerstein's Leo Frank Case (1968; reissued in 1987 by Univ. of Georgia Pr.) remains the best account of the case and the anti-Semitic, anti-industrial milieu that shaped it.
You imply that there are other reliable sources arguing for Frank's guilt. Can you provide specific works and authors? My arguments concerning the failure to include the documentation for Frank's innocence remain. Whether the belief is unanimous or simply the vast majority, it still must be included in the lead in order to comply with the lead guidelines. We have sources that meet the requirements for academic consensus (see WP:RS/AC). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and updated the lead and removed the POV tag. I changed the last sentence of the second paragraph to read, "Modern scholars including Steve Oney and Leonard Dinnerstein believe that the motivation behind the crowd's ferocity towards Frank derived from antisemitic prejudice and that Frank was in fact innocent." That way, it avoids the weasel word 'some' at the beginning and mentions the two major Frank scholars by name. I also added the fact that they think Frank was innocent at the end. There are some other sources that believe Frank was guilty, but not published in the way that Oney and Dinnerstein are. I hope that this settles it for now and we can get some good feedback during GA review. I think that both the lead and body will continue to improve substantially in a few weeks. Thanks for your quick replies. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I have problems with the term "modern scholars" since it is too vague. Dinnerstein was originally published in 1966 and other writers with a similar theme had preceded him. I replaced modern with a more specific sixty years. I also moved the reference to this to the start of the fourth paragraph -- it really doesn't belong at the end of a long paragraph that is mainly about events after the trial and fits nicely in a paragraph that discusses guilt and innocence. I also removed the references concerning antisemitism -- it didn't effectively replace the omission of Watson references. Antisemitic agitation should still be referenced in that paragraph but it is not enough of a problem to maintain the POV tag.
As it is, I am very reluctant to say that this satisfies completely the POV issues. When there is a consensus on a subject, attribution is not necessary and misleading in that it suggests only the people specifically listed held that view. You, however, wrote the sentence artfully enough for it to be acceptable. Changing it to "some scholars" would present a real POV problem. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Your edits look good. I think that one sentence in the lead is in a better spot and "sixty years" is in fact more specific and less "weasel". I don't know if we'll ever get a lead that is 100% to the satisfaction of everyone who posts on this talk page, but I think the current one looks good and will continue to improve during GA. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Tony, always remember Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability In Misplaced Pages, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Article Revert

The article had been turned into something very stale and POV political, so I reverted it to a good recent version. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I think there are problems with your recent edits, anti-Frank slant. PatGallacher (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The version you reverted to does not have all the salient information about the case in the lead. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please provide the justification for the "salient" info you believe needs to be added. Of course you deleted the actually "salient" info added about Conley and the info on the historical consensus on Frank's likely innocence. You seem to share the POV pushed by folks that reject wikipedia policy by insisting that only primary sources count and all secondary sources be ignored. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The lead should be an overview of the article. It should review the pivotal and central highlights of Frank's life and place in history in a cogent number of paragraphs. Number of paragraphs is always dependent on article length. The central features of Leo Frank's life were his career, role in Jewish community (B'nai B'rith), sensational trial & conviction, brief mention of his appeals failing, controversial commutation, throat slashing at penitentiary, lynching by prominent georgians, aftermath and posthumous pardon without exoneration. These are all the relevant events of his life worth mentioning in the lead, not touting a journalist or academic who hasnt updated his book since 1987. Dinnerstein and Oney are pseudoscholars, both repeat the phagan bitemark hoax in their book as if it is fact (To Number Our Days by Pierre van Paassen (see pages 237, 238 about the Leo Frank case): http://archive.org/details/ToNumberOurDaysByPierreVanPaassen on IA.) Dinnerstein has manufactured pseudo-historiography with "The intense summer heat necessitated that the courtroom windows be left open, and remarks from the crowds could be heard easily by those inside. "Crack the Jew's neck!" - "Lynch him!" - were some of the epithets emerging from the more boisterous. Threats were also made "against the jury that they would be lynched if they did not hang that 'damned sheeny.' " such an event would have been reported in Frank's appeals and in the newspapers. Such an incident occurring would be grounds for an immediate mistrial. No records from defense, prosecution, judge, appeals or newspapers reported this anti-Semitic hoax. This is not scholarship, but a racist crime against truth. Dinnerstein repeats Golden who writes Conley died in 1962, both are mistaken. There are no records of Conley's death in Georgia records or obituary in newspaper as Golden says (he is mistaken). We know this thanks to Oney who did the research. However, Slaton in 1955 memorandum said Conley died in 1952, so the 1962 is likely a typo. Stating Conley died in 1962 is repeating pseudoscholarship. There is no evidence for this death date. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Conley died in 1962 Debunked by Steve Oney

I removed the sentence - Conley is believed to have died in 1962. Reference Golden p. 312. and Dinnerstein 1987, p. 158. Steve Oney's archival research debunked the rumor / myth that Jim Conley died in 1962. The reality is no one knows what happened to him or how he was made to disappear. There are no obituaries (1962) for Jim Conley as Golden falsely claimed or death record for Conley at Georgia vitals and statistics department. Golden's Estate papers have no record of an obituary according to Professor Koenigsberg of Brooklyn College who researched the matter. There is however, one mention of Conley having passed away in 1952 by former Governor John Slaton in a January 1955 memorandum. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I checked Golden, his statement is slightly vague and unsourced, although it may have been a genuine mistake over what he regarded as a minor matter. PatGallacher (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Frank's trial was one of the longest and most expensive in Southern jurisprudence at the time according to secondary sources. Conley's role in the case wasn't diminutive. He was one of the prosecution's star witness'. All Dinnerstein had to do was call / write government offices of Atlanta determine if there was a death certificate for James Conley (age 27 in 1913, Colored). Instead of relying on Golden's dubious research. Tom Northshoreman recently placed notification onto Frank's article for dispute on Leonard Dinnerstein's recognition as a scholar. This is more evidence of Dinnerstein having little integrity for scholarship (re: Tom NOrthshoreman's dispute.)GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It may not be as simple as that. I don't know how it works in Georgia, but I have some experience of searching Scottish death records in Edinburgh, if you don't know when somebody died you have to plough through several years, there's no guarantee he died in Georgia, etc.. PatGallacher (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

PatGallacher, Georgia computerized every birth and death record for instant Boolean search. Conley was 27 in 1913. No death record for him. Harry Golden said there is obituary for Conley in 1962. Golden's estate papers have no Conley obituary. No 62' obituary exists in any Georgia newspaper for him either. Scholars don't repeat other peoples false and unverified research, they go to the birth and death record office themselves, call or write them by pen for answers. We must thank Oney, Dr. Koenigsberg for determining the fallacious 1962 claim. Former Gov. Slaton in January 1955 puts Conley's death at 1952. Do you see how anti-scholarship works? Everyone now quotes Golden's false 1962 claim. Some anti-Scholars are even claiming Conley made death bed confession in 1962. The Slaton Memorandum: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23886389?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents A Governor Looks Back At His Decision to Commute the Death Sentence of Leo Frank by STEPHEN J. GOLDFARB, American Jewish History, Vol. 88, No. 3 (September 2000), pp. 325-339. Before Tom-northshornman accuses me of promulgating primary sources, question to everyone is whether Slaton's memorandum is a primary source or secondary source? We have 1952 from slaton, false 1962 from golden. What 2 do here? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Tom Northshoreman POV dispute on Leonard Dinnestein's scholarship

Tom Northshoreman placed dispute on Frank's article for POV about removing Dinnerstein / Oney from the lede. I've no problem with mentioning Dinnerstein / Oney in body of article, but they don't belong in lede. I'm just now finding a lot of research on the web / archives-here about Dinnestein's predilection for academic dishonesty. Thanks to Oney, I learned there is no evidence (appeals / appellate courts / newspapers) about boisterous mobs of hawkers screaming Antisemitic death threats at the jury during open court in Frank's trial. Dinnerstein's "Antisemitic hoax" about "The intense summer heat necessitated that the courtroom windows be left open, and remarks from the crowds could be heard easily by those inside. "Crack the Jew's neck!" - "Lynch him!" - were some of the epithets emerging from the more boisterous. Threats were also made "against the jury that they would be lynched if they did not hang that 'damned sheeny.' " (re: Dinnerstein, Leonard, 68', American Jewish archive journal, volume 20. number 2. "Leo M. Frank and the Jewish Community", pp. 110). Misplaced Pages academic dishonesty article calls it fabrication (lying). There's other research on the web about "Phagan bitemark hoax" that Dinnerstein "promulgates" (re: Van Paassen, Pierre, 64', "To Number Our Days", pp. 237-8.) This is anti-scholarship, not scholarship. Gulbenk maybe you can chime in on these recent discoveries about Dinnerstein's academic dishonesty and lack of integrity for scholarship? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

There was a discussion, here, some time ago about the bogus Hang the Jew claim that Dinnerstein promoted in his original dissertation. Dinnerstein's assertion was footnoted, with a reference to an obscure (now defunct) northern (weekly?) paper (of unknown integrity) which, well over a year after the claimed events, printed a letter from an unnamed individual who claimed to have been in or from Atlanta, and who claimed to have been a witness to those events. No explanation was given as to why this anonymous Atlantan should stay quiet for so long, then find his way to this small northern town, and choose to suddenly make these claims to a weekly newspaper. But the publication of this anonymous letter coincides with the Ochs/Lasker public relations blitz to exonerate Frank. No other source/newspaper coverage had previously mentioned these sensational claims, even though there was extensive media coverage of the trial, and intense pressure to print every little detail. Subsequent to Dinnerstein's dissertation, MANY sources repeated the false accusation. I know that Oney looked into this claim, and could find no support for it. I looked for quite some time, and could find nothing pre-dating the Dinnerstein dissertation (apart from that one mention in the highly questionable northern weekly), that supports this claim. Even Dinnerstein doesn't provide another source for the claim.
The fact that Dinnerstein offers up this claim, which nicely supports the basic premise of his dissertation, without question, or even one shred of reflection on the unreliability of the source, supports GingerBreadHarlot's point about academic dishonesty. Gulbenk (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I emailed Dinnerstein in December during the peer review and I mentioned the "Hang the Jew!" quote and how Gulbenk objected to it. He replied by saying:

In fn#39 you quote Woodward saying that some contemporaries used the term "Jew pervert." I would drop the phrase "Hang the Jew" and try to use the Woodward quote. I would agree with your editor that the source for the phrase, "Hang the Jew" is not sufficient but no on would question what Woodward wrote; so use his comment.

"Your editor" refers to Gulbenk. Even Dinnerstein himself agreed that it wasn't reliable, although I don't think this should disqualify the entire work.
Incidentally, Dinnerstein also wrote later in the email:

I think Olney's book is the best one on the Frank case. I am surprised that you did not include it in your bibliography. Some of the items that you have included have serious errors in them.

Of course, we do have Oney in the bibliography, but it was buried at the time and he didn't see it. The last sentence is interesting and perhaps ironic since he casts doubt on other materials, but obviously not his own book or Oney's. Thus, the "reliability" question could go both ways. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

What a great bit of correspondence! Thanks for sharing that. I would like to see Dinnerstein update his work on Frank, to see what insights he may have gained from all the modern research, and discover the full extent of his revised thinking about this case. Have you also been in touch with Oney? Gulbenk (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and it was indeed great to hear from him. He is in his 80s, and noted to me that most of his work on the case took place in the two years preceding the first edition about 50 years ago. Thus, he probably wouldn't update it. I do agree that it would be interesting to hear his take on the more recent scholarship.
As far as Oney goes, I haven't heard from him, although I did email him once asking about Conley's family history. There was some discussion on his death year above, but I also wanted to know what the names of his parents were. I know they worked at Capital City Laundry, but that's about it. That information might shine some light on Conley's upbringing and circumstances leading up to becoming a sweeper at the NPC factory. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Another interesting bit about Oney is that he wrote an article called America's Only Anti-Semitic Lynching where right under the headline he describes Frank as "the only Jew ever lynched in the US," apparently forgetting about Samuel Bierfield. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Interesting read, and nicely written/researched article. We can probably give Oney a pass for overlooking it, though. The motivation for the Bierfield killing doesn't appear to be anti-Semitic, and he was shot. Not what one normally thinks of when the term "lynching" is used. Gulbenk (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Tony Stewart, since you were able to email Dinnerstein on FaceBook and get him to concede as "insufficient" his fabricated evidence (that he promolgated for almost half a century in his writings) of mobs of people screaming "hang the Jew" directly at the trial jury, maybe you could ask him about the Phagan Bitemark hoax? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Harry Golden copyright violation?

Patgallacher you added the IA link https://archive.org/details/ALittleGirlIsDeadByHarryGolden of Golden's 64' Leo Frank case book "A Little Girl is Dead", isn't it copyrighted? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is, and I reverted his edit. I think having an online version to refer to is nice, and his edit was in good faith, but the article has to respect copyright law. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Harry Golden wrote another book "The Lynching of Leo Frank" 1966 https://archive.org/details/TheLynchingOfLeoFrankByHarryGolden1966 it's on IA. It looks similar to "A Little Girl is Dead" 1965. Are these two books same? ANyone know iff Golden wrote anything else about the frank case? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

They are effectively the same book, The Lynching of Leo Frank is just the British version of A Little Girl is Dead (they did not even change to British spelling). PatGallacher (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

50 years is longtime. Having second thoughts in favor of PatGallacher's recommendation for keeping it in further reading. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

POV tag

I went ahead and removed the POV tag since Oney and Dinnerstein are no longer mentioned in the lead and the points about Frank as a Yankee and the racial stereotypes used by the defense are both in the third paragraph. If it should still be there, please let me know in a comment below with what else needs to be resolved. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you concluded that the POV tag was resolved by the omission of refeences to Oney and Dinnerstein. I added the tag back when Harlot deleted this sentence:
"Scholars over the past sixty years, including Steve Oney and Leonard Dinnerstein, believe that Frank was in fact innocent."
All the issues raised before need to be addressed. If you want to add the sentence back while omitting "including Steve Oney and Leonard Dinnerstein" that is fine with me. I have avoided doing an RCP since these tend to drag on, but that is the next move. Based on the history, you, me, and Gallagher have supported some version of the language -- this seems to represent the majority of the active participants at this time. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment -- Inbalance in the article lede

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

A large number of reliable sources include information that Leo Frank was innocent of the murder. Many of these sources name James Conley as the likely murderer. Very few, if any, reliable secondary sources either dispute these determination or affirm the guilt of Frank. Should this statement "Scholars over the past sixty years believe that Frank was in fact innocent" be in the article lede? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources arguing Frank's innocence

This section can be used to add works supporting Frank's innocence. I've started it off -- the page numbers cited, unless it indicates otherwise, are to the author's works listed in the article bibliography. 75 of the 125 footnotes in the article are attributed to authors listed below with the majority coming from Oney and Dinnerstein so there can be little doubt of the reliability of these sources.

Dinnerstein -- Dinnerstein has written the most significant academic work on the Frank case. From his writings: "The new development which stirred Atlanta and those working to save Frank was the announcement, made on October 2, 1914, by William M. Smith, lawyer for Jim Conley, the state's key witness at the trial, that his own client had murdered Mary Phagan."(p 114) Dinnerstein (p. 162) quotes John Roche, who, he writes, chronicled the development of civil rights in the 20th century: "As one who has read the trial record half a century later, I might add... that Leo Frank was the victim of circumstantial evidence which would not hold up ten minutes in a normal courtroom then or now."("The Quest For the Dream p.91) He also writes writes that Harry Golden, another author of a Frank work, echoed Roche's opinion that no one would be convicted today on the same evidence. ("A Little Girl is Dead" p. xiv) In the New Georgia Encyclopedia (see he writes “Slaton reviewed more than 10,000 pages of documents, visited the pencil factory where the murder had taken place, and finally decided that Frank was innocent. He commuted the sentence, however, to life imprisonment, assuming that Frank's innocence would eventually be fully established and he would be set free.” "The Frank case not only was a miscarriage of justice but also symbolized many of the South's fears at that time."

Oney -- Steve Oney, a journalist, has written the widely and positively reviewed account of the Frank case. The controversy over the guilty verdict started almost immediately. Speaking of the national perception of the Frank case in the first weeks of 1915,Oney writes, "Outside Georgia, the perception that the state and its citizens were involved in an anti-Semitic persecution of an innocent man became universal." (Oney p. 462) Oney in an interview with the Atlanta Constitution summarized his conclusions on the case: "It was in no way a fair trial. It would be declared a mistrial very quickly by today's standards." "In the end, though, so much of the prosecution's case doesn't hold water. I think you can tell by the end of the book that I'm pretty certain Frank was innocent." "I'm 95 percent certain Conley did it. "A year or so after the trial, Conley's lawyer, William Smith, conducted a study of the murder notes and became convinced they were the original composition of his former client. There are other things, too. During the trial, the prosecution said that Frank had assaulted Phagan outside his office on the factory floor and that she'd struck her head against a lathe, where some of her hair had been found. It turned out that the hair did not come from Phagan's head, and the prosecutor, Hugh Dorsey, knew it and withheld that information from the defense. The key physical evidence from the supposed crime scene was fallacious. To me, that's incredibly damning."

Carter -- Historian Dan T. Carter in a review of Oney's work in a review of Oney places his work within the context of previous works, "On the central issue he agrees with earlier researchers: Leo Frank did not murder Mary Phagan, and the evidence strongly suggests that Jim Conley did so." (The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 71, No. 2 (May, 2005), pp. 491-493)

Tindale George B. Tindall wrote in a review of Dinnerstein's book, "Both Governor Slaton and the judge who presided over the trial doubted Frank's guilt, as did many newsmen who covered the case and most of the subsequent students of the episode. (The Journal of American History, Vol. 55, No. 4 (Mar., 1969), pp. 877-878)

Woodward -- C. Vann Woodward wrote, "Outside the state the conviction was general that Frank was the victim of a gross injustice, if not completely innocent. He presented his own case so eloquently and so ingenuously, and the circumstance of the trial were such a glaring indication of a miscarriage of justice, that thousands of people enlisted in his cause." (p. 346) "The city police, publicly committed to the theory of Frank's guilt, and hounded by the demand for a conviction, resorted to the basest methods in collecting evidence. A Negro suspect , later implicated by evidence overwhelmingly more incriminating than any produced against Frank, was thrust aside by the cry for the blood of the 'Jew Pervert.'" (p. 435)

Melnick -- Jeffrey Melnick in "Black-Jewish Relations on Trial: Leo Frank and Jim Conley in the New South", write "unlike say, Sacco and Venzetti, or the Rosenbergs, Leo Frank’s guilt or innocence is rarely debated these days. There is near unanimity around the idea that Frank was most certainly innocent of the crime of murdering Mary Phagan; it is something like unspeakable to suggest otherwise.” (p. 7)

Lindemann -- Albert S. Lindemann wrote, "The best evidence now available indicates that the real murderer of Mary Phagan was Jim Conley, perhaps because she, encountering him after she left Frank's office, refused to give him her pay envelope, and he, in a drunken stupor, killed her to get it." (p. 254) Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Moseley -- Clement Charlton Moseley (from The Georgia Historical Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 1 (March, 1967), pp. 42-62), "The entire testimony of the floorsweeper, contradictory from the beginning, offered no less than five versions of the crime." (p. 44) "The much more concrete evidence against Conley was thrust aside as the public cried for the blood of the 'Jew pervert.'(p. 45)"

Watson -- D. R. Watson, in a review of Lindemann's book in "The Journal of Modern History Vol. 66, No. 2 (Jun., 1994), pp. 393-395 wrote "Turning to his main theme, Lindemann provides a succinct and very scholarly account of the three cases he compares, Dreyfus, Beilis (in which a Jew was tried in Kiev in 1913), and Frank (in which a Jew was convicted of rape and murder in Atlanta, Georgia,in 1915).There can be no doubt, of course, that all three were innocent."Tom (North Shoreman)

Sorin -- Gerald Sorin in a book review in the AJS Review, Vol. 20, No. 2 (1995), pp. 441-447, in comparing Frank to another case wrote, "Leo Frank, on the other hand, was unjustly and wrongly convicted of murder,and later lynched."(talk) 18:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources arguing Frank's guilt

Despite extensive discussions prior to initiating this RFC, no reliable secondary sources have been presented that dispute the above references. One book by a relative of Phagan was suggested, but this book has not been reviewed in scholarly journals and the author has no academic credentials. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of the issues

  • Support As the originator of this RFC, I support adding the sentence. The lead guidelines (see state that the lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies and " "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." As the article now exists, there is no mention of the controversy on the fairness of the trial, the consensus that Frank was probably innocent, and the probability that Conley was the actual killer. The themes of Frank's probable innocence and Conley's likely guilt is present throughout the reliable secondary sources on Frank. There are few if any reliable sources arguing that the jury got it right. Without this basic information in the lead, readers are denied significant information. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Proposal as written - phrases like "a large number of reliable sources," or "very few" or "many of these sources" are weasel words and as written this looks like synthesis to me. I would, however, support a properly cited and attributed statement that says something similar. I'd suggest something along the lines of "according to historian Matthew Bernstein, 'most students of the case now agree' that it was likely Jim Conley, rather than Leo Frank, who killed Mary Phagan." source. I'm sure there are other similar quotes out there that could be used, that's just what I found with a quick search. The point is that it's not our place to determine what "most" reliable sources say - that statement itself needs to be properly sourced & attributed, or it's OR. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The proposed language to be added to the article does not include the language you object to. Only the boldfaced text would go into the article. The article as proposed would not quantify (i.e all historians, some historians, most historians), but I have no problem going in your direction, either. The Melnick quote above says the same thing as Bernstein. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Whoops, looks like i misread the proposal, sorry about that! Ive struck the bit about weasel words. But unless it's directly attributed to a specific source, the statement that "Scholars over the past sixty years believe that Frank was in fact innocent" is still problematic as SYNTH/OR. I would support a version that uses the Melnick quote instead. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with the previous comment; this would need to be sourced from one specific author. Melnick's quote would be a good substitute. If this course is taken, then it should also be mentioned somewhere in the body and cited there, eliminating the need for a citation in the lead. There should be a good place in the body for this quote as well, with some more elaboration than the lead. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
How would you write, for the lead, what you are proposing? This is what Melnick actually says, "There is near unanimity around the idea that Frank was most certainly innocent of the crime of murdering Mary Phagan; it is something like unspeakable to suggest otherwise.” Something like this seems like an adequate paraphrase: "Jeffrey Melnick indicates there is a clear historical consensus that Frank was innocent."
As far as adding info to the body, I have been working on that -- see the top section at User:North Shoreman/Sandbox. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
PS You seem to be concerned about footnotes in the lead. However WP:LEADCITE seems to make it clear that this shouldn't be a problem. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose re-reading archive-here tom-north-shoreman and his cohorts behavior is despicable, having been POV warrior attacking anyone questioning anti-scholarship historiography and academic dishonesty of pro-frank authors for YEARS. I'm now discovering examples of extremist misconduct, fabrication (lying according to wikipedia page on academic dishonesty) and academic dishonesty in the authors tom-north-shoreman touts as scholars (re: Dinnerstein). Being prolific writers, having Ivyleague or academic credentials doesn't make a scholar, it takes dispassionate research scholarship. Dinnerstein has proven himself to be an anti-scholar and practiced academic dishonesty in his PHD dissertation paper (re: anti-semitic hoax of "hang the jews" being screamed at trial jury during open court, now suggesting 2014/2015 by dinnerstein to be false accordding to tonystewart through FACEBOOK e-conversations and still needing debunking is dinnerstein's promulgation of "phagan bitemark hoax" re pierre van paassen 64'). In 1986, the ADL with insensitive insolence pressed the alonzo-mann-hoax fraud; resulting in Georgia pardon board stating there was no evidence in Mann's statements showing certainty of Frank's innocence. If a modern Georgia pardon board refused to exonerate Frank, then his guilt remains legally binding since 86'. Two reliable sources point to Frank's guilt. One Mary Kean https://archive.org/details/TheMurderOfMaryPhaganByLeoFrankIn1913 "The Murder of Little Mary Phagan" 89' and Two https://archive.org/details/NotesOnTheCaseOfLeoMaxFrankAndItsAftermath "Notes on the Case of Leo M. Frank" 1982 Tom W. Brown, Emery University, Atlanta, Georgia. I agree statements about "modern scholars" should go in body, not the lede. Tom, I think you forgot about Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability In Misplaced Pages, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. These sources you cite some promote Dinnerstein's anti-semitic hoax "hang the jew" and "Phagan Bitemark Hoax", the prior an admitted fabrication (Misplaced Pages calls it a LIE in academic dishonesty) Dinnerstein (re: user Tony Stewart) just admitted is no longer valid. Oney promotes the phagan bitemark hoax. The other "scholars" you listed provide little to no evidence that Conley is guilty. This is not scholarship. These writers you listed are not scholars, because they provide no evidence for their assertions. These are biased POV Warrior anti-Scholars. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
So your idea of scholarship is a relative of Mary Phagan (Kean), the murder victim, and a relative of Tom Watson (Brown), the antisimetic and racist politician who helped incite the lynching of Frank. Between Kean and Brown I count one published book (unreviewed in any scholarly journal) and zero articles in peer reviewed journals. Is that about right? The first website you list contains this ridiculous claim: "Most importantly, Phagan-Kean dispels one of the central anti-Christian, anti-Southern and anti-Gentile blood libel conspiracies perpetuated by the Jewish community about the Frank-Phagan Case -- the hatecrime hoax that has been reasserted in the popular culture for more than one hundred years as of 2013 ..." Brown defends the "scholarship" of Tom Watson with this in your second website: "Leo Frank cult members (known as Frankites) are posing as neutral reviewers and attempting to convince people not to read Tom Watson's analysis about the Frank-Phagan affair. Watson's analysis of the case is the controversial forbidden fruit of truth that have been censored for more than 100 years."This advocacy of a Jewish conspiracy is not going to be found in any reliable sources and it doesn't take membership in a "cult" to recognize the ugly, antisemitic nature of Watson's writings.

For all your talk about hoaxes and fraud, can you cite any reliable source that makes such charges? Didn't think so. Your blanket dismissal of ten scholars as "POV Warrior anti-scholars" is silly. They all are writing either in books reviewed positively in scholarly journals (found on JSTOR) or in JSTOR indexed articles. The credentials of the authors listed can be easily verified online. Your unsubstantiated, reckless language against Dinnerstein borders on a BLP violation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I do not agree with conflating any anti-Semitic reviews pro / con of anyone's writing. Mary Kean's book "The Murder of Little Mary Phagan" is accurately described as "the most even handed book about the subject." and is used quite often by every modern scholar of the Frank case. I found no anti-Semitism in her book or anti-scholarship. Give me an example of anti-Scholarship in her book. She dispels Dinnerstein's "hang the Jew" hoax and Phagan bitemark hoax in 87' / 89' treatment. Oney dispelled Dinnerstein's anti-semitic "hang the jew" death-threats-being-screamed-at-the-trial-jury hoax. If you can show me examples of anti-Semitism in the Kean book, please share it. Tom W. Brown was an attorney and professor at Emory University, who was trained in evaluating testimony weight or "sifting" as another user put it. Show me examples of anti-Semitism in Tom W. Brown's 1982 research report on Frank case. I found no racism or anti-Judaism. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles said Alonzo Mann's testimony and other evidence presented was insufficient to exonerate Leo Frank. Therefore in 1986, Leo Frank's guilt is fully established by GA law, contrary to these so-called scholars providing no substantial evidence that hasn't been reviewed by the Georgia tribunal during four years (82'-86'). The board reviewed all the modern claims pressed by ADL and other cohorts who-worked-together-for-exoneration that were ruled insufficient to address Frank's innocence or guilt. Verifiability and reliability are scholarship hallmarks at Misplaced Pages. Nothing silly bout' that. Credentials don't make scholars when they use fabrication (academic dishonesty) and fallacious evidence. Making claims and not supporting them with evidence deemed officially valid by the Georgia BOPAP is not scholarship, it's anti-scholarship. Using fabrication (according to Misplaced Pages academic dishonesty or academic misconduct is a serious violation) to convince people someone is innocent or guilty is not scholarship, it's lying, which is anti-scholarship. Anyone can say Leo Frank is innocent. Anyone can say Leo Frank is guilty. But verifiable and reliable evidence is required. Dozens of the sources listed in bibliographia of the Frank article use Dinnerstein's now acknowledged-by-him as "insufficient", or as Gulbenk put it bogus "hang the jews", (re: Leo M. Frank and the American Jewish Community', American Jewish Archive Journal, 1968, Volume 20, number 2), is not scholarship, it's academic dishonesty / academic misconduct. Dinnerstein and Oney both promulgating Pierre van Paasen's Mary Phagan bitemark hoax 64' as "real evidence" this not scholarship, it's called academic dishonesty / academic misconduct. These other so-called scholars you mentioned, the evidence they present in their books is insufficient according to Georgia BOPAP. Isn't it silly to say Kean's book isn't scholarship when it represents a lifetime of scholarly research? Isn't it silly to accuse Tom W. Brown of conflated guilt by association because of his grandfather's words from 1915? Isn't it silly that everytime someone discovers one of the so-called scholars of the frank case you tout fabricated evidence, or promulgates false evidence or is put in question, you behave like a POV warrior making attacking accusations against the person suggesting anti-Semitism (re: Tom W. Brown)? I turn now to Tony Stewart who emailed Dinnerstein and finally got him to admit the "hang the Jews" is not reliable or verifiable (Where's the newspaper clipping? Does it even exist?). Tony, please find out once and for al from Dinnerstein about the Phagan bitemark hoax he promulgates as "real evidence" of Frank's innocence in his PHD thesis paper and books. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
(This discussion was brought to my attention by GingerBreadHarlot.)
GingerBreadHarlot, Could you give an excerpt from a reliable source stating that Leo Frank is not innocent? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I stated above Mary Kean's book "The Murder of Little Mary Phagan" yrs 87' / 89', and Tom W. Brown, Attorney and Professor at Emory University, Notes on Leo M. Frank Case, 82'. Tom northshoreman tried to conflate guilt of anti-Semitism because authors came to same conclusion as Tom Watson. Other people who think Leo Frank is guilty are Bradford L Huie, 100 Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty, April 26, 2013, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank trial Week three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four. Eliot Dashfield The Leo Frank Case A Pseudo-History. Mark Cohen Who Really Solved the Mary Phagan Murder Case?. That's 5 authors who wrote articles or books showing evidence, without hoaxes that Frank was guilty. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Your response didn't give the requested excerpt. Here's the request again: Could you give an excerpt from a reliable source stating that Leo Frank is not innocent? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Off the top of my head no, but I gave you 5 authors whose central thesis is Leo Frank is guilty and their entire articles are written to prove the point with evidence, not hoaxes (re: Phagan bitemark hoax / anti-Semitic hoax of people screaming death threats at jury during trial). The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles (BOPAP) ruled there is no evidence to exonerate Leo Frank. That's an official government tribunal stating the opposite of what some of these "scholars" are asserting. The evidence some of these authors Tom northshoreman touts use evidence that has Georgia BOPAP ruled is insufficient. Alonzo Mann's testimony was ruled insufficient evidence to exonerate Leo Frank. Dinnerstein admitted the "hang the Jew" claim was insufficient. Now we are waiting on Tony Stewart to find out about the Phagan bitemark hoax. Saying Leo Frank is innocent, but not providing any verifiable evidence is not scholarship, it's academic dishonesty. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The American Mercury, the vehicle used by your "5 authors", is hardly a reliable source. Check out The American Mercury#Revival and the links provided there -- one of the sources describes it as "H.L. Mencken’s historic magazine, resurrected online by neo-Nazis several years ago". None of the authors you mention have any qualifications as reliable sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Er. What? Neo-Nazi? Anyone who posts the trial transcript now gets accused of propaganda, Neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism? You're quoting sources like ADL. Are you aware that on two locations of http://www.ADL.org they promulgate Dinnerstein's anti-Semitic hoax about people shouting "hang the Jew" at the trial jury during open court? ADL promotes Dinnerstein's BIGLIE anti-Semitic hoax. Abe Foxman tried to prevent the U.S. congress from recognizing the 1915 genocide of Armenians in Turkey (re: ADL Misplaced Pages article). This smacks of holocaust denial. Both of these examples are something I would expect from a disreputable organization, not a civil rights group. Article on the American Mercury shows what kind of dirty-tricks organization ADL with its anti-Semitism canard and criminal ties to mafia and other heinous behavior, ADL One Hundred Years of Hate. You are trying to conflate Neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism with the articles written about Frank's legal case, but none of the articles on American Mercury about Frank mention Hitler or National Socialism or Nazism. Here are the examples I posted from American Mercury = Bradford L Huie, 100 Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty, April 26, 2013, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank trial Week three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four. Eliot Dashfield The Leo Frank Case A Pseudo-History. Mark Cohen Who Really Solved the Mary Phagan Murder Case? Can you give me examples of Hitler being promoted by these Frank case articles or are you trying to conflate that anyone who thinks the American legal system was correct for not absolving Frank with Neo-Nazism / Neo-Nazis? The Torah / Old Testament is very clear about homosexuality, but the SPLC calls many Christian organizations that are against homosexuality as extremists / domestic extremists. A psychopath killed a member from one of these traditionalist christian groups. The killer saying he got his inspiration and information from the SPLC web site. These organizations don't get to decide that something is anti-Semitic because it proves with trial testimony / evidence that Leo Frank was guilty. Many of these scholars you cite above are promoting anti-african-american racism by using fabricated / fallacious / disingenuous evidence to blame an african-american man for a crime he didn't commit, but admitted to being an accessory. ADL, SPLC, Jewish forward do not get to decide that something is anti-Semitic or not credible because it disagrees with their lying-by-omission and anti-scholarship. That's heinous and evil you would conflate neo-nazism with scholarly articles written about the Leo Frank case that show evidence of his guilt. Show me in the the American Mercury articles about Leo Frank where it promotes Hitler. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Summoned by RfC bot. Language proposed seems to be amply supported by the reliable sources. Coretheapple (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It has been the objective of Tom (North Shoreman) to use the Misplaced Pages voice to advocate for Frank's innocence. His acknowledged reason for saying (in the lead) that the Frank trial was "controversial" is because the outcome (guilty verdict) was simply not in keeping with his personal beliefs. Now he is attempting to place other language in the lead, to achieve the same objective. I accept that he is not alone in his beliefs. There are numerous individuals, many of them authors, who want Frank to be innocent. They have expressed that in various works. Oney, who is perhaps the best of the lot, says he is "pretty sure" that Frank was innocent. But when it comes to offering a reason for their beliefs, this crowd of Frank supporters gets very vague. Oney says that the prosecution case "doesn't hold water". Whatever that specifically means is unknown. Others try to cling to the Mann affidavit, which the BOPAP reviewed and rejected as proof of anything other than the fact that Conley used the ladder instead of the elevator. The bite mark fraud (cited by others) is a fabrication. The atmosphere of rabid anti-Semitism, and jury intimidation, which was the argument of nearly every learned author and historian of the last half of the 20th century, and cited as absolute proof that Frank was railroaded, is now shown to be false. So many sincere beliefs have not held up to unbiased examination. So when it comes to stating beliefs, we can continue to include them in the body of the text, with the proper weight, stating that it is an opinion. But when we insert those opinions and beliefs in the lead, the way it is proposed, we are wrongfully lending the authority of this encyclopedia to support those beliefs and that point of view. Gulbenk (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
My personal beliefs are shaped by the reliable sources mentioned above. Where are your reliable sources -- all I see are your unsubstantiated claims? You claim that all Oney says about the case against Frank is that it "doesn't hold water." That of course is not true. In 650 pages of text Oney has quite a bit to say about problems with the case. The book has been extensively reviewed in scholarly journals -- nobody says that he fails to produce evidence. Where are the reviews that support your claim? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The sources listed above support the suggested wording. Bus stop (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support - summoned by bot. I also believe the consensus is heavily in favor of his innocence or is WP:OR, but I also suggest, Most modern scholars doubt Frank's guilt. if people think "innocent" is too strong. I don't see how this is WP:SYNTHESIS. (I'm not sure where I'm supposed to leave this message because of the rambling article of text below by IP user - I don't know if this is all one message or two and someone didn't leave signature... it's preferable to have a "vote" section and underneath it a "long discussion" section. —Мандичка 😜 00:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A secondary source which obviously contradicts primary source material is suspect on its face, and should not be considered a reliable source. Allowing editors to intentionally ignore primary sources in favor of arguably biased, or dishonest secondary sources not only promotes anti-scholarship and academic dishonesty, but results in a purposeful public deception as well. Undue weight is given throughout this article to various questionable secondary sources, while contradictory primary sources, along with contradictory reliable secondary sources, are virtually ignored. The statement, "Scholars over the past sixty years believe that Frank was in fact innocent" is especially misleading in that its clear implication is that "(All) scholars over the past sixty years believe that Frank was in fact innocent", and further implies that the statement is undisputed. Yet the statement he proposes is based upon a collection of biased, unreliable sources, as will be demonstrated below. The statement is therefore not only unbalanced, but inaccurate, unverifiable, and POV.

A secondary source must pass the test of reliability before it can be deemed a reliable source, and especially so when such secondary sources conflict with primary sources, as is the case here. According to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability the test of reliability requires, at the bare minimum, "a reputation for FACT-CHECKING and ACCURACY" (Emphasis mine).

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability specifically identifies acceptable reliable sources as follows:

"If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications."

Other reliable sources include: 

   University-level textbooks
   Books published by respected publishing houses
   Magazines
   Journals
   Mainstream newspapers

Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria."

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability does not place a heirarchy upon these sources as to reliability other than saying that "academic and peer-reviewed publications are USUALLY the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science" (Emphasis mine). This is not to say, however, as User Tom (North Shoreman) would have us believe, that they are the ONLY reliable sources that Misplaced Pages deems acceptable.

But beyond this, before ANY source can be considered a "reliable source" it MUST pass the test of reliability.

When a "scholar", such as Dinnerstein, promulgates supposed facts that are demonstrably wrong, he not only fails the test of fact checking, but the test of accuracy as well. This alone damages his reputation for fact checking, AND accuracy, and renders his work unreliable. Any subsequent "scholar" who follows Dinnerstein, and includes his erroneous material in their own works have failed these tests as well. It is not a matter of having a majority. If the stated facts are wrong, they are wrong, no matter how many "scholars" agree that they are so. One has to provide evidence against evidence, not conjecture against evidence.

For example, if a million "scholars" claim that the Earth is flat, and only one hundred "scholars" claim that the Earth is round, that does not make the Earth flat, even though using User Tom (North Shoreman)'s logic, it would. Yet if Misplaced Pages stated in its own voice that the Earth was flat, based upon the million, but without regard for the hundred who convey the fact that the million are very demonstrably wrong, its own reputation for fact checking and accuracy would very soon suffer greatly for it, and this is exactly what is happening in regard to its article on Leo Frank.

By pushing their own POV, the pro-Frank editors here are doing just that, as they are collectively engaged, and involving Misplaced Pages in a disgraceful act of public deception as long as they continue the attempt to validate their POV through the use of seriously questionable sources, as well as consistent obsfucation of the true facts, history, and evidence in the Frank case in order to employ this Misplaced Pages article as a dishonest vehicle to whitewash the image of Leo Frank.

On a related note, does User Tom (North Shoreman) have anything to say about the purposeful POV vandalism as regards deletion of relevant facts as demonstrated at length in the "FA candidate" discussion above, other than his usual sneering and smearing (especially in regard to my own good faith contributions)? No.

Again, as stated in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability -

"The word 'source' in Misplaced Pages has three meanings: 

   The type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)
   The creator of the work (for example, the writer)
   The publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press)

All three can affect reliability."

In this case, the reliability of certain creators (writers) of various works supporting the proposed lede statement are being brought into question over the issues of anti-scholarship historiography and academic dishonesty, but the editor who initiated the Request for Comment here also maintains that certain sources which dispute the proposed conclusion or affirm the guilt of Frank are either too few, or "unreliable".

The question of "too few" is addressed above. As to the question of reliability of the various sources attacked by this editor, I hereby offer the following discussion:

When User Tom (North Shoreman) argues that, "One book by a relative of Phagan was suggested, but this book has not been reviewed in scholarly journals and the author has no academic credentials."

He thereby implies that the book by Mary Phagan Kean is not a reliable source. Accordingly, he ostensibly expects everyone here to accept his own personal opinion, over that of Misplaced Pages itself, as to what constitutes a reliable source.

The publishing information from Mary Phagan Kean's book is as follows:

New Horizon Press, P.O. 669, Far Hills, New Jersey 07931.

Is the New Horizon Press not a respectable publishing house?

Is Mary Phagan Kean therefore not a reliable non-academic source?

Does she not pass the test of reliability in terms of fact checking and accuracy?

Remembering that according to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability "peer review in any scholarly journal" is not required for such sources, is Mary Phagan Kean's book "unreliable" as well?

What about Tom Watson Brown's book, Published by Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.?

Is U.S. Senator Tom Watson's Jeffersonian Publishing Company not a respectable publishing house?

Does Tom Watson Brown not pass the test of reliability in terms of fact checking and accuracy?

Remembering that according to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability "peer review in any scholarly journal" is not required for such sources, is Tom Watson Brown's book "unreliable" as well?

What about Tom Watson's magazine?

Is it not a "magazine" as listed in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability under the label, "Other reliable sources"?

Does it not pass the test of reliability in terms of fact checking and accuracy?

Remembering that according to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability "peer review in any scholarly journal" is not required for such sources, is it "unreliable" as well?

Is it not stated in the that, "Despite controversy and opposition, Watson's weekly and monthly publications commanded a loyal political force, and no Georgia governor between 1906 and 1922 was elected without Watson's support"?

According to User Tom (North Shoreman), and his fellow travelers, the unwarranted smear of "antisemitism" is enough to disqualify both Watson, and his grandson. But is the demonstrated anti-black racism of Leo Frank's defense team, as well as all of the pro-Frank "scholars" who, without sufficient evidence, accuse the negro Jim Conley of murder enough to smear them as well?

Let us consider the charge of "antisemitism" leveled against Tom Watson. As also stated in the:

"...Watson, who had refused offers to assist in the defense and in the prosecution, remained publicly silent on the case until Hoke Smith's newspaper printed (a pro-Frank/anti-Georgia) editorial.

Watson assailed the Journal for judicial tampering (the case was under appeal), took on northern publishers who clamored for a new trial, and began a two-year defense of Georgia's judicial system and demonstration of the guilt of the "libertine Jew." Editorials in his weekly exploded into expansive evidentiary and trial reviews in Watson's Magazine. Georgia governor John M. Slaton commuted Frank's death sentence during his final days in office, outraging many Georgians and prompting Watson to ask his readers "whether Lynch law is not better than no law at all." Two months later Frank was taken from the jail in Milledgeville by a group of prominent Marietta citizens, driven back to Marietta, and hanged. Watson responded to the news through the Jeffersonian: 'Now let outsiders attend to their own business, AND LEAVE OURS ALONE.' For many, the episode branded Watson as an anti-Semite for the only time in his life."

Take note that the New Georgia Encyclopedia specifically states that it was the ONLY TIME IN HIS LIFE that Watson was branded an anti-semite. Does User Tom (North Shoreman) consider even the possibility that perhaps this charge was levied against Watson merely to discredit him, or assassinate his character, without having any basis in fact?

When User Tom (North Shoreman) argues that, "So your idea of scholarship is a relative of Mary Phagan (Kean), the murder victim, and a relative of Tom Watson (Brown), the antisimetic and racist politician who helped incite the lynching of Frank. Between Kean and Brown I count one published book (unreviewed in any scholarly journal) and zero articles in peer reviewed journals." He is unjustifiably attacking two people simply because they are RELATED to two major figures in the history of the Phagan murder, and because they disagree with him as to the guilt of Leo Frank, his points regarding "scholarship", and "review" being moot, according to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability as shown above.

Then User Tom (North Shoreman) goes on to attack Tom Watson Brown for publishing the following statement: "Leo Frank cult members (known as Frankites) are posing as neutral reviewers and attempting to convince people not to read Tom Watson's analysis about the Frank-Phagan affair. Watson's analysis of the case is the controversial forbidden fruit of truth that has been censored for more than 100 years."

My take on this? That it is EXACTLY what is truly happening, it is, in fact, happening in this very article, and it is NOT "antisemitism" to tell the truth.

As to User Tom (North Shoreman)'s unsubstantiated, reckless language against Tom Watson Brown, and in a lesser sense, Mary Phagan Kean, I would say it borders on a BLP violation.

Now: What about the Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta Georgian, and the Atlanta Journal?

Are/were they not "Mainstream newspapers"?

Remembering that according to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability "peer review in any scholarly journal" is not required for such sources, are they "unreliable" as well?

Perhaps so, as far as User Tom (North Shoreman) is concerned, because they actually recorded and published much of the raw testimony and evidence in the Frank case on a daily basis, AS IT HAPPENED, and, as it happens, NONE of them reported a word about the "Hang the Jew", or "Bite marks" nonsense found in User Tom (North Shoreman)'s so-called, "reliable sources" which are now being brought into question.

It seems to me, especially when one considers the large number of individual reporters who actively and contemporaneously contributed articles to the above mentioned newspapers, we have numerous reliable secondary sources either arguing Frank's guilt, or providing supporting evidence which leads the reader to that conclusion, yet according to User Tom (North Shoreman), and his fellow travelers, it appears the very fact that they DO, either directly or indirectly, infer or promote the idea of Frank's guilt renders them altogether "unreliable".

Again, I oppose, because the statement User Tom (North Shoreman) wants to put in the lede is based upon the works of various writers who have brought the reliability of their own "scholarship" into question, not only by excluding certain relevant items of fact or evidence crucial to the understanding of the story of Leo Frank, but by the purposeful inclusion in their writings of certain items which are demonstrably false.

One other thing, somewhat related to this discussion:

Regarding the lede statement, "...drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States" should be changed to something in the order of "...sparked accusations by the Jewish community of antisemitism in the United States". 64.134.98.211 (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

64.134.98.211—you say "Regarding the lede statement, '…drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States' should be changed to something in the order of '…sparked accusations by the Jewish community of antisemitism in the United States'." I think that most sources affirm the presence of the factor of antisemitism in this case. Can you perhaps call our attention to a source supporting the absence of antisemitism in the Leo Frank case? We should abide by the findings of most good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Bus stop is correct that many older sources "affirm" the presence of anti-Semitism. That (as I pointed out in my comments, above, about the dangers of substituting popular opinion for fact) was the overwhelming opinion of authors and historians in the last half of the 20th century. Chief among that group was Dinnerstein and Golden, who brushed aside the findings of Governor Slaton (who unambiguously stated that anti-Semitism was not a factor in the trial) and the lack of anti-Semitism in the actual trial evidence. Instead, Dinnerstein and others seemed to have been heavily influenced by the post-trial Ochs/Lasker media campaign to exonerate Frank, which concentrated and expanded on the charge of anti-Semitism, a defense initially raised by the Frank team at trial.
Albert Lindemann's 1991 book The Jew Accused looks at the charge, and has this to say: "The case that Dorsey built against Frank was not based in any overt way upon anti-Semitism... And at the trial Dorsey vigorously countered the charges of the defense that Frank was a victim of an anti-Semitic frame-up. In his summation to the jury, Dorsey explicitly denounced racial anti-Semitism, indeed, indulged in some of the common philo-Semitic rhetoric of the day... In short, Atlanta was not Kishinev or Kiev; government officials, the police, the political establishment in general had never acted prejudicially against Jews, individually or collectively, openly or covertly. Dorsey was not an anti-Semite, nor was he operating in a previously existing ant-Semitic climate. Attacks on Jews had not been used in the past to gain popularity or public office." Lindemann goes on to characterize Dorsey as "the friend of Jews".
Dinnerstein has, in more recent years, retracted or modified a few of his unsupportable statements, but has not retracted his core assertion that Frank was a victim of an anti-Semitic frame-up. But detailed and unbiased analysis by Lindemann and other more recent scholarly works have shown the opposite, and it would be very difficult to support Dinnerstein's assertions as the prevailing view today. Gulbenk (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Misleading. Lindemann does present a very nuanced analysis of the Frank case and is an excellent source for the fact that Frank was innocent. Lindemann could also be used as a source for the statement in question that the Frank case "drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States." Lindemann writes (p. 268):
"Throughout the United States, large numbers of Americans, by no means only or even primarily Jews, responded as if this was another Dreyfus or Beilis affair, a horrible miscarriage of justice, unthinkable in the United States -- or perhaps possible only in the 'bigoted South'."
Similarly, reducing Dinnerstein's analysis to an "anti-Semitic frame-up" is simply a straw man argument. Check out this 2003 article by Dinnerstein which is consistent with his book. Rather than "anti-Semitic frame-up", Dinnerstein writes in the first paragraph, consistent with Lindemann and our own article's lead, "The degree of anti-Semitism involved in Frank's conviction and subsequent lynching is difficult to assess, but it was enough of a factor to have inspired Jews, and others, throughout the country to protest the conviction of an innocent man. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Once again it is Tom (North Shoreman) in the role of the pot calling the kettle black. Specifically, it is Tom who seeks to mislead. The quote from Lindemann pertains to the period after the trial, when Ochs and Lasker were whipping up public opinion, in their campaign to exonerate Frank. The public, outside of Georgia, was largely unaware of Frank before that. The Ochs/Lasker effort was a purposefully crafted campaign of misinformed and half truths. It would be hard to find a source (even the ADL) claiming that The New York Times (Ochs' paper) editorials and articles about the Frank trial were fair and balanced. One only has to look at Lindenmann's last words in the quote - about the perception of a 'bigoted South'. Lindemann goes to great length in his book to show (some of which I have previously quoted) that there was no overhanging atmosphere of anti-Semitism in the South at the time of the trial. With regard to Jews, there was no 'bigoted South', until Ochs and Lasker created that image with their media campaign. And, of course Tom knows that. Gulbenk (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
You need to pay attention and stay on topic. Yes, the statement from Lindemann pertains to the period after the trial. However the question asked by Bus stop also pertains to the period after the trial. The entire sentence questioned is "His conviction, appeals, death sentence, commutation, and subsequent extrajudicial hanging in 1915 by a lynch mob planned and led by prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia, drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States." All of the events in bold happened after the trial, didn't they? The sentence is totally accurate and fully supported by Lindemann. You and the IP (who could be anybody) have failed to support your shared claim.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User Tom (North Shoreman) needs to worry less about "who" I am, and more about what I have to contribute. 64.134.98.211 (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment — After reviewing the arguments here, there’s a lot that I could discuss. I think the simplest thing for me to do is to offer an edit. It seems to me that the originally proposed edit of this RfC is related to the last sentence paragraph of the lead.
At the request of the ADL, a prominent Jewish civil rights organization, Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles. The Board described the pardon as "an effort to heal old wounds" without addressing the question of guilt or innocence. Leo Frank was not officially absolved of the crime."
I would change this paragraph to the following.
Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, which said that it was done "Without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence…”. The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted.
--Bob K31416 (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Fyddlestix and Tonystewart14 have suggested a similar solution and I also have no problem with it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
These aren't researchers (Tom's list), they're racists, most of who use every sort of academic dishonesty and misconduct to fallaciously convince people that Frank was innocent. Many of them are promoting anti-Black racism and bigoted conspiracy theories by falsely accusing an african american man of actually committing the crime alone. Conley helped solve the crime of Phagan's murder, but it took the police weeks to finally break him down using goodcop-badcop. These so-called scholars often present no official evidence from the trial, except poppycock from 50 years after the conviction. These anti-scholars support their anti-black racism with 64' Pierre van Paassen's Phagan bitemark hoax, the Alonzo Mann Hoax (1982-1986) and Dinnerstein's anti-Semitic hoax "Hang the Jew, Hang the Jew". This is not research and these are not researchers, this is racism being pushed by racists. Dinnerstein is not a researchers, he is a hoaxer. Dinnerstein's anti-semitic hoax (re: Tony Stewart, contacted Dinnerstein who admitted "hang the Jew, hang the Jew" is not sufficiently supported) is now being propounded by ADL, and many other authors now. Look at the damage done with so-called "researcher" Dinnerstein's PhD academic dishonesty = two places on the ADL.org website promote the anti-Semitism hoax ADL History 1913 and ADL Domestic Anti-Semitism. Looking elsewhere, Zman magazine now promulgates Dinnerstein's academic dishonesty The Tragic Saga of Leo Frank, and Jewniverse “Hang That Jew Or We’ll Hang You!” by Marc Davis, Times of Israel The ADL and KKK, born of the same murder, 100 years ago, Jewish Chronicle 'Hang the Jew' by Lee, ADL About.com Anti-Defamation League by Pierre Tristam, The Story of the Jews: The Leo Frank Case by Jeremy Katz, Atticus Finch—Right and Wrong by Monroe H. Freedman, New York Times PARDON DENIED FOR LEO FRANK IN 1913 SLAYING by Fay S. Joyce 1983, New York Times 1995 How Leo Frank's Death Fueled Fight for Justice mentions SPLC, Jewish Virtual Library Leo Frank (1884-1915 also talks about Dinnerstein's other false claims about the Frank trial jury, Oh goodie even Max Blumenthal is promoting Dinnerstein's anti-Semitic hoax on the Huffington Post Toby Keith's Pro-Lynching Publicity Tour Hits Colbert, CBS and More (2008) by Max Blumenthal, Virtual Jerusalem Jewplexed: Seneca Falls, Selma, & Stonewall - Is There a Jewish Place Too?, it literally goes dozens of pages deep on google of people promoting Dinnerstein's BIGLIE anti-Semitic Hoax. Oney is not a researcher, he used the Phagan bitemark hoax to try and trick people into thinking Leo Frank was innocent. Now even Sandy Berman of the Breman is claiming Mary Phagan had bitemarks all over her neck in a recent youtube video. Do you see the damage done by some these so-called researchers? They're not researchers, their racists who will use any fabrication or manipulation they can find to claim Leo Frank is innocent. These are not researchers, they are people who will stop at nothing, and use any fraud, rumors, fabrications, fallacious evidence, cherry picking, deceit, lies, hoaxes or anything they can get their hands on to falsify history. One can not be called a researcher when they use fabrication and academic dishonesty to prove their position. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
GingerBreadHarlot—you say "Oney is not a researcher". I find the following: "Steve Oney, author of And the Dead Shall Rise, the definitive book on the incident". Calling it the "definitive book" is an endorsement of that book, and he is certainly a "researcher" as the article makes clear. Bus stop (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Y'all seriously need to tone down the rhetoric in here - accusations of racism and anti-semitism are not going to resolve this dispute or change anyone's mind, it's just going to inflame things. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

In response to Bus stop - 11:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC):

"I think that most sources affirm the presence of the factor of antisemitism in this case."

First of all, "good, quality sources" do not rely upon fabricated falsehoods and obsfucation of evidence in order to make their point. Secondly, the issue of using the term "most sources" here borders upon logical fallacy, as this has already been addressed in terms of "the million vs the hundred" example given above.

No matter how many people you can find who are willing, for whatever reason, to promulgate a lie, it still remains a lie. Therefore, your contention that "We should abide by the findings of most good quality sources", however true on its face, is demonstratably NOT true, when the sources you refer to are actively, and collectively engaged in promoting an obvious, provable lie.

The language the in lede statement, "...drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States" strongly implies the idea that there existed an atmosphere of "antisemitism" in the United States, and especially in the South, either during, or even prior to the trial and conviction of Leo Frank, and User Gulbenk has already rather eloquently explained to you why that simply was not so.

The change I have proposed there is more fitting to the actual truth of the matter, because there were no existing "questions of antisemitism" to draw anyone's attention to prior to the ones created out of whole cloth by the post-conviction Jewish media campaign to exonerate Frank. Please see for yourself in the following reliable source: . 64.134.98.211 (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Mary Phagan Kean copyright violation?

Someone added an IA link to "Leo Frank and the Murder of Little Mary Phagan", by Mary Phagan-Kean. Isn't it copyrighted?

I think having an online version to refer to is nice, but the article has to respect copyright law.

The link should be removed. 64.134.98.211 (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr. IP, I have been accused of being you by Tonystewart, because I asked you to create a user account in the past. I asked you more than once to create a real Misplaced Pages user account. People are less likely to respond if you don't have a real wiki user name. What is preventing you from creating a user account on Misplaced Pages? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks GBH. For the IP user, I don't see an IA link to Phagan-Kean's book, although I removed another link to Golden as was discussed here. Also, your second line above ("I think having...") copied my statement from my link in the previous sentence. Please don't just copy and paste other people's writing. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The IA link to Mary Phagan-Kean's book was quite obvious to anyone who looked for it. I am suprised you didn't see it. I have removed it for you. 64.134.98.211 (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

In response to GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I see you are now coming to understand, by first hand experience, some of the tactics employed by the pro Frank editors here regarding anyone who they believe is "rocking their boat". Welcome to my world. I applaud you for the fact that you have obviously taken the time and effort to review the vast amount of materials available in regard to Leo Frank, and come to understand the case more clearly than you did before. I hope our future interactions on this page will be more pleasant.

In regard to your repeated requests that I register, please consider the following:

According to Misplaced Pages:Why create an account?:

This is Misplaced Pages, the 💕. It is free to read, and free to edit.

You don't need to be registered to contribute.

According to Misplaced Pages:IP edits are not anonymous:

Some registered Misplaced Pages editors and administrators treat IP editors as (at best) unwelcome party-crashers or as potential vandals. Some ignore the opinions or revert the edits of IP editors simply because they are "anonymous". There is no Misplaced Pages policy which supports this treatment, and there are several long-term and constructive Misplaced Pages editors who edit solely under a fixed IP.

The treatment of IP editors as second-class editors is unacceptable.

According to Misplaced Pages:IPs are human too:

You are an IP too. See here if you don't think so. The only difference between you and an IP contributor is that your IP address is hidden. When you registered for Misplaced Pages, you hid your IP address behind a user name. Unregistered users are often called anonymous editors. In fact, because your IP address is hidden, it is you who are more anonymous. (Your IP address is still recorded by the software. It is simply not visible to most users.)

Remember this when dealing with unregistered users. They are not a lower category of users. They are not a special subset that we tolerate. They are not locust swarms intent on destroying your article. They are individuals, the same as you. Why does it matter that they have not registered for an account? Just as you deserve to be treated with civility and good faith, the edits of unregistered users deserve civility and good faith from you. As your contributions to talk pages deserve to be heard and counted when forming consensus, so too do the contributions of unregistered users.

Our readers are IPs too. Virtually none of our readers are registered users. When an unregistered user makes an edit to an article or posts a comment on a talk page, these are the views of one of our readers. That doesn't necessarily mean that their view should be given greater weight. It means that we should not discriminate against their view just because they don't have an account. 64.134.98.211 (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Categories: