Talk:Leo Frank/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Deeply confused about the murder notes

I've read this article twice now, and there's an aspect I don't understand at all. Could someone more familiar with the case edit the article so as to clarify the following two points -- or, if modernity has no good answers, at least edit it so as to acknowledge that the historial record is confusing?

First, Osborn is said to observe "that the notes were written in the third person rather than the first person [even though] the first person would have been more logical," which he takes to implicate the uneducated Conley. But the notes as reported herein *are* written in the first person: "he said he wood love *ME* . . . *I* went to make water . . . *I* write while play with *ME*." Could someone clarify just what inconsistency Osborn perceived?

Second, is there any guess -- or even supposition -- as to why Conley wrote notes explicitly stating that a black man was guilty, when Conley himself was apparently the only black man involved in the case? Was there another, taller or slimmer black man whom he could have been trying to implicate? Or was it his goal from the outset to write incongruous accusations against a black man, which he could then pass off as Frank's clumsy attempt to implicate Newt Lee, even though Lee was white and the note specifically exculpated Lee? (If so, that's a bewilderingly roundabout scheme, but I suppose, somehow, it worked!)

172.58.29.86 (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• The first question I'm not sure about, so I deleted that paragraph. If any other editor here knows, please chime in and add it back if it's appropriate. We could leave it off or perhaps substitute in something about Henry Alexander's analysis.
• For the second point, I added that Lee is black after the text of the murder notes is listed, which points to a black person as the slayer. Thus, Conley is trying to frame Lee as the murderer. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• There is no consensus here for the removal, so I've reverted it. Please get a consensus before you remove sourced information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Do you know the answer to the OP's first question? Also, do you have an opinion on whether it should remain in the article, or did you just want to get consensus prior to removal? Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The latter. Sourced information should not be removed without a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The source doesn't offer a very good clarification. However, the notes do have aspects of a third party narrative. The phrase "but that long tall black negro did boy his slef" is written in the 3rd person as is "mam that negro hire down here did this". Osborn's point seems to be that a person in the process of being raped and killed probably wouldn't have shifted from 1st to 3rd person a couple of times when writing the two notes. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Media coverage sections

I am considering merging the Media coverage subsection and Antisemitism and media coverage section into the same section, and having two subsections named something like "Aftermath of murder" and "Sensationalism and biases". That way, it will be consolidated into one section and flow better. The "Sensationalism and biases" title will encapsulate the main idea of the text better, as it covers more than just antisemitism. We could also consider moving the Watson photo to this section, since he has a paragraph about him in the current Antisemitism and media coverage section but isn't mentioned in Appeals, where his image currently is. Please let me know your thoughts as I'd like to generate a consensus before making such a big change. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Concerns about invalidating the outcome of a legally concluded trial based on a 'consensus' that offers no sources, the attempts to blame a black man who was never tried in court

This article reads like a defense brief/propaganda piece for Frank. What 'Encyclopedia' unilaterally declares a convicted man innocent and an untried man as guilty? (who as an African American man in the deep south had NO reason to be looked over as a possible suspect) Serious concerns about unfounded, anti black racism in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.120.104.213 (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing unilateral about it. The article reflects modern, high-quality scholarship on the case. EEng 01:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems patently ridiculous that 'modern high quality scholarship' can state with 100% conviction that a black man in the post civil war deep south who was exonerated by a justice system already overwhelmingly biased against him is guilty of rape and murder. The fact that a handful of historians (and you evidently) are intent on framing him over one hundred years after the fact means nothing and it's little wonder trust in Wikipedia is in a freefall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.120.104.213 (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTAFORUM, either state a specific change you wish to be made to the article, with citations from reliable sources to support it, or this discussion will be closed. We are not here to discuss your views of this topic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Supra-majority of historical research article and monograph by criminal case experts are obviously biased on Leo Frank favor. Logically why wouldn't the article read in his favor? Wiki is based on notable academics, not soapbox amateur historians with ideology and passion. What you gonna say the Wiki Holocaust article is pro-Holocaust biased because it doesn't include Holocaust denialers revisionist points of view to balance it out? Come on now! What? ConnieBland (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Biased in Favor of Frank

Well it might be the consensus of "researchers", but they convicted Frank for reasons, and the Article is glaringly mute on what evidence DID exist. The narrative appears to be that he was picked up for no reason, and he dindu nuffin. Some basic information could be given, such as what was the best, most incriminating piece of evidence the prosecution had, no need for a full synopsis, but sorry "researchers said so" does not mean that the Article must therefore remain silent on whatever evidence existed that contributed to Frank's conviction. As it is, this Article gives the biased vibe of "Frank dindu nuffin, he was just jogging through the neighborhood." Also whether or not Frank took the stand to testify on his own behalf, because in general that's what innocent people do, while in general guilty people do not.68.206.248.178 (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hello, what? You need to read the courtroom trial accounts. Frank did testify for 3 hour on the stand to the jurymens. He wrote out his thoughts and opinion for weeks before his big day in court. He read it out in court from his handbill. What you mean he "dindu muffin"? He "didu sumfin". He spoke to judge and jury peoples from the witness stand but he did not allow cross or direct examination from the lawyers. Hello, he was allowed to and that don't make him guilty. Get ya, facts straight. ConnieBland (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Wikipedia relies on academic research, not readers’ opinions on the “vibe”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acroterion (talk • contribs)
• In fact criminal defendants rarely testify in their own defense. With your keen insight I would have expected you to know that and the reasons why -- having nothing to do with guilt or innocence. EEng 16:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Frank's married life sentence

I am considering removing the line "Frank described his married life as happy." from the Early life section as this seems irrelevant (albeit nice that it was the case), and I remember it being mentioned during the FAC. Please comment if you support or object since this is sourced and I want to have a talk page consensus. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It's sourced, so I'd keep it. Why is it any more irrelevant then the town he was born in or the names of his parents? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

What if we had a source stating that Frank was kind to dogs. Should we add that as well? The sentence in question is irrelevant. Think it should be removed.Gulbenk (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Frank's happy married life to Lucile is evidence the 19 factory girls at his fixed kangaroo courtroom trial were lying about him chasing after them with money and being lascivious on them. Keep the quote and source it.ConnieBland (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

ConnieBland what planet do you live on? Evidence that 19 factory girls were lying, because Frank said something about himself to bolster his case? Even if it were true, and we don't know that simply based on his own assertion, it would still be irrelevant because there are a number of killers who were devoted family men who had happy married lives. Richard Kuklinski and Robert Bruce (who's wife told her story to numerous publications) are but a few examples. Gulbenk (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

For BMK's comment, birth location and parents' names are common for biographies, but not so for satisfaction with their marriage. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually it's not unusual although more often seen in the negative than the positive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if it's negative, something probably happened that made it relevant. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

And it seems from the article that the status of Frank's marriage was considered to be of relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 00:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Gulbenk, the quote provides equity to the text. 19 factory girls at the trial were making unfounded testimony on defendant Frank saying he was a bad charater for lascivious behavior (pedophilia). Keep quotes and provide a source. ConnieBland (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Calling Frank an oppressor is a symptom of deeper problems in this article

@Gulbenk:In "Conviction and sentencing," Lindemann calls Frank an "inaccessible oppressor." This is a modern writer's interpretation of what was in the collective mind of the crowd outside City Hall 90 years ago. This is not a matter of fact but of speculation and generalization, in which the author compares the Frank affair to an event in Russia where a jury found someone innocent. So Russia = Georgia, Finding Frank guilty = finding Beilis innocent? Tsarist Ministers = The superintendent of an American pencil factory? This is such a tenuous analogy all in service of using the word "oppressor" when talking about a man who was lynched. How is this NPOV? and how does this add any value to the article? Quote: "Albert Lindemann suggests "the powerless experienced a moment of exhilaration in seeing the defeat and humiliation of a normally powerful and inaccessible oppressor."" There are multiple instances of this type of lack of NPOV in the article. I will be addressing more of them soon. DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

References

@DolyaIskrina: I could not agree with you less. Lindemann's entire work, "The Jew Accused" is a comparison of three high profile cases in which Jews were charged with crimes in the years prior to WW I. So yes, he is going to compare and contrast the Beilis and Frank cases. Sorry that you missed that point. Lindemann painstakingly dissects the Frank case, with a balanced and intensely researched understanding of the principals in that tragedy. Your NPOV comment regarding Lindemann could not be more wrong. Your remark that no value is found in this information, in the analysis of public sentiment at the time of these events, goes right to the core of your lack of insight. It is rather like saying that, 200 years after the fact, how can a "modern writer's interpretation of what was in the collective mind" of the citizens in the French Revolution hold any value, or be in the least bit accurate? Right. Those peasants were mad alright, and they killed their King, but heaven knows why....and what does that matter anyway. Gulbenk (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gulbenk: Let's not forget that this is not an article about Lindemann's book. Nor is this an article about accused Jews. It is an article about one man. You are correct that I lack insight and have not read Lindemann's book. In short, I am the intended audience for this page. If references to Cossacks, and calling Frank an inaccessible oppressor confuses readers like me, that is a problem with the page. Lindemann has a page that is a stub. You could improve that page and talk about his book there. Or if we could reach a consensus with other editors of this page, you might add a sub section about Lindemann's thesis. However, these quotes as they now occur fail on WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and possibly WP:FRINGE. I'd be happy to work with you to improve this article. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@DolyaIskrina: at the risk of wasting my time, let me at least try to get this point across to you. Lindemann was speaking about the poor and powerless citizens of the South, many of whom had come off farms and such to work in hard and low paying jobs in the city, in factories owned by wealthy northern capitalists whom they considered to be exploiters and oppressors. Frank, being a northerner and wealthy by the common standard, fit that profile. It is a comment on the post-war south, highlighting issues of regionalism and (what we would call today) class warfare. He is not saying that he regards Frank as an oppressor (if that hasn't dawned on you by now) but that many of the downtrodden masses took that view. Lindemann goes to some pains to explain that it is these issues, not a latent anti-Semitism, that was so prevalent in Atlanta at the turn of the century (he goes to some length to contrast that with Europe, where anti-Semitism was deeply ingrained). And, I hate to have to point out the obvious, but being a victim does not exclude one from also being an oppressor. Going back to my French Revolution example, there are many academic texts which point out that Louis XVI was regarded as (or was) an oppressor of the peasantry and low income urban masses. Those same texts have no problem also casting Louis XVI as a victim of the Reign of Terror, in as much as he had his head cut off. Oppressor and victim are not mutually exclusive, particularly given the various viewpoints in play. The edits you have outline would degrade the article, place it's Good Article status in jeopardy, and actually promote a POV form of censorship. Gulbenk (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's not argue about whether or not Lindemann's thesis is apt. Also please assume good faith on my part. I'm not interested in censorship. You have done a good job here in talk explaining why Lindemann talks about Cossacks and why he uses "oppressor." But none of that appears in the article and it is confusing and inflammatory in that context. So let's get that part of the article up to snuff. I proposed cutting it. You reverted. Do you have another solution? Perhaps, instead of a paraphrase, we put in a full block quote? DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

If you honestly don't understand the points being made in the sentences I discussed, it could be that the paragraph (or larger article) was edited to make that less than clear. Or it could be that a reader who approaches this article from a different perspective may find it confusing. I think I can help the former, but not the latter. So the first thought is that I should read the entire article, with those points in mind, to see if some additions can be made to drive home such a crucial point. I do suggest, if you are very much interested in this subject, that you find a copy of Lindemann's book, and read the Frank portion. Given your misunderstanding about some of the basic underlying issues at work in this case, it might be time and effort well spent.Gulbenk (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Take another look at the article, and I'll read Lindemann. To my eye, anything that smacks of "there wasn't any pre-existing antisemitism" or "But Northern Jews kinda were upsetting things, exploiting child labor" etc., needs to be handled with great care, especially in this particular and singular case which ends in a lynching. This doesn't mean we need to censor any WP:RS that said things like that (obviously in a more nuanced way), but it's important that any such statements in this article be bracketed by overt attribution. By what criteria and by whom were such things asserted? DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not certain to what degree Lindemann covers the subject, but there was not overt anti-Semitism in the Confederacy. The Confederate Secretary of State was Jewish, and many Jewish southerners served in the Confederate military with distinction. On the other hand, there are instances of anti-Semitism in the Union. That legacy, to a great degree, was carried down to the time of Leo Frank. What made Frank different was his "otherness" which most importantly was his Northern roots and manners during a period in Atlanta history when that was still a very sore point. Also, although it doesn't factor into Frank himself but does give insight into the underlying social dynamic at play, there was a ongoing conflict in Atlanta between the assimilated Germanic Jewish community, and the newly arrived (and "rustic") Eastern European Jews. You may not like any of that, but we don't do our job if we promote revisionist history for the sake of arriving at a predetermined outcome. Gulbenk (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

All very interesting, and I think it might have a place in the article. But it actually seems to me that it would be better placed in the article on antisemitism or US Jewry or Confederacy. I am not intending to promote revisionist history, I want to make sure we are making a good article about Frank. As soon as one is discussing underlying social dynamics, one is treading on thin conceptual ice. It would be WP:SYNTH for either of us to decide on our own whether or not there was overt antisemitism prior to Frank's lynching. The presence of Jewish officials does not show the absence of antisemitism, and without a source it is WP:OR to reason thusly. We are not allowed to make inferences like that. We are supposed to present mainstream opinions in context with proper citation from good sources. Even if you yourself are an historian who could be cited, you are not allowed to use WP as a platform for your opinions. Only secondary sources are allowed. If an opinion is fringe we should either not include it or present it as fringe. DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2020

'Today, the consensus of researchers on the subject holds that Frank was wrongly convicted and Jim Conley was likely the real murderer.'

THIS IS SPECULATION NOT FACT AND IT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THIS PAGE IMMEDIATELY. Dan7887 (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. I can tell by your use of all capital letters that you MUST BE SERIOUS. However, the lead of an article aims to summarize the rest of the article, so if you think this statement doesn't accurately reflect the body, you should explain why, or you should point out any issues with the information in the article it's summarizing first. In either case, this is a pretty well-sourced article and has been through the good article review process, so I'd say you'd likely want to discuss the matter with other editors first before making a request like this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There is probably no "consensus" among researchers, but rather a stated opinion by several historians of varying degrees of merit (some of whom are quick to state that there is "consensus"). The current article downplays the fact that Frank was convicted (and remains convicted) of the crime. He received a pardon based on the state's inability to properly protect him, but he was not found innocent of the crime. There is speculation as to guilt, and who else may have committed (or been involved with) the crime. It is fine to add that to article, it is of interest, but it should not receive the significant weight it is presently accorded in this article. It is speculation, and opinion. The facts, on the other hand, are that Frank was convicted, and that the conviction was upheld on appeal. When one goes to some length to quote the minority opinion of the Supreme Court (while glossing over the majority which upheld the conviction), it can be viewed as a way that current editors insert their POV into the article. Gulbenk (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

As you very well know, this issue has been discussed to death on this page and there is a long standing consensus of wikipedia editors that the existing language is appropriate and accurate. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I concur. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please reply with a list of references supporting Jim Conley as the killer?ConnieBland (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@ConnieBland: One example is in the Preface to Revised Edition of Dinnerstein's book where he says "I have no doubts: Frank was innocent." Another is in the last page of Oney's book where he refers to the present time as "an era when Frank's innocence is taken as a foregone conclusion". Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention Lindemann and Woodward in note 8. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

T. Do they speak Jim Conley did it? Steve sound like he speaking they take it for granted.ConnieBland (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• I really am not 100% sold on Frank's innocence myself, but I think that a narrative that Frank was innocent now predominates just because he was lynched by people who revived the KKK. While this article is pretty heavily slanted toward Frank, I think it's pretty hard to find a publication today (other than white supremacist publications) that openly questions Frank's innocence. It's just not politically correct to come to any other conclusion. Wikidude87654321 (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Wikidude87654321Wikidude87654321 (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. Wikipedia's article talk pages are not intended to be used for personal commentary or general exploration of the subject of the article, they are for comments which suggest or discuss ways to improve the article. Please keep this in mind in the future.
  Wikipedia relies on its information being supported by citations from reliable sources. If "it's pretty hard to find a publication today (other than white supremacist publications) that openly questions Frank's innocence", then there will be no reliable sources to support that idea, and it cannot appear in the article. This means that the article is not "slanted", but accurately reflects what reliable sources say about the case. We do not publish speculation unless it comes from subject experts, and even then it's subject to WP:FRINGE and must be given the proper amount of WP:WEIGHT. Nor do we report unsupported information simply to provide apparent "balance", which would be a false balance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

See also section

Is this section necessary? It was just added and two of the four links are already linked in the article. I want to get feedback either way before removing it if that is the consensus. @Dunutubble: Feel free to add an argument in favor below if you like. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback sir, but I think that the Links I gave are similar to the Leo Frank Topic.Maybe we should remove that last link about "Antisemitism in the USA" though. Dunutubble (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021

Change: East Point, GA being in northwest Atlanta to SOUTHwest Atlanta. 24.118.113.206 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Source on Leo Frank and the murder

Mary Phagan’s Family Opposes Exoneration of Sex Killer Leo Frank, --1.136.110.216 (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Which appears to be hosted on "A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media" which seems to have a remarkable focus on Jewish people, the "Zionist Occupation Government", the "Jew York Times", and race in general. Acroterion (talk)

Article requires substantial revision to remove bias

This section is meant to concentrate discussion of the issue of alleged bias that has been repeatedly raised in other sections. The article itself glosses over numerous facts that would otherwise give the reader a different conception of the weight of evidence that exists with regard to Leo Frank's guilt or innocence. Consequently, I propose that this section be used as a place in which all incriminating facts and evidence against Leo Frank can be received and evaluated for reliability. Once this is done, the information can be integrated into the article in order to provide a more balanced presentation of the evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlier22 (talk • contribs)

This was added by user Schlier22. PatGallacher (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

You realize that Wikipedia editors don't evaluate guilt or innocence, we leave that to historians and report what the historians say about the subject. We are looking for the consensus of reliable sources, together with notable minority views in proportion to their acceptance. If your purpose is solely to "collect evidence that incriminates Frank"[1], you seem to be trying to depart from NPOV. Acroterion (talk)' 00:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Characterization of "flirting" with "other women"

The article says: "Several former employees spoke of Frank flirting with other women; one said she was actually propositioned."

Several former employees spoke of Frank sexual assaulting other children. Characterizing this as "flirting" and "women" is simply inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.27.171 (talk • contribs)

Sources? Acroterion (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe...

... I know why jewish groups try to make a pardon to Leo Frank.

Here in germany exist a comparable murder case. This murderer is still unsolvend.

A very interesting birth date: 4/20 1982

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordfall_Stefan_Lamprecht

(only in german, can someone translate this in english?

@ Acroterion

I think we must respect the law and the jury and court decisions. Not dubious historians with their own agenda. I have a suspect that this article is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1B15:45C0:F555:DDAB:DB3:987B (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and greetings from germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1B15:45C0:F555:DDAB:DB3:987B (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mercedessimone.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Subsection "Comparison to 1913 Beilis trial"

Should the section Comparison to 1913 Beilis trial exist in this article? Of the two present sentences, the information in the first (simply stating the existence of comparisons and nothing to the relevancy of those comparisons) could be communicated in a See also link. (Yes, I know that I removed the Beilis See also link previously.) The information in the second sentence is already present in other areas of the article, and the book itself is present in the reference section. So, the second sentence also does not add to the article. I contend to remove it with the slight additions to tie up any loose ends. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Objectivity

Under subsection ‘James “Jim” Conley’ should read: “The prosecution based much of its case on the testimony of Jim Conley, the factory's janitor.” The addition of “who is believed by many historians to be the actual murderer” is unsupported. 75.68.35.45 (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you find the cited sources insufficient? In what way if so? Freelance-frank (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022

Just deserts should be "just desserts" 2601:2C2:683:9EE0:EDFF:CF40:9C2E:FA0F (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: but {{sic}} has been added instead, the original source does use just deserts. 💜  melecie  talk - 06:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Defamation

“Jim Conley was likely the actual murderer”

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? That is blatant defamation and needs to be removed. HardeeHar (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Conley is no longer alive. Therefore, WP:BLP and “defamation” aren’t relevant (the dead can’t be defamed) and Wikipedia isn’t a court anyway. For Wikipedia’s purposes, the only questions that are relevant are: is the statement reliably sourced and does it give due weight, or undue wweight, to those sources giving that point of view. This is explained in more detail in our policy WP:NPOV and specifically the part on WP:DUE. The point is covered in more detail in the body of the article where the sources are identified. That appears to me to satisfy NPOV so there is no ground for removing the statement. DeCausa (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa I wouldn't take this editor seriously. See User:HardeeHar and their contributions.[2] And is this libel? Talk:David Miliband#Controversy Doug Weller talk 09:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

They’ve now been revdel’d but I get the picture. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa I've indefinitely blocked him and removed TPA and some lovely racial etc epithets on his talk page, which he ended with "Hail Hitler". Doug Weller talk 14:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Forgot to add the threat to murder me. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Whoa! Good grief. DeCausa (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

13 or 14 when was Mary Phagan born

Lede says:

convicted in 1913 of the murder of a 13-year-old employee, Mary Phagan

However the image used of her at File:Mary Phagan Atlanta Journal.jpg says 14-year-old.

The best way to figure this out would probably be to fine the month+year of her birth. Do we have this?

Or what sources changed 14 to 13? HearthHOTS (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Her date of birth is in the article (with 2 sources): June 1, 1899. She was killed in April 1913, so that makes her 13. The image is from a contemporary report (WP:PRIMARY) in the Atlanta Journal. On the face of it, it seems sensible to go with the secondary sources because (a) the information is more specific, rather than just the age, and cited to 2 sources (b) I’m not sure to what degree a 1913 newspaper caption-writer would fulfil WP:RS. Having said that, the two secondary sources used are R. Barri Flowers “a writer of mystery novels” and Mary Phagan’s great niece so I’m not sure to what extent they’re WP:RS either. The great niece (website here) appears to be campaigning and has written one book published by a now closed down small “true crime” publishing house. Even so, it’s not a big ask of the two of them to get the date of birth right. DeCausa (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2022

Add citation needed to claim that consensus leans towards Jom Conley, highly contentious subject. 83.187.180.175 (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: There is a whole section in the body with citations covering this. The lead does no need citations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE says that contentious matters, even if fully substantiated elsewhere in the article, may still require citation(s) in the lede section. I sometimes think that, alternatively, a hypertexted link to the section in which the issue is more fully developed could also suffice. However, in this case, I think actual citation(s) in the lede is/are warranted as I cannot easily find material in the body of the article that supports the claim that modern consensus is that Conley was the sole perpetrator. (I think the most relevant discussion occurs in the After the trial section.) — SpikeToronto 16:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

If you are going to rewrite history

If you are going to blame Conley because some professor who was not at the crime scene or the trial thinks things went differently it should be immediately be followed by the other accounts or mentioned that the matter is disputed. 2601:589:8400:FD60:743D:AAD5:12EF:3F1B (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The trial judge in recommending clemency, and the governor in determining clemency, both felt that a miscarriage of justice had occurred and that commutation was required. That was contemporaneous with events and so can hardly constitute a "rewriting of history". — SpikeToronto 16:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Featured article status

Simple question (complex answer, I know): What would be required to bring this important article to Featured Article quality? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 16:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The biggest takeaway from the 2016 FAC was that the article was too long in most reviewers' opinions. The key is to make it easy on the reader while also having the article remain comprehensive, since some details that may seem trivial to a reviewer not knowledgeable on the case may in fact be important. I wasn't convinced that a second go at FA status would improve the article, although the first round did invite a number of people who make minor tweaks to sentence structure and the like here and there. Another challenge, of course, are those who argue the neutrality of the article. Many of these discussions are in good faith, and can be vital in ensuring the robustness of the article, but it is nonetheless one more thing to contend with.

It's a great question, and I'm glad you asked. If you have the time and willpower to make improvements and take it to FAC again, that would be good - just remember to ensure that not too much is taken away that the article isn't comprehensive. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Tonystewart14 for your fast reply! It’s very helpful knowing the FAC history of the article, as it provides direction for future attempts at it. I just wish my good faith in the good faith of those who argue the neutrality of the article was as a strong as yours instead of mine being rooted in a fear of the era of antisemitism we find ourselves in, unequalled since the 1930s. — SpikeToronto 12:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2022

When the article says who was arrested for the murders it says “Lee, Frank” instead of Leo Frank 2601:CA:201:1A00:4510:7721:1A2E:F83A (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Not done, it has a list of surnames. Lee is the night watchman, Newt Lee. Frank is Leo Frank. It is on purpose. --Mvqr (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Many historians/consencus

In the main body of the text it is mentioned that many historians agree while in the lead it mentions a consesus which one is it 86.115.123.203 (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The two aren't mutually exclusive. TransOceanic (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The last sentence of the very first paragraph needs to be removed entirely

I will assume the person who added this sentence was acting out of ignorance. But nowhere can I find any credible source that backs up the presumption that "today the consensus of most researchers is that Frank was wrongly convicted and that Jim Conely was the likely murderer". Someone has, it seems, deliberately added this to what is otherwise a very strong article. We are to hold a neutral point of view here. This however, is anything but. It taints the entire subsequent article and the material within under the guise that Frank was wrongly convicted and that this was a mistake because "researchers" (what researchers?) have formed a "consesnsus" that Jim Conely was "likely" the murderer.

I suggest removing the sentence entirely - however, if this is not seen as acceptable then at the minimum it must be swapped for an honest neutral statement. I suggest the following: "Today, the innocence of Frank is still in dispute with some researchers agreeing and others disagreeing with the conviction of the murder and rape of Mary Phagan".

I remind you that at the time of his conviction, this was the longest and most thorough criminal case in the history of the State of Georgia, and remained so for nearly 60 more years. ThoughtsBiggy (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done I have made the change @ThoughtsBiggy. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The statement is sourced in the "After the Trial" section. Here are some of the references: Do any RS contradict the statement? Llll5032 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The Leo Frank#James "Jim" Conley section also has references and notes about the claim. I restored the statement and added refs to three previously written notes that include some citations. Llll5032 (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sometimes top sections do not have citations for statements sourced in later sections, but per WP:LEADCITE citations are often added for contested statements. Llll5032 (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I urge you to please reimpose the removing of this statement at the end of the first paragraph. If you were to look into the sources given for this statement you will see that they are untrustworthy.

The first source is anything but fair. The first source given is a quote from, not surprisngly, an unnamed source. In other words, the source itself claims that he is seen by researchers (what researchers?) as innocent. It claims that these same unanimous researchers claim that Conley was the "likely" murderer. These statements are listed in a matter-of-fact and objective, yet no source at all is given for them. This same source claims Frank was pardoned and insinuates this was regarding his innocence... We know for a fact that the record states that the pardon

Second source is a CNN article which is notorious for being subjective. This same source uses the same exact quote given from the first source. In other words, to support that very one-sided sentence at the end of the first paragraph, the same exact original source was used but in two ways as the CNN article is merely using the quote from the first source used. Moreover, in the very same CNN article used to support that glaringly misleading sentence, you will find the following quote from one Mary Keagan. "Leo Frank was guilty as sin. He was a sexual pervert."

Again, I urge the removal of this statement. It goes against the neutral view point and objective nature of wikipedia. At the very least, there must be an inclusion of a counter statement. Something to the effect of.... "Despite many who believe that Frank was indeed innocent and that Conley was alone the "likely" murderer, there remain doubts as to the veracity of this claim to the present day."

I urge the reviewing of this statement and the speed at which it was asked to be slapped back onto the article. ThoughtsBiggy (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

..... We know for a fact that the record states that the pardon is not an "attempt to address the guilt or innocence ". The pardon solely was issued regarding the "recognition of the State's failure to protect the person of Leo M. Frank". For a source that deliberately implies that this pardon was just that - a declaration of innocence - how are we to trust it and allow that awfully one-sided statement on this article? You can find the Pardon here, which I suggest you lookover as it will provide more evidence on just how contentious Frank's innocence is and why that statement should again be removed.

• • • apologies I submitted my reply without finishing this statement***

ThoughtsBiggy (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

https://assets.gpb.org/files/georgiastories/nsouthfrank176.jpg ThoughtsBiggy (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand what "neutral view point" means in Wikipedia. This is explained in WP:NPOV and in particular WP:DUE. We reflect the balance of opinion in relaible sources. There are multiple cited references to this being a miscarriage of justice - and these are embedded in the article. It is indeed the consensus view. And also, we don't interpret primary sources - see WP:PRIMARY. DeCausa (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It mentions a consensus view. What consensus exactly? If I was able to figure out Wikipedia's archaic system for citing sources, which I will soon become proficient at I hope, I have many credible sources both contemporary and historical which dispute such an inherently incorrect and one-sided statement. When I say incorrect, this is in regard to the the supposed consensus amongst researchers, not Frank's guilt or innoncence.

Indeed I find it interesting that it was removed just to be quickly added back because a clearly biased source just happens to say so. I have many more sources which would throw this statement into the dubious category, if not outright falsehood.

Importantly, you mention the miscarriage of justice. I agree, and this is not up for debate rather it is essentially a fact. However, you mistake the the actual event which was the miscarriage. The miscarriage was that the State of Georgia failed to protect Leo Frank. His commutation of death penalty to life in prison was legally valid as up until 1940 the governor of the State of Georgia possessed commutation powers.

The leaving up of this blanket statement on such a contentious and disputed topic does not only this article but the whole of wikipedia a huge diservice. I fear mistakes like this are more and more common here on wikipedia now before. The article shave become less about the truth/education and more about one side versus another. Both sides pushing their own narratives in order to further persuade others to their creed and convictions. Worse yet, there seems to be a clear cut pattern to which the editors lean.

Make no mistake, this is a flagrant mistake. It will be seen as such. The case of Leo Frank is highly contentious, has long been disputed, and will never been adequatly solved to the chargrin of many. So why has such a statement been allowed to stay in this article? ThoughtsBiggy (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Because it's backed up by reliable sources whereas you are just spouting unsupported opinion while failing to produce the "many credible sources" you claim back it up. Yeah right. DeCausa (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• An editor just removed the section in the body that sourced the statement. I reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Unz Review a reason for the new editors?

See [3]. Doug Weller talk 07:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Quite possibly. As that article notes a revival of Parade (musical) opened on Broadway last month.[4] Coverage of that may well have reignited the ire of a number of like-minded publications. DeCausa (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

"Convicted murderer"

@DeCausa and @Beyond My Ken, you have both reverted edits to the "Short Description" section of the article which described Leo Frank as a convicted murderer. Why?

Reliable sources, used in this article, confirm that he was a convicted murderer. I can understand why BMK might take issue with the removal of "lynching victim" from the description, as he clearly was a lynching victim. But he also clearly was a convicted murderer. Harry Sibelius (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Lynching victim is what he's known for and is what distinguishes him. The short description is not a potted bio. See WP:SDAVOID The conviction itself, which is now considered a miscarriage of justice, is not particularly relevant in itself although there could be a case for replacing "lynching victim" with "victim of miscarriage of justice" since those are the two key distinguishing descriptors but having both would be overkill. It is a short description. DeCausa (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. It seems to support my position.

"Use universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial, judgemental, or promotional."

That Frank was convicted of murder is a universally accepted fact. It cannot be understood as controversial. That it was a miscarriage of justice, regardless of your opinion, is judgmental, as well as controversial.

Furthermore, it is obviously ridiculous of you to say that "convicted murderer" should be removed, despite the fact that is backed up by our reliable sources, because he is more well-known for having been lynched. If that is the case, why didn't you remove "factory superintendent".

Are you really saying that Frank is more well-known for being a factory superintendent than a convicted murderer? Harry Sibelius (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The universally accepted fact about Leo Frank -- except by those with a biased POV -- is that he was wrongly convicted and lynched. If you want to argue with that, go talk with a historian, who will tell you that you are dead wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a fair point about the "factory superintenent" though. Also the bio dates are missing. Perhaps "American victim of miscarriage of justice and lynching (1884-1915)" makes more sense? DeCausa (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

How about "American convicted-murderer and lynching victim"? There is no way that that can be disputed. He was convicted of murder, and then lynched.

Furthermore, trying to downplay that he was convicted of murder, whether or not you believe he should have been, is context-denial. The reason that he was lynched was because he had been convicted of murder, then had had his death-sentence commuted by the governor, who had connections with Frank's legal team.

A good question to ask yourself, when you propose to omit reliably sourced content such as this, is whether it adds clarity or confusion to the subject. Those of you who choose to downplay his murder-conviction or proposing confusion. Harry Sibelius (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a phone number for that imaginary historian? You are arguing for the inclusion of a non-objective fact that is not universally agreed upon (by "biased" first-person cases such as myself), and the exclusion of a reliably-sourced objective fact that is universally agreed upon. Harry Sibelius (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Look, the only people who don't accept that it was a miscarriage of justice are dubious WP:FRINGE cranks whose opinion carries no weight. It's a criminal conviction that virtually no one (except a tiny handful politically motivated oddities) believes was legitimate. Trying to emphasise "convicted murder" is just a part of that unsavoury but peripheral "campaign". If you carry on with this WP:TENDENTIOUS POV-driven approach to this article (and other articles from what I can see from your talk page) you'll end up blocked. DeCausa (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really understanding: it would be "POV" for the "Short-description" to contain verifiable facts found in our reliable sources? Is that not the opposite of what point-of-view means?

I am really taking a very moderate approach. @1Trevorr, whose edit to the "Short-description" was reversed prior to mine, wished to remove "lynching victim." I do not, because it is a verifiable fact, and relevant. I think it should be balanced by the other most relevant, verifiable fact in the case. It does not matter that you think Frank wasn't guilty; what matters are the reliable sources. Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It would've been more coherent simply to write "Shut up." Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

"Convicted murder" is accurate, but only as far as it goes. By not mentioning that the verdict of history is that he was wrongfully convicted and later lynched by a mob, it only tells a part of the story, and not the most important part at that. It's pure misdirection by omission, and it simply won't be allowed here by editors who understand the full scope of the story.

I've changed the SD to "Wrongfully convicted Jewish man and 1915 lynching viction in Georgia", which hits all the salient points: his wrongful conviction, his lynching, and the very relevant fact that he was a Jew in the American South. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

My only thought on that is it's a little Americentric. Would suggest "Wrongfully convicted American Jewish man and 1915 lynching victim". DeCausa (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I think including the South in some way is important, given that region's history of lynching blacks. It's highly improbable (but not completely impossible) that it would have happened anywhere else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not so much that as the lack of a reference to "American". If you're not American it's opaque. (There's more than one Georgia). DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Why is mentioning the American South important, considering its "history of lynching blacks?" Frank wasn't black, and your sources for his innocence are alleging that a black man was the real murderer. Did you forget that?

The American South has historically been very philosemitic; Georgia is home to the one of the oldest Jewish communities in the country, and the vice President of the Confederate States of America was a practicing Jew.

Why is the lynching of blacks in the South relevant in a case in which a wealthy Jewish man (who claimed that he was innocent, and that a poor black man had committed the crime) was lynched? That suggests his guilt, not his innocence; that even in spite of a history of philosemitism in the area, and a history of prejudice towards blacks, Leo Frank was still convicted, and even lynched when his sentence was commuted. Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Who decides whether he was wrongfully convicted? Are we just supposed to believe it because CNN and a bunch of Jewish "historians" say so? 1Trevorr (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The all white jury in 1913 Jim Crow era Georgia sided with the black man, so it must have been pretty obvious that Frank was guilty. 1Trevorr (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

No one's interested in your personal "theories". We only follow the WP:RS. DeCausa (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. So why did you remove convicted murderer? And what is the significance of the American South? Harry Sibelius (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"Exactly" The RS say that he's a victim of a miscarriage of justice. No one but a handful of anti-semitic trolls on the internet say anything different. Guess which is to be reflected in this article? 1Trevorr has been blocked for a week for their anti-semitic edit to the article with a warning that they could have been indeffed for the above anti-semitic post. Keep going with that line and you'll go the same way. It's up to you. DeCausa (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"Lynching victim is what he's known for..."

First he was known for the murderer of Mary Phagan. 2A02:908:1B10:CCC0:6089:60E3:16D7:611 (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

And now, he's known for being wrongfully convicted, and for being a lynching victim. Would you prefer that the SD for Donald Trump be "President of the United States from 2017 to 2021" or "Serially bankrupt playboy New York real estate speculator, casino owner and reality game show host", which is what he was first known for? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

No, the conviction is upheld till this day. All other is irrelevant.

I trust the court, not obscure historians. They have a dog in this fight. 2A02:908:1B10:CCC0:6089:60E3:16D7:611 (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Brother, I couldn't care less what you threaten me with. Your inability to defend your positions coherently is the reason that you need to resort to such threats, and deep down, you know this. You don't seem to be able to defend your fixation on "the south". Would you like to try again?

The article itself is already mostly a defense of Leo Frank. A short description is not a definition, and editors should not attempt to define the article's subject nor to summarise the lead. The short-description should summarize universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial, judgemental, or promotional Harry Sibelius (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You are editing against the consensus on this talk page. Editing against consensus is [[WP:DISRUPTION}disruptive]] and can lead to being blocked from editing in the future. Please do not edit the short descrition again without having a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus. There are only two of you. Harry Sibelius (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I simply reverted the SD back to the way it was when I found it; I did not add anything new. The onus is on you to persuade others to include your new material. Harry Sibelius (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I have overcome the onus, through this discussion, the consensus of which is in favor of the current SD. Do not revert it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, there are only two of you. What do you mean by consensus? Harry Sibelius (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Two for, 1 against = consensus. Consensus can change, but that's what it is right now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@1Trevorr and I=1? What? Harry Sibelius (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You clearly haven't noticed that an administrator blocked ITrevorr indefinitely for "Jew-baiting". His comment here does not count. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Is that an actual rule? Harry Sibelius (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Not all comments are counted in consensus - it's not just numbers. Per WP:CONSENSUS: nor is it the result of a vote...reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WP:TENDENTIOUS bigoted WP:FRINGE views unsupported by reliable sources are never counted. And just so that your clear, reliable sources do not describe him as a "convicted murderer" because reliable sources describe what happened to him as a miscarriage of justice. There's a difference between "convicted murderer" and "convicted of murder". But even then the latter is inappropriate. As has already been explained to you, it would be misleading. There are relaible sources that support the statement that Hitler was an unsuccessful artist. That doesn't mean his SD should be "Unsuccessful German artist". DeCausa (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC) DeCausa (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

What are those reliable sources that describe this as a miscarriage of justice?? Vickycatorz (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Welcome, brand new editor that registered 12 minutes ago and headed straight to this article bypassing the 6 million other articles in this encyclopedia. They're in the article. DeCausa (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Cant find them. You could point them out and explain why these sources are reliable? Vickycatorz (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Also have to note that its strange how you will call anybody calling Leo Frank a conviced murderer, which is an accurate discription an anti-semite while the Leo Frank defense was extremely racist towards black people. Vickycatorz (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

As Randall Kennedy notes in this piece, p.220 (in which, by the way he describes it as a miscarriage of justice) "Frank's Jewishness provoked a massive outpouring of anti-Semitic fear, resentment, and hatred that transformed his 'trial' into a spectacle. The prosecution of Leo Frank was a high point in the expression of anti-Jewish prejudice in America." What's strange is that a 100 years after Frank's "conviction" those words could apply to the reaction to this article from some who slither here off the internet. See WP:DUCK. DeCausa (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

First of all, from where I slither should not matter. You should be able to give a reasonable defense of Leo Frank without resorting to name calling. What you have provided is nothing more than an accusation of anti-semitism. Its not only you doing this. All everybody defending Leo Frank have is the accusation of anti-semitism. Going by what you have provided, there is somebody who is of the opinion that this was a miscarriage of justice.

The Leo Frank defense, with a huge budget, tried to pin the murder of 13 year old Mary Phagan on a black man in a time where people were very racist against black people and they could not make it stick because Leo Franks story and behaviour made it very clear the he was guilty of the murder of a 13 year old girl. Vickycatorz (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, your provenance is extremely pertinent, since only legitimate editors are allowed to participate in discussions here, and sockpuppets are certainly not legitimate editors. Your background, as pointed out by DeCausa above, makes it virtually certain that you are a sockpuppet, hence your opinions should carry absolutely no weight in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a deflection of the topic being discussed. Vickycatorz (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Not really. The legitimacy of the participants is always relevant to any en.wiki discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

And I have already stated that I am not a sockpuppet account. Vickycatorz (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

And I am having great difficulty believing that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Although I have to admit that, considering that on your talk page your wrote "The Leo Frank case was resently brought to my attention..." [5], we may be looking at a case of off-wiki canvassing, which would also invalidate your comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• A neutral pointer to this discussion has been posted on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Noticeboard report opened

• Harry Silbelius failed to note here, the primary place for content discussions concerning this article, that they had opened a report on WP:NPOVN, which can be found here. Several editors have expressed opinions there which should be taken into account when considering what consensus is. Notable, User:Firefangledfeathers has suggested another possibility for the SD, "Man wrongfully convicted and lynched", which I think is worth considering. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks! To repeat my thoughts from NPOVN: I don't think there's any NPOV issue with the current SD, but it is pretty long. I do lament the loss of "American Jewish". I think dates are fine to drop per WP:SDDATES, given the length concerns. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm of two minds about this. I like the brevity and succinctness of your version, but I'm afraid that it may leave out too much. The current version is "Wrongfully convicted American Jewish man and 1915 lynching victim in Georgia", perhaps "American Jewish man wrongfully convicted and lynched in 1915" or ""American Jewish man wrongfully convicted and lynched" would be a compromise between the two versions? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  I do prefer the compromise version, but the length is for sure interfering with the purpose of the short description. Vector 2022 users and iOS Wikipedia app users see it when searching, and right now I'm getting "Wrongfully convicted American Jewish man and 1915 lync" on desktop and "Wrongfully convicted American Jewish man" on the mobile app. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Coming here from the NPOV noticeboard, I haven't had time to read every single source this article cites in its entirety, but looking through what turns up when I look at books about Frank bears out what DeCausa and Beyond My Ken have said above about the lynching being the most noted thing, the wrongfulness of the conviction being also widely noted, and "convicted murderer" being misleading (relative to how RS cover the subject). Something in the vein of what's in the article now ("Wrongfully convicted American Jewish man and 1915 lynching victim in Georgia") looks good, but I do like Beyond My Ken's suggestion of "American Jewish man wrongfully convicted and lynched in 1915" to make it briefer (we don't need "in Georgia" since we're saying "American"). -sche (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I wanted "in Georgia" as an indicator that the incident took place in the American South, which I thought was significant, but it's the part that I'm most willing to see put aside. I am concerned about Firefangledfeathers' report about some users seeing a cut-off version of the SD, sommething about which I wasn't aware. (I see the whole current SD using the mobile app on my iphone, and under Monobook on my laptop.) I don't quite know what to do about the contraction on the mobile app that Fff is reporting, but if I've counted letters correctly "American Jewish man wrongfully convicted and lynched" should be OK for Vector 2022. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

For that version, desktop looks good and iOS app puts out "American Jewish man wrongfully convicted", which is not too bad Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I have no objection if you want to go with the compromise version, "American Jewish man wrongfully convicted and lynched". How do others feel? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Fine with me. Have a slight preference for getting in some dating but this hits the key descriptors. DeCausa (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2023

The page uses "most historians," a noted wiggle term, to state who believes Frank was wrongly convicted and that it was instead his black employee. This should be changed to refer to specific historians or, at a minimum, to state who is stating most historians believe such. The sources in the article point to a local alternative weekly paper and a CNN online article, who only notes it to contrast with a descendent of Phagan who believes Frank was guilty. That descendent is actually cited extensively through the page, but never regarding her opinion after research. There are a number of ways to address this, at discretion of the editor, however, absent such, it invites critique. Note, I'm not advocating for Mary Phagan Kean's position, but noting the general critiques that one should avoid. 2600:8806:3402:BC00:49BD:70B3:E698:F99D (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Please establish a consensus for a specific change before making a request. As an aside, it's not a wiggle term noted or otherwise (noted?). Simply a statement of the actuality. DeCausa (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2023

"Dorsey's strategy played on prejudices of the white 1900s Georgia observers, i.e., that a black man could not have been intelligent enough to make up a complicated story.[85]"

This sentence is not supported by the source given. It does not say Dorsey took advantage of this deliberately, it merely says that white georgians held this prejudice. This gives the impression that Dorsey intentionally exploited said prejudice, which may be true but is absolutley not supported by the quoted text. 2600:1702:2062:9000:FDCF:888F:2677:D288 (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"Dorsey's strategy appealed to prejudices of the white 1900s Georgia observers, i.e., that a black man could not have been intelligent enough to make up a complicated story.[85]" 120.21.116.46 (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Conviction upheld?

Is Leo Franks coviction upheld or not? 2A02:908:1B10:CCC0:34B9:3674:E4B7:1F5A (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, his conviction was upheld. He was never absolved for the crime. Rather, a corrupt governor commuted his sentence to life in prison. 73.148.153.47 (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Though the "corrupt" adjective given to Governor Sloan is anything but neutral, this user is correct. The conviction was upheld despite enormous amounts of lawyering and every possible avenue was exhausted leaving the very last one, which was an appeal for a pardon or commutation from the governor. The pardon was denied whilst the commutation to life in prison was granted. Frank's lawyers thereafter were quickly moving to commute his sentence entirely. ThoughtsBiggy (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah thank you. He is a convicted child-killer.

Why do some people denying this fact? 2A02:908:1B10:CCC0:6089:60E3:16D7:611 (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Because when one of your own group goes down as the upmost of depraved people.... that is, one that was convicted by a unanimous jury of his peers in what was the longest criminal court case in Georgia state history at the time it occured.... as a child rapist & murderer of an innocent 13 year old girl Mary Phagan, that can besmirch all who share your ethnic identity. I am referring to the Jews, of course. It was from this salacious court case from which the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, known simply as The Anti-Defamation League was founded. The ADL is a Jewish international non-governmental organization which is very much active to this day. The original reason for the foundign of the ADL was ostensibly to fight against criticism of Jews - in any form. Later they expanded their mission to cover all peoples from discrimination. In short, the reason why both the wikipedia page on Leo Frank in combination with the page on the ADL as well as the article on The Murder of Mary Phagan all erroniously claim that "historians today generally consider Frank to have been innocent". The sources used for this outright falsehood in all three of those cases listed come from Jewish authors and can therefore be safely presumed as biased.

I have tried to have the page on Leo Frank remove the sentence at the end of the first paragraph whereby it claims most researchers today believe that Frank was innocent. I was successful for only a few hours before a full-court press attempted was made to find a suspect article to then justify it being promptly returned to the article.

I challenge a wikipedia user to please find a serious quality source that doesn't simply state "the consensus of researchers is that Frank was wrongly convicted and Jim Conley was likely the actual murderer". Find an article free of deception and bias which can verify this disputed statement and justify its remaining on wikipedia. ThoughtsBiggy (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Conley's race

How many reliable sources so we need to include this? The fact that Conley is black is very notable, so notable that a whole book "Black-Jewish Relations on Trial: Leo Frank and Jim Conley in the New South" was written about its significance. I cant see any reasonable justification for its exclusion. DarrellWinkler (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

In this edit you attempted change a quote from a cited source. You can't do that. DeCausa (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

That was a mistake on my part, apologies. DarrellWinkler (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The last sentence of the very first paragraph needs to be removed entirely

I will assume the person who added this sentence was acting out of ignorance. But nowhere can I find any credible source that backs up the presumption that "today the consensus of most researchers is that Frank was wrongly convicted and that Jim Conely was the likely murderer". Someone has, it seems, deliberately added this to what is otherwise a very strong article. We are to hold a neutral point of view here. This however, is anything but. It taints the entire subsequent article and the material within under the guise that Frank was wrongly convicted and that this was a mistake because "researchers" (what researchers?) have formed a "consesnsus" that Jim Conely was "likely" the murderer.

The source given for this statement is misused. We should assume this was an honest mistake despite this contentious issue. Indeed, the source does state that Frank was pardoned. However, if we continue reading the article it goes on to claim the following... "the record states that the pardon is not an 'attempt to address the guilt or innocence.' Rather, the pardon solely was issued regarding the "recognition of the State's failure to protect the person of Leo M. Frank."

I urge you to please reimpose the removing of this statement at the end of the first paragraph. If you were to look into the sources given for this statement you will see that they are untrustworthy or have been misused. ThoughtsBiggy (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC) — ThoughtsBiggy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

My thoughts are that this is just a repeat of an earlier post that User:Illusion Flame and User:Llll5032 replied to. Your only edits have been to this article and talk page. Doug Weller talk 10:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

What is your point? ThoughtsBiggy (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done as we told you before @ThoughtsBiggy. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Would you please clarify the reason why? I submit that the source listed was misused. You should take a look at it for yourself, first hand. I presume the statement was mistakenly misunderstood and left on the page not because of intentional deception but rather an honest to goodness mistake. Let me know once you go over the source listed. I appreciate it. My goal here is to have an accurate article insofar as possible by using neutral sources, and by paraphrasing those sources accurately as the author had intended. ThoughtsBiggy (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Like we told you before, there are reliable sources to support these claims. One source is this. Can you find reliable sources to refute these statements? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

If you would have done a basic amount of research on the source you just listed you would see why I am arguing in good faith that the source does NOT claim that there is a consensus amongst researchers that Frank was innocent. Moreover, the source listed only briefly goes over the actual events surrounding the murder of Mary Phagan. In short, it avoids the question of guilt or innocence of Frank. In the words of the author, " 'Black-Jewish Relations on Trial' " is concerned less with what actually happened in the National Pencil Company factory than with how Frank's trial, conviction, and lynching have been used as an occasion to explore black-Jewish relations and the New South. Yet, this source is the justification for that sentence to remain? Please explain how this is an appropriate use of said source. ThoughtsBiggy (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

“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.” That seems pretty reasonable to me. Please attempt to keep your cool @ThoughtsBiggy. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Wrong again. There is no such thing as unanimity about Frank's innocence except when the source is another Jewish person so it would seem. You were already provided with a source which claimed the exact opposite, yet you dismissed it out of hand because it is supposedly racist for claiming Frank was guilty? Moreover, it gives many reasons for his guilt, instead of a demented man's 70 year prior recollection. This is such a joke. ThoughtsBiggy (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This Washington Post article explains that Leo Frank's innocence is only a matter of controversy among racists and anti-Semites. Therefore, there is a case for amending the last sentence of the lead, with that as a source, to say Today, the consensus of researchers is that Frank was wrongly convicted and Jim Conley was likely the actual murderer, although this has been challenged by anti-semitic campaigners. DeCausa (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some independent researchers. From this article, it appears that only pro-Jewish and anti-Jewish groups care about this issue. Roger (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

A Jewish academic and a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-semitic website like LeoFrank.org are not comparable - they're not "equal" opposing POVs. In any case, it's nonsense and offensive to claim that Frank's innocence is only supported by "pro-Jewish" groups, whatever that means. See p.220 of this piece by Randall Kennedy, for example. The reality is that almost all serious opinions are that Frank was a victim of a miscarriage of justice except for a handful of anti-semitic cranks on the internet. DeCausa (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I looked at that page. It says "racial sentiments played a key role in the miscarriage of justice". I wonder if the author even knows that the chief witness (and probable rapist) was Black. Did people in 1913 Georgia think that Jews were worse than Blacks? It doesn't make much sense to me. I am all in favor of giving all the evidence, and you are right that some authors are more convincing than others, but I do not see a consensus. Roger (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a consensus – an overwhelming consensus – whether it make sense to you or not. DeCausa (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not see how there could be a consensus. Dinnerstein says Frank was innocent. A lot of people at the time were convinced that Frank was guilty. I googled Dinnerstein's book, and found this. [6] I cannot assess that, but obviously the author is not part of the supposed consensus. I am all in favor of including all the arguments for Frank's innocence, but I do not think that there is a consensus. Roger (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The sentence we're discussing is "Today, the consensus of researchers is that Frank was wrongly convicted and Jim Conley was likely the actual murderer." The opinions of "people at the time" are not a factor. The site you linked is racist. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

So was there some new evidence discovered that was not available to people at the time? Or maybe everyone back then was racist, and now there is a consensus of non-racist researchers? I do not see the support for the statement. Roger (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I see the CNN article says: "The consensus of historians is that the Frank case was a miscarriage of justice." Okay, I would not object to the article saying that. Roger (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Smaller opening

The article's opening is rather large and not a proper summarization of the article. Here is a version I propose: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leo_Frank&diff=prev&oldid=1171252752 Jon698 (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this article passed the standards for a Good article. This, of course, does not mean that there are no changes to it which could be made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Another important detail is the age of the GA, as it was elevated in 2015 followed by an unsuccessful FAC. Jon698 (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A significant amount of the article is dedicated to the murder of Phagan and the subsequent trial. While only one subsection doesn't mention Frank ("Discovery of Phagan's body"), it still would make sense to split it out from Frank's page into a page for the victim, like we normally do. The lynching would stay, but there are multiple sections where I'm not sure which side it would go on. There was an RM back in 2015 with a similar justification, but it was opposed. SWinxy (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• The 2015 RM was about renaming the article "Trial of Leo Frank", not about splitting the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - Historically, the murder itself is non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Could you elaborate? What makes it not notable? SWinxy (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's absolutely ludicrous. The murder is the notable thing, and it's rude to the memory of Mary Phagan to make her murder a footnote in the biography of the person convicted of the crime. Livius Plinius (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, but no. Actual statistics are hard to come by, but it's likely that there were many hundreds of murders in Georgia in 1915. The murder of Mary Phagan is only notable because of the conviction of Leo Frank and his subsequent lynching. There's nothing about the murder itself which would pass WP:GNG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Considering the controversy associated with the murder, and the discussion of other potential suspects and later developments involving witnesses and other actors, it makes little sense for all of that to be contained within the biography of Leo Frank. Livius Plinius (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  The notability of Leo Frank himself is mostly based on the case, trial and lynching. Llll5032 (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's unclear what benefit there is in doing that. Frank's bio, the murder and the trial are all inextricably linked. Splitting it would be artificial and result in a lot of duplication. That seems to be admitted by the proposer when they say "but there are multiple sections where I'm not sure which side it would go on". SWinxy, you haven't explained why it benefits the readers to do that. DeCausa (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Are the biographical details of other suspects, witnesses, and involved parties also inextricably linked to Leo Frank? This biography of Leo Frank ends up having to provide considerable biographical detail about Mary Phagan and Jim Conley. It also has a section providing contextual details about social characteristics of the time. This all seems odd to include in a page that is ostensibly a biography of Leo Frank. At minimum, this page needs a different title. Livius Plinius (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly support. It is extremely disrespectful to the memory of Mary Phagan to have her story contained solely within the biography of the person convicted of the crime. Mary Phagan should be the main article, with links to articles about other notable persons. Livius Plinius (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

"Respect for Mary Phagan" is irrelevant in this discussion. Every murder victim deserves respect, but only those whose murders pass notability requirements have Wikipedia articles. If you disagree, please cite a policy to support your viewpoint. Only policy-related opinions should be taken into account by the person who closes this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Many famous murders are only noteworthy because of public interest after-the-fact. The victims themselves were unknown until the murder. Is your argument that Mary Phagan needed to be well known before she was murdered for a separate article to exist covering her murder and trial? And how does that work with discussion about other possible suspects and developments that aren't necessarily related to Leo Frank? Livius Plinius (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The point is that there is only one notable topic here: the miscarriage of justice and the lynching of Frank. There's nothing about either Phagan or her murder that absent that would warrant an article. DeCausa (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The lynching was a miscarriage of justice, but Frank's conviction has never been overturned. It is a matter of opinion whether he was wrongly convicted. Moving the murder to its own article would allow for greater neutrality. Phagan's murder was sensational before Frank was ever charged with the crime. It is noteworthy in itself. Livius Plinius (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

"Frank's conviction has never been overturned." Frank was posthumously pardoned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The “pardon” was not an exoneration. It specifically says that it does not address Frank's guilt or innocence. It is essentially an apology by the state for failing to protect him from the mob that abducted and lynched him. You can read it here.

“In 1983, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles considered a request for a pardon implying innocence, but did not find ‘conclusive evidence proving beyond any doubt that frank was innocent.‘ Such a standard of proof, especially for a 70-year-old case, is almost impossible to satisfy.

Without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence, and in recognition of the State's failure to protect the person of Leo M. Frank and thereby preserve his opportunity for continued legal appeal of his conviction, and in recognition of the State's failure to bring his killers to justice, and as an effort to heal old wounds, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, in compliance with its Constitutional and statutory authority, hereby grants to Leo M. Frank a Pardon” Livius Plinius (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

"Moving the murder to its own article would allow for greater neutrality." You seem to have a poor understanding of what "neutrality" means in Wikipedia. Read WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Your view amounts to creating a WP:POVFORK, which isn't going to happen. DeCausa (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

It would allow for more neutrality because the scope and premise of an article specifically about the murder and trial is inherently different from one that is a biography of a particular person. Having a separate article devoted to the murder and trial allows for a broader discussion. When the murder and trial is contained within Leo Frank's biography, the question is always whether a particular detail is relevant to Leo Frank's life story rather than whether it is relevant to a discussion of the murder of Mary Phagan. Livius Plinius (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Has that question excluded high-quality reliable sources from this article? Llll5032 (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The question is whether a biography of Leo Frank can encompass all the facets of the murder of Mary Phagan. Livius Plinius (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

No, that is not at all the question. The real question is, "Is the murder of Mary Fagan Wiki-notable or not outside of the involvement of Leo Frank in the issue". You have continued to duck this question, and have not shown how an article about the murder itself would pass GNG. I am very confident that it would not. That is how we decide whether a subject would get a Wikipedia article, not appeals to emotion, by which every murder would have an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

No, the issue is that Leo Frank is not notable outside of being the convicted murderer of Mary Phagan. Wikipedia's notability guidelines state that “A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article”

At minimum, this article needs to be retitled to make it clear that it is, in fact, about the various people and events connected to the murder of Mary Phagan and not simply a biography of Leo Frank.

The other aspect of notability is avoiding indiscriminate inclusion of distinct topics. This articles strays far from being a biography of Leo Frank when it has to provide background on the social conditions of Atlanta at the time, child labor issues, biographical information of Mary Phagan and Jim Conley, and recount events involving other parties decades later.

At the very least, the article is far broader than a biography of Leo Frank, and should be renamed to something that encompasses all of the aforementioned topics included in this article. “Leo Frank” is a not a title which does that.

Another consideration is article length and article cogency. Again, this article strays far from being about “Leo Frank” when it recounts other facets of the murder investigation, trial and aftermath. Livius Plinius (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

You have an interesting, if badly skewed, view of the issue. Frank was wrongfully convicted and then lynched. That makes him notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Many people believe that Frank was wrongly convicted, but his conviction has never been overturned. Many people also hold the opposite view. A neutral point of view would not definitively take either position.

Regardless, that's irrelevant to the question of what conceptual framework best conveys the information in this article. As it is necessary to provide extensive biographical details about other parties, and other contextual details that are inconsistent with a biography of Leo Frank, this article should bear a different title. Livius Plinius (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Let me call your attention to WP:BLUDGEON and suggest that it is not necessary for you to reply to every comment posted in this section. It's getting a bit annoying. Further, your comments frequently stray into WP:FORUM territory as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. She is not notable apart from Frank. Rjensen (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  The question isn't whether Mary Phagan is notable. It's whether the murder of Mary Phagan is notable.

  Leo Frank is only notable for being the convicted murderer of Mary Phagan. Livius Plinius (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Question: what high-quality sources cover this all mainly framed around Phagan's murder and not around Leo Frank? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per DeCausa -- there's a single coherent topic here. --JBL (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Period after sentence

@DeCausa "There are not 2 sentences there" I never said there were.

"One sentence divided by a semi colon." So you say it yourself that this is a sentence. And per "MOS:CAPFRAG", captions that contain at least one sentence must end with a period.

Your reference to "BRD" is inappropriate in this context as well, as this is an objective yes/no question where nothing needs to be argued out.

BRD states: "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary [...]" I gave my reason for why I think it's a sentence. You agreed that it's a sentence. Now you have to explain why in this case, the sentence shouldn't end with a period, contrary to the MOS:CAPFRAG guideline. Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

We should rewrite the caption so its either obviously a fragment or a grammatically correct sentence. How about "Leo Frank during the trial with Lucille Frank to his right"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Even if the text before the semicolon is merely a sentence fragment, it doesn't matter, as the text after it is a gramatically correct sentence; see MOS:FRAG.

I already explained it in my edit summary: "A sentence is defined as a set of words that is complete in itself, containing a subject ("Lucille Frank [...]") and a predicate ("[...] is to his right")." Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Maxeto0910, "Nothing needs to be argued out" WTF? A sentence can't start with a semi-colon. That's basic grammar. Let's go with Firefangledfeathers suggestion which works fine. DeCausa (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"A sentence can't start with a semi-colon."

I'm not a native English speaker, but the wiki article states that it may be used "Between closely related independent clauses [...]". So it seems like a sentence can indeed start with a semicolon.

"Let's go with Firefangledfeathers suggestion which works fine."

I have nothing against it. Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

If you're not a native speaker you may want to consider these two rules in English: (1) a sentence always begins with a capital letter; (2) any word, other than a proper noun, following a semi-colon always begins with a non-capitalised letter. Anyway, I think Firefangledfeathers has provided a solution! DeCausa (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Short Description Neutrality

The “Short Description” on this article currently reads: “American Jewish man (1884–1915) wrongfully convicted and lynched”

Leo Frank's conviction has never been legally overturned. A “pardon” was issued in 1986, but it is simply an apology by the state for failing to adequately protect Frank from abduction and lynching. It explicitly states that it does not address the question of Leo Frank's guilt or innocence:

“In 1983, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles considered a request for a pardon implying innocence, but did not find ‘conclusive evidence proving beyond any doubt that frank was innocent.‘ Such a standard of proof, especially for a 70-year-old case, is almost impossible to satisfy.

Without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence, and in recognition of the State's failure to protect the person of Leo M. Frank and thereby preserve his opportunity for continued legal appeal of his conviction, and in recognition of the State's failure to bring his killers to justice, and as an effort to heal old wounds, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, in compliance with its Constitutional and statutory authority, hereby grants to Leo M. Frank a Pardon”

While I understand that many historians believe Frank was incorrectly convicted, many other people are equally convinced of his guilt, including the descendants of Mary Phagan. Furthermore, no appeals court –including the US Supreme Court– has ever found any issue with the jury's decision nor the conduct of the trial.

It is simply not objective to definitively state that he was “wrongfully” convicted. It remains a matter of opinion. I suggest revising the description to say either: “…convicted of murder and wrongfully lynched” or “…controversially convicted and lynched” or “…and lynching victim” Livius Plinius (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the last short description discussion was here. I continue to feel that the current short description is accurate and neutral, and that only the length restrictions (already slightly transgressed) hold us back from fully capturing the major bits of info. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

How it is “neutral” to say that he was “wrongfully convicted” when no court has ever overturned the verdict? It is a matter of opinion. Li vius Plinius (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I would hate to just trade assertions back and forth with you, so I'm happy to wait and hear how others feel. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The body of the article makes point with citations that there is "near unanimity" that this was a miscarriage of justice. the short description reflects this and is WP:DUE. Actually the unanimity is that of serious scholarship. It's only "controversial" among a small collection of far right and anti-semitic websites that have cropped up in the last decade or so. They don't count. They have fed forum-like posts of fellow travellers across the internet proclaiming the non-existent "controversy". Some wash up here. They don't count either. DeCausa (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The legal system is ultimately the objective arbiter of the validity of the verdict in this case. Despite a century of legal wrangling, Leo Frank's conviction still stands. As recently as 2019, Fulton county convened a special review board to reconsider Leo Frank's conviction. Four years later, the conviction has yet to be overturned. Leo Frank has simply never been formally exonerated, nor has any fault with his trial ever been identified in a court of law.

The scholarship in this case is only among a very small group of defenders and detractors. This matter simply is not widely studied nor discussed among the general public. The involved parties on either side are, for the most part, partisans with deep emotional investments. Nevertheless, there are numerous researchers for both sides. You are simply giving no weight to the many researchers who you feel are incorrect, regardless of how carefully they make their arguments. Livius Plinius (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

There are no "both sides" when websites like Leofrank.org are (rightly) excluded. That's the point. DeCausa (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The other “side” here is the legal system. A point with which you are simply not contending. Livius Plinius (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The lynching prematurely ended the legal process. Of course, there's no appeal. The defective proceedings are frozen in 1915. That's why the pardon was given. DeCausa (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Leo Frank appealed his conviction all the way to the Supreme Court during his life.

Since his death, there have been two applications for pardons, and in 2019 Fulton County created the “Conviction Integrity Unit” to review the case, which doesn't appear to have gone anywhere. His conviction could still be nullified through a variety of means. Livius Plinius (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually you don't seem to be connecting with the fact that the consensus of historians and other scholars conversant with the subject is that Frank was wrongfully convicted - there is absolutely no doubt that this is the case. Wikipedia reflects what the experts say, so that's what the short description should say.

Again, I point you to WP:BLUDGEON, and this time I warn you specifically that if you don' with stop bludgeoning this talk page with your idee fixe, I will take the matter up on the Administrators' Noticeboard and ask for a formal warning to be issued to you, to be followed by being blocked from editing if you do not stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think that there is any such consensus. When did it come about? How? How can anyone be so certain about events so long ago? I can understand concluding that Frank was probably innocent, but did some historian somewhere prove that he was innocent? Who did that? Who was convinced? Unless you can point me to an answer to these questions, there is no consensus. Roger (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm. I took the time to read this discussion, and have yet to see anyone who suggests Leo Frank was anything other than innocent provide a single reliable source to suggest as much. Most likely because there are none. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

This Washington Post article provides a useful summary of the two "sides" of the "debate": "overwhelming evidence"/"historical consensus" v. Neo-Nazi and white supremacist websites. DeCausa (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I learned some things from that Wash. Post article. It explains that interest in the case is maintained by opposing political factions who have historical and ideological reasons for defending their positions. I think the Wikipedia article should explain this better. The Wash. Post is a left-wing newspaper, so it has its own ideological spin on the story. It says that web sites with "thousands of authentic documents ... dispute the historical consensus". Okay, I would not object to the Wikipedia article saying that. It also says "Overwhelming evidence implicates Jim Conley ... Conley was convicted as an accessory after the fact." Again, no objection from me. But the Wash. Post article does not say that Frank was wrongfully convicted, and I do not see the justification for such a statement. Roger (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I think "wrongfully convicted" is a fine summation of the current consensus among reliable sources, but do you have a suggestion of what you would like to see replace it? Dumuzid (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd also note that, while acknowledging that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, the working Wikipedia definition of "wrongful conviction", as articulated on the list of wrongful convictions in the United States, includes some historic cases of people who have not been formally exonerated (by a formal process such as has existed in the United States since the mid 20th century) but who historians believe are factually innocent. Not surprisingly or coincidentally, Leo Frank is included on that list. There's no reason not to use "wrongfully convicted" in this case. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that list. I see Frank can qualify based on "research by historians has revealed original conditions of bias or extrajudicial actions that related to their convictions and/or executions." I am not sure he suffered from original bias, as I would expect the jury to have been more biased against Conley than Frank. There was certainly a notable "extrajudicial action", a lynching. The description there seems factual and NPOV to me, except for one thing: It says "Yes" under the column "Legally exonerated". I will fix that, unless someone objects. To answer the question of what I would suggest: something more like the description there. Roger (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, what you or I think or expect are not really bases for changing an article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I guess you are agreeing with me. I am arguing in favor of sticking to objective information. Roger (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Does I would expect the jury to have been more biased against Conley than Frank fall into the category of "objective information"? Dumuzid (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

No, and I am not suggesting that be put into the article. I am arguing to remove "wrongfully convicted", as that is just some editor's personal opinion. Roger (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It would appear to me to be the majority opinion of historians and related experts on the case. Dumuzid (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Convicting someone of a crime they did not commit is definitionally a wrongful conviction. We don't need a court to say that officially when the consensus of reliable sources is otherwise clear, as it is overwhelmingly so here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Roger has already agreed to that above when he wrote:

I see the CNN article says: "The consensus of historians is that the Frank case was a miscarriage of justice." Okay, I would not object to the article saying that. Roger (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Plinius is right. In addition to his conviction never being overturned, the evidence against him is overwhelming. It's not "antisemitism" every time a jewish person gets accused of doing something wrong. 74.109.13.35 (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"Overwhelming" according to whom, exactly? Dumuzid (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I edited the short description to something more neutral, but someone reverted it already. The short description should summarize the article. The article does not say he was wrongfully convicted, and neither does any source cited here. It is just an editor opinion, and does not belong. Roger (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense. Your edit was nothing short of lying by way of omitting context. I am seriously starting to doubt your good faith here. Dumuzid (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

My stretched-out AGF says maybe they don't equate consensus of experts with fact, but we absolutely do and should continue doing so. On the other hand, I think Roger's change from "preserve his opportunity to appeal" to "preserve his opportunity for additional appeals" was an improvement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

My change was from "wrongfully convicted and lynched" to "convicted of murder, lynched, and pardoned". That is brief, factual, and implies that he did not deserve what happened. If there is really a consensus that he was "wrongfully convicted", then don't argue with me here. Put it in the main article, and back it up with sources. There is certainly a lot of evidence that Frank did not commit the murder. I am not contesting that. It appears to me that there is no consensus about what happened, and no consensus that Frank was wrongfully convicted. Roger (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

BMK quotes you yourself above, saying I see the CNN article says: "The consensus of historians is that the Frank case was a miscarriage of justice." I have no idea how you're claiming that there's no consensus, either amongst us editors here on this talk page, or in the wider world at large. Nor do I understand why you keep saying it's not in the Wikipedia article: the Wikipedia article says very bluntly: Today, the consensus of researchers is that Frank was wrongly convicted. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Because there is no consensus that Frank was wrongfully convicted, and there is no source that says there is. The article should have a neutral short description that summarizes the article. The article does not even say that he was wrongfully convicted. Roger (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The article says so multiple times. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

As you acknowledged, the CNN article certainly backs up the language, as do other sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

No, please do not put words in my mouth. The CNN article says something different. So does the Wikipedia article. Nowhere does either say that Frank was wrongfully convicted. If you say it does, please show the exact quote. Roger (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

...What do you think the term "wrongful conviction" means? It doesn't just mean "convictions that were later overturned or vacated", it means "convictions of people who were innocent". Here's one such definition; here's another. You'll note that, while the definitions you seem to be operating under are there, the first definition in both cases is A conviction of a person for a crime that he or she did not commit/The person convicted is factually innocent of the charges. It is a synonym of "miscarriage of justice" (ref: the term “miscarriage of justice” means that the defendant is actually innocent), which you've already acknowledged. This is why we don't need the courts to overturn a conviction to call it wrongful; if the consensus of historians is that Leo Frank was innocent, then that is enough for us to call it a wrongful conviction. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you perhaps drawing a distinction between "wrongly convicted" and "consensus of researchers is that Frank was wrongly convicted"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me our interlocutor is objecting that the exact terminology "wrongfully convicted" is not present. While I don't agree that we can't summarize similar statements ("miscarriage of justice" etc.), those words are not hard to find. Observer says "The nearly unanimous consensus of contemporary researchers is that Frank was wrongfully convicted." The New Yorker describes Frank as "a Jewish pencil-factory manager in Georgia who in 1913 was wrongfully convicted of, and later lynched for, raping and murdering a white girl." The Jerusalem Post described him as " . . . an American Jew wrongfully convicted of murder in Georgia in 1915." The Tennessean, in reprinting its major reporting regarding the statements of Alonzo Mann, wrote about "Leo Frank, who was wrongfully convicted of killing Mary Phagan in 1913 in Atlanta." The New York Daily News, in describing the tsuris surrounding the Broadway show "Parade," described it as "a musical about an American Jew who was wrongfully convicted of murder and lynched a century ago." NBC New York described the same show as "a musical about the true story of Leo Frank -- a Jewish man lynched in 1915 after he was wrongfully convicted for the rape and murder of a 13-year-old girl." USA Today says the show is about "Leo Frank, the Jewish superintendent of a pencil factory in Atlanta, who in 1913 was falsely accused and wrongfully convicted of the murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan." Similarly, Salon says the show "follows the true story of Leo Frank, a Jewish factory manager who was convicted of raping and murdering a 13-year-old employee named Mary Phagan in 1913. Today, the consensus is that he was wrongly convicted, but at the time, amid rising antisemitic tensions across Georgia, Frank was kidnapped from prison in 1915 and lynched in Phagan's hometown" (emphasis added). Again regarding the show, Vice says Frank was "a Jewish man lynched in 1915 after he was wrongfully convicted of raping and murdering a 13-year-old girl in Georgia." Even the American Film Institute gets in on the action, describing a 1915 film as having a story "based in large part on actual events surrounding the much publicized case of Leo M. Frank, wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Georgia . . ." Suffice it to say, I believe the "wrongfully convicted" language is adequately supported. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This is interesting, but why don't you put the language in the main article, instead of arguing it here? The Tennessean does indeed say Frank was wrongfully convicted, based on a 1982 statement by a witness who changed his story. Okay, that episode is already in the main article, but it did not convince everyone. There are also a bunch a comments about a fictionalized play. I would not take any of that literally. Roger (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't really care how you take it. When you have a consensus to change the article in line with your preferences, feel free to do so. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Contrary to your arguments, which I believe have been made in bad faith, there are plenty of honest folks out there who have credentials wihch qualify them to make judgement calls regarding criminal cases… It has been my experience that those who have taken an honest-to-goodness review of the trial of Leo Frank, as in those who are not of a certain minority (be it ethnic or holding prejudicial beliefs), can comfortably rest on the knowledge that the jury got it right the first time — Frank was guilty. Moreover, these same people can acknowledge that he was wrongfully lynched.

For you to cite articles that have long been seen as more than dubious and other articles which center around a make-believe play which itself can rightfully be seen as propaganda is just one more very sad instance that wikipedia is beyond compromised at this point. Eventually, others with the wherewithal will come here and attempt to set the record straight. No doubt you will be quick to reply with antisemitic charges and linking the same one-sided & outright biased sources, calling them credible and whatnot. What does it say, I wonder, that the living relatives of Mary Phagan all believe in Frank's guilt? Or that his widowed wife refused to be buried next to her husband? Or that every appeal including those made even in this century has found no credible evidence or compelling reason to change the initial decision reached? 2601:346:880:5940:ED65:A9C4:6D50:A0A2 (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

That's all very interesting. As I said above, when you can demonstrate a consensus to change the article, I will support you doing so. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Please delete this unedited reply, thank you SpicyHabaneros (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

You potray very one-sided and clearly biased sources and claim it forms a "consensus" which is on its face blatant misdirection on your part. It is not on us to show that he is innocent, as there was an entire trial and many legal appeals over the last 100+ years which established beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. Alas, Wikipedia nas nevert he arbiter of truth. It was never truthw wrthy. That is in part due to bogus folks like yourself who habrbr ulterior motives and despite what anybody above have linked or no matter how many solid indisputable facts laid out for all to see.…the article unbelieavaby claims that there is a consensus that he is not only not guilty, but that Jim Conely is the murderer. Tell me, what evidence occurs in this article that would lead the everyday reader to concur that yes , t would appear that Jim Conely was the murderer and that Frank was wrongly convicted? There is none, of course.

The Onus is on you and the gang who very maliciously claim there is a consensus among historians (Dinnerstein is not a consensus rather a biased source per her own admission being of the same ethnicity, check her prologue admits as much). Such a shame, I hope the average person sees through this, and anybody who does any research certainly will. SpicyHabaneros (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Enjoy your weekend! Dumuzid (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

However, please note that changes made without a clear consensus behind them will be immediately deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved administrator who has been watching this article since it was mentioned on a noticeboard some months ago. There should be no need to spend this much energy on the wording of a Wikipedia:Short description. There appears to be a consensus (WP:CONSENSUS) that the current wording is satisfactory. Accordingly, there is no need for people to respond further unless the next steps in dispute resolution are taken (that probably means starting an WP:RFC which might be a first for a short description). My recommendation would be for the minority to have their last say and the majority to not respond unless something new has been raised. Johnuniq (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Consensus

Sourceless and lengthy digression - blogs, especially blogs that call Google CCP-Google, are not RS, nor are websites that headline "Bizarre Oddities: Oh My, Obama’s Brother Says Barack Sold His Soul to Satan To Join the Illuminati:
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What has a so-called consensus among modern historians to do with anything? There is a strong cultural consensus now and since '68, that no convicted murderer, esp. if s/he is a member of a minority can ever possibly be guilty (Angela Davis, George Jackson, Huey Newton, Dylan's "Hurricane" from the 60's/70's; Joe Hill, Sacco & Vanzetti, from the I.W.W. period). Passed on Comintern propaganda, the 100% consensus of historians was, that SA was guilty of the Reichstagsbrand. A canard very popular again today. --Ralfdetlef (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC) @Ralfdetlef: No idea what any of this means for the article. How are you suggesting the article be changed, exactly? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC) @Writ Keeper if I’d seen this earlier I’d have reverted it per WP:NOTFORUM. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC) They already have two warnings for using talk pages as forums. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC) one of you two is making a point, and the other is posturing. 74.109.13.35 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC) "No idea what any of this means for the article." He's saying that using a consensus as the arbiter of truth is silly . Are the historians forming this consensus murder investigators? What use is their consensus, then? "How are you suggesting the article be changed?" You are being willfully ignorant. What he's suggesting is obvious.... i.e. remove all references to Leo Frank being "wrongfully" accused. Also, attempts to paint his lynching as racism are even more silly. These horrible racists declined to lynch the BLACK MAN, instead lynching the man who looks almost caucasian. Sure, that's how racism works. I'm sure you're going to delete this. Not a forum, right? You won't even finish reading this before you hit delete, because it doesn't matter if I'm right, it doesn't matter if I'm actually using the talk page as intended, it doesn't matter of WP has become a Snopes-level JOKE... as long as YOU are right. Make sure you say out loud "Take that, racist!" as you click the delete button. 74.109.13.35 (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC) You're right. This place is awful. You should probably just leave and never come back. That'll show 'em. Dumuzid (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia is compromised my dude. You're never, ever going to see a truthful page on a Jewish individual. Might as well save your time. 184.146.136.205 (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Perhaps it's time to go find brave truth tellers on some other site? Dumuzid (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Perhaps it's time you stop defending convicted murders and trying to rewrite history. What evidence do you have, or can you source, that shows his innocence? We have loads proving the opposite. The second we provide legitimate sources, it is discarded as anti-Semitic. 2601:346:880:5940:98D7:BF49:6FB1:9E12 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC) Take a look at the article for the answer to your question. Also, "We have loads proving the opposite". Who is the "we"? Is it the neo-Nazi and white supremacist websites that The Washington Post says, in this article, are the only people who "dispute the historical consensus of Frank's innocence"? DeCausa (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC) Based on the editing history of this /64 range, I think you're wasting your time [7] Acroterion (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC) Blocked, this is the 2nd block for this range for making personal attacks. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC) I apologize for my confusion regarding the '/64 range'. I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide a brief explanation of this matter. There exist numerous individuals who have expressed their disapproval towards the notion that there exists a consensus, or that the articles that support their presumption of innocence are backed up by the most shaky evidence, if any. The evidence presented for his innocence was insufficient to sway the grand jury, the numerous judges who all ruled against his numerous appeals, or the jury that conducted his trial. So we are to toss out all these formal and recorded judgements over what exactly? Dinnerstein, of whom is the source given for the last sentence at the end of the first paragraph boldyl claims there is a supposed consensus about his wrongful conviction. Dinnerstein is not a reliable source. In her prologue she admits to having a personal stake, in her own words, "as a proud sSmitic woman" who aims to "set the record straight." This is not to say Jewish folks cannot have their own opinions on this matter ,but if we have any amount of credibility you must acknowledge that there is, very naturally, a high likelihood of kin naturally having biased views. Those who share certain similarities, ethnic or otherwise, invariably are predisposed to defend each other as comes naturally. Inevitably ,in almost all cases this is a universal truth. I submit to you that it is therefore improper to use Dinnerstein as a source for such a sweeping blanket statement. Do not insult our collective intelligence by smearing anybody who points this out as being prejudiced. Clearly, this is the most elementary and pathetic reflexive defensive possible which has been used more than once in this talk page. My mother is Jewish from her mothers' side just the same. Speaking for myself, I take issue with the egregious claim regarding a supposed consensus of innocence — but I have no axe to grind, so-to-speak. My hopes are that the majority or entirety of the people here are of the same heart. Instead, when we come across outrageous claims that continue to be actively pushed it is incumbent on us all to resist the record from being tarnished. In essence, history is being manipulated with flagrantly misleading claims at best, or malicious deceptive lying at worst. Given the fervor of some defenders of this article I have begun to lean towards the latter. Are you being willfully ignorant about the many folks above who are in agreement that the blanket statement that he was wrongfully convicted is inappropriate? Clearly, there are over a dozen likely well-intentioned probable historians, researchers (myself being one of them), and average interested people that strongly object to the suggestion that there is any "consensus" regarding the innoncene of Mr. Frank. That is the "we", since you failed to recognize the plurlilty of good folks who take issue on this important historical subject. What is worse yet, this has very generously given the coveted "good article" designation. A travesty no doubt when such claims are made in the first paragraph. This only serves to cement the historical revisionism, something I am increasingly convinced is the very purpose of the defenders here of this consensus statement. If the consensus statement has any validity to it, I would love to hear the reasons for its existance. To my knowledge, it is based almost entirely on conjecture via Dinnerstein's book. The author, that is Leonard Dinnerstein, tells us of the deathbed confession of one Alonzo Mann. Mann signed an affidavit claiming he saw Conely carrying Phagan's body inside the pencil factory. He was scared to tell on him, only informing his parents, who in turn told him to be silent. Mann said his life was threatened by Conely if he spoke to anybody. This deathbed confession came a staggering 69 years after the fact. Mann was said to be not entirely lucid, almost certainly suffering from mild dementia if not worse. He was dead shortly thereafter. I am not going to poke holes in his affidavit any further but rest assured anybody with half a brain could very easily show this first-hand account to be nothing more than a fantasy by a dying man, who's motives are also in question. In short, the claim that there is a consensus almost entirely stems from Leonard Dinnerstein's work on the Leo Frank trial, which in turn claims Frank's innocence almost exclusively from the affidavit produced by a mildly demented 83-year-old Alonzo Mann whom supposedly witnessed Conely with Phagan's body in his arms a whopping 69 years ago and only then decided to come out with the information. The fact that Conely had died 20 years prior in 1962 was almost certainly known to Mann, yet he still did not disclose this for a further 2 decades. Lastly, at the time of his conviction, there had never been a criminal trial which lasted as long as Leo Frank's in the State of Georgia. It was a thorough, complete, and utterly detailed trial which gave Mr. Frank and his extensive legal team every chance to exercise any and all possible legal defenses available in order to substantiate his innocence and thereby provide the jury every chance possible to have a reasonable doubt as to who else possibly committed the rape and murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan. Frank's wife, upon her passing, adamantly refused to have her burial next to that of Frank's. I wonder why she insisted upon this… I hope an administrator or someone who has some decency and integrity makes the right decision and reverts this article to a truly neutral standing, as it is anything but that at this time. SpicyHabaneros (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC) That is nearly a thousand words, and not a single citation to a reliable source among them. The assertion of consensus comes from the reliable sources cited in the article: The modern historical consensus, as exemplified in the Dinnerstein book, is that ... Leo Frank was an innocent man convicted at an unfair trial(cite 1), the consensus of historians is that the Frank case was a miscarriage of justice(cite 2), Frank, a Jew living in Georgia, was a factory superintendent who was convicted―by almost all modern accounts wrongly―of sexually assaulting and murdering Mary Phagan (cite 4, emphasis mine), all the way to But the [white-supremacist-run] sites, of course, dispute the historical consensus of Frank’s innocence (cite 245). Various others simply assert the wrongful conviction as fact, without feeling the need to cite a historical consensus for it, such as Frank, a Jewish man wrongfully accused of murder, was lynched(cite 257). This is just me quickly breezing over the sources readily at hand, and yet I find plenty of sources supporting the assertion that "the consensus of modern historians is that Leo Frank was wrongly convicted". When you've found and presented an equivalent number of reliable (so, not the aforementioned white-supremacist-run websites, just to head that off at the pass) sources contradicting that fact, we can talk. Until then, this is nearly a thousand words of hot air. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC) No, that is your opinion. You know exactly what you are doing. It seems to me that a pattern has emerged clear as day. If the source doesn't boldly claim that Frank was wrongly convicted, then it is a "white-supremacist" site as you say. Tell me, being anti-Semitic synonymous with being white-supremacist? Those are two different things and the careless way you conflate the two illustrates your one-sided judgement on this sensitive topic. Dinnerstein is in no way a reliable source for reasons already stated. If you have actually read Dinnerstein's 1987 article you will notice the obfscation if you are of sound mind. Moreover, he openly admits to his bias in the prolougu. (cite 1) So whilst Dinnerstein's article makes up a huge percentage of the citations on this page, including the supposed consensus of Frank being wrongfully convicted, the author himself mentions his views are influenced by his shared ethnicity. Alas, this is somehow a reliable source? How twisted must your logic be? The second citation given (CNN article, laughable to consider this a reliable article) contains a juicy paragraph which unequivocally contradicts this supposed consensus. According to Mary Kean, author of "The Murder of Little Mary Phagan," directly contradicts the idea of a consensus. Kean emphatically declares "Leo Frank was guilty as sin. He was a sexual pervert." (cite 2) It appears that we have deliberately manipulation from some malicious actors. When sources contradict the erroneous and partisan notion that there exists a presumptive consensus regarding Frank's innocence among contemporary researchers, they are not only anti-Semitic but also governed by white supremacists. When sources like CNN say there is a consensus that Frank is innocent, even though they contradict that idea in a mere 2 paragraphs later, or when an author who says that Frank is innocent admits to having bias, these sources are considered "reliable." According to The American Chronicle, "Leo Frank, convicted murderer of 13 year old Mary Phagan, got what he deserved when he was lynched" (https://theamericanchronicle.blogspot.com/2014/02/leo-frank-got-what-he-deserved.html) Moreover, Phillip Raymond illustrates that at no point was the prosecutor, the police, nor even the people themselves unduly focused on Frank from the outset due to his ethnicity. The headline and lead article in the Atlanta Georgian of April 29th, 1913 was as follows: “LEE’S GUILT PROVED, Detectives Assert” — “SUSPICION LIFTS FROM FRANK” — “We Have Sufficient Evidence Now to Convict Negro Nightwatchman of Killing Mary Phagan” — “Additional clews furnished by the head of the pencil factory [Leo Frank] were responsible for the closing net around the negro watchman” — “what suspicion had rested on Frank was being rapidly swept away by the damaging evidence against the black man.” Nobody today is claiming that Newt Lee had anything to do with the murder of Mary Phagan, and indeed, shortly thereafter the suspicion would be focused on the very person who "furnished clews" against the innocent Newt Lee. This is important because it shows that there was never a conspiracy to frame Frank from the start. Only slowly over time did the pieces fall where they might, and they all showed the same thing: Frank was the guilty man./ I would very much love to upload a photo of this headline, but the page is under an admin protective order. I have requested this to be removed so that this picture may be added to weight against this travesty. SpicyHabaneros (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft Request for comment regarding the statement that Leo Frank was wrongfully convicted & that there is a consensus among researchers that he was innocent

Should Leo Frank's description including the contentious claim that he was wrongfully convicted? Is there an actual consensus that Mr. Frank was innocent of the charges he was found guilty of? SpicyHabaneros (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

SpicyHabaneros (talk · contribs): You have seven edits, six of them to this talk page. I have no knowledge of the topic but an RfC is for significant issues that need resolution from a wide group of editors. Before attempting an RfC, please present a proposal (this text should be changed to that) with some reliable sources to justify the change. According to the close of the previous section, some sources mentioned on this page are clearly not reliable. I have therefore changed this to a draft to discuss whether an RfC is needed. There is no need unless a plausible proposal is presented. Johnuniq (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

An RFC? Absolutely not. This is a waste of time and other editors' good faith. If SpicyHabaneros persists, I will head to ANI to request a topic ban. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Bbb23 has just indeffed them. I suppose extended confirmed protection for this talk page would be considered a step too far? Semi? You have to go a long long way back before you find a post that would have been excluded by either that but that wasn't WP:DISRUPTIVE. DeCausa (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Impact on the Ku Klux Klan Revival

"His case spurred the creation of the Anti-Defamation League and the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan." Shouldn't there be an elaboration on this in the "After the Trial" section? This line name-drops the KKK but doesn't appear to explain why or how it led to the resurgeance of the KKK. If it's important enough to include in the opening of the article, surely it should be alluded to in places other than the opening the article alone? Horizons 1 (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph in the aforementioned section. Horizons 1 (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

This remains unresolved. Horizons 1 (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

+1. Also found this a bit strange 84.52.235.68 (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

"Night Witch"

This article states that Jim Conley misspelled "night watchman" as "night witch". Although it was assumed at the time by many that this was the case, it is inaccurate.

There was a belief among Southern African Americans at the time in a creature called the "night witch". This creature was said to come in through a keyhole at night, get upon the chest of a sleeping person and take his or her breath away. That was what Conley was referring to when he wrote "he said he would love me laid down, play like the night witch did it."

Whites were almost totally unaware of this superstitious African American belief, thus they assumed that "night witch" was a misspelling of "night watchman". Of course, it was not in Conley's best interest to correct them, since he was alleging that Frank dictated the note, and it was highly unlikely that a Jewish man from the North would know about the "night witch". Jersey Jan (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Citation 1 does not include supposed quote

In the first paragraph of the article, it is claimed that the modern consensus is that Mr. Frank was wrongfully convicted, although the citation ([1]) does not contain the quote listed in [n 1] Iamsombrero (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The quoted text begins on the third line of the second page of the archived pdf of the cited source. NebY (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, I apologise.

Viewing from mobile, more than one page weren’t evident. Iamsombrero (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"Modern Consensus" is used in the cited article however the author solely pulls from Leonard Dinnerstein's book, The Leo Frank Case (printed in 1968 but cited article states 1987). One person does not constitute a consensus. --Asr1014 (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Plenty of sources in the article support the assertion that there is a modern consensus. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The cited article is Professor Wilkes' review of Dinnerstein's book; his statement concerning the modern consensus is not based solely on Dinnerstein and Wilkes explicitly identifies other books and articles. NebY (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Consensus of wrongful conviction?

It seems odd to me that the evidence indicating a consensus among historians is single comment from a non-scholarly news source (CNN). It's a low-quality source for such a strong claim. JDiala (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the entire article, not just the lede? Specifically the section "Later consensus: a miscarriage of justice"? Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, right. Strenuously disagree (I think he was guilty), but fighting this fight is probably not worth it on my end. JDiala (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

What is your assertion that he was guilty based on? Longhornsg (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I suspect part of the answer is, he was a rich man found to be guilty by a jury of his peers beyond a reasonable doubt. He had the resources to defend himself properly and he used them, but was still found guilty at his trial.

I suspect the other part of the answer is, he was a Jewish man that was lynched and the historians who are asked about this are either Jewish themselves and find his lynching abhorrent for that reason, or they are non-Jewish and are afraid of being labelled anti-Semitic if the say they think he was guilty. Either way, they come to the conclusion that Leo Frank was actually innocent, potentially without actually believing this. 2603:7080:402:D900:8F1:B239:2FA8:1095 (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You're really telling on yourself when you assume that "being Jewish" is the only reason someone could find the lynching of a Jewish person abhorrent. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if my earlier statements lent themselves to being misinterpreted, as appears to be the case. I do not pretend to know whether Jim Conley or Leo Frank were in fact guilty in this case (or if it was some other third party), nor do I have particularly strong feelings one way or the other. I personally suspect Jim Conley was the actual rapist/murderer, but I would only say that I have ~60% confidence in this belief.

My earlier statements were my suspicions/theories in regard to why other people believe that Leo Frank is guilty. The part of my statement that you take issue with (the second part) is my theory about why a person (presuming good faith in that person) would disagree with most historians about this case being a miscarriage of justice. My theory is as follows:

Talk pages aren't for lengthy sources less theorizing about the motivations of scholars or historians, or criticism of the ADL
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Historians look at this case and see that Leo Frank was a victim of a lynch mob. Lynching (extrajudicial killing) is wrong, even when there are legitimate reasons to believe that the lynching victim has committed heinous acts (such as a guilty verdict in a court). They also see that there was a lot of antisemitism in the press at the time, and given this antisemitism (and aggressive press coverage before the trial) it was unlikely that Leo Frank received a fair trial. Furthermore, the historians see that there was an alternative suspect, Jim Conley, who-given the pressure to quickly charge and convict the perpetrator-may not have been fully considered/investigated, especially if the wider community was already convinced they knew who the killer was. The historians look at all this and more, and they come to the conclusion that it was more likely that Jim Conley was the killer than Leo Frank, and that an innocent man was wrongly convicted and subsequently lynched. I believe that people who disagree with these historians may be thinking that the real reason the historians are coming to the conclusion that Leo Frank was innocent is specifically because he was lynched and the historians want Leo Frank to be innocent so that the lynch mob is wrong not just in their actions but also in all their beliefs that led to their actions. This desire for the lynch mob to be wrong in both action and thought would be particularly strong for Jewish historians who might see themselves in (an innocent) Leo Frank and for non-Jewish historians who are concerned about being considered anti-Semitic if they come to any other conclusion about the case. Additionally people that disagree with the historians might simply have disdain for the ADL, which was founded in response to this case. If someone dislikes the ADL they will want Leo Frank to be guilty because then it will mean that the ADL was founded on a lie.

2603:7080:402:D900:CC30:A083:FB94:BD94 (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems like this post is being heavily misinterpreted. This post does not theorize with the motivations of scholars/historians, it theorizes about the motivations of people who disagree with scholars/historians. It also doesn't criticize the ADL; it points out that people critical of the ADL will be motivated to think Leo Frank is guilty (potentially when the majority of the evidence suggest otherwise. I think it is important to remind users of the "assume good faith" policy. 134.6.207.163 (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, this talk page isn't a forum for your views concerning Frank or the ADL, it is for specific, reliably sourced article improvement. "My theory is as follows" is not an appropriate use of any talk page. Acroterion (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I know, that's why I haven't been using it as a forum for my views concerning Frank or the ADL. One of the users "JDiala" took issue with the claim "The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted" and I was explaining why I thought he and others would take issue with this wording, although-I'll admit-it's gotten a bit off topic. Re-wording this claim to include that this is the view expressed by Jessica Ravits (CNN) and/or Donald Eugene Wilkes Jr. (Flagpole Magazine) would be better, in my opinion. Although I think superior to either of those sources would be to directly quote/reference Leonard Dinnerstein (Historian/Professor), since Eugene Wilkes Jr. relies on Dinnerstein's book in his article anyway. 134.6.207.163 (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

If you are the same editor who attacked Acroteria on an IPv6 address expect to be blocked if you do it again. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Request to change the last sentence of the first paragraph entirely

In no way should folks get the impression that Leo Frank was innocent. A jury of the man's peers found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Dinnerstein, writing a highly biased article over 50 years after the fact, does NOT speak for all researchers. It should be noted and is quite obvious that the net has been scrubbed clean of any credible articles on the murder of Mary Phagan.

Mr. Frank had all the resources anybody could have ever possibly wanted in order to defend himself in a fair trial. He was subsequently found guilty.

I wonder, if in 50 years, some were to write a biased book claiming that the death of George Floyd and the subsequent trial of Derek Chauvin was incorrect and that most researchers believe that he was not murdered? What source can trump the actual trial which took place? If you were to read the actual source you'd find it claims that most researchers think he is innocent but gives nothing to back it up.

I look forward to the replies to this request, thank you. Swiftozis (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the sourced body of the article, is not solely tied to a single reference, and is not required to be referenced at all, since the sources are all present in the article body. The lede is required to summarize the article's content. There are over 200 references and an extensive bibliography, including a significant section on historical review. That reference is there because of past disruption by agenda-driven editors who insist that there is no consensus of historians and who keep demanding sources in the lede, a common obfuscating tactic. The note and reference are not to Dinnerstein, but rather to an academic review of the Dinnerstein book which summarizes the consensus of multiple authors, including Dinnerstein. Read the rest of the article and all of the references. As for your assertion that justice is infallible in all times, places, and circumstances, that is at best naive. Your analysis is not admissible in place of scholarly consensus. And read the rest of this talkpage and its archives. Frank is a perennial bugbear for drive-by complaints, and Dinnerstein is well-regarded by his peers. Acroterion (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I will admit I've not read anything by Dinnerstein on this subject besides what is quoted in the article, but did he make an actual argument as to why he was wrongly convicted? By what is being quoted, it seems his entire point was that people in Atlanta back then were hysterical, which ignores the overwhelming evidence included here. Swinub (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The article discusses the trial, post-trial developments, and commutation in detail. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There are good reasons for believing that Frank was innocent, but there does not appear to be any consensus. The cited sources do not say that there is any consensus. Apparently Georgia officials revisited the issue in 1986 and 2019, and were unable to declare that Frank was innocent. So I agree with the above comment that the challenged sentence should be removed. Roger (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You can't have read the cited sources which clearly describe the consensus. Consensus isn't unanimimity though. There's the neo-Nazi websites specialising in the case. In reviewing them the NYT (in currently citation 247) noted that "the sites, of course, dispute the historical consensus of Frank’s innocence". DeCausa (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

As you know, the lede summarizes the sourced body of the article. You need to gain consensus for changes to the article body before asking that things be modified or struck in the lede. Acroterion (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not see any consensus. Maybe one side is mostly neo-nazis and pedophiles, and the other side has respectable citizens. I don't know, but it is still not a consensus. Roger (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::::I concur with Roger. To say there is a consensus is not accurate. I feel there are good points to be made toward Frank's culpability on both sides of this debate.

However, one important fact that weighs heavily on Frank's guilt is that he was found guilty by a jury of his peers in the original criminal trial which was the longest and most comprehensive criminal trial in Georgia's history up to that point. Moreover, all of his appeals were flatly denied and his execution was finalized and a date set. This was finally derailed by a

Indeed, there are factions on both sides with their agenda. Some anti-semitic folks proclaim his guilt as would be anticipated. Dinnerstein, who hails from the same ethnic background as Frank, is equally quick to assert that Frank's innocence is largely undisputed. Whilst that fact may or may not be relevant is would be naive to not mention the possibility that it may have biased the claim of Frank's innocence and the consensus behind it. He goes a step further and says that there is a consensus amongst historians on this point. I have seen no evidence of this bold claim. Everywhere I look the exact opposite rings true, including this very talk page.

More troublesome in my view is that the source listed gives no concrete reasons as for why Frank was wrongfully convicted.

Moreover, two more recent legal actions most recently in 2019 refused to clear Frank's record. There was a "pardon" given to Frank, but this pardon distinctly refused to touch on the guilt of Frank but rather the inability for the state to protect his person. If a consensus existed, why would a court of law twice flatly refuse to declare his innocence?

There is anything but a consensus. This article ought to be changed. Perhaps a request for comment action would be in order to get further input? Swiftozis (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The amount of people, whom I assume are not prejuidiced and assuming good faith, that have taken issue with the notion that there is a consensus regarding Frank having been wrongfully committed here on this talk page is enough to show that no such thing currently exists. Swiftozis (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not enough, and neither is your own opinion about Frank's trial or Dinnerstein's "ulterior motives". Wikipedia works on verifiability and reliable sources. The article cites ample reliable sources that specifically indicate there is a consensus among historians--not among Wikipedia editors, among historians--about Frank's wrongful conviction (see the many, many previous threads in the talk page archives about this). You need equivalent reliable sourcing that says otherwise to dispute it. Anything else is a waste of everyone's time. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm interested in knowing what attracted a brand new editor to land here to complain. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not see much consensus. Just what is it? The CNN article says: "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." Okay, maybe there is a consensus about those things. A consensus about missing evidence does not necessarily mean that Frank was innocent. Roger (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You know what? I'm just going to copy Dumuzid's response, to you, on this exact subject on this exact page, from nearly a year ago:

It seems to me our interlocutor is objecting that the exact terminology "wrongfully convicted" is not present. While I don't agree that we can't summarize similar statements ("miscarriage of justice" etc.), those words are not hard to find. Observer says "The nearly unanimous consensus of contemporary researchers is that Frank was wrongfully convicted." The New Yorker describes Frank as "a Jewish pencil-factory manager in Georgia who in 1913 was wrongfully convicted of, and later lynched for, raping and murdering a white girl." The Jerusalem Post described him as " . . . an American Jew wrongfully convicted of murder in Georgia in 1915." The Tennessean, in reprinting its major reporting regarding the statements of Alonzo Mann, wrote about "Leo Frank, who was wrongfully convicted of killing Mary Phagan in 1913 in Atlanta." The New York Daily News, in describing the tsuris surrounding the Broadway show "Parade," described it as "a musical about an American Jew who was wrongfully convicted of murder and lynched a century ago." NBC New York described the same show as "a musical about the true story of Leo Frank -- a Jewish man lynched in 1915 after he was wrongfully convicted for the rape and murder of a 13-year-old girl." USA Today says the show is about "Leo Frank, the Jewish superintendent of a pencil factory in Atlanta, who in 1913 was falsely accused and wrongfully convicted of the murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan." Similarly, Salon says the show "follows the true story of Leo Frank, a Jewish factory manager who was convicted of raping and murdering a 13-year-old employee named Mary Phagan in 1913. Today, the consensus is that he was wrongly convicted, but at the time, amid rising antisemitic tensions across Georgia, Frank was kidnapped from prison in 1915 and lynched in Phagan's hometown" (emphasis added). Again regarding the show, Vice says Frank was "a Jewish man lynched in 1915 after he was wrongfully convicted of raping and murdering a 13-year-old girl in Georgia." Even the American Film Institute gets in on the action, describing a 1915 film as having a story "based in large part on actual events surrounding the much publicized case of Leo M. Frank, wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Georgia . . ." Suffice it to say, I believe the "wrongfully convicted" language is adequately supported. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You have been beating this dead horse for almost a year, if not more: I wish you would do something more productive with your time. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone who googles this subject will see that there is no consensus that Frank was innocent. Roger (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, when I google from the UK I get these as the top three results:

• New Georgia Encyclopedia: "The Frank case not only was a miscarriage of justice..."
• Encyclopaedia Britannica: "The investigation was fraught with controversy and included the torture of witnesses. Press coverage surrounding the trial and subsequent appeals—sensationalized by a...white supremacist, Tom Watson. The prosecution based its case against Frank on coached testimony of Jim Conley."
• History.com: "Frank had been convicted—by most historians' accounts wrongly..."

But that's google for the UK. Maybe in your part of the world the American neo-Nazi websites get more prominence. DeCausa (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's with neutral search terms and the wrong search engine. The top result in a Bing/DuckDuckGo search for Leo Frank no consensus was www.leofrank.org, a website concerned with - as its latest article by Kevin Alfred Strom has it - "Jewish sex killer Leo Frank" and "the genocidal nature of the Jewish agenda". But yes, after that the results do settle down to reaffirmations of a miscarriage of justice and consensus of innocencewrongful conviction. NebY (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It's weird, but for some reason, "Anyone who googles this subject will see that there is no consensus that Frank was innocent" doesn't look like a citation to a reliable source. Doubly weird that, given that Google searches are essentially lists of links, it would've been trivial to copy and paste those links to prove it. Ah well, I suppose it will remain one of the great mysteries of our time. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Are there notable dissenters from the consensus that Frank was wrongfully convicted? Of course there are. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. Does the fact that some people disagree mean there is no consensus? It does not. If unanimity were required, we would all be put in the shoes of the universal skeptic, unable to accept anything at all as real. I think I did an okay job in my post above (as quoted by Writ Keeper) in gathering some relevant sources. Roger, if you want to pursue this, I would suggest you try to do something similar. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not trying to prove Frank guilty. I accept that he was probably innocent. I would not even object to text that mirrored those UK google hits. Go ahead and say that the case was a miscarriage of justice, or it was fraught with controversy, or that most historians disagree with the trial outcome. But there is no agreement that Frank was innocent. Most of the sources recognize that. I am a little mystified as to why editots here insist on a position that is so obviously wrong. Roger (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"Wrongly convicted" and "miscarriage of justice" are not equivalent to definitely "innocent" in law and society. Acroterion (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Exactly, ACroterion is right on with this. There is a big difference between the two phrases but some folks here have interpreted them incorrectly as meaning the same exact thing. They are not. Swiftozis (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The space in between is the "beyond a reasonable doubt" part of the law. It is the reason someone is found "not guilty" instead of "innocent." Acroterion (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

But there is no agreement that Frank was innocent. We do have sources that say there is a historical consensus that Frank was innocent. You have still managed to avoid providing any sources that disagree with them. I wonder why that is. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

With all respect, your sources are based off of a single author who took a very personal interest in the Leo Frank case, by his own admission.

I find it troubling that we are to take the trial and subsequent conviction itself so lightly and Dinnerstein's dissertation as matter-of-fact, despite the latter being 55 years late. That doesn't explain the many requests for pardons made by Frank during his life. All of them were denied, except for one special legal "pardon" that said it did not take a position regarding the innocence or guilt of Frank but rather the inability of the State to protect him.

Here are a couple sources to back up what I and many others have said makes the sentence inappropriate.

According to Steve Oney, the notion that Dorsey was desperate for a conviction and that there was unethical behavior in the prosecutions conduct was unfounded. He asserts "there is no indication at all Hugh M. Dorsey was motived to indict Leo Frank without legal sufficiency and wrongfully convict this defendant just to bolster his own legal career or political ambitions. Dorsey’s case against Frank was credible and convincing"

Source - Oney, Steve. People vs. Leo Frank. Public Broadcasting Service, 2009,

Moreover, Jewish-American author/historian Moses Jacobs states the following:

The 21st Century Verdict of History Concerning Leo Frank: Innocent or Guilty?

We now know, at long last, with reliable certainty, Frank’s conviction on August 25th, 1913, was incontrovertibly the correct conclusion and accusations he was railroaded for the murder primarily because of anti-Judaic religious intolerance are categorically false, prejudiced, bigoted, racist and anti-Gentilic in nature.

Jacobs, Moses. "Why Was Leo Frank Convicted?" Medium, 29 July 2019

It would have been best for my talk page comment to have begun with source material. Here we have multiple sources that are credible and not tainted with neo-Nazi ideology or racist sentiments.

By no means is there a consensus among wikipedia editors, historians, or everyday people regarding the innocence of Leo Frank and now having provided multiple credible sources which indeed dispel any illusion of a consensus existing.... the sentence should have rewritten entirely to accurately state that Frank's trial was contentious both then and now and many questions are unanswered as to his guilt or innocence regarding the murder of Mary Phagan.

I appreciate your pushing for source material to back these requests up. I apologize for not having started off with the sources in my initial talk page comment. Swiftozis (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

So, your sources are:

• an interview with a historian, who's already cited in the article for his book wherein he agrees with earlier researchers: Leo Frank did not murder Mary Phagan, talking about a single aspect of a case in a documentary about what the AP describes as a century-old miscarriage of justice, and...
• an unreliable Medium blog.

You'll need to do better than that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Alas, I do not think there is any source that I could give here that would satisfy you.

Dinnerstein, the corporate press, and the fictional play Parade is an acceptable source whilst historians are not. We all know CNN's reputation is anything but veracious - I hope you can agree with me here.

What factors contribute to the unreliability of an article written by a historian who has thoroughly sourced the entire piece, whereas an article written by a journalist who merely mentions Frank's innocence and quotes Dinnerstein is acceptable? Are you aware the same CNN article likewise includes the opinion of a descendant of Mary Phagan's who states the following:

"Leo Frank was guilty as sin. He was a sexual pervert."?

That "unreliable Medium blog" author is also a professor at University of North Florida. He is credentialed and the "unreliable" part is merely your opinion. The article he wrote is itself sourced throughout beginning to end.

The first source I should have clarified earlier. In the wiki article, it is implied that anti-Semitism was rampant and largely to blame for Frank's guilty verdict. He contradicts this notion - emphatically. The point that I should have elaborated on is that the contention that the trial was marred by anti-Semitism is merely an opinion. Moreover, there is a difference between a "miscarriage of justice" and someone who is in fact innocent being found guilty. Miscarriage of justice is not nearly as strong as saying there is a consensus about Frank's innocence.

Why not put this up as a request for comment? Let's see what other people have to say about this. If there truly is a consensus that should be plain to see.

:::::::::::::::::There's no reason why a CNN journalist should be considered reliable when other more qualified people aren't. Swiftozis (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

What are you basing the assertion that he's a professor at the University of North Florida on? I don't see any evidence of this on their Medium blog, nor do I find any indication of a Professor Moses Jacobs on UNF's website, nor do I find any research papers by someone of that name (UNF or otherwise). Not even any relevant Google hits or reverse image searches. This precisely is one of the reasons that Medium is not a reliable source; it's self-published, so there's no guarantee that anyone writing there has any of the credentials they say they have.

Another reason is that, just because someone is a professor (even in a relevant field), doesn't make everything they say or write a reliable source. Peter Duesberg may be a professor of molecular and cell biology, but any unvetted material from him would be wholly inappropriate to use as a source for HIV/AIDS. Professors are just as capable of having axes to grind as the rest of the population; that's why the gold standard for sourcing on Wikipedia is secondary sources, not primary sources like this would be (assuming it's legit).

Also, I'm not declaring that this Medium person is made up, but "mash together the name of two of the most prominent characters from the Old Testament" is as basic and obvious a way to make up a "Jewish-sounding" name as I can think of.

Your disdain for the reliable sources already cited in the article is understood, but irrelevant. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not have disdain for the sources in the article other than use of a fictional play, Parade, having been used. Moreover, CNN article which just a paragraph before quoting Dinnerstein's consensus included another different quote referring to Frank being guilty as sin. So that is cherry-picking an notoriously unreliable source and leaving the bits of it that go against Frank's supposed innocence completely out of the article.

I just want to say that I do not know if Frank is guilty or not with certainty. Of course, I do think more likely than not he is culpable for the crime as did a jury of his peers during his trial. I object to some of the sources used in this article. More importantly it is an egregious mistake to say that there is ANY consensus regarding Frank's culpability but especially not one that states he is innocent whilst a legitimate trial found him guilty.

I apologize you are correct, there is no record of a Moses Jacob at the University of North Florida. I was searching for awhile and everything began to run together in my head, and things became blurry if you will. Nevertheless, he claims to be a "Jewish-American historian/journalist" and his article is thoroughly sourced beginning to end which is much more than we can say of a great deal of the sources currently used on the Page. I see no reason whatsoever to have such hostility to what is by all standards a reasonably reliable article. Swiftozis (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Because self-published sources like Medium blogs are not reliable, especially when the author's credentials are dubious or nonexistent: as RSP says: Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided. You don't have to like it, but this is how Wikipedia works. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: Swiftozis checkuser blocked for abusing multimple accounts. Acroterion (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have tried to strikethrough their posts, as they can't be removed,. but somehow ran into a roadblock and have given up. They should all be ignored, which is difficult. HAT this? Doug Weller talk 16:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC on whether a consensus currently exists regarding the innocence or guilt of Leo Frank in the murder of Mary Phagan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does a consensus exist regarding either the guilt or the innocence of Leo Frank in regard to the murder of Mary Phagan? Swiftozis (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This is inane. The consensus of historians on Leo Frank's innocence is well-cited in the article, and neither OP nor any of the other swarm of SPAs on this topic have ever presented anything resembling a reliable source indicating otherwise. Without sources, OP has no leg to stand on. I hope this RfC can be speedy-closed to avoid wasting everyone's time even further. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The antagonistic attitude shown here is unprodcutive and unwarranted. I acknowledge and respect your Wikipedia contributions, but you are not the ultimate judge of when a consensus exists. A consensus by definition is a general agreement. The purpose of this is to establish if this actually exists.

I suggest that people answer questions briefly and avoid negative & unhelpful comments. Swiftozis (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not whether there is a consensus among *Wikipedia editors*. The issue is whether there is a consensus among *historians*. That is a question that can only be assessed through reliable sourcing. And as I've said, you have provided *none*. That's how Wikipedia works. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Where in the request for comment did the word "historians" appear? Never was the qualification of historian included, so why you are bringing it up is beyond me.

Nevertheless, I provided an actual historian who painstakingly published an original piece of work with comprehensive sources given beginning to end is, according to you, unreliable. Contrarily, on the other hand, CNN and the fictitiousParade musical, are unimpeachably acceptable.... for you, at least. I find this incredible.

In addition, I provided another source, who is already sourced in other sections, directly contradicting the notion of anti-Semitism being responsible for Frank's ultimate conviction.

You are *not* the final arbiter of what is acceptable or who shall be considered reliable. You are *not* the sole authority on what constitutes a consensus amongst wikipedia editors, historians, or anybody else on such a contentious topic.

Let the community have their say. I will continue to consider your posts, but I am finding it harder and harder to sincerely believe you are here to do the same for mine. If there is nothing new to add, kindly refrain from adding to this request for comment and allow the community to have their say. Thank you for you feedback. Swiftozis (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I know the RfC doesn't mention historians; what I'm saying is that the RfC is asking the wrong question.

Clearly, you are not actually considering my posts, because otherwise you would have acknowledged the several policy links I've included that illustrate why the Medium blog you keep referring to is unreliable. You're right that I am not the final arbiter of what is or is not a reliable source, but neither are you; that is something that is subject to community consensus (unlike the question of Frank's innocence itself), and the community has already decided that self-published sources in general, and Medium blogs in particular, are not reliable, whereas CNN, for example, is. You persistently misrepresent the sources used in the article: it's not the play Parade itself being cited to support Frank's innocence, but the review of the play, while it is discussing the actual, historical events the play is based on. Moreover, you have absolutely no evidence that that blog was written by an actual historian other than their self-professed label, and completely ignore the obvious axe they have to grind on this topic.

I may be a bit short with you, but that's because people have been pulling this nonsense for years, and it gets old. And as the Washington Post says, while talking about the historical consensus of Frank’s innocence, most of the people who are pushing for Frank to be considered guilty are Neo-Nazis and avowed white supremacists, so I'm sure you'll understand my frustration that we keep having to have this conversation, and my skepticism at the company you're keeping in this "debate". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Seriously? Nobody has come forth in the history of this talkpage with a policy-compliant set of scholarly references that support anything other than what the article says. I-don't-like-what-scholars-say-so-let's-take-a-vote-and-decide-ourselves is not how the encyclopedia operates. "The community" doesn't decide to ignore sources. The policies are set by the community, which enforces them. That remove is to keep things like this from being subject to straw polls like this. The statements are well-sourced, and the sources that contradict either have no standing as reliable sources, or are promoting anti-Semitic agendas, or both. Acroterion (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• There is plenty of RS that supports the current wording "wrongly convicted". We as editors are not supposed to decide guilt or innocence. It is our job to cite good sources in accordance with policy. Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, there is a consensus that Frank was innocent. The sourcing in the body makes it clear there's a near-unanimous consensus that Frank was innocent and that the trial was a miscarriage of justice; nor has anyone here actually presented any serious voices doubting it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• No, no consensus. Just google it. A lot of people have well-thought-out arguments for his guilt. Even more have good arguments that evidence was lost or unreliable, and insufficient for a guilty verdict, but insufficient to establish innocence. Roger (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Just for the record, "just google it" is about the worst advice you could possibly give for this subject, especially when there are garbage websites like leofrank.info, which is a smear campaign run by white supremacists, pedophiles, and ancient-alien conspiracy theorists. There's a reason why we have WP:RS and not a page that just says "just google it". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• There is consensus. The consensus of the community is that we give WP:DUE weight to WP:RSs; that's how we build the encyclopedia. OP may be labouring under one or more illusions, such as that consensus requires unanimity; that a blog post on a non-RS site by someone calling themselves a historian is a WP:RS, even without any verifiable indication of that person's standing, credentials, other works which constitute WP:RS, or existence other than as an antisemitic invention; that one source's argument rejecting one posited motivation for an event constitutes a lack of consensus that the event occurred; that OP's persistent denial of the well-sourced statements that Modern researchers generally agree that Frank was wrongly convicted and The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted is in any way well-founded and not vexatious; that this RfC, coming after long discussion in which editors have been generous with their time and attention in explaining the above, is anything but a demonstration of WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE. NebY (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mary Phagan was murdered during Passover in 1913, why isn't this fact in the article?

Not a forum for blood libel theorizing

In 1913 passover ran from April 21 to April 29 https://www.hebcal.com/holidays/pesach-1913 Amzntlry (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC) And? Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Why is this relevant fact not in the wikipedia article? Amzntlry (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC) And this is relevant how? Acroterion (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Leo Frank is a Jew, and from the Frankist sect. It's a possible motive. Why have 10,000 words and not add three noting that Mary Phagan, a child, was killed during passover, the Jewish holiday about how they defeated the Egyptians by killing their children? Amzntlry (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC) I'm not Jewish, and even I know that that's not what Passover is about (it was about God sparing the Jewish firstborn children from the tenth plague, not the Jews defeating the Egyptians by killing their children). Regardless, are there any reliable sources that consider this timing relevant? If not, then it's WP:OR. - ZLEA T\C 04:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Yes. That's one of the stupidest comments I've ever seen, and clearly anti-semitic. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC) It wasn't the Jew "God" killing non-Jewish kids, it was the about it "sparing the Jewish firstborn?" What kind of Orwellian speak is this? Is the story of other serial killers also about them "sparing" the people they didn't kill? What kind of sick mind using such doublespeak, especially when talking about the murder of innocent children? The story is that the Jew "God" came to earth, and went house to house, checked if it was a Jewish house, and if it wasn't, it went inside and murdered the innocent child. After the Jew "God" did this, the Egyptians surrendered. It's the most evil story of any culture. Find me one other culture that has a holiday commemorating the mass murder of innocent children. It's also bs, obviously. But regardless, Leo Frank was told every year, during his culture's most important holiday, that the mass murder of non-Jewish children is not only sometimes justified, but it's a "blessed" act (in their religion) that defeats the other side, as it did the Egyptians. As a result, one could fairly conclude that this was why Leo Frank killed Mary Phagan, a child, during passover of 1913. Why are you hiding this while including tens of thousands of other less relevant facts? Amzntlry (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC) @Amzntlry Besides it being unsourced and nonsense? And the fact that it's in the Christian Bible? I note that your only edits are these plus one earlier one. Doug Weller talk 12:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC) I gave you a source in the first post in this thread, or you could just google "passover 1913" to see it occurred when Mary Phagan was murdered. Also, Christians don't celebrate passover, and nothing in the New Testament promotes, rationalizes or justifies child killing. In fact, when writing the story of Jesus, they had him die right after passover exactly like those children. Again, why have an enormous article exploring every facet of the conviction, except the fact that he killed the 13 year old child during passover, the exact week when his culture's most important holiday commemorates the mass-murder of non-Jewish children? Amzntlry (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Indeffed for anti-Semitic trolling, blood libel nonsense isn't tolerated. Acroterion (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)