User talk:Vickycatorz

sockpuppet

Are you a sockpuppet of User:Harry Sibelius? PatGallacher (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What a silly question to ask... No I am nobodies sockpuppet Vickycatorz (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a "silly question:, considering that your account was just created and you immediately went to Talk:Leo Frank, where Harry Sibelius desperately needs additional editors to agree with him to make the changes to the article that he desires. You are very clearly either a sockpuppet, or a single purpose account, created merely to agree with Harry Sibelius. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Leo Frank case was resently brought to my attention and out of interest I started reading the wiki page. I had serious doubts about the story (yes story) on the Leo Frank Wiki page and noticed a green bar on my phone informing me about edits made to the page. When looking into this, I landed on the talk page and followed the discussion. Thats when I made an account to chime in. I really dont understand why any of this should matter... The way the Leo Frank (who is by all accounts a convicted murderer) is silly and Harry has every right to call it out. Calling someone an anti-semite because you cant win an argument is chilldish. Vickycatorz (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Brought to your attention" by whom? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've suggested, Unz may bring people to the article. Doug Weller talk 12:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why does it matter who brought it to my attention? I will look into the Unz thing. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Vickycatorz (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

racism of Leo Frank defense

Hey man. I saw you mention that the Frank defense used racial prejudice in their accusations against Jim Conley. I'm banned from the talk-page for a while but I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction on where to find out more about that aspect of the case. Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gathering more evidence to skew the article once your partial block runs out? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry! There are 2 articles in the Atlanta Journal of august 22 1913. [1]https://www.leofrank.org/library/atlanta-journal-newspaper-shortened/august-1913/atlanta-journal-082213-august-22-1913.pdf

A few quotes from those articles:

"They got a dirty black negro and in order to give impetus to his testimony they had a barber cut his hair and shave him, and they gave him a bath, and he came her like a slicked onion"

and

"If you put a [......] in a hopper, he'll drip lies. His whole intelligence trends in that direction".

I think you know what should be in [......]. Its on the fifth page of the pdf in the first column.

There are more in those 2 articles which show clear racial prejudice. I will share more from other sources once I have figured out how to deal with the bad faith actors on this platform. Vickycatorz (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I'll look through those. I also found this one, where Frank asserted that "No white man killed Mary Phagan. It's a negro's crime, through and through." It's hard to be a Frank defender and read this stuff without feeling at least a little cognitive-dissonance.

Some of the other interesting information from contemporary newspapers has been hard to find. I've found links to old articles regarding the Pinkertons that the Frank defense hired to "independently" solve the case (the head Pinkerton agent declared that Frank was the killer, and Frank's defense refused to pay them.) Unfortunately, the archive.org page for that day's paper has been removed for "issues with its content", of course. But if you come across anything else interesting, please, let me know. Thanks again. Harry Sibelius (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to rain on your little parade: you can't use primary sources like those to draw conclusions. It's a type of original research which is not allowed. Per a policy called WP:DUE can only "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". That means reliable secondary sources as defined here: WP:RS. Enjoy. DeCausa (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you are very happy to know that you don't have to think about it. Harry Sibelius (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more on the racism of the Frank defense. [2]https://www.leofrank.org/trial-and-evidence/defense/luther-zeigler-rosser/ Vickycatorz (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly a neutral website. [3]Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 193#American Mercury et al Doug Weller talk 19:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sure that Harry Sibelius and Vickycatorz would never consider using a virulently antisemitic magazine as a source for information intended for Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken and @DeCausa: I'm not really sure what the purpose of your commenting is. Are you claiming that these are doctored newspaper articles? If not, why are you complaining? Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not "doctored", simply not from a source which Wikipedia considers to be reliable, hence completely unusable here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I were to concede that there was a problem with The American Mercury, the link Vickycatorz posted isn't from the American Mercury, and I'm not seeing the site that it is from, leofrank.org, mentioned in that 8-year-old discussion you just linked me to. Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it a source which has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as required by WP:Reliable sources. It looks to me to be essentially a fansite, perhaps more sophisticated than these usually are, but a fansite nonetheless, and certainly self-published (which several people pointed out in the discussion that Deog Weller linked to above - search for "leofrank"). Further "The opinions of authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of this site, its editors, or any other person or entity. Some materials are used for educational and other purposes based on the fair use provisions of copyright law," meaning that the site has done nothing to verify or vet any of its content, and cannot even be trusted to copy material from other sources with any accuracy. Leofrank.org will never pass muster at RSN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's no more than an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist's blog with the usual frothing-at-the-mouth nonsense: "the nearly monolithic position of well-organized Jewry in academia, media, and government office has remained the same since the beginning."; "Jewry’s subversive and multifront genetic wars, waged in popular culture against the United States of America and Western Civilization" DeCausa (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will disregard the last link I shared (for now). The first one I gave linked to a PDF file of a 1913 newspaper. You can find a PDF version of the whole paper on https://www.newspapers.com/ if you are willing to pay.

The point I'm making is that there is racial prejudice in the Leo Frank defense. Multiple sources confirm this. None of you have denied this Vickycatorz (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What if there is? (a) because of WP:PRIMARY that can't be used in Wikipedia unless reliable secondary sources discuss it and draw conclusions from it (b) it doesn't affect whether there was a miscarriage of justice. DeCausa (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be very hung-up on the issue of their having been a miscarriage of justice. Whether or not that is true, Vickycatorz and I aren't discussing that here. We are discussing a different aspect of this case. Also, WP:PRIMARY doesn't say that. Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vickycatorz What I know about the Atlanta Journal at that time was that it was itself very racist. But hey, you've disappeared. That's two racist sources from you. Doug Weller talk 07:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are working very hard here to miss the point. It was 1913 Atlanta... Truth is that you will find more prejudice against black people than you will find anti-semitism in the Leo Frank case. Vickycatorz (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vickycatorz You don't have to work hard to know Atlanta was racist then. You just have to know Southern history Doug Weller talk 09:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not what we are talking about. Again, working very hard to miss the point. Most people know about the racism in the South. That is not the issue being discussed here. Vickycatorz (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boring and the wrong place to discuss it. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller Then why are you here arguing about it? Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]