Talk:Leo Frank

monteen stover trial prosecution testimony , frank alibi breaker

alibi cracked wide open. a section or put monteen stover in article. she sat inside frank 2-floor inner office from 5 minutes past noon to 10 minutes past noon waiting for pay. she peered down hallway noticed door to 2-floor metal room was shut. prosecution case victory built on frank murdering phagan in 2-floor metal room between five minutes past noon and ten minutes. frank tells detective black and scott he was in office every second & minute from noon to half past noon when mrs white scared him. closing arguments. frank states possible nature call [poo poo] or urination [pee pee], putting him in bathroom when not in office during five and ten minutes past noon. to get to bathroom have to go through metal room. frank implicates putting self in the room adjacent to phagan strangulation. review monteen stover. review frank statement. review detectives statement frank said every minute in office noon to half-noon Potzeey (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, but this is incomprehensible. Do you know what a sentence is? What are you trying to say? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

::steve, where was leo frank from 12:05 to 12:10 if monteen stover was inside leo frank's empty office waiting for him for five minutes? Potzeey (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That question is answered in the section on Frank's testimony at the trial. The more important question, however, is where was Phagan? The timeline, as reported in the reliable secondary sources, do not present a scenario in which Phagan arrived before 12:05. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Tom maybe we could add some of these details to the wiki essay on Leo Frank. In a written statement to Chief of detectives lanford on Monday, April 28 1913, Leo Frank said Mary came into his office between "12:05 and 12:10, maybe 12:07", but Monteen Stover said she waited in Leo Frank's empty office from 12:05 to 12:10 to collect her pay and that when she looked down the hall the door to the metal room was closed. So where was Leo Frank and Mary Phagan between 12:05 and 12:10 if they were not in Franks office, where Frank said they were?

during frank's murder trial he said to the Jury, to counters monteen stover's testimony that he was not in his second floor office from 12:05 to 12:10, with, he may have "unconsciously" gone to the toilet or to urinate. doesn't one have to walk through the metal room on the second floor to get to the toilet? by his own words, did Leo Frank put himself in the metal room during 12:05 to 12:10, the very place where the prosecution spent 29 days trying to prove Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan? the very place several employees testified they saw a big 5 inch blood stain on the floor that someone had attempted to cover up, by smearing haskolene on it? As well as finding hair on the lathe machine that resembled Mary Phagans? Did Leo Frank make what amounts to a confession that he was in the very place where Phagan was murdered between 12:05 and 12:10? why does the leo frank wiki essay not cover these glaring issues?

The superintendent of the pinkerton detective agency, Harry Scott, at the trial testified:

On Sunday, May 3, I went to Frank's cell at the jail with detective Black, and asked Mr. Frank if, from the time he arrived at the factory from Montag Bros. (before noon) up until 12:50 p. m., the time he went upstairs to the fourth floor, was he inside of his office the entire time, and Frank stated, 'Yes', Then I asked him if he was inside his office every minute from noon until 12:30, and he said, 'Yes'

::::Frank entrapped himself beyond escape. Are there any secondary sources, which discuss Frank's testimony blunder, as he said what amounts to a confession he was in the metal room where Mary Phagan was alleged by the prosecution to be murdered? Potzeey (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Your speculations about the alleged "confession" are bizarre (not to mention a violation of the policy against original research). Bottom line -- the consensus of current scholarship is that Frank got a raw deal at his trial. This article should reflect that consensus. You need to make your arguments for including material in the article by showing that reliable secondary sources have included the material in their works. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

::::::North Shoreman Tom and Steven Anderson, the confession by Leo Frank that he murdered Mary Phagan is covered in Watson's Magazine, The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, September 1915. The essay is here http://www.archive.org/download/TheOfficialRecordInTheCaseOfLeoFrankJewPervertSeptember1915/4-leo-frank-jew-pervert-watsons-magazine-september-1915-v21-n5-.pdf you can download this and read it yourself. Frank made what amounts to a confession that he was in the second floor metal room where Mary Phagan was strangled. To respond to Monteen Stover's testimony that Frank was not in his office from 12:05 to 12:10, Frank says he may have unconsciously gone to the toilet, but to get to the toilet you have to go through the metal room. Frank essentially puts himself in the metal room from 12:05 to 12:10, the second floor metal room is the very place the prosecution spent a month trying to prove Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan. There is no original research here, this comes directly from Watson Magazine September 1915, The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, found on www.archive.org. Potzeey (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Potzeey, I'm going to try this one last time. I am begging you to read Wikipedia's policy page on original research. It's not allowed. Look at your previous post in this thread. Your conclusion that Frank's testimony put him in the metal room at the time of the murder is your original research. Your conclusion that he made what amounts to a confession is your original research. Your conclusion that he "entrapped himself" with a "testimony blunder" is your original research. Your question about the conflict between his testimony and Stover's is your original research. The purpose of this article is to describe, in an encyclopedic fashion, the biography of the named individual, not to relitigate the case against him. You seem to be here to fight a battle, to right great wrongs. That's not what we're here for. You obviously want to prove that Leo Frank committed the crime of which he was convicted. That's not our job. If you continue in this vein, I'm going to regard it as disruption and take the appropriate measures. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Steve, I appreciate your begging and I take your begging very seriously. I will at your request read these materials you asked me to study. However, you might be mistaken, I did not come up with this revelation about Leo M. Frank confessing to the murder of Mary Phagan. This topic is covered in The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank by Tom Waton in Watson's Magazine Sept 1915. You can download it and read it for yourself it's of historical importance and located on archive.org here http://www.archive.org/download/TheOfficialRecordInTheCaseOfLeoFrankJewPervertSeptember1915/4-leo-frank-jew-pervert-watsons-magazine-september-1915-v21-n5-.pdf you can download the PDF scan. I can not take credit for this as my own original research, it comes from the secondary source Tom Watson's magazine. Potzeey (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Tom Watson was a racist anti-Semite who was probably the individual most responsible for Frank's lynching. His writings are not reliable sources for either facts or analysis and there is nothing "Official" about anything he wrote. You really think Wikipedia should base its articles on the rantings of such extremists? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::North Shoreman Tom, Watsons best written essays written in September 1915 on Leo Frank was written after Leo Frank was lynched August 17 1915. I carefully read Watson's September 1915 The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank and compared it with the "Brief of the Evidence, Leo M. Frank v. State of Georgia. Fulton Country Superior Court at the July Term, 1913". There are no errors at all in Watson's works in terms of the accuracy of the quotes he put in there, he took the exact testimony from the Brief of Evidence, and interpreted it exactly how the substance of the testimony was given. So please illuminate what the problem is with utilizing Watson's logical and well reasoned arguments. Watson was after all a very brilliant and seasoned lawyer, his arguments are superb. Watson, calls Leo Frank a Jew Pervert, and used some foul language when describing Leo Frank, so what is the problem? They didn't have all the terms we use today, like child molester or child killer to describe someone who possibly molested and strangled a thirteen-year-old girl. Back in those days they used pervert. What would you call someone that raped and murdered a little girl? I would also call that person a pervert too and use foul language to describe them, that doesn't diminish his truly superb and logical arguments in his September essay. It is the correct terminology at the time to call someone a pervert for what Frank did to Mary Phagan. You say Watson was a racist and anti-Semite, but i found nothing anti-Semitic in Watsons The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank. Just because Watson criticized the Jewish community for its nationwide letter writing campaign against Georgia, doesn't make someone an extremist or anti-Semite. The term anti-Semite seems to be thrown around anytime some criticizes an individual Jew or the Jewish Community, that's not right. Potzeey (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

why is Focus listed as related article

book has just about nothing to do with Leo Frank.--Jrm2007 (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Original research and inappropriate use of primary source documents

A flurry of edits by user Potzeey are adding unsourced opinions, changing sourced material, and relying on interpretations of primary sources w/o proper context being provided by secondary sources. These issue were addressed previously (see Archive 3 section "Primary Sources". At that time, the concern was user Machn, whose last edit was August 23. User Potzeey, by coincidence or otherwise, began editing this article, almost exclusivey on August 27. The style and pattern of the two users are awfully darn similar and have the same purpose -- proving the guilt of Frank.

In any event may of his edits need to be removed as do some older edits that simply rely on interpretations of primary sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

EXAMPLE: Phagan's earliest departure time, based on an interpretation of primary sources, was changed to 12:03. However Dinnerstein, relying on the trial testimony of the same witness places the time at 12:10. If there is a valid claim that someone made a credible statement of 12:03, then a reliable secondary source is needed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

EXAMPLE: An entire paragraph on Slaton's clemency was based entirely on quotes taken from the primary source. Words need context and significance from secondary sources. The cut and paste from the document creates a different picture (i.e. Slaton's very serious doubts about Frank's guilt) than the one presented in secondary sources like Oney and Dinnerstein. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Potzeey failed to respond to this and simply reverted the time supported by the reliable sources. This is the text of the footnote that supports the time that I have restored yet again:

Dinnerstein, p. 48. Oney pp. 197, 266. Both the motorman, W. M. Matthews, and the conductor, W. T. Hollis, testified that Phagan got off the trolley at 12:10. In addition they both testified that Epps was not on the trolley. Epps said at trial that Phagan got off the trolley at 12:07.

Potzeey had earlier changed this properly sourced statement, "From the stop it was a two to four minute walk", changing the time w/o sourcing and w/o explanation to one to two minutes. This appears to me to constitute edit warring to advance a personal POV. Reliance on an editor's interpretation an archival record of primary documents (Brief of Evidence) to contradict material from reliable secondary sources is not acceptable. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

PS I checked a footnote elsewhere. Lawson, on page 241, does mention the time 12:03, but it is the testimony by an N. Kelly, who knew Phagan, and said he was at the stop at 12:03 but that Phagan did not get off at that time. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

tom, what time did mary phagan arrive in frank's office?

nothing original, just read lawson's state trials volume x, dinnerstein, oney, mary phagan kean and others...

some trolley drivers testified in the trial saying the trolleys were sometimes up to 5 minutes early or late depending, because it was a holiday, the drivers may have wanted to get off a little bit early. this speculation appears to be confirmed by frank if he was telling the truth on april 27 1913.

april 27, 1913 = therefore the trolley drivers would tend to be corroborated by frank's initial statement to detective black and police officer w. w. rogers during the morning april 27, 1913, frank said that after miss hall left at noon, a few minutes later alonzo mann left (12:03), and then mary came into his office (12:03 to 12:04) got her pay and left. This would according to frank, put mary in frank's office at 12:03 to 12:04. If frank is telling the truth (because he changed the time of marys arrival 3 or more time), it would mean mary got off the trolley at just minutes after noon and arrived in his office at 12:03 or 12:04

April 28, 1913 - in a monday, april 28, 1913, frank's statement to chief of detectives landford, Frank says Mary came into his office between 12:05 and 12:10 with a maybe 12:07 (sounds pretty specific)

insert the coroners inquest statement from frank about mary's arrival time if you wish,

August 1913 = in a statement to the Jury in Frank's murder trial august 1913, Frank said Mary arrived in his office at between 12:10 to 12:15.

::according to leo frank, we have from 12:03 to 12:04 arrival time on one day, to 12:05 to 12:10, maybe 12:07 arrival time on another day, to 12:10 to 12:15 arrival time on another day, so which is it tom? and why does it not mention in wiki essay on leo frank that frank changed the time of mary's arrival 3 or more times? leo frank keeps changing his story minute by minute. Potzeey (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You are dodging the issue. Wikipedia is not interested in your analysis of the issues. Nor is it surprising that there are discrepancies in the testimony. The significance of the discrepancies is a matter for the reliable secondary sources -- our job as editors is to provide the analysis from these reliable sources. It is not our job to go back to original sources (i.e. records of testimony) and make an independent analysis.

We should treat discrepancies in Frank's testimony the exact same way that Dinnerstein, Oney, et al did. Why do you ignore the two most widely accepted authors on the subject in editing the article? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

PS I added material sourced to Oney that shows Frank's initial estimate of Phagan's arrival was between 12:05 and 12:10. I replaced your material which was less specific and out of place with the rest of the section. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to reinforce what Tom is saying here, Potzeey. I still don't think you understand Wikipedia's policy on original research. Please click that link and read it. You must not take what you find in sources, draw what you think are reasonable conclusions from them and put those conclusions in a Wikipidia article. This is textbook original reaseach and clearly against policy. We report what the reliable sources say only.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

how does this work? you put exact quotes from secondary sources, or do you reword them (or can you reword them)? and is one allowed to analyze the secondary sources in the wiki essays?

:::::Do dinnerstein and oney both put Mary Phagan in Frank's office between 12:05 and 12:10 based on Franks 4 statements on the time she arrived in his office? because frank twice said that Phagan came into office, once implied at 12:03 to 12:04 to Officer W.W. Rogers on sunday April 27, the day after the murder, and frank the next day made into a written document a statement that Mary Arrived 12:05 to 12:10, with a maybe 12:07 (written statement to chief of detectives Lanford, Monday april 28 1913). What I am trying to understand is that if Monteen Stover says she was in Frank's empty office from 12:05 to 12:10 waiting for her pay, where was Frank? Frank says he was in the toilet or urinating, but to get to the toilet, one has to walk through the metal room. The metal room is where the prosecution spent 1 month trying to convince the Jury as the location where Frank murdered Mary. Did Frank essentially do what amounts to a confess to murdering Mary Phagan in the metal room between 12:05 and 12:15? I ask this because several employees testified to the big blood stain in the metal room (with a half assed attempt to cover up the blood stain) and Mary's hair was found on the lathe handle in the metal room. Where is this analysis? Potzeey (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You parrot the state's case (and Watson's) without allowing for the contradictory evidence -- much of it unavailable in the primary records of the trial since it was discovered after the trial. Wikipedia's policies against no original source and reliance on reliable secondary sources are intended to prevent the type of sloppy editing that create a distorted picture of the actual events. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Parrot? I could say you parrot the defense side of the leo frank case and then we get into circle of infantile name calling games. Leo Frank is guilt, nothing changes this fact, not even his powerful friends and his worshipers today ever got him exonerated. I'm not sure if you are aware of this or not, but Leo Frank is still guilty 100 years later and his guilt is eternally permanent. In 1986 even at the behest of the powerful ADL and several other Jewish groups could they get him exonerated, nothing new has ever been brought forward to even remotely exonerate him in the last 30 years. No one has ever exonerated him, not even the lackey Governor John M. Slaton, who was a legal partner in the law firm defending Frank. I was not parroting the state's case, I was using a secondary source to show that Leo M. Frank did what amounted to making a confession he murdered Mary Phagan. When you use dinnerstein or oney, who parrots the weak defense side of the leo frank case, I don't accuse you of being a parrot. Frank is guilty now and forever, nothing will ever change that. To poke fun at your infantile name calling, eventually when virtual universe 2.0 comes out in the next 100 years, we can set the date, time and coordinates, so we can watch the actual events of Frank murdering her on a big movie screen <g>. Potzeey (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the issues here are, but the article should rely on secondary source, not primary sources. The latter may be used when all we're doing is describing, without interpretation or cherry-picking facts. And the source should be available for other editors to check. But in a case like this it's almost impossible not to cherry pick, and there are so many secondary sources available that primary sources should never be needed. We can add them to footnotes as an adjunct (as in "also see transcript X, located at Y"), but the information in the text should be taken from a cited secondary source.

Also, we're not here to decide on the guilt or innocence of Leo Frank. We don't know whether he was guilty or innocent, because we didn't witness the killing. So what we do here is describe what reliable secondary sources say about it SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Slim, I just finished reading Tom Watson's absolutely superb Sept 1915 essay on the Leo Frank Case, it is of historical importance. Watson uses the official record in the Leo Frank trial and I compared his testimony quotes against the 1913 brief of evidence and it is spot on. Despite the fact that Watson, uses some questionable choices of words, like calling Frank a Jew Pervert, I would like your opinion on the substance of this article (not the occasional adult language). The substance appears to be rock solid and your opinion on the quality of the substance is something i would appreciate your thoughts on, but please disregard the foul language of Watson. Would this be considered a secondary source?

Slim, The article should rely on secondary sources, but when it comes to generic facts like when Frank went to europe, or college, when he married and other non-political things, I do not think primary sources are a bad choice. For instances of use of primary sources, I added Leo Frank's height of 5'8" to his profile from his passport application, I have also looked up ancestry.com and US census information on him as well. There is no reason these things can not be used for the article. I also have a copy of Frank's marriage certificate, which is a primary source and puts the date of Frank's marriage.

::::::::::Slim, how can you say we do not know if Frank was innocent or guilty? The court systems have already decided. As others and secondary sources have pointed out. The coroners jury unanimously 6 to 0 recommended frank to a grand jury of 21 that voted unanimously to indict frank 21 to 0, The trial Judge and Jury of 12 said Leo Frank was guilty 13 to 0. And more than once, the state supreme court, district court, and us supreme court all upheld the verdict and rejected Frank's frivolous appeals. In 1915 the prison board voted against commutation for frank, governor john m. slaton did not disturb the jurys verdict June 1915 despite him being a kind of lackey and partner of the law firm defending Frank. In 1986 the parole board did NOT exonerate frank and if they pardoned (forgave him) him it means they acknowledged he is guilty, because you can't pardon someone unless you acknowledge first they did a crime (they acknowledge Franks guilt). Frank is still guilty today, after a umpteen appeals. No real evidence has come forward in 100 years to exonerate Frank. Moreover, Frank said Mary came into his second floor office between 12:05 and 12:10 according to every secondary source. Frank practically confesses to the murder when in response to Monteen Stovers testimony that Frank's second floor office was empty from 12:05 to 12:10, Frank says to the Jury he unconsciously went to the toilet. Well to get to the toilet you have to go through the second floor metal room. The second floor metal room is exactly where the prosecution spent a month convincing the Jury Frank had murdered Mary Phagan between 12:05 and 12:10. Potzeey (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You can use Tom Watson if he's a reliable source; can you link to it or give a full cite so I can look it up? And you can cite the testimony he relies on (I mean cite it in the footnote, along with Watson), but you can't use the testimony yourself. That's particularly true if it's not easily available to other readers. If someone went to their public library could they order American State Trials Volume X 1918 or Lawson's American State Trials V. X, Leo Frank's final unsworn statement, through an interlibrary loan? (These do not look like full citations.)

If it's available to other readers, then I see no harm in using it for harmless facts, e.g. date of marriage. But are these facts not available in reliable secondary sources?

Using primary sources to add facts that push the article in the direction of guilt or innocence would be an inappropriate use; see WP:PSTS. As for his guilt, you may be right, but it's irrelevant. We simply publish what reliable secondary sources have published. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Potzeey, please don't add any more material from primary sources, such as in this edit. It's pointless to add it, because it's very likely to be removed in future, if not by editors now, then by other editors who come along later, because it's a policy violation. I'm letting you know about this because I don't want you to feel later that you've wasted your time adding it. If you rely on secondary sources, what you add is much more likely to stick. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Were you editing here earlier by any chance as Machn? Not a sock allegation, just wondering, as I recall he was adding material from transcripts that was problematic for the same reason. I just assumed it was you when I posted here earlier, then saw you hadn't made many edits. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see American State Trials Volume X is online here. The cite would be:

Lawson, John D. (ed.). American State Trials. F.H. Thomas Law Book Co, Volume X, 1918, p. 1.

It's fine to use this for purely descriptive material that has no bearing on the case (e.g. date of marriage). But for anything that might be significant or contentious, please use secondary sources, because there is a danger not only of misinterpretation of primary sources, but of cherry-picking. Where there's a clash between the primary and secondary sources, note it in a footnote, or if it's very important note it in the text with in-text attribution; but best to discuss the latter on talk first. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of the problem. Oney covers Lee's trial testimony in detail (page 199 to 206). What Oney includes that Potzeey's doesn't is material developed in the cross examination. For example Lee admits there were a variety of legitimate reasons why Frank would be startled by Gantt. Oney does not indicate that the discussion of Gannt on the phone was in dispute. From what I can tell from Lawson (Lawson's work is basically actual testimony or summaries of testimony), there is no indication that Lee was specifically asked whether Gantt was mentioned on the phone. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The danger of using primary sources is that we highlight one aspect and ignore another, perhaps because of POV, or perhaps because of not realizing the second aspect was there. If we rely on good secondary sources, there's a better chance they will have summed up the key issues for us, hopefully including any counterpoints. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

PS As to the subject of Potzeey being a sock puppet of Machn, I am convinced he is -- see [1]. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be better if people could stick to one account to edit this article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

SV, if you want to know who Thomas E. Watson is, I just linked to him. He was one of the loudest voices calling for Frank to be lynched and played a prominent role in the reorganization of the Ku Klux Klan in the early 20th century, one of the most despicable characters you can imagine. Potzeey's suggesting that he should be used as a source here shows about as much good faith as suggesting that David Duke should be used as a source as a history of the Holocaust. Potzeey plainly has no understanding of our editing policies and has no interest in understanding them. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Steven. That's a very odd suggestion for a reliable source, unless it's just being used as an example of the kind of thing that was being published. I'm thinking someone needs to go through the article and remove anything sourced to primary sources (unless it's been done carefully in accordance with NOR), or anything inappropriate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

:::::Slim, I found American State Trials v.x. 1918 here on archive.org: http://www.archive.org/details/AmericanStateTrials1918VolumeXleoFrankAndMaryPhagan would this be considered a primary or secondary source? The problem with book is that it leaves out large swaths of testimony from the official brief of evidence of the leo frank murder trial. I also wanted to ask you, the argument of hugh m. dorsey, published in 1914 is this considered a primary or secondary source? Potzeey (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Posthumous pardon without exoneration

the subject title accurately describes the pardon as there was no exoneration. Potzeey (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I will be glad to let others check in on this. What you ignore is what the Board actually said. Even in the 1983 decision they wrote, "After exhaustive review and many hours of deliberation, It is impossible to decide conclusively the guilt or innocence of Leo. M. Frank. For the board to grant a pardon, the innocence of the subject must be shown conclusively."

You POV language is apparently intended to imply something that they did not say. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If this is just about the subhead, it's accurate, though it's over-egging things a little. I would just say posthumous pardon. They made clear that they were not addressing guilt or innocence, and we make that clear in the text too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Murder Investigation

I have expanded the section on the body discovery. The discovery of the murder notes, due to their significance, needs to go in this section. The info. concerning the feces in the elevator shaft is an essential part of the case against Conley, but to this point it was totally missing from the article. Its significance will be added at appropriate places in the article. The material to be added includes:

1. Conley's admission at trial that he produced the material on Saturday.
2. The fact that it remained in its natural condition until the elevator was activated by Frank and the police and smashed it.
3. The analysis made by the Governor and others that concluded that this meant that Conley's story about the murder occurring on the second floor and the body being moved to the basement by elevator was pure fiction -- creating doubts on his entire story and the prosecution's theory of the crime. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

the blood on the 2nd floor metal room and the hair found on the lathe in the same room were not fiction, numerous employees and the police testified to seeing it at the trial. there seems to be no mention of the murder notes attempting to pin the crime on newt lee.

Two notes were found in the basement next to Mary Phagan's body, supposedly written by Phagan as she was being raped and dying, accusing a tall dark skinned Negro, like the "night witch" attempting to incriminate the night watchman Newt Lee.(During the trial "night witch" was interpreted to mean "night watch[man]"; when read the note night watchman Newt Lee said, "Boss, that's me." During the first appeal, however, Southern attorney Henry Alexander wrote that a night witch was a creature of superstitious terror, well-known to children in the South but which would have been unknown to Leo Frank. Oney p. 379.) of killing her. These came to be known as the "murder notes" and resulted in the night watchman becoming the prime suspect immediately in the beginning of the investigation.

::either conley or frank attempted to pin the crime on the nightwatchman newt lee. frank saying at first the night watches card was complete and then two days later saying it wasn't complete. frank telling police to search his home and getting them to search newt lees home, suggest frank was trying to bring suspicion on newt lee. Potzeey (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

All of the above is covered in the reliable, secondary sources and will be added or expanded on as I get to it. The keys to completing the article properly are proper organization and the proper use of secondary sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

::::the death notes were an attempt to pin the crime on the nightwatch newt lee, the long tall slim negro which was an exact description of newt lee, not a mythical ghost Potzeey (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

lynch mob, mob or lynch party

the term mob conjures up the image of instant indignation by a rowdy crowd, where as, lynch party seems more appropriate as it was a well organized group of prominent georgia leaders that had planned for months to assassinate leo frank. Steve Oney uses the more accurate term lynch party in his article (see the bottom of this article): http://flagpole.com/Weekly/Features/SteveOneysListOfTheLeoFrankLynchers.5May04 Potzeey (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

how long does it take to walk to the factory from where Phagan got off the electric train at just after noon?

according to atlanta police officer john n. starnes,"It takes not over three minutes to walk from Marietta Street, at the corner of Forsyth, across the viaduct, and through Forsyth Street, down to the factory". one opinion is it took phagan between 1 to 3 minutes for phagan to walk to the factory once she got off of the electric train. Potzeey (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

So? Dinnerstein (page 48) writes (after first discussing the witnesses who talked about when she got off the trolley), "Other witnesses agreed that it took about two to four minutes to walk from the trolley station to the factory." Three minutes falls between two and four. You have provided no reliable, secondary source for 1 to 3. You have again reverted the "two to four" -- I have restored it.

Stop your edit warring.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

::edit warring? that's a direct quote from the police officer from the trial dude, like take a valium or something. that quote is fully sourced infrom Lawson and the B.O.E.Potzeey (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit warring comes from the elimination of the properly documented "two to four minutes". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

::::The police at the time said it was not more than 3 minutes, so 4 minutes is too much time. I personally walked it myself and it took about 1 to 2 minutes. Where did the two to four minutes come from? oney or dinnerstain? Potzeey (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question has already been provided in this very section. Dinnerstein page 48. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank by Tom Watson

Slim, you asked for the source of this essay so I thought I would provide it for you. I know some people here are in neurotic hysterics, doing hissy fits over Tom Watson as the anti-Semite superstar, and Tom NS, was trying to turn Leo Frank into a mini-holocaust (see his david duke remarks above), but I just read Tom Watson's The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank and I was absolutely blown away by how superb his arguments are as a secondary source. I checked every quote Tom Watson made from the 1913 Trial Testimony brief of evidence, he is absolutely spot on to the letter. Yes, Watson does use some anti-Semitic language, but his essay on Leo Frank is tighter by far and better than Oney, Dinnerstein and every other contemporary writer, that turns the Leo Frank Case into a pity persecution party. I read Watson's Sept 1915 work and it was absolutely superb and logically argued, you can read it for yourself here: The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank By Tom Watson Sept 1915. How does it work here in the wikicosmos, let's say you have a writer that uses some language that can be called anti-Semitic, but yet the substance, logic and reasoning in his essay are absolutely superb, intelligent, precise, deep, accurate and spot on? How does that work? do we write him off because he calls a pervert a pervert and uses insensitive language, or do we judge him by his superb writing substance? I read Oney and Dinnerstein backward and forward, they make endless mistakes concerning fact checking and primary sources, leave out huge volumes of damning testimony from the brief of evidence and they just don't seem to be reliable based on these fact. Can we call Oney and Dinnerstein reliable when they leave out so much from the brief of evidence or bungle some facts? Frank never escorted Mrs. White out of the building for example, but yet it is in the wiki article. Potzeey (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You are kidding aren't you? A screed against "Jew-owned newspapers?" The reason Slim brought up Watson's anti-Semitism is not only because it clearly biases him, but also, anti-Semites are often poor reasoners (witness Watson's hysterical, emotional language). I think what we see here is the problem with relying on primary sources, especially court ranscripts. They are long an detailed, and any editor quoting a trial transcript is quoting selectively, taking quotes out of context. This is sometimes done in order to make an argument - and that is what sems to be happening here. This is a clear violation of NOR because we do not use sources to build our own argument. This is why we rely instead on secondary sources, that can be assigned a clear POV. For the record I do not object to providing Watson's POV but it is not "the truth," no view is the truth, it is a view and we can clearly identify it as an anti-Semite's view. Not to silence it, just to be informative. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure court transcripts is a complete no-go in relation to OR. It cannot be other than OR. The article should build exclusively on the many good secondary sources about this case.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear about what's happening here, but Potzeey (talk · contribs) seems to be Machn (talk · contribs), who was editing this article a lot using primary sources, but who stopped editing on August 23, four days before Potzeey's first edit. Potzeey also focuses on this article and adds material from primary sources.

As for using Thomas E. Watson as a source, Watson is a primary source; he was involved as a politician, writer, Ku Klux Klan supporter and local agitator against Leo Frank. His words can be used as an example of the kind of thing that was being published, but he obviously can't be used as a reliable source.

Potzeey, I think you need to explain why you're using two accounts, and in the meantime read our core content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. I'd particularly draw your attention to this section of the NOR policy, which explains that articles must rely on reliable secondary sources. I think to avoid further disputes we should enforce that rigorously on this article from now on. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems

The article now has a significant amount of OR (in the sense of material picked out from primary sources) woven throughout the text. Other material from secondary sources is very detailed and hard to follow, and not clearly cited. I'm wondering if we need to revert to an earlier version, then slowly restore the legitimate edits. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just tried to edit various versions, but the OR is woven throughout (I mean the material sourced to the "brief of evidence" and the trial transcripts, cited in the text as Lawson or American State Trials), and simply removing it leads to large jumps in the narrative. I think the best thing might be to revert to the January 2010 version before Machn started adding the primary sources—this version. And from there we can start rebuilding the text using later versions sourced entirely to secondary sources. Once that's done, we can start to look at primary sources and whether they fill in important detail, or whether there are secondary sources that contradict primary sources, or whatever. But before that, we need to get a solidly sourced text in place. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like the most reasonable (and constructive) approach. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the course of action you have taken, SV, but I'm not so sure about Potzeey and Machn being one and the same. Machn seemed able to produce readable text in his talk page posts, composed of complete sentences with capital letters at the beginning and comprehensible sentence construction. This seems beyond Potzeey's abilities. But, they both seem fond of the same antisemitic sources and edit with the same agenda. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll fourth this, if such a verb exists, adding only that Potzeey seems perfectly capable of lucid(ish) posts when it suits him/her. See here. IronDuke 23:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, IronDuke, that diff just confirms what I said. The lack of normal capitalization, sentences run together with no period, omission of the definite singular article are all typical of Potzeey and not what I've seen from Machn. But, like I said, I think the article is headed in the right direction regardless. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Iron Duke destroying a good lead by SlimVirgin

The lead was exceptionally well written by SlimVirgin, except for the obsession with blaming anti-semitism and political cards, it was probably the best lead the Leo Frank article ever had here on wikipedia (especially when wikipedia has a global reputation for being biased). St. Steve Oney, and Goldfarb both use lynching party or lynch party, which makes more sense than using mob when referring to Frank's lynching. There was cold calculating planning involved for 2 months in the kidnapping of Leo Frank, whereas a mob tends to be something that is whipped up into a frenzy at a moments notice. A lynching party is one that plans and organizes carefully and is therefore more appropriate and neutral for the article.

You also deleted all the race hatred from the defense and the gross act of cronyism from the Governor John M. Slaton. Your edit to the lead shows that you want to remove facts which are very relevant, important and mentioned in every secondary source. Nothing personal, but SlimVirgin is a better writer than you and all you can do is ruin the lead with your edits to it. Machnn (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Website

Machnn, I'm concerned about leofrank.org. I can't find out who runs it, or any information about it. How do we know it's a reliable source? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

:SlimV, In terms of information about it, it appears to be the only web site in the world you can preview online the original georgia state archive documents on the leo frank case. In terms of reliability, take a look at this fascinating archive http://www.leofrank.org/georgia-archive/ it contains 1800 or more of high resolution photographed pages of official legal documents, testimony, statements, rebuttals, evidence, diagrams, appeals, affidavits, repudiations and recantations of the original Leo Frank case from 1913 to 1915. You could spend a life time reading and studying these documents, for this alone http://www.leofrank.org/georgia-archive/ the web site is very much worthy of being noted. It also provides a means for doing some fact checking of secondary sources if one wished to do so. Machnn (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Just confirming here that that website seems to have very fixed views, and I can't see who's behind it, so I'm removing it for now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead

ID, I'm going to restore some or all of the bits of the lead you removed. [2]

• We already say "mob" once in the lead, so there's no need to repeat it every time.
• It's more informative to say she was found with a cord round her neck that had been used to kill her the day before, rather than just saying "strangled," which doesn't tell us when or how.
• There's no need to keep saying Frank's trial; his trial is fine.
• It's important to point out that the stereotyping worked both ways: Frank was having it done to him and was in turn doing it to Conway.
• And the point about the governor having becoming a partner in the law firm that defended Frank is important because it's part of the reason people were so angry.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

SV: I'm okay with some of that, though I think "round" for "around" is not proper American English style, which this article should be written in for obvious reasons. I understand why people were angry about the governor being a partner, but that's a minor part of the story. Certainly important enough to be in the article, but not in the lead. And I must disagree with you in the strongest possible terms that the fact that "the stereotyping worked both ways" is an important part of the lead. That is not, at all, what the case is mainly remembered for, and it creates a false and unpleasant equivalence. I'll leave the rest as you want it, but that part is really not helping the lead. IronDuke 15:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of your points. With respect to racist stereotypes of blacks, the prosecution's case was totally based on a racist stereotype. Conley was coached by the prosecution from day 1. How did they justify the repeated major changes to his testimony to themselves. Lindemann (p. 253) writes:

"The solicitor general [Dorsey, the head prosecutor] apparently reasoned that Conley, like most Blacks of his class, was an inveterate liar, a conclusion that was perfectly natural for a southern White, even one who was liberal in his views of Blacks, in confronting such a man as Conley. Indeed, in Conley's case that conclusion was also wholly justified: He was an inveterate liar, a perfect example of the 'lying nigger' of southern mythology; he lied constantly, blithely admitting as much. Faced with transparent lie after lie from Conley, Dorsey could continue to question him until the truth emerged, until Conley 'finally' told the truth, as southern lore maintained would ultimately happen with a 'lying nigger.'"

It is extremely POV to make references in the lede to the defense's use of racist language while omitting the much more significant fact that he prosecution's entire case rested on the jury accepting the black stereotype.

With respect to Slaton, again only one side of the issue of Slaton's reliability and honesty is presented. Slaton was an ambitious politcian at the height of his popularity and his next goal was the U.S. Senate seat from Georgia. Dinnerstein writes (p. 123), "Tom Watson, one of the state's leading politicians, indicated that he would be willing to throw his weight behind the Governor, if Slaton would let Frank die." The body of the article is misleading as to the true status of Slaton's alleged conflict of interest, but that can be improved later. The bottom line is that, on one hand, Slaton's decision MAY have somehow helped his law firm while on the other hand the decision would LIKELY (as it in fact did) destroy his political career.

If one side is listed in the lede, then both sides should. A better solution is to present neither. The primary message from Slaton's actions, and the one given the most weight by Oney and Dinnerstein, is that Slaton's decision was a principled one based solidly on the evidence available to him. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Round and around are interchangeable in this context.

We have to follow the sources, and they stress that the stereotyping was in both directions. One of the best academic sources we're using is Albert Lindemann's The Jew Accused: Three Anti-Semitic Affairs (Dreyfus, Beilis, Frank), 1894-1915. Cambridge University Press, 1991. He writes that Frank's lawyers were insisting this was not a Jewish crime, and "they did not hesitate to exploit anti-Black bigotry." He points out the hypocrisy of this position, and argues that the prosecution actually avoided such blatant stereotyping (see p. 245). We can't include the stereotyping against Frank in the lead, but omit that the same, and perhaps worse, was coming from his defence team.

The governor being a partner was a major issue for the public for obvious reasons; as the sources point out (e.g. Oney, pp. 402, 471), the conflict of interest aspect was raised by neutral parties before the sentence was commuted, e.g. by The New York Times (though they supported it). And it was stressed by the people who wanted Frank to hang, particularly Tom Watson (e.g. Oney, pp. 480, 507). Watson wrote that one partner gave what the other partner wanted. It was the day after Watson stirring things up along those lines that the Knights of Mary Phagan was formed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what context has to do with it. Do you disagree that using "round" for "around" is more of a British style?

I agree with Tom about the governor. My !vote would be 1. Leave it out of the lead entirely and save it for the body or 2. Discuss the difficulty he was in -- though that's going to lengthen the lead.

"We can't include the stereotyping against Frank in the lead, but omit that the same, and perhaps worse, was coming from his defence team." But that's just begging the question. I could replace the word "can't" with "must" and be just as persuasive. As you know, Slim, the lead is a precis of the article. That means there isn't room for every fact. This particular fact is highly misleading in the relatively contextless area of our lead. Yes, the defense was racist (as was the prosecution and the city, state, and country -- and had been for centuries), and yes they used a word that is these days highly inflammatory. But the suggestion that both sides somehow share guilt is... well, I'll just say it's a terrible comparison to make and, more importantly, nothing like a major factor in what people tend to find most important in the case. That a fact resides within a reputable scholarly work does not mean it must necessarily be in the lead. IronDuke 16:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Context has everything to do with it. Sometimes one or the other is better or required. Sometimes both are fine.

We have to go with the sources. The sources stress that Frank's defence team was using racism against Conway. It's not to do with any particular word. It is that the entire thrust of their case was one of racism. You're making the mistake Machn made. We're not here to accuse or defend Leo Frank. We don't know who killed the girl, because we weren't there. What we do is read the best secondary sources, and summarize what they say, highlighting what they highlight. And they do highlight that aspect. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources highlight many aspects. For example, witnesses being intimidated to implicate Frank. But that's not in the lead. Or that Conley's own lawyer thought he was guilty. That's not in the lead. Or, perhaps most tellingly, that Alonzo Mann swore years later he had seen Conley carrying Phagan's body. There's only room for so much in the lead, and that bit you want to include is misleadingly damning to Frank. And although I very much enjoy being compared to Machn, I can't agree that I am "making the mistake" he made. Indeed, if he were cheerleading loudly here for my version, as he had been for yours, that would give me pause indeed. IronDuke 16:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The mistake in common is that you're here as an advocate, not as a dispassionate researcher. Which books are you relying on for the most part? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're dead wrong; I'm here to make the article reflect the known scholarship, while also adhering to wiki guidelines and common sense. I really wish you wouldn't keep trying to personalize this. I've seen that gambit from you before, and all I'll say about it is that it is not helpful. If you have solid points to make, rather than just a reiteration that you believe yourself to be correct and I am somehow biased, I'll listen. IronDuke 16:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and to Tom's point above, do you prefer leaving out the bit about Slaton having a conflict entirely or expanding on it? IronDuke 16:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's why I asked you which of the scholarly books you're relying on. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at... the point is that racism by both defense and prosecution is a minor part of what people generally understand about this case. That's clear from looking at any one source, I think, or better yet, looking at them all. Can you say where someone says that the LF trial is famous because his team used racist language? IronDuke 16:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm given you an example of a high-quality academic source who in one section of a book does highlight that issue. But can you answer my question, please? You wrote: "I'm here to make the article reflect the known scholarship ..." Which of the scholarly books have you read? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The example you gave does not answer the example I asked for. I'm not asking for a "highlight." Many things have been highlighted about the case, in that book and others. Who has said this is one of the most salient points to take away from the affair, and that it is widely regarded as such? And as to which books I've read, is that not personalizing the discussion yet again? If I have read all the major ones, do you defer to my point? If I have read none of them, does that invalidate it? IronDuke 17:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Why won't you answer the question? We disagree about how to represent the sources, so I have told you which books I'm relying on -- Lindemann and Oney. Which ones are you relying on? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not answering the question because it doesn't matter. You want to insert a fact into the lead. I do not argue that it is a fact, I argue only that it's a minor part of the whole. Then I ask that you show where it is that the authors you are using say that this is a major part of the case, something anyone who knew about the Leo Frank trial and lynching would know. You keep insisting that they "highlight" it, and I keep telling you that's not enough, that many facts are highlit so why is this one special, and you refuse to respond to that point. I don't have to prove the sentence isn't relevant, the burden is on you to show that it is. That burden has not been met.

So I went ahead and looked at Lindemann, couple of things jumped out at me. 1) Lindemann indicates that Conley (NB: Not "Conway") was a liar, that he even admitted he was (P. 253). 2) There are two mentions of the "lying nigger" quote, only one discussing the racism of Frank's team, and that for a mere paragraph on page 245. That's not even "highlighting," that's just briefly discussing. Also, right under the second mention, we find the following sentence: "The best evidence now available indicates that the real murderer of Mary Phagan was Jim Conley." (Lindemann, p. 254). Is Lindemann an advocate for Leo Frank?

I also think you haven't really responded to Tom's point about the governor, that we are leaving a one-sided view. I mean... you really think Watson -- Ku Klux Klan supporter Watson -- is the go-to guy for whether Slaton acted in his own self-interest? IronDuke 17:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What I think is happening here is that you haven't read any of the books, because if you had, you'd have said which ones. Life's too short, so I'm going to take the article off my watchlist. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. IronDuke 04:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph: NPOV?

"Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American businessman whose lynching in 1915 by a party of prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia turned the spotlight on antisemitism in the United States and led to the founding of the Anti-Defamation League."

Why was the lynching of a convicted murderer an act of anti-Semitism? White Gentile murderers were sometimes lynched as well. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In the first place, your paraphrase of what the sentence actually says is inaccurate. In the second place, there is a fairly clear consensus among historians of these events that antisemitism was involved in the lynching, although some dispute the extent it was a factor in the trial.

Before starting yet another edit war on this issue, perhaps you can provide reliable sources that claim that antisemitism was not a factor. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't claim it wasn't a factor, but surely the phrase "turned the spotlight on antisemitism in the United States" is not exactly in the best traditions of a NPOV? It sounds like a breathless blurb off the back of a cheap novel, for crying out loud. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you are unfamiliar with the impact that the case had nationally, especially after the conviction. It is the national attention and the antisemitism that made the case as historically significant as it is. Exactly what reliable sources do you rely on that suggest that this wasn't the case? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that justify the use of unencyclopedic language like "turned the spotlight on antisemitism in the United States." If it was a large national controversy (I suspect it was primarily a regional controversy, but we can get into that at a later time), then the article should say something properly to that effect. It shouldn't use lurid language that sounds like Public Relations blather off the back of a child's DVD. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not some tabloid publication. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The following are examples from reliable sources that show both the antisemitism and the attention the case attracted attention well beyond Georgia:

Dinnerstein p. xv. Dinnerstein writes, "One of the most infamous outbursts of anti-Semitic feeling in the United States occurred in Georgia in the years 1913, 1914, and 1915. ... The Frank case, which eventually developed into one of the most talked-about injustices of the Progressive Era, served also to highlight the dilemnas and difficulties of the American South during that period."

Higham (1988) p. 185-186. Higham notes that while "overt anti-Semitic sentiment played little part" in the trial phase, during the appeals process "[h]atred of organized wealth reaching into Georgia from outside became a hatred of Jewish wealth. From one end of the state to the other the story went: 'The Jews have said that no Jew has ever been hanged and that none ever will be.'... In the last stages of the Frank Case, anti-Semitism reached the fiercely nationalistic twist it had acquired briefly in the nineties, and it assumed also an explicitly racial tone." The influential Tom Watson wrote, "It is a peculiar and portentious [sic] thing, that one race of men -- and one, only, -- should be able to convulse the world, by a system of newspaper agitation and suppression, when a member of that race is convicted of a capital crime against another race. ... from all over the world, the Children of Israel are flocking to this country, and plans are on foot to move them from Europe en mass ... to empty upon our shores the very scum and dregs of the Parasite Race. [italics are in the original text]"

Oney p. 462. 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."

I see nothing "lurid" about the language -- it seems less "lurid" than the language used by the highly respected sources I just quoted. I didn't write the text you question, but if you want to suggest a less "lurid" version that says the exact same thing we can discuss it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any NPOV problem - it is quite factual, and completely verifiable and supported by sources. It would perhaps be a problem if the article stated that he "was lynched by a mob motivated by anti-semitism", but that is not what it says, it is talking about the directly observable effects of the lynching.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No need to add to the above. The points are crushingly obvious, but apparently must be repeatedly made here. IronDuke 04:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

SV, I see you've put this article back on your watchlist. That's fine by me, the more eyes the better, but a couple things: 1) Some of the edits you made do not have consensus. You know this. Please don't reinsert them until you get consensus. 2) Please join talk. You refused to reply to the points that were brought up, then left the article, and now return without a word. 3) I'm leaving in some of what you did, for example, that Frank had flirted with Phagan, though I think it's very bad editing, because right now it's just your opinion against mine. Can you say more about why you think that should be in the lead? IronDuke 01:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The lead was like this for some time, and did indeed have consensus. You then removed it unilaterally, and have reverted whenever it has been restored. Rather than continuing to do that, please argue your case here.

My argument is (a) we have to say what the prosecution said the motive was, and flirting clearly plays into that; (b) we have to make clear that there was stereotyping on both sides, as you'd expect; you want to make a big case of the antisemitism, but ignore the racism; (c) we also have to explain why people were particularly upset about the governor's decision, namely that they saw him as involved. They would have opposed it anyway but that made things worse.

I can't think of a good reason to leave any of this out. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that it ever had consensus (maybe a passive one?), but consensus can change, and clearly has. Or do you think, as of right now, that your version is supported? I'll answer that, actually: it isn't. Rather than abandoning talk and then coming to revert with no word, please argue your case here.

"we have to say what the prosecution said the motive was"

• Not in the lead we don't.

"and flirting clearly plays into that"

• Not in the lead.

"we have to make clear that there was stereotyping on both sides...

• We absolutely, categorically do not have to do this. Indeed, we must not. Why? Because it's a tiny, tiny detail of the whole.

"as you'd expect"

• That's wonderfully chilling in this context, but again no. The case isn't famous, isn't even marginally known, as a case in which some sort of injustice was perpetrated against Conley. I think that can be safely left out of the entire article, actually: under no circumstances can it be in the lead.

"you want to make a big case of the antisemitism,"

• Did you really just write that? Of course I want to make a big case of it. The question is, given that a big case was made by observers at the time, and an even larger case has been made in modern times, why on earth don't you? The equivalence you're drawing is grossly out of scale with the sources we have. The only person in the world I know of who "highlights" it is you.

"(c) we also have to explain why people were particularly upset about the governor's decision."

• I answered this already -- Tom even more succinctly.

Again, please try to get some consensus for this. Or better yet: don't. It's making the article much, much worse. I can't tell you how horrified I was when I first saw it -- I assumed Machn must have done it. IronDuke 02:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I asked you before which books you're using as sources, but you wouldn't tell me. Can you tell me now, please? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already answered this. IronDuke 03:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer it. I get the impression from your posts that you haven't read the source material. If you have, please let me know what you're relying on. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

[moved by IronDuke from his talk page] [3]

ID, your stock-in-trade seems to be serial reverting. It leaves a person no response but to continue reverting too, but most people don't want to. You hadn't edited for five days. I restored the lead you'd removed at Leo Frank, and suddenly you're back, reverting twice so far, and you'd probably continue if I did. Here are your reverts in the last month of that material: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

It had been in there without objection since August, until you started reverting on November 11, and practically all your contribs there seem to be reverts. It's not acceptable to engage in the serial removal of other people's work, there or anywhere else, just because you personally dislike it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

SV, I've asked you several times to stop the invective and ad hominems, and each time you see to agree, only for it to pop up again. I assume it's bait, but whatever the reason, can you please pledge, here and now, never to do that with me again? It makes it very difficult for me to work with you. IronDuke 03:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You moved the above from your talk page. I posted it there because it's about you, not the article, and because it's the first step in dispute resolution. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'll take that as a "No." IronDuke 04:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead RfC

Leo Frank, a Jewish-American businessman, was found guilty of the murder of a teenage girl in 1913 in Marietta, Georgia, and was subsequently lynched. Antisemitism is widely agreed to have been a factor, as was prejudice on the grounds that he came from New York and was seen as a Yankee capitalist.

The other murder suspect was a black man who worked with Frank and the murder victim. It was a plank of Frank's defense that this was too brutal to be a "Jewish crime," and was more likely to have been committed by a black suspect. Frank and his lawyers employed racist language against the black worker, just as others employed antisemitic language against Frank. The dispute is over whether the lead should mention this aspect of the case. See this version: "Frank and his lawyers resorted to stereotypes too: another suspect, Jim Conley—a factory worker who testified against Frank—was a "filthy, lying nigger," they said, just the kind who would commit such a brutish crime."

Should this (or similar words) be included in the lead? Input from uninvolved editors would be particularly welcome. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Support inclusion. Albert Lindemann, professor emeritus of history at the University of California, Santa Barbara, wrote a book in 1991 about three cases of injustice traceable to antisemitism, one of them Leo Frank's. He makes the point, as do the other sources I've read about this case, that there was a great deal of antisemitism and racism in the South, and that Frank used the kind of prejudice against the black suspect that he insisted should not be used against him. This was not a Jewish crime, his lawyers argued, but a black crime. See Lindeman, p. 245.

The objection to including this in the lead seems (to me) to be based on the idea that, because Frank was almost certainly the victim of an injustice and was brutally lynched, the lead must present him as "all good." But to omit from the lead any criticism of Frank would be, in my view, to present a black-and-white picture of the case that does not reflect reality. Indeed, Lindeman makes the point that Frank's defense team was more explicitly prejudiced against the black suspect than the prosecution was against Frank. Even making concessions for the period, Lindeman writes, "there was something a little incongruous and hypocritical about such men, denouncing the bigotry against Jews ... yet resorting to a far more explicit and vicious bigotry against Blacks in his defense." This is an important aspect of the case, and an important aspect of the context and time within which the case took place. I believe that, per LEAD, it ought to be included. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support either balance or exclusion SlimVirgin has set up a strawman argument as to what the opposing position was. Also relying on Lindemann, I made the following comments in the initial discussion (comments that SV has yet to reply to):

With respect to racist stereotypes of blacks, the prosecution's case was totally based on a racist stereotype. Conley was coached by the prosecution from day 1. How did they justify the repeated major changes to his testimony to themselves. Lindemann (p. 253) writes:

"The solicitor general [Dorsey, the head prosecutor] apparently reasoned that Conley, like most Blacks of his class, was an inveterate liar, a conclusion that was perfectly natural for a southern White, even one who was liberal in his views of Blacks, in confronting such a man as Conley. Indeed, in Conley's case that conclusion was also wholly justified: He was an inveterate liar, a perfect example of the 'lying nigger' of southern mythology; he lied constantly, blithely admitting as much. Faced with transparent lie after lie from Conley, Dorsey could continue to question him until the truth emerged, until Conley 'finally' told the truth, as southern lore maintained would ultimately happen with a 'lying nigger.'"

It is extremely POV to make references in the lede to the defense's use of racist language while omitting the much more significant fact that he prosecution's entire case rested on the jury accepting the black stereotype.

My suggestion is that we either eliminate the reference to racial language in total or include language that both the state's and the defense's trial stategy relied on the use of racial stereotypes. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude This fact is 1) presented misleadingly but more importantly 2) forms a very, very minor part of what's crucial to know about Leo Frank. It probably wouldn't be in the article at all, ideally. IronDuke 23:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment From the RfC guideline "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template." (emphasis in original) Though it doesn't look like it will matter, for the record, this statement was neither brief nor neutral. IronDuke 23:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support inclusion as it helps tell the full story of what happened in the lede. I think a compromise solution might be to state, as suggested above, that both the prosecution and defense used racist stereotyping as strategies in the trial. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support inclusion, although I think the language presently in the lead, without the quote, as per Maunus' edit, is more successful. The verbatim quote is important to have in the article, but the lead does a better job of summarising the case without it. --JN466 01:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I think there is a question of whether the particular fact that the defense also used a stereotyping approach is sufficiently significant to merit inclusion in the lead, and secondly how such an inclusion should be done. I think that the inclusion of the quote is overkill and that a more neutral rephrasing would be more becoming of an encyclopedia. And yes that is partly because of the inclusion of the N-word which triggers emotional responses in many readers - this I think will make them read the entire article in a particular light. In short I can support the inclusion of a single phrase mentioning that the defense also used racial stereotyping in trying to blame it on Conley, but without including the quote.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The item in question is the only mention of Conley in the article lead. A reader unfamiliar with the circumstances of the case would get the false idea from the lead that Conley was picked as a scapegoat by the defense simply because he was black. Rather than merely being simply "another suspect" as SV's text reads, Conley was in fact, using Lindemann's language, "the prime suspect, if Frank could be shown to be innocent". Lindemann even goes so far as to say (page 254), "The best evidence now available indicates that the real murderer of Mary Phagan was Jim Conley."

The bottom line is that the existing reference to Conley in the lead is unbalanced. The real issue with the lead is how to provide balance by admitting that both sides relied on racism and that Conley was more than just another suspect. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• In reply to North Shoreman, I'm perfectly happy to include more information about the racism of the prosecution too. My aim is to produce a lead that reflects a three-dimensional view of the political context, not a two-dimensional one of Frank = good, everyone else = bad. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

But it doesn't make any difference whether Frank was or was not a good guy. If memory serves, Alfred Dreyfus wasn't winning any popularity contests, but that's not why he's important. SV, maybe that's what you're stuck on -- the idea that fairness dictates some fact -- any fact -- that might be less than flattering to Frank in the eyes of a modern reader must be in the lead, so that readers won't come away with the impression that Frank was some sort of saint. That's understandable, but misses the point entirely. The leads must be a precis of the article, not a place to promote insignificant yet prejudicial factoids. IronDuke 23:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The lead must be a summary of the key points made by the best sources, and the article should expand on those key points. We currently do neither. Your argument above that the racism issue shouldn't be in the article at all, I find puzzling, because it's the backdrop of the case. The evidence often seemed secondary. What seemed to matter were the caricatures created around the suspects, and which one of those caricatures seemed more murderous. That's a crucial aspect of the social history of the case, in the sense that, if you don't understand that point, you won't understand what happened. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence wholeheartedly. The racism issue is a minor, minor point. It's nothing like "key." It's just a provocative detail. What matters is the evidence, the antisemitism, and the outcome. This was not a case remembered for racism. That's simple, unassailable fact. If this were an article about the trial of Leo Frank, I could see including it (in the body, never the lead), but if this article were written correctly and well, there wouldn't be room. IronDuke 00:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You're offering your personal opinion, but refusing to say which sources you're basing it on. The academic sources stress that racism infused the case at every level. North Shoreman makes the point above that the prosecution depended on both the antisemitism and the racism. The defense tried to rely on the racism.

Almost all lynchings in the U.S. were of black men, some black women, some white men, and I believe Frank was the only Jew. And he was convicted on the word of a black man, which is extraordinary. Leonard Dinnerstein, the historian, explains it by arguing that the black man was so poorly regarded that his death would not have been worthy of the murdered girl, but to catch a Jew for it was a prize. The lead needs to reflect that mass of prejudice, prejudice that Frank himself was both a victim and perpetrator of.

Jeffrey Melnick, the social scientist, in Black-Jewish Relations on Trial: Leo Frank and Jim Conley in the New South (p. 61) writes that the racism thrown at Conley by Frank's team was one of the most disturbing aspects of the case. His lawyer called Conley, "a black spider ... a great, passionate, lustful animal ... a black brute ... there are a thousand of them in Atlanta who would assault a white woman if they had a chance ...." This is the language of the lyncher. If you know anything about the background of lynching in the United States at that time, this is precisely the build-up to it. But it was coming from Frank's defense team, directed at Conley.

Albert Lindemann, another historian, agrees about the importance of this in his The Jew Accused, p. 245. You're arguing that we should ignore the academic sources, but without offering sources of your own to counter them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

antisemitism

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American businessman whose lynching in 1915 by a party of prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia turned the spotlight on antisemitism in the United States and led to the founding of the Anti-Defamation League.[2]

Can someone explain what the spotlight is, how the lynching turned the spotlight on antisemitism or how it had anything to do with antisemitism? This sentence seems to be loaded with presumptions.