Talk:Leo Frank

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLeo Frank has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 14, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 12, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
May 30, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
October 14, 2015Good article nomineeListed
December 18, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 17, 2007, August 17, 2008, August 17, 2011, and August 17, 2015.
Current status: Good article

Short Description Neutrality[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The article says so multiple times. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you acknowledged, the CNN article certainly backs up the language, as do other sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
...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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please delete this unedited reply, thank you SpicyHabaneros (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Enjoy your weekend! Dumuzid (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Impact on the Ku Klux Klan Revival[edit]

"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)[reply]

I have added a paragraph in the aforementioned section. Horizons 1 (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This remains unresolved. Horizons 1 (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Period after sentence[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
They already have two warnings for using talk pages as forums. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
one of you two is making a point, and the other is posturing. 74.109.13.35 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Perhaps it's time to go find brave truth tellers on some other site? Dumuzid (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Based on the editing history of this /64 range, I think you're wasting your time [1] Acroterion (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked, this is the 2nd block for this range for making personal attacks. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]