Talk:Leo Frank/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Whitewashing

One key part of this story, which is omitted from this article, and which has been omitted from most discussions of this case (though it has been included in several books), is the role of anti-black racism in this case. Only seven years before the Frank trial, there was a major race riot in Atlanta, in which many people (almost all African-American) were killed. The Frank trial was the first time in history that a jury in the South had convicted a white man on the testimony of African-Americans.

In the South, there had actually been less anti-Semitism than in the North, while the opposite was (of course) true about white supremacy. This was a theme of Robert N. Rosen's prominent book published a few years ago. However, Leo Frank was also a northerner, which fueled much of the prejudice against him (in addition to his being Jewish).

A prior revision of this article mentioned, in the paragraph on the trial's closing remarks, the racist language used by the defense; that has been omitted, however.

Furthermore, while certain media reaction is mentioned in this article, there is no mention of the fact that the African-American press - of Georgia and nationwide - had a great deal to say, about this case. The NAACP's Crisis, the Chicago Defender, and other major black periodicals expressed strong feelings about the case.

Furthermore, in the section of this article dealing with "Dramatizations," there is no mention of the African-American productions and publications, based upon this case. (This article deals with this issue, and mentions several works that were created, based upon the case.) One of the most notable examples of a work based on this case, made from an African-American perspective, is the film Murder in Harlem (also known as Lem Hawkin's Confession), by the genre pioneer Oscar Micheaux.

The reaction of the Jewish media should of course also be added to this article.

Jeffrey Paul Melnick wrote an entire book dealing exclusively with this aspect (the black and Jewish perspective, and interactions) of this case. It should be added to the Bibliography section.

Black-Jewish relations on trial:Leo Frank and Jim Conley in the new South

I hope that this article is revised, to include this neglected aspect of the Leo Frank case. Pacificus (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be doing good work so far: why not keep going? IronDuke 15:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Frank trial was the first time in history that a jury in the South had convicted a white man on the testimony of African-Americans." Given the relativity of hatred, the mob hated the Jew from the North more than they hated the black guy from the South.Lestrade (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

"most of these edits are extraordinarily troubling"

I have reverted your wholesale revert of my nine edits on 9 DEC 08 to the article. Many of these edits were merely requesting sources on unsourced statements. You say that "most of these edits are extraordinarily troubling" yet all of my substantive edits are NPOV and from reliable sources. So, what is it that you find "extraordinarily troubling" and why? And when did conforming to the comfortable prejudices and assumptions of readers/editors become one of the principles of Wikipedia? If you want to hash out the "troubling" edits with me one-by-one here on the article's talk page then please do so but please stop with the unjustified wholesale reverts. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for my use of the word "troubling;" I was allowing politeness to trump accuracy. The edits in question are unhelpful. You tag statements that are supported by references we have in the text, indeed, ones you yourself must have read. Your insistence on prettying up the word "mob" with "vigilante" or "group" is unsupported by the vast weight of scholarly thinking. No reasonable person could fail to see that your misreading of this sensitive subject is tenedentious, meant to push an unacceptable POV onto this page. This article is a target for that sort of thing, but it seems to always get cleaned up in the end. I hope you'll stop doing this soon. IronDuke 17:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems that your use of "troubling" strikes right at the heart of your concerns and is not innacurate at all. As you have indicated, you find my edits "troubling" and "unhelpful" but this is an encyclopedia not your personal blog. In any case, your assertion that "the edits in question are unhelpful" is vapid. The edits are helpful in that they bring balance to the article by including verifiable facts from reliable sources. Further, it is not sufficent for you to merely assert that statements in question are "supoprted by references we have in the text". According to WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" and by not including references for the statements they are rendered unverifiable. BTW, the ADL was not founded in 1915 but you reverted that edit with complete indifference to accuracy.
Finally, on the matter of "mob" vs. "group," before I ever started editing it the article already said, "A group calling itself the Knights of Mary Phagan began openly organizing a plan to kidnap Frank from the state prison farm ..." You may not like it but the facts indicate that group who lynched Frank was simply not "An unruly crowd (of people)". This actually makes them worse in the eyes of any reasonable person as it demonstrates that the murder of Frank was cold-blooded and premeditated rather than a spur of the moment act of mob passion. In any case, your insistence on the word "mob" is neither accurate nor NPOV. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
"Unhelpful" may be vapid, but surely "No reasonable person could fail to see that your misreading of this sensitive subject is tenedentious, meant to push an unacceptable POV onto this page" is not... it is clear not only to you, but to anyone with knowledge of this subject.
As for "mob" versus "group," I give you: "Frank was lynched by a mob" (or a variation using that word) in the New Georgia Encyclopedia, The American Jewish Album Allon Schoener; The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity‎ by Eric L. Goldstein; The National Bar Association; Constructing Civil Liberties Kenneth Ira Kersch ; The Jewish Community in America William W. Brickman; Blacks in the Jewish Mind: A Crisis of Liberalism‎ Seth Forman; The Life of Roscoe Pound‎ Paul Lombard Sayre; The Trouble-makers: An Anti-defamation League Report‎ Arnold Forster, Benjamin R. Epstein, B'nai B'rith Anti-defamation League; Shared Dreams: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Jewish Community‎ Marc Schneier; Struggles in the Promised Land: Towards a History of Black-Jewish Relations Jack Salzman and Cornel West. Leo Frank Case‎ Leonard Dinnerstein. And there are more. IronDuke 23:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, IronDuke, I did see your accusation re: POV pushing and my being "tenedentious" [sic]. I regard it as a pretty clear violation of WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL which I had planned to ignore. Why do you insist on engaging in such behavior? Your argument, if one may call it that, about the merits of "mob" v. "group" can be distilled down to 'but those others guys say it'. You utterly fail to address the substantive matters of what constitutes a "mob" and how Frank's killers comported themselves. In any event, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a soapbox. Thus, the article should have an impartial tone. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
"...distilled down to 'but those others guys say it'." Why yes, yes indeed. Those other guys do say it. And who says otherwise? You. Though you have done excellent work picking up my typos in talk, that doesn't quite make you expert enough on this topic to outweigh the plethora of sources I brought to bear showing "mob" is superior to "crowd" or "group." That you, if you were to write a book on Frank, would not use the word mob is interesting, but can't outweigh reliable sources, which I have cited at length above. IronDuke 16:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

When we read between the lines, are you suggesting the article is biased in Leo Franks favor? Machn (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Greetings. I come to this page following a posting on the Third Opinion noticeboard. Thank you for seeking an outside opinion; rather than repeatedly reverting the article.

The dispute appears to be about the use of tags (such as {{fact}}) throughout the article. My third opinion is that the use of such tags is permissable; even if that same line of text is cited elsewhere. My reasoning is pragmatic: wikis are dynamic; overtime, therefore, text will be chopped up, moved, etc. Future editors/readers will be able to easily perform additionaly reasearch and reading if claims are sourced everywhere in the text.

The second dispute concerns the use of "mob" vs. "group". My opinion is that the word "mob" conjures an image of an unruly crowd.

I hope that my opinion has helped ease the dispute. Kindest, Lazulilasher (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in Laz. See above for my reply to mob versus group. As far as inline citations go, as I have said before, any article could be peppered with such demands, making it difficult to read, and to little purpose. IronDuke 23:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thank you Lazulilasher but I'm afraid the dispute goes beyond the tags and "mob" v. "group." See also my response to Iron Duke in the section above. Iron Duke, seven requests-for-citation hardly constitutes "peppering" an article of several thousand words and the purpose is to request sources so that the statements in question can be verified or removed if they fail verification. WP:Verifiability "is one of Wikipedia's core content policies." Now, if you don't like the tags then please supply a reliable source or else remove the unverified statements. If you're not willing to improve the article by doing those things then please leave the tags alone. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
If the same line of text is cited elsewhere,[1] just cite it again.[1] {{fact}} tags mean that the statement is being challenged by an editor and that it should be sourced. Ideally the editor should provide an explanation if asked so (why it is challenged), on the talkpage with the view of trying to sort out the issue(s) in replacing the tagged statements with reliable sources or be removed. The dispute at Anti-Defamation League looks like an unfortunate spillover; it should be discussed together and avoid any further edit wars. "mob" v. "group." looks like a content dispute, though I note that the article Lynching uses the phrase "mob". - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 10:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I can see how people would feel it was reasonable to ask for inline citations, but my experience with this editor has already soured me a bit on jumping through such hoops. As an example, DWR removes content here, "saying rem unsourced statement in photo caption", but when I put in the cite "(Dinnerstein, p. 114-115)", she keeps reverting it. Do people think I would have better luck keeping cites in the article for all of the other sentences? IronDuke 17:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Fix the references first and deal with the content issues (like "mob" vs "group") later. Shii (tock) 18:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd be willing to fix the refs as long as there was a promise not to delete them even after I fixed them, as I indicate happened above. IronDuke 20:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
No, you made a major edit and it was reverted. If the refs alone are reverted then we have a problem. Shii (tock) 20:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused... what major edit did I make? And I'm not sure I get your second sentence either... hope I'm not being dense. IronDuke 20:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Maybe my original note wasn't clear. I agree that the best course of action is to provide citations for all claims which are challenged. The Verifiability policy does note that citations are required in all such circumstances. I support that policy, and think that claims with {{fact}} tags should have inline citations to neutral, reliable, published sources. This is likely the best first step here. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

renamed

I've renamed it from Leo Frank to Mary Phagan and Leo Frank. The Mary Phagan article had been little more than a stub, containing a tiny subset of the information given in this article. Mary Phagan now redirects here.--Fashionslide (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is being bold? Tom 03:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It is, much too bold. Fashionslide, please move it back right away unless and until you get consensus for it. This isn't in my view, helping the article at all, though I'm sure you meant well. IronDuke 04:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional suggestion

There really is no doubt at all that Leo Frank was innocent, and the Gentleman who testified against him was guilty. The man confessed to his lawyer that he was (Unfortunately the lawyer believed confidentiality aplied, but who are we to judge?), he was caught in a very large series of lies, and the main evidence the prosecution used to prove he couldn't have written the death notes was the correct use of the word didn't (which the gentleman witness used 50 times during testimony).

This isn't a field I am very familiar with so I am wondering if somebody else could add in that information? If it is already in the article and I just overlooked it I apologize for the wasted time. --ScriptusSecundus (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What you'd need to do is find reputable sources that make those claims, then cite them. IronDuke 22:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Shortly after Frank's conviction, new evidence emerged that cast doubt on his guilt.[7]

The statement in the article says "Shortly after Frank's conviction, new evidence emerged that cast doubt on his guilt.[7]". I think it would make a better article / case if we could present that actual evidence rather that just state it emerged. Does anyone have any sources or information as to what this evidence was? Machn (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have sources! Pick me pick me pick me! <Waves hand in the air frantically>. IronDuke 02:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I may have found the answer while reviewing the scholarly sources. http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/his38_wrongly.html Machn (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Two awkward sentences

In "Relation to Mary Phagan," "According to the testimony in the trial, Leo Frank was the last person to see Mary Phagan alive."

In "Leo Frank and national media coverage," "The media in Georgia published meticulous accounts of the daily testimony during the trial, leaving the only detailed and documented record of the proceedings, because according to Steve Oney in his book 'the dead shall rise', during the 1960s the official Leo Frank trial transcripts were stolen from the court house archive room." -- LaNaranja (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

para. about the KKK

This is an excellent paragraph, but it strays too far from the subject of the Ku Klux Klan's "flowering" as a direct result of the Frank case. If its author meant to show that now Jews were included in the Klan's sights, I think just the first sentence is relevant, and could be added into the preceding paragraph. -- LaNaranja (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In keeping with fears of rapid social change in America, including the waves of new Catholic and Jewish immigrants from southern and eastern Europe who poured into the late 19th and early 20th century United States, the new Klan had an antisemitic, anti-Catholic, and nativist slant. The Klan was able to tap into fears aroused by staggering rates of population growth and industrialization in major cities of the Midwest such as Detroit, Chicago, and Indianapolis, where the Klan grew rapidly. The Klan also grew in Southern industrializing cities that grew rapidly from 1910-1930, such as Dallas and Houston. In all these cities, neighborhoods changed quickly, people moved from farms into cities for the first time, competition for jobs and housing was fierce, the housing market could not keep up with demand, and competition led to violence among groups struggling for place. After World War I, the Klan continued to grow as a result of postwar social strains, and the effort to assimilate thousands of veterans in the job market.

Several Valuable Relevant External Links Removed

I had originally added this book to the article, because it is one of the most even handed books on the subject and it was removed from the article:

There were also numerous other valuable links, like a video of the pardon being denied which were removed and should not have been.

Machn (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the article and the diffs more closely. Some of those things you dont see were 404s, some were moved to other sections -- the video of Alonzo Mann and the Mary Phagan Kean book e.g.-- and some were commented out, not "removed." -- LaNaranja (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Leo Frank, the ADL & Docudrama By Ben L.

Check out this awesome page by the ADL.org about Leo Frank and the Movie recently made about him. The ADL even shows some video clips from the movie (several of them). And offer work book style questions to answer about the docudrama to help identify issues of anti-Semitism and racism.

Excerpts from The People v. Leo Frank: A teacher’s guide to accompany the film by Ben Loeterman

http://www.adl.org/leofrank/examples.asp

The ADL is a source of material about Leo Frank, even if they have a vested interest in being biased about him. I was thoroughly impressed with the video clips from the most recent movie made about Mr. Frank and how the ADL packaged it. Pretty exciting stuff, please check it out and the videos!

Machn (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


The Only Jew Lynched on US Soil

The intro has the quote, "Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was an American man who became the only known Jew to be lynched on American soil.[1][2][3]"

There is no way Leo Frank was the only Jew lynched on US Soil, that statement is inaccurate. Not possible. You're telling me there were not other Jews lynched in America? Wasn't there a Russian Jew persecuted and lynched in 1868? Machn (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we had that discussion up above. RS’s refer to Frank as the only Jew lynched on North American soil for a variety of reasons not meant to imply that no other Jew ever died at the hands of a mob. IronDuke 23:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

changes to the Intro need consensus

207.157.91.128, the changes you made here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leo_Frank&diff=next&oldid=357758256

The problems with them are that the statement you changed was cited ("Dinnerstein p. 84."), and that in any case the doubt was in Slaton's mind after examining the trial transcripts, visiting the factory himself, etc. And, not only Jewish scholars have concluded that the verdict was a miscarriage of justice.

The "miscarriage of justice" statement might need to be adjusted since it does imply that *all* scholars feel that way, but changes to the Intro have to be discussed and agreed upon first, see above in this Talk page. -- LaNaranja (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it does imply that *all* scholars believe this (though I can't off the top of my head think of any reputable ones that don't). What it implies is that this is the scholarly consensus. Which it very much is. If there are fringe dissenters, that can be included, but not in the intro. IronDuke 02:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement concerning "miscarriage of justice" does give a false impression and needs to be rewritten. It would be interesting to see what the general public thinks after reading the wiki article and carefully reviewing both sides of the case. I would be interested to know if the general public agree or not with the Jury choosing innocent or guilty. Machn (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Could I please hear an argument for and against using "miscarriage of justice" in the introduction, because I imagine if we polled most people and asked them if a convicted child rapist and murder where lynched by an angry mob of men, would it be a miscarriage of justice? Most people would say NO, not Yes. So why are we putting the opinion of a minority as the opinion of the masses? Machn (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you could. It would involve reading this thread, though. IronDuke 02:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Machn, if you'd read further about the case you'd know. What all have you read about it? For one thing, rape wasn't even a charge. For another thing, there was a LOT more to the story than just the 1913 trial, which was flawed all by itself, according to its own judge. And -- sure you could ask people that and they'd say no, but what if you then added, "He was convicted, but likely was not guilty?" And then explained why? I think if you were to learn more you, and the hypothetical group of poll-ees, wouldnt be so quick to judge. -- LaNaranja (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"First known..." part 3.

Need to replace current sources. We need new references for the first sentence. The three we have now: the second source is only citing the first source and the third source (which appears to be a very informal report and can only be accessed as a .doc or by looking its cached version up separately) gives no reference at all. The first one itself is only a flat statement with no ref, not definitive at all. So all three should go, I think.

Encyclopedia Judaica as the replacement. The Encyclopedia Judaica might be the best reference possible. In a snippet view at Google Books of Volumes 13-15 of Present Tense, a magazine published by the American Jewish Committee, we can read, "[t]he Encyclopedia Judaica article on Leo Frank, for example, begins by identifying him as 'the only Jew ever to have been murdered by a lynch mob in the United States.'" Maybe this would be the most definitive source we can find, a source that quotes the Encyclopedia Judaica, unless someone has access to the actual Encyclopedia volume and the article and we can cite it directly. (This is the Encyclopedia Judaica's official site.) I'd say the EJ is about as definitive as we can get.

So what about something like:

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was an American man who became the only known Jew to be lynched on American soil.[1]

< ref >"The Encyclopedia Judaica article on Leo Frank, for example, begins by identifying him as 'the only Jew ever to have been murdered by a lynch mob in the United States.'" American Jewish Committee (1985). Present Tense. Volumes 13-15, p. 368.< /ref >

(If there's a better source for the EJ than that Present Tense snippet, please add :))

Agree? Disagree? -- LaNaranja (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for removing from the introduction that Leo Frank was the only Jew lynched on American soil, because being from NYC, In my life, I have witnessed many Jews being lynched by mobs of angry people. In Crown Heights Brooklyn where I am from we had mobs of angry Anti-Semitic african-Americans attack and kill one of our fellow Jewish people in our community. It isn't the first or the last time.

My other issue with the introduction, is that it appears to be too obsessed with playing the race card, kkk card, class card, Anti-Semitism Card and every other politically motivated card, it's like we are saying everyone from the south is racist and you can't ever get a fair deal from southerners. It is like we are convicting the south of being eternal hate mongers and unfair people. I have many Jewish friends and family members who lived in Atlanta GA for generations and they tell me they are treated extremely well down there and that the quality of life is very high compared to NYC. I asked if there was Anti-Semitism down in GA and they said none, and I asked about their past family generations and they said there was virtually none or they would have left a long time ago. So why must we condemn the whole south with political because we might not like the outcome of the Leo Frank trial. I have looked to find other sources of Anti-Semitism in the south and found none so far. Has anyone else found any sources to substantiate all the political cards being played in the article on Leo Frank? Machn (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

None of this is relevant, or useful, or accurate. IronDuke 01:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Machn, I didn't remove that bit from the introduction, and I think you're reading more into the article than is actually there. It may seem lopsided, but that's because not all the key things that influenced the entire case have yet been (summarized and) included, and some things that are in the article need to be edited way down, to balance the story in its correct proportions. Right now there's more information here, less there, depending on what editors have felt like adding where -- no one has said the article is complete. -- LaNaranja (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

John Wood

Is there any truth in the suggestion that John Stephens Wood, later chair of HUAC, was part of the lynch mob? The NY Times report indicates that he drove the vehicle with Frank's body to the underaker, along with Judge Newt Morris, whose role could be ambiguous. PatGallacher (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Pat. He's not listed on Steve Oney's List of the Leo Frank Lynchers, though that report is dated 2004 and at that time Oney and Goldfarb both said their lists weren't complete. About Judge Morris, just my opinion but I think his on-the-ground job was to manage the anticipated mob and the dispatch of the body.
Hmmm, update. In And the Dead Shall Rise, Oney describes him as a protégé of Morris's and gives "a more likely scenario" than Wood's law partner's official one for Wood's involvement the morning of the lynching, at p. 564. "...Morris and Wood had awakened at this hour for the purpose of joining the party on the last leg of its trip.... the two... weren't far behind the group as they left Alpharetta, tore through Roswell, then turned onto Roswell Road, along which they proceeded until they reached Frey's Gin".
He also notes at p. 621: "Whether John Wood did any more... than serve as Morris's wheelman... will probably never be known. However, it is a certainty that thereafter Wood rapidly achieved power and renown."
It's interesting to read the starry-eyed review Morris receives from the "Grim Tragedy in Woods" NYT reporter, in light of what we know now.
Isn't this an astounding story? The trial, the post-trial developments and the newspaper coverage are so complicated I've been avoiding even looking at the WP sections on them. -- LaNaranja (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Both excellent and controversial additions to the article

LaNaranja, you have made both "awful" and excellent contributions to this article about Mr. Frank - the negative - specifically you removed a lot of valuable links and resources on the article. Machn (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Machn, I moved The Murder of Little Mary Phagan into the Bibliography and refer to it throughout the article. Ext links -- the things you dont see are commented out, not removed -- look in the edit window. Thank you for the "excellent," but what do you mean "awful"? -- LaNaranja (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Awful in this sense, you added a lot of material to the article from Jewish sources which make him out to be Innocent (good thing), but so much so, it makes it seem like we are trying too hard to make him NOT GUILTY, instead of being more neutral. I feel like we are over emphasizing KKK stuff trying to play the race card, mob card, Anti-Semitism card and not putting enough testimony from female employees in his favor. Can we please get more testimony in his favor added to the article to balance it out a little bit more? I tried really hard to make the article as neutral as possible, but leaning more in favor of Leo Frank because he was essentially a lone Jewish Man (6,000 Jewish families in Georgia at the time) in a christian State. The case was clearly Anti-Semitic, but I feel like we are over emphasizing it and it makes our argument in his favor look weak.

The more I read the article and study the case, the more I feel like maybe we are trying to hard to make him Innocent because he was actually guilty. I hate feeling this way, because in my heart I know he was Innocent, but my brain is starting to tell me otherwise and I'm starting to have doubts that he was probably guilty.

Do we have any non-Jewish sources pointing to his innocence? Because when I had some friends look it over, they told me the whole article looks like a biased Jews vs. gentiles article. The article feels too much like we are just siding with him because we are Jewish (even though we know he is innocent). It sometimes feels like we are using emotional appeal when the article is taken as a whole. I want to commend you also on the excellence of your writing and additions to the article, you are seriously a fantastic writer. Machn (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Machn, it's not our job to determine whether he was guilty or not. One reason I like working on this article is that very challenge -- to NOT allow it to appear biased in either direction.
This article is definitely a work in progress. I havent even really looked at the middle part yet. Agree about the female factory workers -- there's so much more that needs to be entered. Not to make it long but to make it thorough. I hope we can work together doing that :)
Not sure what you mean by "non-Jewish sources." The M Phagan Kean book and the Lawson abridged trial transcript arent "Jewish." Do you mean sources that try to establish his guilt, or that dont presuppose he was innocent? I'd love to read all of those. Let's just find everything. But as you know the article has to stay NPOV.
The parts of the article that are biased -- please quote them, they should probably come out/be rewritten. Stuff that's not in -- that's probably only because no one has gotten around to reading enough about them to enter them. -- LaNaranja (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Your paragraph about "...you added a lot of material to the article from Jewish sources..." We arent supposed to be arguing in his favor or otherwise. I didnt, and dont and wouldnt, pick and choose sources based on whether they were pro-Frank or "Jewish" or the opposite. "Overemphasizing KKK stuff," Im only just starting on this article and so far Ive mostly entered stuff at the lynching and M Phagan sections because that's what I feel I know enough about at the present moment to add to. Though also added quite a bit of information at the clemency and appeals sections. Im adding as I go along, Im certainly not trying to slant the article. The article isnt "complete." I added and continue to add the Lawson transcript information which is as unbiased as you can get. If you want to add testimony from the female workers and so forth, please add it! In fact see the paragraph about that, as I recall I edited that paragraph to balance it better. -- LaNaranja (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think one of my many problems with this article (and others on Wikipedia which are associated with Jews) is that when I've read a lot of the original Jewish sources which overwhelmingly dominate this article on Mr. Frank, almost monotonically these sources all seem to unanimously pre-suppose Mr. Franks innocence and use a lot of emotional appeal in their writing (but also some good factual arguments as well). There seems to be zero Jewish sources that are neutral on the subject of Mr. Frank or even suggest that he might be remotely guilty. It saddens me and causes me fear that every Jewish source on the subject of Mr. Frank without exception argues for his innocence, which makes it seem like we are just taking Mr. Franks side and arguing for his innocence because he is a fellow Jewish brother in our world wide Jewish family (which I can understand on many levels). I believe Mr. Frank is innocent, but I'm still very concerned because what this means for the rest of the world reading this kinda POV biased article who are not Jewish, I'm worried what they might say.

I have noticed a lot of wikipedia articles that pertain to Jewish subjects seem to all be overwhelmingly using Jewish sources which are monolithic in self-defense and biased and leaning in our favor, with a sprinkling of opposing Jewish and non-Jewish views. In the case of Mr. Leo Frank there are no opposing views to his innocence from our Jewish camp. I'm not saying all articles on Wikipedia pertaining to or associated with Jews are Jewish biased, but they sometimes more than not feel that way when taken or read as a whole - why must we be so obvious? What ever happened to subtlety?

It's as if any articles that are associated with Jews in some or anyway, that they are always leaning toward Jewish self-defense and self-benefiting "biasedness" if you know what I mean. So I ask how can we be less obvious and seem more neutral? This bothers me, because it makes me feel like we can't be neutral on certain subjects pertaining to Jews, Jewish subjects, Jewishness, Israel and Judaism. Who said we were perfect? We are only human! You're probably asking why this bias in our favor is a problem, it is a big problem for me because I don't want people accusing Wikipedia of being a shoddy tool to protect the overly sensitive Jewish ego (which has happened to me many times in college), Jewish image and Jewish interests (as many of my leftists friends have privately or openly accused). I'm worried if anyone goes to a lot of these original Jewish sources and reads them with an open mind, they come off to different degrees as all blatantly and unabashedly emotionally biased in Mr. Franks favor, but with well written, well couched language or even openly biased arguments.

Please help me, I'm wondering if we could find more sources that are neutral or that even argue that Mr. Frank is guilty, so we don't risk people making anti-Semitic accusations against all of us and that this article is totally biased in Mr. Franks favor because "Jews are always protecting our fellow Jews". Please help me find some sources that can balance out the overwhelming bias in Mr. Franks favor, so it is not so obvious and so there will be less chance of anti-Semitic accusations. Thanks for your care and understanding. I can't say it enough youre writing is excellent and can you please post the web sites where there are alternative sources which are more neutral? Machn (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Machn, please read my reply above yours. I understood your concern then and replied to it.
Are you concerned about the "miscarriage of justice" sentence in the Intro and its sources? Do you mean that "miscarriage of justice" might be the wrong phrase, or that there's nothing to balance that claim in the Intro?
If that's the case, to find consensus for the "right" phrases for the Intro, the most sensitive part of the article, you'd need to open a new section on this Talk page for discussion and agreement, but you'd have to be specific about exactly what sentences/words/paragraphs you want to adjust and why. Good to have replacement or balancing language (with sources) in mind to suggest first.
It's not supposed to be a biased article, so if you have such a concern dont be shy to bring it up. I think among the editors at this article you can "assume good faith."
A lot of the material out there that may seem pro-Leo Frank or pushing an ADL agenda is actually anti-hate-think. Not everything that discusses the Frank case or Atlanta/turn-of-the-century industrializing South is even really about the case itself. Also, it makes sense that the case resonates much more deeply in the Jewish community and among Jewish scholars than in other groups -- that could be why you're running across so many sources with Jewish roots.
You might look at the Lawton abridged transcripts. The LF wikip. article says the actual transcripts were lost years ago, and that the Atlanta newspapers are the next-closest thing we have. But Lawson reprints great swaths of actual testimony and what it summarizes is the pith, you know. Lawson had been doing this for many years and his edits were well respected and trusted. That might be your best source for the female employees' statements and other information, and could act as a source of ideas that could lead you to finding other material.
Finding sources -- Machn, you can look into the Googler as well as I can :) Are you looking for a sense of the anti-Jewish/populist atmosphere of the time? For starters you can read Tom Watson's diatribes online, and old editorials in the Atl Constitution, though the AC isnt easy to search. Think of other cities' papers in Georgia and other states, and political magazines of the time, and check them out. And articles and books older than that.
Anyway good luck, I look forward to working on this article with you :) -- LaNaranja (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I have not delved too deeply into LaNaranja's edits, but a cursory glance from me finds good support for "excellent," none at all for "awful." I think the argument that there are too many "Jewish" sources is itself, frankly, awful. I'm sure you don't mean it that way, but that's deeply offensive, regardless of the ostensible ethnicity of the arguer. The vast majority of all reliable sources assume Frank's innocence, and this article reflects that (though probably less emphatically than the scholarship would warrant). IronDuke 22:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

La Naranja -- I have re-read through your additions to the LF article and I must renew my statement and re-state that you are wholly (not even mostly) an exceptionally good writer and researcher, your ability to bring balance and neutrality to the article is exceptionally good - excellence marks your writing. You also brought some very interesting elements to the article. You deserve some kind of an award for your excellence. I will definitely be following your contributions to Wikipedia because I find myself really enjoying your writing, you have a nice smooth flow of clarity. I will address some of the other issues you have brought up when I find the time to do more thorough research on the subjects and issues.

I'm having some difficulty in my research, could you provide direct links to the actual complete testimony that went on during the trial from various newspapers at the time, because the newspapers that were existing during the time seem to make it painfully difficult if not impossible to read the original articles which were written at the time from their web sites. Do you know of any online libraries that might have scanned these old newspaper articles from Atlanta Georgia at the time? I have been unable to find an unabridged copy of the entire transcript (which may not exist, because the originals were stolen in the 1960's according to the Scholar Oney), you mentioned an unabridged version of the transcripts, could you provide me a link to it so that I can review it. Could you also please provide links to other sources which you found that are more neutral on the subject because I have been unable to find any neutral items other than the Mary Phagan Kean book which seems to be the only neutral book on the subject? Are there even any sources out there that pre-suppose LF guilt, rather than always pre-supposing his innocence? I would be curious to read something alternative to see if those arguments are fair and reasonable. It would be nice to balance out the article with some alternative sources that do not pre-suppose his innocence, so we can't be accused of being biased in Mr. Franks favor (I'm having a hard time here and could use some help). I fully agree with what you have said La Naranja on many issues. I have to admit I've been a bit biased in Mr. Franks favor and should be more neutral. I look forward to working with you La Naranja and I hope that in doing so I can some day far in the future become as good of a writer as you! Machn (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Machn. No, I dont know of an unabridged copy, but the Lawson abridgement is here. The section on LF's 1913 trial is pp. 182-414.
You dont need me to give you sources; Im sure you can look up information as well as I can, probably better.
I recommend wandering around in Google Books, dropping keywords in; you'll be surprised and I hope delighted by what you find there. In the bibliography I added a link to Google Books at the end of each source that is available to read there in full or limited preview.
In the last of my long-winded posts to you above I noted something about sources that might be helpful. "...the case resonates much more deeply in the Jewish community and among Jewish scholars than in other groups -- that could be why you're running across so many sources with Jewish roots." Make sense?
"Biased" books and articles are valuable for understanding both sides of a question. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan, referenced quite a bit in this article, is a good example of a book that tells the Southern side (fewer and harder to find, I agree), and the picture it uniquely paints is eye-opening to readers who might only have a cartoon-version image of the LF case and the Southerners of that place and time. (TMLMP also poses some thought-provoking questions regarding LF's guilt/innocence that you might find interesting, in a section somewhere.)
But in the long run, whatever argument an author is trying to make doesnt matter here. We should absorb both points of view to gather a balanced, complete picture, but finally we have to develop this article with only factual, encyclopedic information that we can source.
This is an encyclopedia entry, not a treatise. It doesnt matter about his guilt or innocence. Dont worry about what opinion you should have, none of us should have one at all. -- LaNaranja (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
La Naranja, I completely agree with you about this statement:

"In the last of my long-winded posts to you above I noted something about sources that might be helpful. "...the case resonates much more deeply in the Jewish community and among Jewish scholars than in other groups -- that could be why you're running across so many sources with Jewish roots." Make sense?"

Makes absolute total sense and is the truth of the matter, this trial was a very painful chapter in Jewish America and still is today almost 100 years later - will probably always be. Which is why so many Jewish Scholars have written long treatise on the subject, unfortunately in a poorly couched biased manner the more I read the original sources they smack of emotional bias from the first page (anyone ever heard of being subtle or at least pretending to be neutral). This case is definitely a sensitive issue for the Jewish community and given the history of anti-Semitism, we tend to go above and beyond in protecting our own world wide family, we often side with our fellow Jewish Brothers and Sisters regardless of guilt or innocence because we are one big extended family looking out for each other, as a family should!! This seems to be a kind of universal pattern with families in general and is commendable on many levels, but on Wikipedia it seems to hurt the neutrality and honesty on many of the subjects which pertain to Jewish issues we need to try to be less biased and more neutral. I have in my own life seen uncountable situations where you have a male murderer on trial and even if that male murder on trial is blatantly, overwhelmingly and obviously guilty truly far beyond a reasonable doubt, the Mom, dad and family nearly always stand by their son, even when they themselves know he is absolutely guilty. This is what families do and this is why your quoted statement is so accurate. I'm not suggesting Mr. Frank is guilty here either, although I'm beginning to have some doubts because I feel like we are trying to hard to use emotionalism and blame anti-Semitism or play the race card and not putting more factual information in the article - I'm just saying. So I'm thankful beyond words you finally arrived to fatten this article up with some good factual information about the trial, which I know will lean in his favor, even if you don't intend to do so.

Moreover on your quoted statement, because Leo was a fellow Jewish Brother accused and convicted (and then assassinated) he is definitely going to get the benefit of the doubt from Jewish Scholars almost to the point of it being too obvious as the sources in the LF article reads as Jews vs. gentiles. Leo Frank is an emotional and sensitive issue for the Jewish Community at large, which was why my biggest concern is that monolithically we pre-suppose his innocence and blame anti-Semitism as the real reason he was convicted and murdered. The whole article reads like lets sprinkle as much in as possible about race and anti-Semitism to obfuscate the facts. I am truly thankful you are dedicating yourself to studying the case and putting more facts in their because I feel like I have hit a brick wall with finding more sources for the article to balance it out and be more neutral.

As I read the article, the article reads like it was written with the couched false obsession that the whole system is anti-Semitic, "classist", racist and Mr. Frank was convicted and murdered because of anti-Semitism, rather than people convicting him because there was enough testimony to suggest beyond a reason of doubt his guilt. The article goes overboard in trying to partly blame class, race and anti-Semitism, which is why I am asking that we tone it down a little bit and not be so obvious and try to be more neutral.

I completely agree the article should be more neutral, but that is less likely to happen, because the over whelming sources are from Jewish Scholars that pre-suppose his innocence and therefore the article will always lean in Mr. Franks favor because of the Jewish Roots of the Mr. Frank.

I know I'm going to definitely upset a lot of fellow Jewish folks by saying these things about this article and Wikipedia as a whole, but it is the honest truth in my opinion and I'm asking that we try to tone down blaming anti-Semitism, Race, region, class, industrial / agrarian and focus more on facts. I'm really sorry to anyone who I might have offended in saying these things, but I believe its the truth and because I genuinely want the article to be more neutral. Seriously, the more I read this article, the more I feel like the article is totally biased and over blowing class, race, regionalism - how else can I say this without being offensive?

Please forgive me for anyone who might be offended by what I believe is the honest truth about this article and the sources. I truly want this article to be more neutral. Machn (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Machn, taking your last point first, I applaud your wanting the article to be more neutral. However, as to your pleas for forgiveness, that I can’t offer you. Your posts, though long, are offering very little in the way of helpful suggestions for this article. They alternate between your own personal disquisitions on families and guilt, and your increasingly offensive observations about Jewish scholars. I’m going to chalk this up to ignorance, rather than malice, but I’m also going to ask you to stop, completely stop, this line of argument. If there’s something in the article you think should be changed, e.g., more scholarship suggesting Frank may in fact have been guilty, that we do not now have, by all means suggest it. If you see a scholar we currently cite who seems to suggest Frank is innocent, and you think that scholar is not a reliable source, feel free to say so. Note, and note well: being ethnically Jewish is not suggestive of bias. If you want to keep insisting it is, I am eventually going to have to suggest you edit elsewhere. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but your behavior is fast-becoming unacceptable. IronDuke 23:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Your behavior of deleting relevant facts which tend to incriminate Leo Frank from the article is unacceptable and is making it clear your bias in this case. Machn (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Testimony about Leo Frank Touching a female Child Employees Breast

In the film People vs. Leo Frank by Ben Loeterman, there is an interview with the scholar Leonard Dinnerstein, a man who spent considerable years studying the Leo Frank case. In one scene Dinnerstein describes how one girl testified at the trial that Leo Frank inappropriately touched her breast and from other source I read the mentioning of touching nipples (can't remember the source). Do you think this Interview with Dinnerstein and the testimony or mentioning of this sexual harassment and touching given by children testifying in the Trial area of the article would be an important piece of evidence to include? Or should we leave it out because it might make people biased against Leo Frank as someone who sexually harassed the young girls who worked for him? Does it put the neutrality of the article at risk? or potentially poison the main subtle or couched argument of the article that overwhelmingly suggests Leo Frank was innocent and framed? Is there a way to reword sexual harassment or remove it all together because of negative substance of these words? Is there a softer way we could describe how a "parade of girls" as Dinnerstein put it, described Leo Frank as one acting in a sexually inappropriate way towards the young girls working for him? How can we reword sexual harassment and touching in the article so it doesn't come off as slanted or biased against Leo Frank? Machn (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, for a start it would help if you could find verifiable, reliable sources to back any of this up, preferably available online, but if not published works which it is possible to get hold of. I'm not sure people's memories of a film are quite good enough in this context. PatGallacher (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You could quote the direct testimony. Try Lawson's American State Trials, Vol. X (at Google Books) or And the Dead Shall Rise by Steve Owney. -- LaNaranja (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Cinema has replaced written history. For all practical purposes, whatever is shown or spoken in the film is accepted as true history.Lestrade (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Machn, I think it would be good if you took a step back from this article. You seem to have very strong feelings about it, and I think that's likely the cause of your unhelpful contributions, both to the article and to talk. IronDuke 02:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Iron Duke and other contributors of this article, Thanks for your thoughts, I took a step back from the article and thought about it carefully, I think we should include the information about testimony concerning a girl in the trial testifying under oath about Leo Frank touching her breasts / nipples. To leave it out would be intentionally obfuscating very relevant and important facts that belong in the article.

I also wanted to know why this web site, which was added as an external link was removed

http://www.adl.org/leofrank/examples.asp

Concerning Testimony about Leo Frank Touching a female Child Employees Breast

What I meant to say is that in the video itself, the documentary called The People v. Leo Frank produced by Ben Loeterman, there is an actual scene in the video, where they are interviewing Leonard Dinnerstein, the Author who is often quoted in the article, saying that one of the girls testified that Leo Frank touched her breast / nipples. Can this information be added to the trial area or some other area of the Leo Frank article without it being deleted, because it seems like very valuable information to be included in the article. Apparently there was more than just inappropriate flirting going on according to the testimony, there was actual physical touching of the young girls by Leo Frank. I think this information is something valuable that should be added to the article and wanted to know what is the best way to include this information? How would one properly quote Dinnerstein in the Documentary and is quoting someone in this documentary like Dinnerstein considered reputable? The source comes from the ADL which is a very reputable source, you can see the videos:

http://www.adl.org/leofrank/examples.asp

Please do not change the title of the heading in this conversation, "Testimony about Leo Frank Touching a female Child Employees Breast".

Machn (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Iron Duke, Your edits are very troubling and you are specifically deleting or changing facts and evidence which show a pattern of sexual harassment, abuse and pedophilia by Leo Frank, this is unacceptable. Why do you keep removing very relevant facts and information from the article? Why are you trying to keep these facts from being in the article? The sources is the ADL, Leonard Dinnerstein and The People v. Leo Frank. What is the purpose of erasing incriminating facts about Leo Frank, why are you deleting very specific and valuable information about Leo Frank from the article? This information exists no where else in the article and belongs in the article. I think we need to bring these facts to arbitration. Machn (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

August 17th

Is there anyway we could get this article featured on the front page of Wikipedia on August 17th? Machn (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Given your avowed partisanship on this issue, I would leave that decision to others. IronDuke 03:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I know a lot of people would agree with me that it is hard to be neutral on subjects that pertain to Jews, Judaism or the Jewish Community, when you consider the centuries of Anti-Semitism we have suffered. I will no longer lean or try to suggest that Leo Frank is Innocent, I apologized for taking this public stance that Leo Frank is Innocent and I said I would be completely neutral on the subject for now and in the future. On going I will be neutral concerning the article about Leo Frank. Machn (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Appreciate the offer, but I rather think your partisanship continues to shine through, despite your best efforts. Again, perhaps an article you feel less strongly about would be a better candidate. IronDuke 02:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Please stop with the personal attacks, it is against WP rules. Please re-read the rules on making personal attacks. Again, your personal agenda and bias in this case have no place in Wikipedia. Please try to distance your political agenda and bias from this article and let all the facts be presented as they deserve. This article would make an excellent addition to the front page of Wikipedia on the appropriate day, unless you feel the article isn't biased enough in Leo Franks favor and that we should hold off until then before it is presented to the whole world on the front page. Please try to control your behaviors like personal attacks, as they go against WP policy. Machn (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Introduction of Leo Frank Article is Grossly Biased

In an effort to be more neutral, we really should re-write the introduction of the Leo Frank article to be more neutral. The Leo Frank Introduction, still has a lot of serious political blame problems. The introduction of the Leo Frank article seems to be completely biased and reads like a left-wing sociologist with a political agenda to make Leo Frank Seem innocent and blame the jury for being Anti-Semitic, rather than judging Leo Frank on the testimony. Could we be less obvious and biased in Leo Frank's favor? Could we strive to make the article more neutral and not so obsessed with playing every political card, race card or the Nazi Anti-Semitism Card?

The Leo Frank introduction section of the Leo Frank article is totally and neurotically obsessed with trying to blame racism, classism, Anti-Semitism etc... why doesn't it say, as Dinnerstein described the case, as a parade of female employees who worked at the factor coming forth to tell the jury about Leo Frank sexually harassing the female child laborers there? What about George Epps, who told the jury that Mary Phagan told him she was getting sexually harassed by Leo Frank? Why when there was so much testimony against Leo Frank, does the introduction read like the whole thing was a setup? Machn (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Machn, I’m not sure how to respond to this. If I didn’t know you had been doing some reading in this area, that is exactly the step I would invite you to take. Given that you appear to have done so, and that you nevertheless are unable or unwilling to understand this case/Wikipedia policy, I can only urge you to either 1) rededicate yourself to familiarizing yourself with same or 2) move on. There’s no option 3). IronDuke 02:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This introduction is the reason why no recognized, accredited or recognized academic institution accepts students and researchers from using wikipedia as a reliable sources for academic papers, books, documents and research. The introduction completely reads as if a neurotic left-wing sociologist absolutely obsessed with race, racism, anti-semitism, classist emotionalism and playing every political card, wrote this as hate literature against southern Americans. The introduction like some parts of the body (we will get to the body another time) reads like political emotionalism, as if it is trying to obfuscate the real facts of this case from the testimony of former employees and an admitted accomplice in the murder.

This introduction:

First paragraph is really good, except for the case being widely regarded as having been a miscarriage of justice. If you removed all the obsession with playing the Anti-Semitism and Race Card, and asked most people in Georgia or most of the united states if a pedophile rapist murder got lynched and if it was a miscarriage of justice, more than half would say NO. "Widely regarded as a miscarriage of justice" if you are one of the left-wing partisan sociologists which were used to write this article. It's only when you play every single Anti-Semitism and Race card does this whole thing get spun into a Hollywood drama with a political agenda. I'm sorry to say, but this is how the introduction reads, as if it was written for a Hollywood drama, trying to make this whole case out to be a railroading of an innocent man.

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was an American man, the superintendent of a pencil factory in Atlanta, Georgia. Frank was convicted of the murder of one of his factory workers, 13-year-old Mary Phagan. The case is widely regarded as having been a miscarriage of justice.[1]

From here down, the introduction is absolutely obsessed with playing political cards, especially Anti-Semitism and Racism. Why does the introduction not mention the total reality of this case as Dinnerstein puts it in the movie, the people vs. Leo Frank, the prosecution brought forward a parade of female child laborers who testified to Leo Frank being or having pedophile tendencies who sexually harassed young girls at the factory, including touching a girls breast and nipples, leering into the girls bath room when girls were using it, inappropriately touching girls, making sexual advances on child female workers, and moreover a black janitor admitted he was an accomplice in the murder! How with 4 fellow Jewish Brothers on the Grand Jury can you claim Anti-Semitism? How can you blame Racism, when Leo Frank is white and well educated, and the black janitor accomplice was practically illiterate and admitted he was part of the failed disposal of the body? The assertions in this article are rewritten from left-wing sociologists whose books presuppose Leo Frank is innocent. The article is so grossly couched and biased in Leo Franks favor that it's no wonder that academic professors will not accept Wikipedia as a reliable source. I don't want to be called an Anti-Semitic Jew here, but most of the sources are coming from left-wing Jewish Scholars with an agenda who are presupposing Leo Frank's innocence and blaming Anti-Semitism as the real reason all of this unfolded.

It was the focus of many conflicting cultural pressures, and the jury's conclusion represented, in part, class and regional resentment of educated Northern industrialists who were perceived to be wielding too much power in the South, threatening Southern culture and morality.[2][3] The trial was sensationalized by the media. The publisher and former U.S. Representative Thomas E. Watson used the case to build personal political power and support for a revival of the Ku Klux Klan.[4]

This paragraph below is partly decent, though the evidence that emerged "casting doubt" is quite dubious and Franks commutation wreaks of insider nepotism and backroom deals in the Governors Law firm. How could anyone fair minded unbiased person take seriously, a Governor who just so happened to be a senior partner in the very Law firm that represented Leo Frank for the defense, legitimately pardon Frank?

Shortly after Frank's conviction, new evidence emerged that cast doubt on his guilt.[5] After the governor commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment, Frank was kidnapped from prison and lynched by a group of citizens who called themselves the Knights of Mary Phagan.[6] The ringleaders included a former governor, a senator's son, a Methodist minister, a state legislator, and a former state Superior Court judge.[7]

This short paragraph below is relatively quality.

In 1913, in response to Frank's conviction, the B'nai B'rith founded the Anti-Defamation League. Ultimately, in 1986, "[w]ithout attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence," Georgia granted Frank a pardon.[8]

The whole introduction is written as if the "Jewish Sociologist Committee to make Leo Frank seem like he was a victim of Anti-Semitism and Racism in court" wrote it or if some kind of soap opera drama writer wrote it. Please do not accuse me of being an Anti-Semitic Jew because of bring up the fact that nearly every Jewish author unanimously read as if they pre-supposes Frank's innocence.

This introduction is the very reason why Wikipedia is not taken seriously be serious academia.

Machn (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Machn, please know that I would never, ever accuse you of being a Jew, so you may rest easy. As for the rest, you raise many points, none of them valid. The case is widely considered a miscarriage of justice. Half the people of Georgia (or any other state) have probably never even heard of Leo Frank. And whatever their opinion, they are no more a reliable source than you. Enough of this. IronDuke 23:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You can ignore the facts all you want, but the issue remains. The issue is the introduction is terrible.

The introduction to this article is filled with embarrassing & shameful lies essentially blaming the conviction of Leo Frank on southern monsters of racism and Anti-Semitism, claiming the legal system blatantly railroaded Leo Frank and that every person who testified against Leo Frank lied and set him up to rail road him because of some supposed class struggle, race struggle or what ever other political cards could be spun up by the biased left-wing Jewish sources.

The article introduction clearly makes it seem like the article pre-supposes that Leo Frank is innocent, when a Jury including members of our Jewish Faith convicted him. Moreover, I hate to admit it, but this article has a kind of blame-game neurotic left-wing sociologist Jewish bias to it, because nearly every single source quoted in this article was written by a left-wing Jewish scholars of the political sociologist flavor. Can't we find more balanced sources, other then only quoting left-wing Jewish Scholars that presuppose his innocence? Can we not be so obviously biased against gentile Americans? The whole thing reads of Jewish Chauvinism against non-Jewish Americans. Can we not be so obsessed with victim hood, Anti-Semitism and Racism in this article? It makes no sense the total obsession with Anti-Semitism in this articles introduction.

Why are facts like the parade of female child laborers who testified and described Leo Franks sexual harassment just a number of sentences, while the obsession with racism and Anti-Semitism take up the majority of the introduction (and many places of the article). Why is the fact an African-American Man who admitted to being an accomplice to the events after the murder so overly spun into some weird conspiracy by the system in the article. How could an ignorant African-American Janitor, who admitted to being an accomplice after the murder, be spun into a secret genius who manipulated the police, detectives, jury, judge, lawyers etc.. And if the article blames racism, why would the jury side with an uneducated African-American man over a white man?

This is exactly why no serious academic institute of higher learning or research accepts wikipedia as a reliable source of information, because it's filled with articles like this one that are so blatantly politically race, Anti-Semitism obsessed and biased. Worse is that the biased people who write this political drama can't even see how obvious it is or address it with any degree of honesty. I asked you guys to be less obvious about this bias and pre-supposing of Leo Franks innocence. You are doing a terrible disservice allowing such blatant bias to be allowed to stay in the introduction and article.

This introduction and article is the perfect example of well written material, so horribly politically and emotionally spun and biased. I think I made myself clear.

Machn (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Rest easy, Machn; you have made yourself abundantly clear. I'd like to apologize to you for not making myself clearer: I should, at some point, have written, "Machn, my objections to your suggestions does not constitute an invitation to post offensive, WP:SOAPy diatribes on this page." I will now, if I may, correct this error. While I reiterate that your objections have nothing whatever to do with fact, or WP policy, I will go further and say that your remarks are becoming increasingly antisemitic. I'm not saying that you are antisemitic, because I have no way of knowing that and it wouldn't matter even if you were, but the remarks you are making have crossed the line. You will cease making them. Thank you. IronDuke 17:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors," and "Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas - such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or religious dispute - or to publish or promote original research is prohibited."

This article violates the goals and mission of Wikipedia because of its obsession with blaming racism and Anti-Semitism, this article is being used for political and social propaganda purposes. The biased article introduction is in direct violation. Machn (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, thanks for not repeating your utterly objectionable comments; it is much appreciated. Second, thanks for providing those quotes. If you have the time, you might want to reread them, multiple times. Your ideas on this subject are wildly off the mark, utterly inconsistent with the vast majority of reliable sources. This has been explained to you now, numerous times. IronDuke 17:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

At least try to not be so obvious that you want to delete relevant facts which tend to incriminate Leo Frank. If you are going to use this article to push a propaganda and a political agenda, try to be more subtle about your bias and pushing your POV on the article. Machn (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The first known Jew to be lynched on American soil: depends on the definition of "lynch"

If we only associate lynching with hanging, then Leo was the first known case. wordnetweb at princeton.edu defines it simply as "to kill without legal sanction." dictionary.reference.com defines it as "to put to death, esp. by hanging, by mob action and without legal authority."

The first recorded instance of the mob-killing of a Jew on American soil "without legal authority" is the murder on Aug. 15, 1868 of S.A. Bierfield, a Russian Jew who ran a dry goods store in Franklin, Tennessee.

  • "The Outrage in Franklin -- Offical report of the Testimony." Senate Journal of the Thirty-fifth Session of the General Assembly of Tennessee, vol. 2, pp. 158-60. A report describing the event and investigation to the TN General Assembly; the reports that follow the description of his killing tell of a string of confrontations that may have led up to it. Bierfield's killing was probably a tit-for-tat gesture in this series, not as punishment for his religion or Otherness; he was known to have been aligned with the Radical Republicans.


So -- does the first sentence need to be rewritten? -- LaNaranja (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting point, thanks for bringing it up. I think it may have more to do with the definition of "Jew" than of "lynch," and by that I mean, Frank's religion was clearly what motivated his extrajudicial murder. Whereas, in the case you bring up, it seems politics played a significant role, as well as revenge for a possible previous killing. Thus, the lynching seems incidental to his Jewishness, as opposed to instigating it. I would say further that what we'd really be looking for is a source that says "Though some have claimed Frank was the first Jew lynched..." etc etc. Otherwise, it starts to look a bit like original research. IronDuke 02:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reply, IronDuke :) I'm not sure we're seeing the question the same way. I was thinking more of the dictionary definition of "lynch": that while probably everyone thinks of a hangman's noose when they think of a lynching, hanging isnt a required factor for a murder to be defined as a lynching.
The first sentence is fine if all readers associate lynching with hanging, as I'm sure virtually everyone does. Nevertheless the 1868 man was not hanged, and he was a Jew, and he was "killed without legal sanction."
I wouldnt say that Frank's religion by itself was the sole motivator for the hostility against him, although it surely did cast the fundamental veil of Otherness over him. He also represented everything the populist working class and the rural communities of the region in that time resented and feared -- he was industrial management coldly exploiting the old Southern agrarian traditions. The vulnerability and resentment that Southern adults felt over their children, but especially their young girls, having to work were very strong and painful, not to mention the Lost Cause romanticism over the unprotected flowers of Dixie, and these worries and suspicions were well exploited in this case, by Jim Conley and by Tom Watson from two different directions. Unlike Jim Conley he was not "one of us," something his defense team fatally misunderstood, but the Jewish population of Atlanta was thousands strong and there had been no acute, violent friction with anyone who just happened to be a Jew, until now. The constant castigation against Georgian ways of doing business that poured in throughout the trial and after from everywhere outside Georgia -- even from the state legislatures of Tennesee and Texas -- only made things worse for him. But probably most important to the outcome of the story, when Gov Slaton examined the case and "took his side" at the dramatic last moment it was an insult which could not be accepted and had to be answered; at that point it didnt matter what his religion was. I think Tom Watson's calculated rantings just tied all those targets together into one package: "JEW." -- LaNaranja (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, what can I say? You put all that very well. And I think you can speak of someone as having been lynched even if they have not been physically hanged. That said, I think when people speak of LF in the context of first Jew to be lynched, they mean in the sense of having a sort of hate crime element (though I understand it's a bit anachronistic to speak that way). I'm not sure I see that in your example. IronDuke 00:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I know. I was just wondering how pedantic we needed to be :) -- LaNaranja (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There was certainly some element of anti-Semitism in this case, but Was Leo Frank lynched because he was Jewish, or because his hanging was overturned by the Governor who just happened to also be a senior legal partner in the law firm that represented Leo Frank in his trial? Machn (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Being a partner in a law firm is a step down from being a retired popular governor, especially when you have to be out of town for several years because your life is in danger and you can't go back home. I dont believe Gov Slaton deliberately destroyed his own career in order to do a favor for his new colleagues. And the commutation made the Rosser team look even less competent, not more so. -- LaNaranja (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it was several variables: an act of nepotism (what's the right word for this) if that is the right word (pertaining to Governor Slaton being a senior partner in the law firm representing Leo Frank), genuine acknowledgment of serious flaws and anti-Semitism in the trial and doing the right thing. Besides the death penalty is wrong and if Leo Frank is hanged (we're back in 1913 now) we will never get to the real truth of his innocence. I used to think had he not been killed he would have eventually been vindicated, because I was only reading the books written by people taking the politically correct position. Now that I have had a chance to read more viewpoints on the subject including the actual testimony, there is no doubt Leo Frank is guilty. Machn (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your first sentence -- you'd have to back it up with sources and write NPOV'ly. Second sentence, we're not supposed to get to the real truth at Wikipedia. The flaws in the defense and the styles of persuasion both teams employed are fascinating! And -- why do you think he eventually would have been vindicated? Unless Jim Conley was tried and convicted, he couldnt have been "vindicated"; I think the best he ever could have gotten would have been life imprisonment. I dont know what paroles were like in those days. It would be interesting to determine (though not here) as close as we can, at what point his fate was irrevocably sealed -- even at the reading of the verdict in 1913 even Judge Roan knew LF's life wasnt safe. -- LaNaranja (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss the Introduction

I would like for us to discuss the introduction of the Leo Frank article. What makes a good introduction? What points should be emphasized? How does one write a good Introduction, in other words what are the steps one should take to write it properly? Are there things int he introduction that should be added or removed? how about changed? Machn (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


I dont want to get involved with it right now, but I'd do four paragraphs containing, in this order, this basic information. (I like the first and fourth paragraphs this way.)


Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was an American man, manager of a pencil factory in Atlanta, Georgia. In 1913, Frank was convicted of the Confederate Memorial Day murder of one of his factory workers, 13-year-old Mary Phagan. In 1915, after Georgia's governor commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment, Frank was kidnapped from prison and lynched.
[The case generated ADL and new Klan.]
[Cause celebre.... It was the focus of many conflicting cultural pressures, and the jury's conclusion represented, in part, class and regional resentment of educated Northern industrialists who were perceived to be wielding too much power in the South, threatening Southern culture and morality.] (It's so complicated to develop succinctly... aaargh. Not me.)
In 1986, "[w]ithout attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence" and "and in recognition of the state's failure to either protect Frank or bring his killers to justice," Frank was granted a pardon by the state of Georgia.


Secondary information would become footnotes or be worked into the body of the article, or be dropped. -- LaNaranja (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


La Naranja,

I like your ideas. Though, I have issue with:

[Cause celebre.... It was the focus of many conflicting cultural pressures, and the jury's conclusion represented, in part, class and regional resentment of educated Northern industrialists who were perceived to be wielding too much power in the South, threatening Southern culture and morality.] (It's so complicated to develop succinctly... aaargh. Not me.)

Seems like there is too much race, regional, class and anti-Semitism card being played here and in the article. I think this kind of stuff is really over emphasized in the article and we should try to keep more facts based stuff rather than emotional appeal in the article IMHO.

Machn (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the class and regional resentment should be in the lead, as I don't think it's the most salient point. The lead should indeed pace Machn, be focused on the issue of antisemitism, as that is the chief reason LF is notable today. The idea that it is somehow overemphasized in the article is utterly devoid of merit. IronDuke 23:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm being perceived as insensitive here, I really want this article to continue its evolution towards awesomeness. I'm not saying that there wasn't Anti-Semitism in this case (because there was), but don't you think this whole article over plays "Anti-Semitism / Anti-Semitic Emotionalism" (for a lack of a better word) or over plays the anti-Semitism Card? Maybe even just a little bit? How would you describe an article that reads like it over dramatizes Anti-Semitism, because that is how this article kinda reads from a neutral stand point, including the intro IMHO. I understand that if Mr. Leo Frank was hypothetically and actually guilty (even though we know he probably wasn't guilty), it sets an ugly precedent / foundation for the birth of ADL of B'nai B'rith and also makes the accusations of Anti-Semitism come off as hollow.

I'm just saying and suggesting with the request: can we please tone down the emotionalism (is that the right word?) and "political cards" a little bit, it comes off as over the top. Shouldn't we try to add more factual hard forensic evidence to the article that shows it definitely wasn't Leo Frank so the article has more strength in his favor (rather than using the Anti-Semitism card to suggest his innocence)? It just comes off as a weak over played defense. Moreover, the over played Anti-Semitism accusation comes off as kinda "grasping at straws" argument for Mr. Frank and I'm suggesting we use more clinical, scientific and factual appeal to convince all the people who read this article of his innocence. And absolutely, I am not suggesting we erase the accusations of Anti-Semitism, because they were certainly there and maybe we could improve the article by finding and adding more sources that support the Anti-Semitism from the time and from sources that don't make careers on these kinds of "sociology" accusations.

Please help me find more scientific, forensic, detective, and factual evidence (Not race card, class card, Anti-Semitism card and every other sociology card) to convince people of Leo Franks innocence. I'm looking for help to add more Hard Science on Leo Franks behalf. Right now the way this article reads one feels doubts about Mr. Leo Frank innocence, can we please do something about it. Machn (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No, we absolutely cannot “do something about” proving Frank’s innocence. It isn’t our job to help Frank look innocent, or guilty. You have already been told this by Naranja gently, and I am telling you in a somewhat less gentle fashion to drop that line of thinking. We simply repeat, proportionally, what RS’s sources say. I don’t know what you mean by the “Antisemitism card.” That subject is what makes Frank notable, regardless of his guilt or innocence. Plenty of people have been lynched all across America and not been given articles. It would, therefore, be difficult to overemphasize that aspect of this case. IronDuke 23:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Iron Duke, I'm going to be neutral on this article for now on and not try to lean the article in Leo Franks favor or try to make Leo Frank seem like he is innocent anymore. I apologize for approaching this article the wrong way. I will focus on balance, fairness and neutrality. Machn (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My lack of understanding in this case came from the fact that I started studying this case by only reading the books written by people taking the modern politically correct position on this topic, which is to say the PC position is that Leo Frank was only convicted because he was a rich northern Jew. Now that I have had a chance to read many books on the subject that are more neutral, some even supporting the prosecution, it is very clear to me that Leo Frank was convicted because of the testimony and evidence against him, not because he was Jewish. All the court systems that reviewed this case were correct, not the dozen or so writers this article sources who take the politically correct stand point. Machn (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Lawson's American State Trials

I was able to find this book on archive.org, but I am having difficulty finding out how to download this online book from google.com Machn (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Machn, it's at Google Books: look for "American State Trials" "Leo Frank". -- LaNaranja (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

LaNaranja, I found the book "American State Trials" 1918 by Lawson, it is located in www.archive.org at this specific address here American State Trials Volume X (1918) by John D. Lawson, LL.D. the Google book(s) versions seem to be mostly incomplete. Machn (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Grand Jury Indictment

I expanded the section with details from Oney. I am not sure that the discussion of Dorsey and anti-Semitism is appropriate here, but I added Oney's opinon to balance Lindemann's. Eventually a separate subsection on Dorsey may be appropriate -- while Lindemann does not find that Dorsey was anti-Semitic, he does claim that he allowed falsified information to be introduced and condoned the coercion of witnesses. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would you remove such relevant facts as there where either 4 or 5 Jews on the grand jury. The fact that there were either 4 or 5 Jews on the grand jury, is an important fact that belongs in the article because it tends to diffuse the claims of Anti-Semitism in the trial. It is very relevant to the article since the introduction overplays the Anti-Semitism card and therefore these facts add balance to the article. Machn (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Quit making up things about my edit -- and how about indenting your responses. In fact, the material regading the 4 or 5 Jews WAS RETAINED in my edit as this diff [1] clearly shows. You are the only one who has tried to delete information from this section. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't "diffuse" any such thing. And the ADL site, which you continue to reference positively, stands very, very firmly behind the idea that antisemitism was a key issue in the trial. Indeed, the case was part of the founding spirit of the ADL. From their website (which, again, you seem very happy with

"Hang the Jew, Hang the Jew." This was the cry of the furious mob outside the Atlanta courthouse where Leo Frank, a Northern Jew, stood trial after his arrest in 1913 for a murder he did not commit. Anti-Semitism hung heavy in the courtroom as Frank was found guilty and sentenced to death. Though a courageous governor later commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, Frank never did serve the term. In August 1915, the "Yankee Jew" was lynched by a mob calling themselves a "vigilance committee." The brutal murder of Leo Frank did not occur in a vacuum. As the 20th century dawned, anti-Semitism was rampant in an American society where resorts commonly advertised, "No dogs! No Jews!" and magazines featured "humorous" caricatures of Jewish people. It was in this atmosphere that the Anti-Defamation League was established in 1913...

A failure to understand this is, at best, a complete failure to understand the case. IronDuke 15:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Your quote may be partly true, even if the Anti-Semitism card was overplayed, regardless the evidence against Frank was overwhelming. Have you read the testimony and studied the case? Are you suggesting Leo Frank was convicted because he was Jewish and not because the evidence and testimony tended to incriminate him beyond a reasonable doubt? In other words are you suggesting that if Leo Frank were a Christian the Jury would have not found him guilty? The testimony from all the prosecutions witnesses tends to clearly implicate Frank as the murderer and I do not think he was convicted because of his religion or because of alleged pervasive Anti-Semitism corrupted the Jury. The Anti-Semitism angle is grossly overplayed and the testimony and evidence is what got him convicted. Try studying the facts, evidence and testimony of the of the case, not the political spin. Machn (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Have you read the Oney book? Have you read any book on the subject -- it seems like the only sources you refer to are a website and a video? The trial, rather than establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, pretty much came down to Frank's testimony versus James Conley's. Conley changed his story how many times? In the end, even his final version of events had huge holes in it and Conley's own attorney was convinced that Conley was the murderer. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

When I looked at your edits it appeared to have removed the mention of our fellow Jews on the Jury, so if you didn't remove it then it is my mistake. This is why I asked, why would you want to remove the fact that there were 4 or 5 Jews on the Jury? Moreover, why would 4 or 5 Jews on the Jury unanimously vote to convict one of our brothers if they thought there was a reasonable doubt? Machn (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "if you didn't remove it"? Are you unable to look at the actual edit and determine beyond any doubt that I did not remove it? And you still aren't reading what I wrote. There is no documentation that the vote was unanimous and Oney states that as little as 12 votes were necessary. What documentation do you have to support how the Jews voted or that the vote was unanimous? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Machn, are you not understanding the difference between a grand jury and a petit jury? Also, it looks like you've reverted about 4 times in 25 hours or so. I would stop reverting for awhile. IronDuke 16:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
IronDuke and North Shoreman, Alright, it was a misunderstanding on my part and these things happen from time to time. I have reviewed the Grand Jury section and it looks acceptable for the time being concerning your edits. Machn (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleting or diluting of Relevant Facts about Leo Frank which tend to incriminate him

Iron Duke,

Why are you removing or diluting relevant facts about Leo Frank from the article? For instance you are shortening the sentences about the damning testimony George Epps gave to the police, the evidence he also testified under oath during the trial, testimony which tended to incriminate Leo Frank because along with George Epps testimony, other female child laborers testified to a pattern of abuse and sexual harassment. Will you delete from the article that female child laborers testified that Leo Frank groped a female child laborers breasts and often leered in the girls room when it was occupied? Do these facts not show a pattern of behavior? So why are you diluting them or outright removing whole sections of the article?

Why did you remove information about how much money Leo Frank made every month. The fact that Leo Frank made $150 a month tends to diffuse the over exaggerated political left-wing cards played in this article by the biased authors of the books cited in this article and in the introduction. The political card I am referring to is the distortion that part of Leo Franks conviction was over a sort of class war between rich vs. poor (See the introduction). If Leo Frank only made $150 a month and lived with his wife at their parents house, that tends to show that Leo Frank wasn't so high in the stratosphere of wealth and power, but really just a lower middle class manager trying to make ends meet. How much Leo Frank made every month belongs in the article, it is very relevant to Leo Frank and his circumstances.

Before you changed the title of a topic I created here in the discussion area, so my question is why are you doing these things? It looks as if we are intentionally trying to soften the evidence and material in the article against Leo Frank and instead strengthen the evidence and material in the article that causes doubt about his conviction.

This comes off as very biased and goes to the very heart of my unaddressed complaints about the total political left-wing and Jewish bias of this article (Jewish in the sense that a super majority of the books cited in this article are written by left-wing sociologist Jews who presuppose Leo Franks innocence).

Once again, this is why no serious academic institution of higher learning and research accepts wikipedia as a reliable source, because its filled from top to bottom with political bias and political agendas. This is total manipulation and I am asking for the umpteenth time can we stop being so obvious in trying to make Leo Frank seem innocent, playing every political card and using this article to push a biased social agenda. I am asking can we please stop being so obviously biased in Leo Franks favor and strive to make the article more neutral.

Machn (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that these are frustrating questions for you, as you ask them again and again despite their having been answered. IronDuke 01:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Iron Duke,

In a Leonard Dinnerstein interview in the People vs. Leo Frank (From the www.ADL.org Site), confirms that female child laborers came forward to testify about Leo Frank groping little girls breasts and leering in the girls bathroom when it was being used by child laborers.

Source: http://www.adl.org/leofrank/examples.asp

Why are you deleting the facts and testimony from the article about Leo Frank committing acts of child molestation and pedophilia against a female child employee?

During the trial female child laborers testified that Leo Frank was groping breasts of little girls and leering into the girls room when little girls where using the bathroom, why would you want this important testimony given under oath and these facts removed from the article? These are very relevant facts that belong in the article, it shows a pattern of pedophilia and sexual abuse by Leo Frank.

You can see the interview with Jewish scholar Leonard Dinnerstein here http://www.adl.org/leofrank/examples.asp

Machn (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that the breast issue is very, very, very important to you -- one might almost call it a fixation. That said, the information you so ardently wish to convey already is there, in sober, encyclopedic style. IronDuke 01:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Iron Duke,

These facts are no where to be found in the article except where I added them. Please stop removing them.

I would appreciate if you would stop with personal attacks against me, because that is against Wikipedia rules (you should know better than that) and so is making the article biased in Leo Franks favor. We do not need political and social activism in Wikipedia, it is the reason why no mainstream and recognized US Colleges, Universities and Serious academic institutions allow WIkipedia to be used as a reliable source, one of many reasons, simply because there are people who are purposefully removing relevant facts about subjects for political and social reasons.

I understand that we always want to come to the defense of our fellow Jewish brothers and sisters, regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent, but this kind of behavior is unacceptable in Wikipedia. I commend you for being a righteous Jewish Brother coming forward as a champion to defend our people (right or wrong), but on Wikipedia it is not allowed to use the article to push a social or political agenda. Nor are we supposed to include some facts and keep other facts out of the article.

I do not want Leo Frank to be guilty either, and wish we were allowed to only put facts in the article which create doubt about his guilt (which we have overwhelmingly done already), but we can not do this on Wikipedia we have to strive to be neutral and include all the facts. Besides, there are plenty of books which have already been written which presuppose Leo Frank as innocent by our fellow Jewish Scholars, the article is brimming with these kinds of books listed as sources.

If you want to write another book as a Jewish Scholar with an agenda to put out the emotional "truth" that Leo Frank was railroaded and framed by an ignorant African American Janitor or a corrupt racist system that favors Black people over Whites concerning this case, you can join the ranks of noteworthy Jewish Scholars who have written such books. I would commend you if you did such a thing because it defends our faith. However, on Wikipedia we need to put our beloved faith aside and allow all the relevant facts to be in the article.

I have read the entire article and the groping of the breasts and nipples, and the leering into the girls room when it was occupied with little girls is not to be found anywhere in the article other than where I added it. These facts are shown on the ADL web site, in a video interview with Leonard Dinnerstein in the documentary The People v. Leo Frank. See the www.ADL.org web site and watch the DVD of the People v. Leo Frank (I purchased it and it is worth buying).

So again, why are you removing these very specific facts which tend to show Leo Frank had a history and pattern of sexual harassment, abuse and pedophilia? These specific facts are no where else to be found in the article and belong in the article.

Why would you want such facts removed from the article about Leo Frank, unless you were trying to water down, dilute and obfuscate facts about him?

Can we please strive to be neutral in writing this article and not bias it in favor of Leo Frank.

Please lets get a committee of arbitrators to review these facts in the Leonard Dinnerstein interview, these facts belong in the article because they show a pattern of sexual harassment and abuse by Leo Frank. Machn (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Who said I was Jewish (let alone "Righteous" and most certainly not your "Brother")? In any case, that subject has nothing to do with the article at hand. I understand you are very, very interested in nipples, breasts, and groping, but... well, I explained this to you before. Please reread my response. I'll also add I have not personally attacked you at all. I am critical of your edits (which are quite bad) and some of your talk page commentary (which is even worse). That's not a personal attack. As for arbitration, they don't rule on content, and would rightly reject a request to intervene here. The problem here (your POV-pushing edits), admits of a simple solution (you stop making them). IronDuke 17:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I also wonder why it is that the subjects of antisemtism, class and race are so troubling to you, and yet you link to an ADL page (in your urgent quest to insert reference to breasts into the article) that discusses all this explicitly in relation to the Frank case? IronDuke 17:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

IronDuke, if you look immediately above, you misspelled the word 'Anti-Semitism' as "antisemtism" in your previous post above (please fix it now). the word Anti-Semitism should be capitalized, at least the word Semitism should be capitalized.

You are intentionally deleting facts which tend to incriminate Leo Frank and therefore pushing a subtle political agenda trying to obfuscate testimony about the case and word the article in such a way as to make the article seem like Leo Frank is innocent. It is very clear you have a political agenda with this article to make sure Leo Frank seems like he was innocent. Please stop deleting entries into the article about facts and testimony that showed Leo Frank behaved in patterns of sexually abusive behavior toward the female child laborers. There was testimony by Conley about Leo Frank having sexual trysts with prostitutes and employees in his office. There was also testimony from female child laborers that Leo Frank would make sexual propositions and offer money to the female child laborers, including groping their breasts and other abuse. These facts belong in the article and I don't mind that I have to keep adding them to show the administrators that you have a pattern of deleting or manipulating the incriminating facts from the case. I have all the time in the world to add relevant and valuable contributions to the article, and the more you do this kind of behavior, the more I will study the works of these Jewish scholars and add more pertinent facts about the case, which you do not want. Wikipedia is not a place for you to push your political, religious or social agendas. Machn (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to be paying attenion. IronDuke 21:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

IronDuke,

I dont pay "attenion", but I do pay attention. You might want to get a spell check installed on your computer, above you wrote the misspelled word "attenion", it is spelled attention.

You don't seem to be paying attention.

Wikipedia is not a place for you to push your political agenda, you keep deleting relevant facts from the article which tend to incriminate Leo Frank, which makes everyone believe you have some kind of political and social agenda to try to make the article lean in favor of Leo Frank. Please stop using this article to push your own social, political and personal agenda. Why are you constantly deleting relevant facts from the article? Why not let the facts be presented and people come to their own conclusion rather than using wikipedia as your soap box. Machn (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am heartened that you are so zealous about finding typos on talk. I wish you would use some of that energy to make positive contributions to the article. Your edits aren't bad -- they are terrible. Your talk here is bordering on hateful. You need to stop editing this article right away. I don't know how I can make this plainer. IronDuke 15:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going anywhere.

From here on out I am going to closely monitor this article, in fact, now that I have seen your behavior here, I'm going to go back to the beginning of this article in 2003 and look to see all the facts which were removed from the article.

You have no right to your empty spew hatred against me, you can't even spell simple words like Anti-Semitism correctly. The fact that you are deleting relevant facts concerning Leo Frank is atrocious and your political biases are shinning through. I think it is time we get some kind of arbitration committee involved because you can not seem to control your biased, hateful and atrocious behavior. Machn (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm, sounds like you're cribbing your remarks from my talk. Almost flattering. And yet -- you are demonstrating, charitably, profound ignorance on this topic. Your edits are therefore deeply unhelpful. You may scrutinize the article's history back to the beginning of time if you like, that won't change what the facts are. I'm happy to have other eyes on the article, but I'm not sure you would be. Your comments on this page have probably revealed more than you intended. IronDuke 16:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are deeply unhelpful and problematic. Your deletion of the facts in this article speaks volumes. Your manipulation of the article by removing relevant facts which tend to incriminate Leo Frank speaks volumes about your political and social agenda, it's is in direct violation of WP rules. Each time you delete relevant facts from the article you create a permanent documented record of your bias, POV, agenda and manipulation. Why don't you just come out and say it loud and clear that your political agenda with this article is to make Leo Frank look innocent by deleting any damming facts against Leo Frank. You are not worthy of being an editor on Wikipedia because of your edits and intentions here in this article. Why don't you take a little breather from your manipulation, bias and obfuscation of the facts. Go run along and cause trouble else where. Machn (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm obviously not going to leave. I suspect you will, though, eventually. I hope that can be a painless process. You are, of course, wrong about policy, and very wrong about this article. And I have no agenda, other than to reiterate what reliable sources say. I know that leads to results very far from your own desire, but that's policy, and it's common sense. IronDuke 17:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
PS -- I hope this doesn't mean I have ceased to be a "righteous Jewish Brother." IronDuke 17:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

IronDuke,

I would like to strive not to criticize you as a person, it's however your troublesome, bad and terrible edits, and biased behavior which is the central issue you keep skirting and refuse to directly address. Moreover, your pattern of biased edits on this article have created a history reflecting your biased POV political, social, religious agenda and manipulation of this Leo Frank article, actions to make Leo Frank seem innocent by deleting relevant facts from the case. Moreover, my main issue is that you are just too grossly obvious about it. These behaviors are against the rules here, your actions which manipulate articles for a specific social, religious and political agenda. Please strive to be more neutral in this article and allow all of the facts to be present.

Another problem with the article is the neurotic obsession of spinning the article into demagoguery, by overplaying the Anti-Semitism and racism card in the article. The main source of the conviction against Leo Frank to borrow and paraphrase from some of the sources like Leonard Dinnerstein, Mary Phagan-Kean and Steve Oney, was the endless parade of early teen and pre-teen girl who came forward sworn under oath and testifying in the case describing numerous occasions when Leo Frank propositioned little girls at the factory with money for sex, the pedophilia of groping little girls boobies and nipples, the constant leering into the girls bathroom and girls changing room when they were occupied. Moreover, this was of course coupled with adult testimony about Leo having regular sex in his office with prostitutes. Can you see how this testimony would create a pattern and history reflecting Leo Franks behavior? Was it any wonder that when Jim Conley admitted to being an accessory to the murder that a jury of 7 white men and 5 Jews would convict Leo Frank? That is one conclusion or way of looking at this case, but why erase the facts and evidence against Leo Frank?

So rather than delete all the sworn testimony and factual evidence, there is plenty of material spun by the numerous political sociologist who wrote about the case to cast doubt, why don't you use that politically spun material instead? Why delete documented facts from the article? Why don't you just add more facts into the article which create doubts about Leo Franks innocence, rather than deleting sworn testimony by his employees which tends to incriminate him.

I consider you a righteous Jewish Brother, because of an aspect of how I have seen you behave here on Wikipedia, you seem like the kind of person who would stand behind our people no matter how atrocious our crimes may be at times (by the way Anti-Semitism is not spelled antisemtism and please at least capitalize the 'S' in Semitism). You remind me of the family loyalty a mother and father show, when they stand by their son in court, even if they know in their son is guilty, they stand behind him monolithically.

Machn (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Machn, stop talking about other editors, and stop referring to various historians and editors as Jewish. Discuss article content and what reliable sources say about the topic. Nothing more. Jayjg (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The touching of breasts issue

The following paragraph that Machn keeps adding is simply not true:

"The testimony from the prosecutions witnesses presented a pattern and history of sexual impropriety by Leo Frank towards the female child laborers working at the factory. Numerous employees at the pencil factory testified under oath, they had seen or experienced inappropriate propositions, sexual harassment and abuse by Leo Frank, including toward Mary Phagan. [57] More specifically, one girl described Leo Frank groping the breasts and nipples of a female child laborer and that frank would often leer into the girl bathroom and changing room when they were occupied."

The footnote # 57 DOES NOT suppot the claim (The book, "American State Trials Vol. X" is available at Google Books -- page 238 contains a summary of the testimony by the proecution witnesses). The Oney book provides an excellent narrative on what was testified to at the trial. On page 308 he writes, during the prosecution's rebuttal that "Dorsey took a second shot at presenting specific allegations of improriety against Frank by summonsing Nellie Wood ... " who had claimed at the coroner's inquest that Frank had fondled her breasts. The defense objected to that line of testimony and Judge Roan told the prosecutor that "the law shuts you out." Dorsey was limited in his examination of the factory girls to eliciting general statements regarding Frank's reputation.

The reference to "breasts and nipples" apparently comes from a question directed by the prosecution to a defense character witness, John Ashley Jones. Jones was asked if he had heard of Frank "kissing girls and playing with the nipples of their breasts". (Oney pp. 285-286) Jones replied in the negative. I have removed the entire paragraph -- I suggest it not be readded w/o accurate sourcing and consensus on this discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

North Shoreman,

Please watch The People v. Leo Frank, Leonard Dinnerstein describes the prosecution bringing forward a parade of child laborers to testify in the case. Sworn testimony from female child laborers included that Leo Frank would often Leer into the girls bathroom when it was occupied and also a groping of the breasts were mentioned. Please review the videos on the ADL web site: http://www.adl.org/leofrank/examples.asp

Machn (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

They are not entirely mutually exclusive. I believe Tom is suggesting that the prosecution tried to introduce that idea, but were not successful. Not a terribly salient point, and it can be left out. IronDuke 15:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
During the trial... Actual female child laborers who worked at the factory, who were sworn under oath, testified that Leo Frank had a habit of Leering into the girls bathroom and girls changing room when they were occupied. They also testified that Leo Frank made propositions for sex to the female child laborers, Frank offered them cash-money for these sexual favors. Moreover Leo Frank had a habit of touching and groping the little girls boobies which was part of the sworn testimony coming from these little girls. Again, this is testimony was coming from the female child laborers that worked in the factory, and these facts belong in the article. This is valid, valuable and relevant testimony that belongs in the article, because it shows a pattern of pedophilia and sexual harassment by Leo Frank against the little girls who worked at the factory. Machn (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Not true. The Oney and Lawson books BOTH contradict your claim that there was a reference to breast touching in the trial testimony. The video tape reference to such testimony DOES NOT say that the testimony was made AT THE TRIAL, does it? As I said, the testimony came at the coroner's hearing and was subsequently recanted. Many of the other prosecution witnesses recanted, claiming coercion. You need to go a little deeper into the subject and stop relying on the video tape. Read Oney and maybe you will understand WHY the evidence we're discussing was ruled by the judge as inadmissable. Your repeated efforts to reinsert your version, without receiving support from any other editor, seems to me to constitute edit warring.
Oney and Lawson both provide names and match testimony. Why don't you tell us EXACTLY which witnesses made these specific claims.
The evidence regarding Frank visiting the dressing area could be included since it did make it into the trial, but there is more to it than simply Frank "learing". The defense explanation as well as the recantations and allegations of coerced testimony also need to be included. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The source for the breast groping and leering into the girls bathroom came from Leonard Dinnerstein during an Interview in the documentary The People v. Leo Frank when he was discussing the parade of female child laborers the prosecution brought forward to testify against Leo Frank.


ADL web site: http://www.adl.org/leofrank/examples.asp
Machn (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Why are we relying on less than a minute of material from Dinnerstein pasted together by the editors of the video tape when Dinnerstein has written a very significant book on the Frank trial? I should have the book later this week, but from what is available at Google Books it appears that Dinnerstein pretty much says the same thing as Oney. In a chapter titled, significantly, "Prejudice and Perjury" Dinnerstein reduces the testimony of the factory women to "hav[ing] a reputation for lascivious behavior." The book, not the video tape, is the most reliable evidence of what Dinnerstein has researched concerning the trial testimony. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

These are indisputable facts on the ADL web site that belong in the article and keeping them out can only mean that you don't want specific evidence in the article that shows Leo Frank behaved in a pattern of pedophilia and sexual harassment against little girls.

More specifically, one girl described Leo Frank groping the breasts and nipples of a female child laborer and that frank would often leer into the girl bathroom and changing room when they were occupied. [2]

Hello is anyone home? http://www.adl.org/leofrank/examples.asp

These are facts and these facts belong in the article. Machn (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not facts and they are being very effectively disputed. You were asked to provide the NAME of the person who testified to your "facts" at the trial and have failed to do so. You have been told that Oney and Lawson do NAME names and do not support your "facts" yet you fail to comment. You also fail to explain why a short video snipper of Dinnerstein is preferrable to his actual book. Why do you IGNORE the fact that the judge in the case ruled that the type of testimony you say occurred was inadmissable? Your video doesn't mention the ruling, does it? You can now add "The Murder of Little Mary Phagan" (available on line) to the works that specifically reference the judges ruling and specifically references the type of testimony excluded.
You also seem to be ignoring what I said above -- let me repeat, "The evidence regarding Frank visiting the dressing area could be included since it did make it into the trial, but there is more to it than simply Frank 'learing'. The defense explanation as well as the recantations and allegations of coerced testimony also need to be included." Let me add, however, that talking about "pedophilia" and "sexual harassment", terms not in use during Frank's time, are inappropriate for this article.
Whether you recognize it or not, your argument is nothing more than this video says one thing so let's ignore what all the much more reliable sources say. Do you dispute the reliability or accuracy of the numerous sources I've referenced? Do you have ANY evidence from published sources to support your "facts"?Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Well it would be a good start to include it in the article. However you want to spin it, there are conflicting statements being made from the different Jewish scholars who are overwhelmingly being used in the writing of this article, so shouldn't we include different perspectives on the case? Sources of sources should be checked (indeed), because many of these books written about Leo Frank by Jewish Scholars unanimously pre-suppose his innocence and many of them conflict each other and leave out different facts. Why wouldn't adding facts from different sources be valid even if they conflict (like including the statements from the People v Leo Frank). There will always be authors claiming one thing or another, but the People v. Leo Frank specifically says that girls came forward to testify about specific sexual harassment and pedophile behaviors (regardless of whether those words existed or not). Moreover, there is a concerted effort to specifically delete facts from the article which would tend to incriminate Leo Frank. So however you want to spin it, or argue it, the question remains the same: Why is this article being written in such a way to make Leo Frank seem innocent. Why are the numerous facts which tend to incriminate Leo Frank being left out? Machn (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
FOCUS!! This discussion is ONLY about the trial and whether or not there was testimony about touching breasts and other SPECIFIC incidents that, in today's terms, would be considered sexual harassment. All you need to do is (1) tell us WHO at this trial (not some other hearing, not to a newspaper reporter, not to an attorney who couldn't get the judge to allow the testimony) testified about touching breasts, (2) EXACTLY what they said, and (3) what RELIABLE SOURCE that information came from. Since we have sources contradicting your "facts" that do answer all these questions, your own failure to answer ALL THREE answers, leaves you without a valid argument.
With respect to your claim that there was "sexual harassment and abuse by Leo Frank, including toward Mary Phagan", answer the same three questions. My recollection is that there may (Ihaven't double checked)have been testimony at the trial about him talking to her while having a hand on her shoulder. Am I missing some other SPECIFIC testimony AT THE TRIAL? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Machn, you don't seem to get it. If you disruptively refer again to scholars, historians, or editors here as "Jewish", I will block you. Is that clear? Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Jayjg, PLEASE FORGIVE ME I'M SORRY. I'm sorry for bringing up our religion with the fellow editors on this article. Moreover, I won't bring up our religion again in these discussions either, even though it's a relevant factor concerning the slanting of this article to make Leo Frank seem innocent. Could you please speak with me privately through private messaging on Wikipedia (something I do not know how to do) on how we can address this problem of pervasive ethno-religious bias on Wikipedia about subjects concerning our people and community. I do not want to be disruptive or insensitive to you or anyone about subjects which pertain to our Jewish community, but how would you recommend I rephrase or address this kind of careful word crafting concerning this article and others that deal with our people, and doing so without being disruptive? Who can I talk to about this problem? How can I make this problem known without upsetting people and hurting anyone's feelings - or worse being disruptive? My intention was not to be disruptive with mentioning that whenever the topic is important to our people, we often tend to take sides and lean the article if you know what I mean. I was just trying to point out that the the overwhelming majority of sources in this article about Leo Frank article are mostly written by a "certain type" of scholars presupposing Leo Franks innocence and it seems like there are virtually no sources in the article which counter balance this fact. It seems like a lot of facts and testimony which point to Leo Franks Guilt have been intentionally left out. Can you please contact me privately about this matter and I wont bring up the subject of Jewish bias in Wikipedia publicly (Very sorry for pointing this out) in this article or any other articles ever again in the article discussion areas (but I would like to speak with the admins about this problem). I would at this time like to apologize to you Jayjg, Iron Duke, Tom North Shoeman and any other contributors if my bringing up the topic of Jewish bias on Wikipedia was insensitive and inappropriate, I brought it up with the hopes of making this article and Wikipedia more neutral. Please forgive me my intentions where for the best good of Wikipedia. FROM MY HEART I AM SORRY FOR HURTING ANYONE'S FEELINGS ABOUT BRING THIS UP HERE AND I PROMISE NOT TO EVER DO IT AGAIN HERE. Machn (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
He says, as he proceeds to make, again and again, the offensive remarks he has been told multiple times not to make. IronDuke 00:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
IronDuke, Please forgive me. I hope we can put this issue to rest now. I should have apologized to you first, because I think this whole issue started when I started reading the history of the Leo Frank article and noticed that there was a pattern of facts which tended to incriminate Leo Frank being deleted, removed or spun in a way which seemed to be on Leo Franks behalf. Moreover, the more I study the Leo Frank case there seems to be endless amount of incriminating evidence against Leo Frank left out of the article. I would like to say sorry straight to you and bring this issue to closure now and not talk about ethno-religious bias here anymore or ever again here and ask that we please stop this line of discourse. I am asking forgiveness over ever bringing it up in a way which was emotionally hurtful (even if I believe it to be true). So again, I apologize to you IronDuke and everyone else here who took offense to it. This is why I asked for someway to be able to talk about this problem privately and not continue this here because I am asking that we please stop now. I'm sorry that I ever brought up these remarks initially. Could you please privately message me on how to deal with this problem (in private) with us not talking about it here and privately discuss it in a way without hurting anyone's emotions? The more I read about Leo Frank, the more I study the subject of Leo Frank, the more I believe there has been a concerted effort to leave out relevant facts and lean the article in Leo Franks favor. How can I bring this subject up without being offensive? Simple, I wont bring up our Religion ever again and I agree to do this from now on here. Now that I agreed to stop bringing up our religion, I ask what would be the best way moving forward to discuss the lack of facts and evidence in this article against Leo Frank? Again I apologize for bringing ever bring up our religion and for anyone who i hurt emotionally over this subject. Please forgive me, I apologize, I am sorry, I will not do it again. Can we please move forward and put this issue to rest here? From my heart I am sorry for being hurtful to you. Machn (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
One's jaw just drops. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Machn, I'm not sure what to say. It seems to be extraordinarily difficult to get through to you, and I'm not even sure, at this point, I should try. But, stretching AGF to its limit, here goes: you don't need to apologize to me. What you do need to do is:
  1. Stop discussing the ethnicity of scholars, or even discuss discussing it, if you follow me.
  2. Stop giving your personal opinion on LF's guilt. It is of no relevance whatever.
  3. Stop making comments about my religion or ethnicity, which you know nothing of.
  4. Stop trying to jam in as much negative material about LF as you think you can get away with.
  5. Start using reliable sources, and reliable sources only, to support your edits.
You seem to be teetering on the edge of a block. If you take my advice, I suspect you'll avoid one. I hope that's all clear. IronDuke 22:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Can you provide the reference source for recantation of the molestation attempt by Leo Frank on Nellie Woods?

Another take on the breast issue, suggests that Leo Frank tried to touch her breast and was prevented by Nellie Woods.

"Question: Do you know Mr. Frank? Answer: I worked for him two days. Q. Did you observe his conduct toward the girls? A. His conduct didn't suit me very much. Q. You say he put his hands on you; is that all he ever did? A. Well, he asked me, one evening — I went into his office, and he got too familiar and too close. Q. Did he put his hands on you? A. Well, I did not let him complete what he started. I resisted him. Q. Did he put his hands on your breast ? A. No, but he tried to.. Q. Well, did he make any attempts on your lower limbs? A. Yes, sir.. Q. And on your dress? A. Yes, sir."

rest of the questions cut short....

Miss Nellie Wood quit, immediately, and never went back, except to get her pay for the two days.

Can you provide the reference source for recantation of the molestation attempt by Leo Frank on Nellie Woods?

Machn (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The refutation was in the form of an affidavit by Wood -- see Oney page 389. The dialogue you cite was NOT allowed by the judge to be heard by the jury. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Why did judge Roan allow Jim Conley to talk in meticulous detail about Leo Frank's numerous extra-marital sexual endeavors with prostitutes and child employees (like Daisy Hopkins) on Saturdays, but would not allow the 11 female child employees who had testified to Franks bad lascivious character to reveal in more detail about the specifics of Franks lascivious behavior? Why did the Judge only allow the 11 female employees to testify to Franks bad character, but not the distinct particulars of the sexual nitty gritty? Was this to avoid poisoning the minds of the Jury, which might convict Frank on his alleged Saturday salacious and sexual extra curricular activities (including pedophilia)? This seems contradictory of the judge because both Dalton and Conley testified that Frank was into pedophilia using Daisy Hopkins as a prime example. Machn (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Pedophilia? Perhaps you can provide a reliable source that makes THAT CLAIM.
Based on your numerous factual errors that have already been exposed, I can no longer consider you a serious editor. If you had read the Oney work you would have the answers to all of the questions you just asked. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
What I think you really mean, is that I'm not a serious editor, because I do not take the modern politically correct view (of a minority number of people) that Leo Frank was innocent and framed because of Anti-Semitism, racism and classicism (and all the other political cards over exaggerated), and that ultimately Jim Conley was the real murderer. This is my interpretation of your words and personal attacks against me.

My position here and now is that all evidence for or against Leo Franks guilt should be presented in the article without bias and with neutrality (if at all possible), so that people can make their own informed judgments (not pushed to a new conclusion). I want the Leo Frank article to be as neutral as possible and not push the biased politically motivated (social) agenda of some people in modern times, which is the propaganda that Leo Frank was an innocent man framed and convicted because of Anti-Semitism or because he was Jewish. The truth of the matter is that if Leo Frank were Christian, Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, Buddhist, Muslim or Agnostic instead of Jewish, he still would have been convicted of murder because of the testimony and evidence, not because of his religion. Read the testimony, brief of evidence and the decision of 4 different courts, they all make it clear where they stand on the issues brought up. Who is the authority on this case? The Jury, the courts, the endless judges and their decisions? or modern social scholars, sociologists and journalists?

Guilty or innocent, my wish would be to see the article present all facts and information about the case in a neutral manner, so that people can make their own decisions. What we have more often that not in this article is the political agenda of modern writers and times going against the Jury and 4 different courts, as most of the sources in the article are by people who openly admit and pre-suppose Leo Frank's innocence and political framing. What we need are more sources which are neutral on the subject. And G*d forbid we should even have some sources which were not in the minority which might even lean in the prosecutions favor, but I would be shocked if that happened.

Steve Oney openly admits that he thinks Leo Frank was innocent, framed and convicted because of Anti-Semitism. Steve Oney also openly admits that he thinks Jim Conley was the real murderer. Oney, uses his entire book to openly push this modern social agenda and therefore his book although very thorough and well written, is meant to be a propaganda book at best. What we need are neutral source who do not have an agenda to push Leo Franks guilt or innocence, but to just present the well documented facts in an unbiased neutral fashion.

You have made it lucidly clear where you stand concerning the issues and politics surrounding the subjects of: guilt, innocence, framing, the real murderer, politics, and so forth which pertain to Leo Frank. What I am asking you and all other editors to do is put aside our own biases and be able to present the facts in a neutral manner. Machn (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Machn: My position here and now is that all evidence for or against Leo Franks guilt should be presented in the article without bias and with neutrality.
Response: And yet you continue to throw around inappropriate emotional terms like "pedophilia". It has been shown over and over again (your false claims about the grand jury, your unfamiliarity with the recantations of testimony, you inaccurate claims concerning the actual testimony in the trial, your blanket dismissal with unsupported claims of bias of what the majority of reliable sources conclude) that it is you who wants to tilt the article to support your POV. Go back to the top of this section and read the paragraph that you repeatedly tried to insert into this article and which I, and others, have reverted. That paragraph has been proven false -- I think even you agree at this point -- yet you still complain about material being kept out of the article. Perhaps you can present SPECIFIC material with RELIABLE SOURCING that you feel should be in the article and isn't.
Machn: Who is the authority on this case? The Jury, the courts, the endless judges and their decisions? or modern social scholars, sociologists and journalists?
Response: Wikipedia is based on reliable, secondary sources, not Original Research based on individual editors' determinations of the significance of jury decisions. As far as the Georgia jury pool and court system, you are aware, I assume, that Frank was lynched by a broad based conspiracy by community leaders and individuals who were eligible for future jury service. I also assume you are aware that the legal and court system of Georgia failed to bring any of these people to justice. You are extremely naive (and that's the best interpretation that can be put on your argument) to accept jury and court decisions, especially in sensationalized trials involving minorities in the early 20th Century South, as the final (or even best) word on the subject.
"Conspiracy"? Really? A White Jury in the south is going to side with an illiterate African American sweeper over a middle class White man who provided hundreds of jobs for the community?! It must have been some pretty darn good supporting testimony eh? Your secondary sources (laid off journalist for the LA Times (oney) and a sociologist(dinnerstein)) DO NOT veto or over rule the United States Supreme Court, The Supreme Court of Georgia, Appellate courts, and every other court room that tried the case and It is totally absurd you would suggest so. You are completely naive (and that's the best interpretation that can be put on your argument) and basically making racist, prejudiced and bigoted statement about the people of Georgia, Jury, Judges, Appellate Courts, Georgian Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court, by even suggesting they convicted Leo Frank because he was Jewish and not because of the testimony and evidence in the trial. Making racist, bigoted and prejudiced "Anti-Semitic" conclusions against the people of Georgia is not acceptable and is the reason why no serious academic institution in United States of America allows Wikipedia to be considered a reliable source - you are part of this problem. Machn (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Machn: ...and not push the biased politically motivated (social) agenda of some people in modern times...
Response: And who exactly are these "some people" you refer to? What exactly is the "biased politically motivated (social) agenda" that you claim these people have? There is some current political agenda that somehow relates to Leo Frank?
The political agenda of a select few people who have take up the Leo Frank cause is to be apologists for an affirmed, confirmed sexual predator, sexual harasser, pedophile, rapist and murderer (all accurate adjectives in modern terms to describe Leo Frank based on the testimony given in 1913). Though most of these words didn't exist back then, like 'sexual harassment' for instance, an endless stream of people provided testimony sworn under oath affirming these accurate adjectives. It's so outrageous and insulting you and others can on one hand overplay and exaggerate the Anti-Semitism and racism in the case, while at the same time making racist, prejudiced and bigoted statements about southerners claiming they were motivated by racism and Anti-Semitism to convict Leo Frank and not on the testimony in the trial. I find it totally disgusting that people can make racist, bigoted and prejudiced statements about White Christian southerners and then cry the Racism and Anti-Semitism card in the same breath. Machn (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Machn: Oney, uses his entire book to openly push this modern social agenda
Response: And what is Oney's "social agenda". And you know this how? It's apparent you haven't read the book. His conclusions are no different from Dinnerstein's -- apparently another book you are not familiar with. I asked you the following before and got no response -- let's try again: "Please show where Oney, in his book, demonstrated bias in his use and analysis of the available evidence. Or better yet, please show where any serious reviewer of the work makes such claims."
Machn: You have made it lucidly clear where you stand concerning the issues and politics surrounding the subjects of: guilt, innocence, framing, the real murderer, politics, and so forth which pertain to Leo Frank.
Response: Not true. You are the one who was called on the carpet concerning your personal agenda. I have limited myself to discussing what the reliable sources say. You would be well served to do the same. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
What would possess you to think that political writers veto the entire weight of US Governments legal system? Oney wrote his book presupposing that Leo Frank was innocent and Jim Conley was guilty, and therefore his book is written with the conclusion and intention of affirming his position and therefore Oney spins the entire book to support his politically correct thesis. The spin a dozen political writers does not veto the unanimous decision of a Jury, the endless Judges decisions, the appellate courts, state supreme court and US supreme court. Steve Oney a laid off journalist for the LA times who openly admits to a politically correct agenda concerning the conviction holds no veto over the full weight of the United States of America Court and Legal System, which affirmed the Jury's decision. A laid off journalist (Steve Oney), a criminal felon (Golden) or a group of politically correct sociologist political writers with a political agenda holds no trump or veto card over the weight of a Jury, endless Judges, and higher courts - either. Leo Frank was convicted of Murder and endless attempts to change that through every possible legal means failed and therefore the default is that Leo Frank is guilty of Murder, no amount of spin, half-truths and manipulation of emotions by political writers, sociologists and journalists can or will change this fact about Leo Franks affirmed conviction of murder. Machn (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Machn. Tom has explained all this to you far more patiently than he needed to. If you don't want to listen, you need to move on. Your presence here is increasingly disruptive. IronDuke 00:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
IronDuke and Tom. Did I listen to Tom (read what he wrote)? Yes. Do I understand the substance of what Tom is trying to communicate? Yes. Did Tom explain his opinion to me? Yes. Am I listening to you Iron Duke (read what you wrote)? Yes. Do I understand the substance of what you (Iron Duke) are trying to communicate? Yes. Did you (Iron Duke) explain your opinion to me? Yes. However, that doesn't mean I agree with your opinion. Why don't I agree with your opinion? Because, the full weight of every level of the United States court and legal system including the Jury has the ultimate and final say in this matter, not the open and admittedly biased journalist Steve Oney (who was fired from LA magazine). Steve Oney is nothing more than an admittedly biased social writer and a journalist (an arguably a demagogue) who made his own pre-drawn conclusions open to the public before writing his book and the whole purpose of his book is to support his thesis, but unfortunately Steve Oneys thesis goes against Judges who were infinitely smarter in matters of the law, trials and justice (than Steve Oney is). So I'm sorry, you are patently wrong. Moreover, Steve Oney is not the single man judge on the "world supreme court" (a mildly sarcastic metaphor for a court above the president of the united states and the supreme court of the united states of america). Steve Oney does not have the final say or a trump card over the Supreme Court of the United States of America, The Georgia Supreme Court, Appellate Courts, Lower Courts, Prison Boards, Georgian Governor (who did not pardon Leo Frank's murder conviction) and ultimately the unanimous decision of 12 jury members (Not even Judge Roan disturbed the Jurys decision no matter how you want to spin it). So again, what would possess you to think that a couple of wikipedia editors and a small group of politically correct journalists, sociologists and a bunch of political writers would have a veto to overturn and over rule every level and the full weight of the United States Supreme Court? And every other court and judge? The Jury? Steve Oney's exceptionally well written spin and politically correct views are not the widely accepted or predominant view on this case, yet the introduction of the Leo Frank article reflects the true ugliness of this politically correct view by trying to make it sound like it is the widely accepted view that it was a miscarriage of justice! An encyclopedia of any value and substance, which is not filled with politically correct propaganda, would give the overwhelming benefit of the doubt and credence to the entire Court system and every level of it over a small group of political writers. I'm sorry, I disagree with you and I'm not being disruptive by disagreeing with you and telling you that the political correct view of this case is ultimately spin, half-truth and exaggeration. The belief that Jim Conley was the real murderer and that Leo Frank was convicted because he was Jewish, has about as much substance as the Leo Frank defense team in desperation overplaying the Anti-Semitism, Racism and Race Card to the Jury. Steve Oney's book is his opinion and the opinion of only a dozen or so writers who wrote books taking his similar position. How do I communicate to you that Steve Oney and this small group of Leo Frank partisans does not trump, veto, overturn, over rule or reverse every single level of the court system of the united states of america? Because I'm very patiently trying to communicate this to you and you don't seem to get it and therefore if anyone is being disruptive its you(s). Machn (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"I'm not being disruptive by disagreeing with you..." Absolutely correct. You are being disruptive by your relentless POV pushing, and refusal to address arguments, and general lack of knowledge about the case, or cases in general, or Wikipedia process, your largish text dumps here notwithstanding. I seriously advise you to pursue your POV to its fullest extent on your own website or blog. IronDuke 23:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
My challenging the PC POV & bias of this article is not disruptive, it's annoying because you got called out for what it really is. This Leo Frank article is what can be called pushing the position of: (1) a small minority of apologists for a pedophile murderer, (2) spin-within-spin and (3) spinning politically correct propaganda that goes completely against over a dozen Judges at every level of the legal system. My POV is that despite the precedent of this topic, subject and issue of Leo Frank and his guilt being affirmed and confirmed by settled law at every level of the US legal system, I still feel the article should be neutral and I'm not even asking that the article lean in favor of Leo Franks guilt (despite the fact that the precedent is that he is guilty affirmed and affirmed and affirmed and affirmed - at least 4x) and right now the article is not even neutral. The Leo Frank article is completely PC political, particularly the introduction of the article which parots the absurd claims of some political writers, which is again, diametrically opposed to every level of the United States Courts and Legal System. First, the article & introduction overplays the race card, the KKK card, the Anti-Semitism card, the north vs. south card, the rich vs. poor card, and any other political card that can be exaggerated, overplayed and spun [Ad nauseam], the legal system rules against this claim that it has NO MERIT. The claim that the case is widely considered a miscarriage of justice is absolutely untrue, only a small minority of people believe case was a miscarriage of justice. Do you really think the majority of Americans if they read the testimony without the spin from Dinnerstein and Oney, would widely believe it a miscarriage of justice if a pedophile murderer got convicted and lynched? You don't think someone could write a book spinning for the prosecution instead of the defense (Oney, Dinnerstein et al.). By pushing this political propaganda that the courts ruled against, the article lacks academic merit and substance. Even worse is that the article is making racist, bigoted and prejudiced statements which are untrue about the entire legal system, the Judges at every level that reviewed the case and the unanimous Jury are not all Anti-Semites. I'm utterly disgusted how easily the word Anti-Semitism and Anti-Semite are thrown around these days when we don't like the outcome of things. It is completely absurd for the intro and the article to suggest that if Leo Frank were not Jewish or -insert your demographic card here-, but lets say instead Christian, that the testimony and evidence would not have resulted in a conviction. What you are essentially saying is that the dozen or more giants of the legal system who understand the law and constitution, swearing to uphold it, are all Anti-Semitic and allowed Leo Frank to be convicted because he was Jewish or Northern or Rich or -insert your demographic spin here-. To call the Legal System at every level Anti-Semitic is in and of itself bigoted, prejudiced and racist against the judges individually and collectively. I was under the impression bigoted, prejudiced and racist-extremist majority positions in articles were not allowed in Wikipedia. Why then are we allowing the Leo Frank article to push the same propaganda and nonsense coming from the Leo Defense team and a small minority of Leo Frank partisan political authors going against indisputable decisions of a dozen judges and a jury of a dozen men. What's even more absurd is that you can stereo type southerners as being racist against blacks, but when a White man is on trial and is Jewish, you are essentially claiming the southerners would side with an illiterate, uneducated, African-American drunkard with a criminal record for disorderly conduct over a White man who provided hundreds of poor people with Jobs. Again, absurd, read the testimony without all external spin, because there is plenty of spin to say the recantations were bribed as well (Spin vs. Spin). The racism, bigotry and prejudice in this article, the half-truths, the spin, the over exaggeration of political cards is exactly the reason why Wikipedia has been relegated by all academic institutions as unreliable and this article has become tabloid propaganda fit for the national enquirer. I Dissent to the racist, bigoted, prejudiced, propaganda, spin, half-truths and intentional leaving out of facts and spin-within-spin-within-spin from biased political authors. Some areas of Wikipedia have become the propaganda wing of Political Correctness and this article is an example of this pervasive problem. If calling out biased POV propaganda is disruptive then I'm being disruptive. Machn (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Simply more of the same. You have provided nothing from reliable sources and, therefore, nothing that could remotely be considered as an attempt to improve the article. The current problem with the article is that it does not provide sufficient details on exactly why the verdict was such a miscarriage of justice. BTW, paragraphs can be your friend. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Machn, per Tom, I commend you to the essay entitle tl;dr. I would only add that when you write of "spin from Dinnerstein" after you were hopping from foot to foot to quote the same man (on what was, for you, the all-consuming issue of little girl boobie-touching), you make your POV exquisitely clear. I'm not going to feed you any longer, but I suggest that your giving yourself an informal ban from this article may be preferable to the inevitable formal one you are on the way to achieving for yourself. IronDuke 19:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Please attempt to learn how to spell and avoid writing words that simply do not exist, as I do not know what "tl;dr" means. You might also attempt to comprehend I am not now or ever going to give myself an informal ban from this article. Your request for me to do so only causes me to smile and inspires me with greater happiness, verve and dedication to monitor the careful and subtle manipulation of this article from politically and socially biased people trying to white wash, re-write history and push a politically correct agenda.
Mentioned was that I have not provided sources, I'd like to point out that concerning the statement in the intro concerning "...widely considered a miscarriage of justice" which is lying propaganda, what do you call these sources? The unanimous conviction provided from a Jury, the Judges decisions at every level of the legal system of the United States of America which did not disturb the Jury, and the Supreme Court of the United States of America which finally voted unanimously against Leo Frank? Even the Governor of Georgia who was a law partner of the Leo Frank Defense team wouldn't pardon Leo Frank. I think what we have here are facts on the ground and what you and Tom are attempting to do is go against the judgments of the full weight of the United States Legal System. I'm sorry to inform you, but Dinnersteins and Oneys are not going to re-write history and neither are either of you. Machn (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b citeagain
  2. ^ People v. Leo Frank: Leonard Dinnerstein Interview The People v Leo Frank
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leo_Frank/Archive_2&oldid=1051232723"