Talk:Leo Frank/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Dinnerstein Is Not A Reliable Source

[Edit deleted since it contained strong BLP violations] Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It does no good to simply hurl invectives. It won't advance your case, and it diminishes your credibilty. If you have specific examples of falsehoods which Dinnerstein has presented as fact, then present those points here (not in the article, please) on a point-by-point basis. Try to strip the rhetoric from the discussion, and just lay out the dry facts. If it can be tied to a reliable source, and corrects an error in the article (or adds new relevant information) your input will be as valid as mine or any other user here. If you maginalize yourself with chest thumping, you will only fail in your objectives, and probably get yourself banished. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the rules that we abide by, and try hard to practice civility. It may sound very trite, but I believe those same rules will help you achieve more in the wider world, as well. Really, try it. Gulbenk (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Large parts of the IP's diatribe are plagiarized from the anti-Semitic website leofrank.org -- this "source" has been discussed may times in the past on this discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly why I mentioned reliable source. I did come upon one thing from Dinnerstein that I find disturbing. It is that "Kill the Jew" quote. Evidently, the only source we have for that is a small publication in Pennsylvania (of unknown reliability) by the name of the New Castle Herald. They report a statement from an unidentified "Atlantan" in 1915, regarding events that took place two years earlier, in 1913. This published squib was clipped, and later found in Governor Slaton's papers. Dinnerstein includes it in his footnotes, and then reports the "Kill the Jew" event without further critical review or questioning. This "Kill the Jew" statement from Dinnerstein has been taken up by many others (often without attribution) and recited numerous times as fact. It seems to have grown, and been elaborated upon, with each retelling. There seem to be no contemporary reports of this ever happening, and no reference (that I can find) in the Atlanta papers of the day. Since coverage of the trial was so extensive, delving into even small details, one must wonder about the veracity of this "quote". It seems that the ADL has expanded on this theme when they state that there were "threats, intimidation, and a boisterous crowd outside chanting "kill the Jew" and "hang the Jew" [which] could easily be heard through the courtroom's open windows." But I can find no original source for these statements either. Even Lindemann, who goes to great pains to maintain a scholarly approach to his writing, simply cites unspecified "critics" (with no supporting footnote or additional explanation) when he states that there were "chants, jeers, and threats of the crowd - such as "Hang the Jew or we'll hang you". Does ANYONE have a source for these various statements, aside from the New Castle Herald heresay? Gulbenk (talk)

What we need to address this is a scholarly source that debunks the quote. Without that, we're stuck with what we've got. Rklawton (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

In critical thinking, it would be stated that one cannot prove a negative (such that the quote does not exist), but instead requires that an individual who claims the quote exists must prove so. I believe that Wikipedia offers a middle ground, which allows the quote, but requires an explanation of its origin. viz: On August 25, Frank was convicted of murder. One newspaper reported, several years later, that outside the Atlanta courtroom there were chants of "Hang the Jew!". Would that work? Gulbenk (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

We have a reliable source -- in fact the single most reliable academic source that makes a clear, unequivocal statement. What in wikipedia guidelines or policy requires us to second guess the reliable source's research methods? If there really is reason to doubt the quote, surely somewhere in the secondary literature there would be a mention of this. Should we have to do this every time an editor decides that they don't like what the reliable source said? Do we have any information at all that says this is the only reference to this chanting?

This pretty much restates my point. Rklawton (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps what we actually need is an expansion in the article of the immediate reaction to the trial verdict as well as the ongoing pressure exerted by the mob during the trial. In addition to the "Hang the Jew" quote, Dinnerstein also states (and sources) in the same paragraph that both the defense attorneys and judge had received threats they"would not leave the courtroom alive if the 'damned jew' were turned loose." An Augusta newspaper is quoted from at length and mentions the "outspoken fear of 'trouble' -- of violence." Lindemann writes about the pressure of the crowd throughout the trial and questions whether a change of venue should have been requested. He also finds it "difficult to believe" that the jury was not intimidated by the crowd. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Rklawton (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason for my suggestion is because your "single most reliable academic source" credits the New Castle Herald as HIS source. It is incorporated in his 1966 dissertation, I believe. I began this line of inquiry asking if there is another primary/contemporary source for these quotes, or if all we have is a string of statements repeating, and adding on, to Dinnerstein's. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable line of inquiry. And, Tom, Lindemann could have helped us out with this if he only cited a source. But he doesn't. He simply states that he finds it difficult to believe that it didn't happen. Lindemann is a meticulous researcher. When he has to resort to a statement like that, without a citation, it is because he couldn't find one. Gulbenk (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Really? You claim "Lindemann is a meticulous researcher." Based on what? His book relies entirely on secondary sources whereas Olney and Dinnerstein base their works largely on primary sources. I read the first three JSTOR reviews of Lindemann and none mentioned him as "a meticulous researcher". His book is purely analysis. You use him for analysis (see [1]) but when someone else does the EXACT SAME THING, you have a problem? Why is that? He's only accurate when he agrees with you?

You question his integrity when you claim that he included material for which he had no source. So he just made it up? Why did he do that? Let me repeat an earlier question that you neglected to answer:

I wonder what you mean when you say, "It justifies a non-neutral, POV, stance based on current popular opinion and some (less than scholarly) modern writings, which (in some instances) ignore or recast facts to suit their agenda." What specific works are you talking about and what is the agenda that you accuse these writers of pursuing? In light of what's gone on in the past with this article, you really need to (IMHO) make your position clear.

Does Lindemann have this unnamed agenda that you refer to? The IP has stated what he/she thinks the agenda is. I can only assume you agree with him/her (bad cop) as long as you (good cop) refuse to explain what agenda you are talking about. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

APPEALS section of this article requires a re-write

North Shoreman recently deleted an edit by an IP user, stating that the IP edit was POV unsourced comments and overly long quote. While I would agree that the IP user's summary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision could have been improved upon, it wasn't POV. Neither was the submission unsourced. It was Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915). The IP included that, along with a few extra legal citations, which aren't required.

North Shoreman is quite correct when he states that the quote is overlong. I would add that the quote wasn't positioned particulary well, within the article. The "Final ruling...(etc.)" divider was inappropriate, since the previous sentence (above the divider) also concerned the same court decision, namely Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915).

Here is the rub. That previous discussion of the Supreme Court decision, under the sub-section header of APPEALS *only* quotes from the dissent (twice!). If there is POV, it arises from presenting only one side of a decision (in such a way as to convey an impression of the "wrongness" of the majority opinion). The whole Appeals section of the Frank article is a prime example of POV pushing.

So I think we actually NEED part of the majority opinion added to the article, to bring us back to a neutral position. We just don't need the entire quote that North Shoreman deleted. A rewrite of the entire APPEALS section of the article, including a succinct summary of the majority opinion, backed up by a shorter quote, is called for. Gulbenk (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The part I find objectionable on POV grounds is the emphasis on the word "Final" as if the Supreme Court has spoken and there is no further reason to discuss the matter. It is also inaccurate to state that the SC decided in full "whether Leo Frank was given a fair trial" when, in fact, their decision was narrow and focused and did not consider all facets of the case. Dinnerstein, for example, emphasizes that the Court majority decision noted "that errors in law, however serious, committed by a court of proper jurisdiction cannot be reviewed by habeas corpus since habeas corpus cannot be substituted for a writ of error." Olney indicated that the Court was "content to leave 'due process' in the hands of the state."

As far as sourcing, our preferred sourcing, especially in an area where we are providing interpretation of history (i.e. the significance of a court decision) rather than simply reciting facts, is reliable secondary sourcing. The has been a continuous problem in this article with POV warriors trying to use their interpretation of primary sources to prove that Frank was guilty -- probably more than a half dozen sock puppets have been identified and banned and this IP appears to be either another one or a fellow traveler.

Dinnerstein, for example, emphasizes that the Court majority decision noted "that errors in law, however serious, committed by a court of proper jurisdiction cannot be reviewed by habeas corpus since habeas corpus cannot be substituted for a writ of error." Olney indicated that the Court was "content to leave 'due process' in the hands of the state." "A succinct summary" of what the reliable sources say about the majority opinion may be appropriate. A clear point that needs to be made is that Court did not delve into the actual facts of the case and weigh guilt versus innocence.

I think you also need to keep in mind that the "neutral position" is not one that devotes equal space to "guilt" and "innocence" but one that reflects the manner in which the case is presented by reliable secondary sources. The majority of these sources either lean to or outright acknowledge that Frank was innocent and did not receive a fair trial.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tom for that response. I think your reaction to "Final" may be unjustified. The SC is the court of last resort and, unless they remand to a lower court, their word is, in fact, final. One does not appeal a SC decision. I also believe that Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915) was the last of thirteen separate judicial reviews of the case. In that sense, also, it was "final". So I don't believe that the heading "Final Supreme Court decision..." is POV. It doesn't stifle discussion within the article (as per your "no further reason to discuss the matter" concern), nor does it convey the impression of a opinionated summary, the way that, say, "Conclusion" might.

You are correct in stating that the appeals process is narrow in its focus. Only conclusions of law, not findings of fact, made by a lower court are reviewable. Appellate courts can decide only issues actually before them on appeal, not general issues of guilt or innocence. The Leo Frank case was actively appealed by a team of highly paid (Albert D. Lasker, alone, contributed $160,000 towards Frank's legal expenses) and highly regarded attornys. Frank's attorneys (the dream team of their day) "petitioned the higher courts of Georgia and of the United States, all the way to the Supreme Court, some thirteen different times." (Lindemann, "The Jew Accused", p.267) So there was more than adequate opportunity for Frank's lawyers to appeal any and all errors alleged to have been made by the trial court. And they certainly seized upon that opportunity. Frank made a motion for a new trial based on no less than 100 grounds. The writ of error that you mentioned (the "alleged lack of due process") was a technical argument that "neither [Frank] nor [his] counsel had the right to waive his constitutional privilege to be present in the courtroom at every stage of the proceedings." (They had agreed to be absent at the reading of the verdict). (Dinnerstein, "The Leo Frank Case", p.108). So the "fairness" of the proceedings (absent finding of fact) were indeed adjudicated - repeatedly. Frank's legal team zealously pursed the writ of error. They went so far as to appeal directly to two individual SC justices. Failing that, they argued the "wit of error" before the entire SC, which ruled against them.

We should be careful when it comes to substituting "opinion" (secondary source comments) for "fact" (primary source quotes). Your statement "The majority of these [secondary] sources either lean to or outright acknowledge that Frank was innocent and did not receive a fair trial" is a dangerous one. It is subjective, and not readily quantifiable. It justifies a non-neutral, POV, stance based on current popular opinion and some (less than scholarly) modern writings, which (in some instances) ignore or recast facts to suit their agenda. The same is true for the role that anti-semitic sentiment (to the extent that it was even substantially present in the South at that time) played in the arrest of Frank and the eventual verdict.

To conclude, I think the "Appeals" section is appalling in its bias. It substitutes non-binding dicta (which has not been borne out, all these years later) for the majority opinion, which had the full force of law. We can (and should) do a better job here. Gulbenk (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you should note what Lindemann (p. 267), who you are apparently familiar with, wrote, "The issues in the petitions were mostly technical, not easily summarized, and the judgments by no mean constituted thirteen different legal reaffirmations of Frank's guilt. Still, there were many who saw them as that, or at least as an overwhelming affirmation that Frank had been given a fair trial." The language by the IP that I deleted (and your comments) give the false impression that Lindemann speaks of.

There is plenty of info from Olney, Lindemann, and Dinnerstein to briefly summarize for a reader the general issues of the appeal. You decry dicta but then want to leave it to wikipedia editors, rather than reliable secondary sources, to interpret what part of the decision is dicta and which part is not. Minority opinions, especially when issued by justices as notable as Holmes, are often found to be relevant by historians writing about judicial events.

If you doubt my analysis of the majority opinion of writers who have addressed the trial and lynching of Frank, then perhaps you can tell me what secondary sources you would prefer to rely on. The IP who has said this:

"The man was clearly guilty of murdering Mary Phagan. The trial court said so, the jury said so, the state and federal appeals courts said so, and most importantly, the evidence said so. This wikipedia article is merely a whitewash, and any reasonable human being with half a brain should know that. The only people this article would fool are those who do not meet said description."(see [2]}

and this:

"I assume you are trying to be funny, because the only bad behavior evident here is the ongoing attempted white-washing of the pedophile murderer, Leo Frank." (see [3])

Allowing someone with such an obvious agenda to determine what info from primary sources should be added to the article is, to use your language, both "dangerous" and "appalling". Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources -- to make a serious argument you need to discuss proposed language in the context of what the reliable sources say. The purpose of this article is not to re-argue guilt or innocence -- it is to summarize what the reliable sources have said.

I wonder what you mean when you say, "It justifies a non-neutral, POV, stance based on current popular opinion and some (less than scholarly) modern writings, which (in some instances) ignore or recast facts to suit their agenda." What specific works are you talking about and what is the agenda that you accuse these writers of pursuing? In light of what's gone on in the past with this article, you really need to (IMHO) make your position clear.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Tom thanks for your reply. Your response, however, contains an informal fallacy and a certain lack of understanding of the legal process.

The IP most certainly has an agenda and a bias (although his pronouncement of guilt is really just a less refined mirror image of your pronouncement of innocence). His personal statements of opinion should not be included in this article. But, anything that he offers in the way of fact (backed up by a primary source) is suitable for inclusion in this article. You simply cannot dismiss the validity of a primary source based on your Ad hominem attack on the contributor. When you say: Allowing someone with such an obvious agenda to determine what info from primary sources should be added to the article is, to use your language, both dangerous and appalling. That is the logical fallacy.

There is a pretty bright line when it comes to dicta. It is a statement of opinion, rather than the portion of the decision that established legal precedent. When Holmes dissents, and offers up his minority opinion, that is dicta. How in the world did you get it that I was leaving it up to others to decide what part of the court's statement was dicta? I said: "It substitutes non-binding dicta (which has not been borne out, all these years later) for the majority opinion". I was stating that the entire "Appeals" section is slanted, and (twice) uses the minority opinion in the place of the court's decision to reinforce that slant. I haven't edited that section (yet) simply out of courtesy, to allow time for others to comment.

To conclude, I can see that this article has certainly attracted its share of opinions, both for and against. On balance, it's not a bad article. But it occasionally loses its neutral voice, as it has in the "Appeals" section. I'm not likely to please either side with my edit of that section, but I am not out to win friends here. Just to help build a better encyclopedia. So, let me know what you think, after I post the edit (in the next day or two). Gulbenk (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as Holmes' minority opinion on due process, in fact the significance of it was affirmed in 1923 in Moore v. Dempsey. In that case Holmes, this time speaking for the majority in reversing a conviction, stated that the defendants "were hurried to conviction under the pressure of a mob, without any regard for their rights, and without according to them due process of law." Dinnerstein notes (page 151) that "Since Frank's death the United States Supreme Court has revamped its standard for fair trials." This is another part of the reason why the history of the Frank case didn't end with the SC ruling. For historical and legal purposes, Holmes' dissent has ended up having more significance than Frank v. Mangum.

I hope any edits you make conform to OR guidelines, especially:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course. Again, this deals with intrepretations of primary sources. A factual statement of a non-intrepretive nature, coming directly from the primary, is just fine.

This talk about secondary intrepretations brings me back to something that you said earlier, which I didn't repond to (because it is a bit awkward to do in this type of exchange). But, perhaps we can take it up now, if you are so inclined.

I guess that you are typical of the good folks who edit here, who may have read Olney, Lindemann, and Dinnerstein...and this Leo Frank article. Before I make my edit, I would like to see if I can convey a point to you (which I would hope to include in my edit) that may not conform to your present understanding of the Frank appeals process. Just one point of the larger issue, but nonetheless important.

You previously cited Dinnerstein, "that errors in law, however serious, committed by a court of proper jurisdiction cannot be reviewed [by the Supreme Court] by habeas corpus since habeas corpus cannot be substituted for a writ of error." And then followed it up with a quote from Olney, that the [Supreme] Court was "content to leave 'due process' in the hands of the state."

I would like to know what meaning those two statements convey to you, about the Frank appeals process, and your sense of whether or not Frank was able to get a proper review of his case by the appellate courts.Gulbenk (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of the Supreme Court quote was an act of blatant vandalism, and one that is obviously intended to prevent any influx of truth into this extremely false and misleading article. No contemporary reports of any influence of mob law, mob violence, or mob domination upon the trial of Leo Frank is found in any of the newspapers of the time until the guilty verdict was made, and the Supreme Court was explicit in its ruling that such allegations were "untrue in point of fact". There are many other distortions and falsehoods in this article which are referenced to Dinnerstein and others which do not belong in any reputable encyclopedia, and the efforts of those who promote them are clearly acting out a pov agenda.

One glaring falsehood out of many is the following:

"During the trial an Atlanta musician and millworker, Fiddlin' John Carson, wrote and began performing a murder ballad, "Little Mary Phagan..."

John Carson neither wrote, nor performed that song during the trial. The song was written by Franklyn Bliss Snyder, and was sung at rallies in support of carrying out the execution of Leo Frank, AFTER he was found guilty.

This article on Frank is a total disgrace.64.134.45.86 (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ref: The Journal of American Folk-Lore, XXXI (1918), 264 -66

Not true. Franklyn Bliss Snyder did not write the song, but was a literature professor and university president. Your alleged reference is a journal article written by Snyder. The article does contain the text of the song, however the words were submitted to him by a Miss Helen Duncan of Chicago who apparently heard Carson sing it in Bessemer, Alabama. You really shouldn't cite sources you haven't read. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Since the identical author of the song I named, and reference to it I made here is also cited in "APPENDIX B" of Dinnerstien's "The Leo Frank Case REVISED EDITION", and I quote:

"The Ballad of Mary Phagan Franklyn Bliss Snyder, 'Leo Frank and Mary Phagan,' The Journal of American Folk-Lore, XXXI (1918), 264-66."

Maybe you should also take this argument up with Dinnerstein.

According to your reasoning, he didn't read it either. So apparently, you must agree with me that Dinnerstein is not a reliable source.

Of course none of that changes the fact that the text I complained about to begin with is a blatant falsehood. The song wasn't written by Carson, nor was it publicly performed until after Frank was found guilty. 64.134.242.219 (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Still wrong. Dinnerstein's reference does not imply that Snyder wrote the song -- it simply refers to the fact that the text of the song was found in Snyder's article. Based on Oney (page 685) it appears that Carson did compose the song, but it was after the trial. I'll make that correction. I have again reverted the overly long quote based on the discussion above. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

POV Edits by IP

I have reverted over 50,000 bytes by an IP. Using slightly different IP numbers, this editor has argued on this discussion page concerning a pro-Leo Frank bias of the article caused by a reliance on pro-Leo Frank historians and authors. The attacks on the writers were so extreme that the discussion page was semi-protected for a period because the attacks constituted BLP violations.

The material added relied primarily on cherry picking the prosecution's case information from Leo M. Frank - Brief Of The Evidence, a collection of primary sources from the original trial. This has been supplemented by the IP with quotes and material from 100 year old newspaper articles. The IP used no secondary sources, the basis for wikipedia articles, in his/her work.

The IP's POV, as argued by the IP, is that Leo Frank was clearly guilty and his/her edits clearly try to make that case. The IP's edits should be evaluated within the context of "Neo-Nazis Use Leo Frank Case for Anti-Semitic Propaganda Push: White Supremacists Exploit Interest in Jewish Lynch Victim" [4]. The article discusses a series of websites, including leofrank.org which is the source of the "Brief of Evidence" used by the IP, that, according to both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, attempt to argue that Frank was guilty and the historical consensus that Frank was an innocent is the result of a Jewish conspiracy to whitewash history. This material has been proposed and rejected by consensus in the past. Over the course of several years an editor advocating this POV and material and numerous sock puppets of that editor have been permanently blocked.

The IP's edits, intentionally or not, fall into this pattern. He/she has produced 50,000 bytes based on this agenda. Some of the information is accurate while some of it is simply the prosecution's argument. There has been a longstanding consensus not to include a blow by blow analysis of all the evidence. If there is a desire to reverse this consensus, then the case should be made on this discussion page. Any editing in this direction, however, needs to rely on reliable secondary sources rather than having wikipedia editors immersing themselves in the primary sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. I had planned to try to analyse this more carefully (and was concerned about a non-content matter as well, the sheer size of the article with these edits included). I agree that it doesn't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The size issue was addressed previously and much material was removed. A good bit of the material removed was the type of material the IP has added and much was material that I and others had added to provide balance (i.e. an alternative timeline of events, the coercion of Epps'by the prosecution and his retractions, coercion of McKnight). This version [5] was the result of efforts by a blocked editor to do what the current IP has done and my efforts to provide balance. Over 50,000 bytes of text were eliminated at that point by User:SlimVirgin. The current IP has added back 50,000 bytes but without the balance and with the same problem of inadequate sourcing. I can't see any purpose in refighting those issues unless there is a consensus that a vast expansion of the material on the evidence is warranted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Reasonable doubt vs. absolute certainty

In his decision to commute Frank's sentence, Slaton does not dispute that guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the legal standard. Instead, the Governor invokes the highest possible standard of "absolute certainty". So the question isn't one of doubt, but of certainty. Certainty is a nearly impossible threshold, even with a confession. Stating that others, at the trial and appelate level, voiced doubts (about various issues related to the case) does nothing to illustrate Slaton's stated reasons for the commutation. Gulbenk (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, it was part of his stated reasons. His statement said "In any event, the performance of my duty under the Constitution is a matter of my conscience. The responsibility rests where the power is reposed. Judge Roan, with that awful sense of responsibility, which probably came over him as he thought of that Judge before whom he would shortly appear, calls to me from another world to request that I do that which he should have done. I can endure misconstruction, abuse and condemnation, but I cannot stand the constant companionship of an accusing conscience, which would remind me in every thought that I, as a Governor of Georgia, failed to do what I thought to be right. There is a territory “beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT and absolute certainty”, for which the law provides in allowing life imprisonment instead of execution. This case has been marked by doubt. The trial judge doubted. Two Judges of the Supreme Court of Georgia doubted. Two Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States doubted. One of the three Prison Commissioners doubted." Removing part of his reasoning is a really bad idea. IMHO. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand that it seems clear cut. If he said it, why not include it? Slaton is actually making two arguments in his statement. One is a legal argument, the other is intended to address the public outcry that is sure to follow. In invoking Judge Roan, and the others, he seeks to deflect some of the heat by shrouding himself in minority opinions and his own interpretation of the trial judge's private thoughts. This is not his legal reason for the commutation. It is just an exercise in CYA. When making his legal argument for commutation, he specifically states that those same people and institutions followed the law. He cites no error. Instead, he comes up with the nearly impossible standard of "absolute certainty". Which is far different than doubt. I don't think it would be a bad idea to include these remarks by Slaton, but can we somehow find a way to separate his legal reasoning from his attempts at rationalization, rather than just jumble them together, as Slaton did? Gulbenk (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Why shouldn't he have jumbled them together? He is explaining why he pardoned Frank. This doesn't require a legal reason at all. We've had 2 governors commute all death sentences in their states when they left office. No legal reason for that. He wasn't saying Frank was innocent. He wasn't expunging the crime. He was pardoning him, and he was legally able to do that for any reason. There's no need for a legal reason. It isn't up to us to separate sentences that he wrote and declare that one was one thing and the other another - that's original research. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Slaton did not pardon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon Frank, he instituted a commutation of sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutation_of_sentence Pussypimples (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article is currently under peer review with the intent of improvements to reach GA status. From comments I have observed it is an obtainable goal. The review states "Unlike formal nominations, editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.", and I would like to request that suggestions be at that location until it closes. Otr500 (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully with the eventual status upgrade they will list or announce the article on the home newspage at the centennial of the Frank lynching on August 17, 2015.Pussypimples (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

That's my plan: get it to GA sometime next year (currently, there is about a 3 month waiting period for reviews) then nominate it for FA and request TFA (Today's Featured Article) for August 17. I see you've been making a few improvements, and I'll try to do the same through then, including an audit of the article to ensure everything is referenced correctly. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope we can achieve this goal working together to improve the article.Pussypimples (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Murder and Lynching section titles

I changed "Murder" to "Murder of Mary Phagan" and "Lynching" to "Lynching of Frank" to make it clear who was murdered and lynched. I think this would be helpful to someone reading the article who isn't familiar with the case. I also made numerous reference improvements and a few other minor changes in [my last edit]. Feel free to let me know if there is any preference one way or the other. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Page 3 of Dinnerstein's Ph.D. dissertation states it is for a doctor of philosophy in the department of political science, Columbia University. Re: nightwitch, Conley admitted to writing the murder notes as part of an effort to frame the nightwatchman Newt Lee for the murder of Phagan. The murder notes provided a description of Lee as a tall, slim and dark Negro, Lee was tall, slender and dark complected. The effort to change the meaning and purpose of the notes from a framing device was conducted by Henry A. Alexander during the later Frank appeals. Re: If the jury acquitted Frank he would be lynched, there are no cases in American history that I am aware of where someone was lynched after they were acquitted of murder.Pussypimples (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• For Dinnerstein's dissertation, page 1 of the book says "History, modern" underneath "Columbia University, Ph.D., 1966." Page 3 says "Faculty of Political Science." I'm not sure why this is, but the dissertation itself was written for the History Department.
• The addition of the Night Doctors sentence wasn't to say that Conley wasn't trying to frame Lee, but simply that the phrase "night witch" comes from an old African-American tale and isn't a malapropism of "night watchman".
• The comment about Frank being lynched in the case of an acquittal is a quote, and is of course speculation, but indicative of the public mood at the time. For historical examples of someone being lynched after a murder acquittal, you might look at the lead of the David Hennessy article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Leonard Dinnerstein has a Ph.D. in political science, not history. The word history mentioned on the first page of his dissertation describes the subject matter, not the degree or department. You can contact Leonard Dinnerstein on facebook and he will tell you his Ph.D. is in political science, not history.
• The word "night witch" was a misspelling of the word night watch, which is the colloquial term for Nightwatchman in the same way metal room was the colloquial term for machine room (the room where Phagan worked and was alleged to be murdered). In the book 'Five Arguments in the Leo Frank Case by Berry Benson (1914)' https://archive.org/download/FiveArgumentsInTheLeoFrankCaseByBerryBenson/five-arguments-in-the-frank-case-berry-benson-1914.pdf you can see primary evidence of police interrogators dictating the Phagan murder notes to Conley, intentionally saying the word "Nightwatchman" and Conley wrote it down as "Nightwitch man". Therefore it shows the semiliterate Conley would misspell the word night watch as night witch. It should be noted Conley admitted at the trial the goal of the Phagan murder notes was to frame the nightwatchman newt lee, not promote the concept of some "witch doctor" attacking Phagan as Frank attorney Henry Alexander later propounded during Frank's appeals. The Phagan notes also describe Lee, fitting his description with exactitude and using the word Negro. In the documentary People v Leo Frank by Ben Loeterman, https://archive.org/download/ThePeopleVs.LeoFrank/people-v-leo-frank.mp4 Assistant District Attorney (Cobb County) Van Pearlberg explains that the words nightwitch were meant to be nightwatchman.
• As for Leo Frank being lynched if he was acquitted, it is merely speculation only.Pussypimples (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Lines of reasoning opened but not continued

"At about 3:17 a.m. on April 27, the factory's night watchman, Newt Lee, went to the factory basement to use the Negro toilet."

"An undisturbed fresh mound of human excrement was found at the bottom of the elevator shaft, though the significance was not recognized until after the trial[21] during the Leo M. Frank clemency hearings of 1915."

This is not followed up later in this article. It implies that it is of some significance and should be followed up in this article or be removed, as on its own it is meaningless. Toilet ? Elevator shaft ? Time card punched or not punched ? Connection ?

Likewise later :
"The police placed little credence in the employees' theory, but had no explanation for the failure to locate the purse". Huh ? No purse is mentioned elsewhere in the article.

The article needs to be tightened up as at present there are inconsistencies and broken chains of reasoning. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added the info re the excrement which was probably the most significant new finding at the clemency hearing. As to the purse, the implication was that the absence of the purse suggested robbery as the motive rather than lust. Much is made of the inconsistencies of Conley's testimony in the article; perhaps a paragraph or two in the clemency section could be added that would explain why Slaton and Smith (Conley's attorney) reached the conclusion, shared by most historians, that Conley rather than Frank committed the crime. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, that sorts out the excrement reference. But "purse" is still not explained. We aren't told she had a purse. So either this needs to be explained, or the wording modified along the lines of "no money was found on her body". Assuming she had just been paid, then theft may be a motive. When people get paid, records are made of it. "About noon on April 26, she went to the factory to claim her pay of $1.20.". The article doesn't state that she was in fact paid or that this was investigated. However - it reads as if this was the worst-conducted murder investigation in history and/or Frank was framed. Rcbutcher (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph of Oney's book mentions the purse and details her appearance on the day of her death. Oney's source is police interviews. I will add language to that effect. I believe Conley also mentioned it in his testimony -- claiming that he saw it on Frank's desk. As to your observations, the general consensus is that the murder investigation was poorly conducted and the article should bear that out. The prosecutor had motives for wanting a quick resolution and that could be included. The article once had more details discussing the evidence but much of that was removed on the theory that it was too much information (see this version [6] for example). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like the article is in good hands. My interest in the story, far away in Australia, is that I found it via the chain : Buddhas of Bamiyan -> Mount Rushmore -> Gutzon Borglum -> Stone Mountain -> Klan. I was surprised that a Northern white Jew was even lower down the scale than local Negroes to these apparently Klan-inclined Southerners, and warranted a lynching on somewhat flimsy evidence in the face of stronger evidence incriminating a Negro : and the ringleaders were not peasants, they were people in authority. So I see the story as important in showing the complexities of such issues through history and warranting a detailed and accurate narration. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe the comments by Rcbutcher, as an impartial observer, highlight the shortcomings of this article. Yes, it does read like Frank was railroaded by a bunch of "Klan-inclined Southerners", motivated by racism and anti-semitism. Leo Frank had a panel (I believe the number is eight) of highly regarded lawyers, some of the best in the country. Skilled at cross examination, and able to trip up witnesses far more sophisticated than Conley, Franks "dream team" lawyers were unable to break Conley's story, even after keeping him on the stand for hours. As for racism, Dorsey "was not notably bigoted". Indeed, he was known for "consistantly refus[ing] to pander to anti-Black prejudice" (Lindemann p.251). Frank's team, on the other hand, was all too willing to play the race card, referring to Conley as a "dirty, filthy, black, drunken, lying nigger" (Lindemann "The Jew Accused"). As for anti-semitism: "The case that Dorsey built against Frank was not based in any overt way upon anti-Semitism. Five Jews sat on the grand jury that indicted Frank...persuaded by the concrete evidence that Dorsey presented" (Lindemann). Unquestionably, Frank was held in low regard by many Atlantans. But that had much more to do with his being a rich Yankee capitalist, exploiting the vulnerable wives and daughters of poor and broken Southerners, than being a Jew. Members of the local Southern jewish community were viewed, for the most part, as being good, peaceful, law abiding folks. Frank, being a rich Northerner, was viewed as a form of vile carpetbagger. These cultural and economic factors, keenly felt in their day (and evidenced by the strength of the Populist political movement) but little understood by modern observers, are more difficult to explain. So racism and specifically anti-semitism become the easy explanation. Gulbenk (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have a very mature understanding of the case.GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Milledgeville State Penitentiary

"Frank was taken to the Milledgeville State Penitentiary, a minimum-security work farm, where officials thought he would be more secure as the other prisoners were incarcerated for less serious crimes." The phraseology and meaning of this sentence in quotes is contrary to reality, some of the most violent convicts in the state of Georgia where housed at this prison. William Creen who slashed Frank's left jugular vein with a butcher knife was a twice convicted killer. The inmate doctors who came to the rescue of Frank after his throat was sliced open, were convicted of murdering their wives. This prison housed many high profile violent criminals. The Milledgeville state penitentiary, where a number of inmate murders occurred was no walk in the park as your phraseology incorrectly implies.Pussypimples (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

How about "...he would be more secure to the "relatively benign atmosphere" and good facilities for white male prisoners (Oney 530)."? Tonystewart14 (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I changed this to the following:

Frank was taken to the Milledgeville State Penitentiary in the middle of the night before the commutation was announced in order to protect Frank. Also protecting Frank was the fact that the penitentiary was "strongly garrisoned and newly bristing with arms" and he was separated from Marietta by 150 miles of mostly unpaved road. (Oney 2003, pp. 513-514.)

I took out the part that said it was a minimum-security facility since it contradicts Oney's quote that I included above about it being garrisoned and bristling with arms. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there a source for what time Frank was taken to milledgeville penitentiary? I remember reading something about him being shipped off early in the morning.GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

He was awoken at 11:30 PM and caught a 12:01 AM train to Macon. He arrived there at 2:44 AM and was transported in a rental car to Milledgeville, arriving around 5 AM (Oney 502-503). Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence

"Without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence" was mentioned twice in the article, so it is better explained in the lead "without officially absolving him of the crime." Pussypimples (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning it here. If one of the other editors could chime in with an opinion, we could form a consensus from there. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"without officially absolving him of the crime" sounds fine in this context Gulbenk (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, we'll leave this part as is. I'm also in the process of going through the entire article to verify citations in preparation for a GA review. Any other improvements are also welcome. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Tonystewart14, since you have been working on this, I didn't think it proper to change it on my own...but...the lead mentions the 1986 pardon twice with separate (and potentially confusing) reasons for the action. Might it be better to strike the first sentence of the last lead paragraph and start with "The names of Frank's murderers..."? Gulbenk (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking we could take the last paragraph out of the lead entirely. I think it's excessive detail that's already covered in the Alonzo Mann/pardon section. Let me know what you think.

By the way, I'll start going through the Further reading section and clear out some items there. I took out some things that were already in References or See also, but had the edit reverted shortly after. I'd like to condense this section, so if you have any take on that I'm all ears. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I also want to add that I looked at your edits and they all look fine. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Tony, I think we are of one mind on this. Your suggestions, including the one regarding the last paragraph, seem sound. Gulbenk (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear. I took out the last paragraph in the lead and replaced the "See also" section with a subsection in the same spot (see the other section in this talk page below). The reason for the latter is that it is more descriptive then a mere list, and the See also was all in the pop culture realm- movies, TV series and plays. I'm also considering removing the Further reading section entirely, although I wanted to get consensus on this. As I argued below, it's simply way too long for a Wikipedia article and this will come up in the GA review if it stays as is.

I'll be sure to get to your point on the Knights soon- it seems that we are editing simultaneously and it's a bit late at night at the moment. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Knights of Mary Phagan

In the article, it is stated that the Knights of Mary Phagan burned a large cross on top of Stone Mountain, at the reincarnation of the KKK. It goes on to say that, aside from the organizer and a few original Klan members, there were 15 "charter members" of this new Klan organization. Do we know if any of those 15 charter members of the new Klan were drawn from the ranks of the 28 members of the Knights of Mary Phagan? Or did the Knights just (supposedly) light the cross, but decline to join the KKK? Is there a good reference (or two) that we can use to support and/or explain this part of the article? Gulbenk (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The KKK article has a citation needed tag on that same statement, so if we can find a source here, let's add it there as well. Tonystewart14 (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been working on (and looking at) other related articles, so that is likely something I did. I've already uncovered a lot of preposterous stuff pertaining to this event, including a statement that the burning cross could be seen from downtown Atlanta. There is a very tall broadcast antenna on the top of Stone Mountain today, and it can hardly be seen from downtown Atlanta, if at all. The required height of a burning cross, seen from this vantage point, would have to be more than 100ft. Also, the one reference I've found, so far, related to the Knights of Mary Phagan at Stone Mountain is from the book The Fiery Cross which Publisher's Weekly, in their review calls: "bloated with cliches, overstatements, colloquialisms, sensationalistic accounts of sexual atrocities and nonsensical connections." It goes on to say that "historical insights are often inane." Not a good reference. Gulbenk (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the things that just doesn't seem to fit, here: the "prominent men" of the Knights of Mary Phagan would not have moved in the same social circles as a strange working class guy like Simmons, nor would they likely acquiesce to him as their leader. The second Klan did, eventually, count some very influential men among its ranks, but that was *much* later. Gulbenk (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any clear-cut connection between the Knights of Mary Phagan and the founders of the second Klan. Simmons filed a petition with Georgia's secretary of state asking for a charter for the Klan, and 34 men signed it. Out of those 34, there were "reputedly among them several who'd made the trip to Milledgeville" (Oney 607). Even the meticulously researched Oney book couldn't find a definitive connection, so this should probably be left out of this article, the KKK article, and any other article that mentions this. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for those details and response. I'll keep looking, but if Oney couldn't find it, it probably doesn't exist. I'll undertake the corrections you suggest. Gulbenk (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning up some extraneous links

A fictional miniseries review is likely not very relevant to the article http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/33836/The-Murder-of-Mary-Phagan/overview this is probably a good candidate to remove.GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree - I don't think reviews belong on a Wikipedia article. They may be interesting, but just having the miniseries itself is sufficient. Also, I'm not sure why we would need anything mentioned twice - everything I took out (except for the review mentioned above) was already linked to in either the "References" or "See also" sections. As the "Further reading" section is considerably long, I think we should remove these duplicates to make other items easier to find. If you have a particular reason for the revert, feel free to let me know. Tonystewart14 (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This might be something to seek a better understanding of. I thought the purpose of the references section was to provide citations for the inclusion sentences of the article. And the further reading was to provide some of the actual sources for references to read & review.GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:FURTHER, "The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section, unless the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list." While there are some instances that permit duplication, I think we should take anything out of Further reading that is already elsewhere, as this section is very lengthy. You might also look at Wikipedia:Further reading.

There is also a Template:Too_much_further_reading tag, and this is used on other articles with much shorter Further reading sections, such as Radar. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Links to IA should have https, not http.GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Changes to end of article

I'm considering removing the "See also" section and merging the contents into the "Dramatizations" section of Further reading(see following comment). The See also section is very short and only has movies and the Parade musical, so they would all fit fine there. It was also mentioned in the peer review to remove the See also, and this would clean up the end some.
I'll also go through the Further reading section to remove anything already in References, and remove any archive.org links to copyrighted material. The Further reading section is extremely long, so this will help with that and ensure compliance when we get a GA review. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, for See also, I'll make a new subsection called "In popular culture" at the end of Aftermath. That way I can expand on each one of them. I also want to get rid of Further reading altogether, since the References is already long and the Further reading section is way too detailed. It's a good list to include on a website, but an unabridged bibliography isn't really appropriate for a Wikipedia article that isn't a bibliography. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

For now, I've cleaned up both the References and Further reading sections and removed some duplicates and other content that didn't belong for various reasons. I'll leave Further reading for now, as it might be of interest to some and is at the very end of the page where it doesn't interfere with the flow of the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidence of Rape

Numerous secondary sources stated there was the initial appearance of sexual assault when Phagan was seen by first responders. Later an autopsy conducted by one of the state's physicians indicated their had been sexual violence to the private parts. Describing internal vaginal inflammation, the epithelium lining within the vagina pulled loose and other indications of trauma. This physician who conducted an autopsy on Phagan testified about his medical examination at the trial. I'm guessing the evidence indicated Conley sexually abused Phagan. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I would have to agree that Mary Phagan did suffer some form of sexual violence. But there is no report of semen within her vagina, although I recollect some speculation that it may have been found on clothes (perhaps). There could have been an assault with an object, or a hand. It may have been partially post mortem. That is just speculation. If there had been enough evidence that Conley had assaulted her, Conley would have been charged. They would not have covered that up. So it appears that they simply didn't think they had a case for rape. Gulbenk (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No seminal fluid being found does not mean she wasn't sexually assaulted. Had Phagan been raped post mortem there would not have been inflammation present within the vagina. Most of the reports about first contact with Phagan's corpse indicates the appearance of rape. A state physician testified at the trial his autopsy report about evidence of sexual violence to the private parts. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

All true. But it does not contradict what I said. Rape can't be excluded, but it also can't be proven. The inflammation means that something was done while she was still alive, but doesn't exclude a post mortem violation (which is why I said "partially"). The appearance of sexual violence, and an autopsy supporting sexual violence, does not confirm rape, only violence. We can assume many things, but we can only state the facts. Gulbenk (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Changes to the lead and body of the article

I am concerned that the lead very badly misrepresents media coverage of the Frank case. One gets the impression that press coverage spang up one year after the trial, and that Tom Watson was the sole commentator. Within the body of the article, we give a more accurate accounting of the yellow journalism cyclone that swirled around this event. But the section "Investigation and reporting" should include a notation that the media frenzy continued, unabated, throughout the length of the subsequent trial and appeal process (which we later document). One has to read very carefully, to comprehend how this media campaign burst to life, took on the extreme vestiges of yellow journalism, and then became captive of the strongest regional and national players in the country (from Watson to Adolph Ochs - who isn't even mention in the article). Media coverage of the Frank case is one of the key components of this story. I think we've misrepresented it in the lead, and given it less-than-appropriate attention elsewhere. This fault within the article should be addressed. Gulbenk (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could add something to the beginning of the third paragraph in the lead that mentions the yellow journalism during the trial, and then mention Ochs in the Investigation and reporting section. Mentioning Watson in the lead is important as it highlighted the tensions of the time and wasn't merely a report of the facts that wouldn't be noteworthy enough for a mention in the lead. The yellow journalism issue and the effect it had on popular opinion regarding the case is also noteworthy, and an addition to the lead would be appropriate. Feel free to add this and anything else you feel should be added.

It might also be worth noting that this article is #9 in the queue for a good article review. They are reviewed out of order to some extent, and there is one from October that hasn't been reviewed yet. Nonetheless, it would be good to get the content solid before the review commences. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll get on this right away. Knowing of the pending review, I had hesitated to undertake the task without posting here first. Gulbenk (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, and thanks for mentioning it here as well. I also added the peer review to the "Article Milestones" at the top of this talk page. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Work on the lead is finished. It cites facts and individuals not yet in evidence. I intend to add that to the text as quickly as possible, certainly within the next 24 hours. In the meantime, give the initial phrasing a once over. Let me know if it requires editing. Gulbenk (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A minor point: Per WP:REPEATLINK, blue links should not be used multiple times, although an exception can be made for the first time after the lead. With that exception in play, the only one that might need attention is the link to New York Times. Otherwise, there are several that are linked twice but could be left that way. Just wanted to point that out. The text itself looks fine so far. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Done! Still have to support some of the statements made in the lead, and elsewhere. I know the references exist, I've read them, but now I'll have to go find them. That will take until tomorrow. I'm not altogether happy with some of the forward looking statements in the "Newspaper coverage" section. If you can think of a better way to present this information, please speak up. Gulbenk (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, be sure to avoid double 'the' usage (such as: the "The New York Times"). Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've found that most of the newspapers contain "The" in their name. The New York Times, The Atlanta Journal, The Atlanta Georgian, The Jeffersonian, etc. So I have been adding a "The" here and there. Did I somehow leave a sentence with an extra "the", such as the The Atlanta Constitution ? If so, an oversight rather than bad grammer. You okay with the change of headers? Gulbenk (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I made the 'a' in "Closing arguments" lowercase, but otherwise it looks good. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There could (probably should) be more text and one or two additional references added, regarding popular reaction in Atlanta/Georgia to the national media campaign to exonerate Frank. I've read some pretty good examples, over the years. But I won't be able to get to that until tomorrow. Thanks for catching those "the the" mistakes, and for correcting the capitalization in the sub-section header. I was just blind to both. See if the expanded "Appeals" section is acceptable. Otherwise, there isn't much more to do. I greatly appeciate all the work you've put into this article. Gulbenk (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Another minor grammatical thing I wanted to mention was commas before 'and'. I removed one instance in the lead, but realized this was prevalent throughout the article. If you like, you could search ", and" and remove the commas where appropriate. Just wanted to mention it here to make sure it was agreed upon. I don't think they're needed before conjunctions - this also applies to a 'for' and possibly a few other non-'and' conjunctions throughout. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've made a few changes, as per your suggestion. But without knowing the rule and the exceptions, I am probably a poor candidate for the task. You had best review the work done and undone, to see if you can improve upon it. Gulbenk (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked at Grammarly and it said that commas before 'and' are acceptable if it joins two independent clauses. I believe this is the case for much of the article, so perhaps we could leave it or just take out the more obvious ones. Thanks for all your help as well. Tonystewart14 (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed ! Thanks for looking into that. Gulbenk (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

illustration

It would help the article if there were photos of Alonzo Mann and some of the historical markers for Leo Frank.GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever seen a photo of Mann. But there should be a marker image at commons. Also, the statement about Hearst/The Atlanta Georgian giving in to jewish pressure is from a reference, somewhere. I didn't add that information to the article, but I'm pretty sure we can reference it. Also, we should avoid references to the "media". I believe that print was the only medium. No commercial radio or TV (hence, no media...unless telegraph was considered a news medium). Gulbenk (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Two metal signs are on the wall of the VPI building where Frank was lynching. There is a historical marker right there on the street where Frank was lynched. There is historical marker where Phagan was buried devoted mostly to Frank. There is a monument to Frank at the Mount Carmel cemetery in New York. Media: There may have been radio back in 1913, but you might want to double check. Newspaper was the primary media of the time. What is the process for submitting images to wikipedia? I know a great number of images of Mann are out there. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, there is a historial marker image already at Commons. Take a look at it, see if it is what you want. I can help add it to the article, if you don't have experience with images. But, first, let me know which (if any) existing image is what you are looking for. The first radio news program was broadcast August 31, 1920 by station 8MK in Detroit. Gulbenk (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no experience with adding images to articles. I would ask you 2 take charge of this effort. Please also share how it is done. There are five or six monuments to Leo Frank and Mary Phagan I am aware of and one on deck. All of them would be most valuable to the article for illustration purposes. There is a Frank monument at entrance of Mount Carmel Cemetery New York City it is quite beautiful. One historical marker next to the street catercorner to Frey's gin road in Marietta, 1200 roswell road. Two plaques on wall of the VPI corporation where Frank was formerly lynched by anti-semitic mob. There is a historical marker at Phagan's grave that has more of its words devoted to Frank than Mary Phagan. These 5 items would be superb addition to the Frank article. I'm sure at the 100th anniversary of Frank's lynching there will be another plaque place on the VPI wall as well. I'm almost certain of it. The article needs a photo of Alonzo Mann. These are 6 items which would drastically improve the article and be a grand slam for August 17, 2015. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added an image of the state historical marker, from Commons. It is out of proportion to the other images in the article, and appears on the left (at the beginning of a section) which may be a MOS error on my part. But it fits nicely in the section. No VPI images on file, and they probably wouldn't be appropriate in any case since they are private statements, and not official. I was also able to find an image of Fiddlin' John Carson, in Commons. I've added that to the end of the article. No Phagan grave images came up in my search, which is really a shame. Gulbenk (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

What is necessary to get official Markers uploaded to wikipedia? One at Phagan's grave, one at Frank's lynching spot. What about Frank's grave? and Phagan's grave? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Just have to go out there and take them. We already have the lynching spot image in the article. So we need Frank's grave and Phagan's grave. I can show you how to upload the photos, when you are ready.Gulbenk (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Historical marker and fiddlin' john imagery have improved the article. Please explain how one goes about uploading photos to wikipedia. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit long, just to recite here. But I'm happy to point you in the right direction. Go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Community_Portal and then click on the "Help Desk / Upload Help" tab in the top center of the page. That should get you going. The most difficult part of the process, I have found, is making certain that one doesn't violate copyright law. This happens, most often, when a user tries to simply copy something from the internet and post it to Commons. That problem doesn't come up with original work (photos that you yourself have take) provided that you are willing to give up your copyright. Good luck! Hope that helps. Gulbenk (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Changes to reference section

I added a note after Mary Phagan's birth and death date about the 1900/1899 discrepancy. In the process, I modeled the Notes & References section after the article on Ellen Wilkinson, a featured article. This way, the notes, references and sources are all in one section. We got a comment about clarifying Phagan's gravestone error during the peer review, so I wanted to mention it. I also added some text to the Lynching subsection about Gov. Harris trying in vain to prosecute the lynchers. Tonystewart14 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I like this layout. I am one that thinks the use of notes and references can be confusing so do not use a "Notes" section for references. I would like this to catch on an be used more as I feel it can not be logically argued that it is less confusing and makes an article look better. I hope others feel the same. Otr500 (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry-- I forgot to add an edit summary. Otr500 (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice to see you again Otr500. We've made quite a few changes over the past couple days, so let us know if you have any other opinions. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

FA candidate

This article was proposed for FA status back in 2004, but only seems to have missed it fairly narrowly. Is it worth re-examining the issue? PatGallacher (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I currently have a peer review request for this article. Since the FA nomination was ten years ago, it would be worthwhile to solicit outside feedback and get it to GA status before going to FA. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated this article for GA status, and if successful will nominate it for FA immediately afterwards. The peer review helped the article some, but I feel that the GA review will also clean up the article considerably and help the chances of a successful FA nomination. I'd like to have this article be Today's Featured Article on August 17, 2015 (the 100th anniversary of Frank's hanging) if it gets to FA. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Given the huge amount of properly resourced facts and evidence concerning this case that was capriciously and unjustifiably removed from this article in November 2013, which merely served to preserve this article as a POV whitewashing of Leo Frank, renders any nomination for GA status as nothing less than ridiculous.64.134.71.95 (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, [here is the link] to the version mentioned by the IP above. At the time, this article was 130 KB long and the edits were promptly reverted by other editors. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That Wikipedia articles have no set size restrictions, the above argument is merely a nonsensical attempt to justify the unjustifiable removal of pertinent, well sourced, and relevant information crucial to a reader's thorough understanding of the subject at hand. The obfuscation of such relevant, and properly sourced facts was, and continues to be a disgraceful act of POV vandalism, and nothing more.64.134.71.95 (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that's a ridiculous level of detail that makes the article difficult to navigate, and slow to load on older systems. Wikipedia:Article size suggests 50k as a good cut-off point. If there were a reason to go into that level of detail, which there is not, this info would hypothetically need to be split-off into multiple articles. That version is also overflowing with WP:PEACOCK terms and other WP:NPOV problems. Grayfell (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yet one more attempt to justify the unjustified and blatant POV vandalism complained of before... and just for the record, the correct link to the material [is HERE.] And no claim as to any "level of detail that makes the article difficult to navigate, and slow to load on older systems" is sufficient to excuse the wholesale removal of properly referenced, relevant, and pertinent facts which, as stated before, are crucial to any reader's thorough understanding of the subject at hand... no matter what kind of system they use. It was, is, and shall remain a blatant act of POV vandalism until it is recognized as such, and subsequently corrected.64.134.71.95 (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You're obviously a POV warrior with a racist agenda to turn the Leo Frank article on Wikipedia into a longwinded-diatribe by elaborating about every minute forensic detail of Mary Phagan's murder and events in the aftermath. You also seem eager to insert all the evidence proving Leo Frank's guilt where ever you can in the article, basically going against the prevailing consensus of historians that Leo Frank was innocent and framed because of Antisemitism. My advice for you is to goosestep somewhere else with your Antisemitism, like metapedia.org where they would be more than happy to have you create hundreds of excruciatingly meticulous individualized pages expounding about every single twist and turn of the Frank-Phagan affair. And then you can become an author by writing a 4,000 page loquacious telephonebook size tome called, 'The 12-Volume Unauthorized Biography of Little Mary Phagan'! But Wikipedia seeks to keep its articles under 50K and without POV pushing. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello GingerBreadHarlot and thanks for joining our discussion. However, I think there is a way to state your position without ranting and calling other participants names. You might find it interesting that the question of anti-Semitism in the Frank trial is by no means a matter of broad consensus. The charge was fist brought up at trial by Frank's attorneys, as one of many avenues of defense for their client (including one that his case was prejudiced by his "odd" looks). Since the trial, the charge of anti-Semitism has become the main focus for some. It has a number of passionate supporters. But historians like Albert S. Lindemann, who delves into the matter in great detail, come up with serious doubts about the veracity of that charge. And, of course, there are others who see it as completely insignificant. When I first read about Frank, and with a superficial understanding of the case, I too assumed that anti-Semitism was the entire sub-text of the trial and conviction. With more reading, and research, that assumption has been significantly challenged. I now find the Frank case far more interesting. It has become something of a cultural Rorschach test, and it evokes strong opinions like some of the comments we see here. It's fine to have an opinion, but please try to remain civil, and have faith that only statements from reliable sources will find their way into this article. Gulbenk (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There was a lot of Antisemitism surrounding the Frank case during his appeals leading up to his lynching. See Watson's Magazine August, September, 1915 at IA (Internet Archive). GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The OP's entry is most telling indeed, and actually serves to validate the primary point as well as most other aspects of this complaint. It well illustrates both the major problem with this article, and a number of clear examples as to the reason why fixing it has remained so consistently problematic. Here we have an open admission to the obvious fact that the material removed from the article in November 2013 contained "all the evidence proving Leo Frank's guilt" - the only inaccuracy being that not "all", but only a portion of the evidence "proving Frank's guilt" was included in the article prior to its being vandalized.

Immediately following this is an appeal to a select authority, and the only authority appealed to, as "the prevailing consensus of historians", are only those "historians" which promote the idea that Leo Frank was innocent. Any other authority, from then or now, which disagrees with this biased point of view has simply and repeatedly been removed from the article and dismissed as an "unreliable source". What the OP as well as others of the same persuasion fail to realize is that if the facts and evidence in the Frank murder case run contrary to "the prevailing consensus of historians", then those "historians" along with their "consensus" must logically be in error, because true history is composed of unbiased fact, whereas "consensus" is merely a point of view based upon a collective opinion.

Then there is the vicious name-calling throughout which is typical of those who haven't the weight of logic or evidence to support their position in an argument, so they resort to such ad hominem attacks in an attempt to discredit their intellectual opponent. Such behavior, if not a result of any kind of agenda-driven, or profit-driven motive, most certainly belies a state of cognitive dissonance, as in the minds of those who cling to irrational beliefs as a matter of faith, rejecting as "evil" any inconvenient truth which would tend to undermine their pre-conceived notions.

There is also an unwarranted attack upon, and callous diminutive comments about the victim of the murder herself, which strongly implies that the life of a young working-class girl was relatively unimportant, or of no consequence whatsoever, in comparison to the resultant injury to the reputation of her lawfully convicted murderer.

Then there is the cheap, underlying appeal to racism throughout, which parallels the position of Leo Frank's legal team. As Reuben R. Arnold accused James Conley of Mary Phagan's murder, he made the following statements to the trial jury:

"Why, negroes rob and ravish every day in the most peculiar and shocking way. But Frank's race don't kill. They are not a violent race. Some of them may be immoral, but they go no further than that."

So what Arnold, and by extension, the OP and other like-minded editors are really saying here is that Jim Conley should have been convicted of the murder because he was a negro, and Leo Frank should have been acquitted of the crime because he was a jew.

Such a level of blatant, unmitigated hypocrisy simply boggles the rational mind, but nonetheless serves to reveal where the true source of any such "racist agenda", or "POV pushing" actually resides.

Finally, we again have the often stated argument... or rather, the weak excuse, that the material removed from this article was removed in order to abide by certain size restrictions, when there exists many articles on Wikipedia which consistently far exceed the size of the Leo Frank article as it was prior to the POV vandalism that is the subject of the original complaint, and the material removed is absolutely crucial to any readers' understanding of the matter of Leo Frank. (One must wonder what the reaction would be had if someone should assert that Leo Frank should have been forced to drastically abbreviate the length of his trial, or reduce the number of issues he could raise as a defense, or limit the number of his appeals in order to save time and space in the legal system, yet this is not far at all from what Frank's proponents want the public to do with the record of this case in order to posthumously pardon Frank and convict Conley instead.)

What makes the present article the result of an act of POV vandalism -

The removal of nearly all mention of the major part of the evidence against Frank which led to his conviction.

The near complete removal and continued suppression of material crucial to any readers' understanding of the matter of Leo Frank. This includes the material concerning Mary Anne Phagan herself, or the public reaction to her murder, which tends to demonstrate that the public reaction to Frank's conviction, as well as the lynching of Leo Frank was not based upon prejudice or bigotry at all, but merely upon a fervent, collective wish to see that justice was done for the brutal murder of an innocent child.

What remains are entries that only tend to promote the idea that Frank was an innocent man, railroaded into a murder conviction as a result of some kind of a conspiracy of prejudice or bigotry. This is a clear and definite pushing of a biased point of view that actually conflicts with the facts and legal history of the case. Most telling in this regard is the repeated removal of official text from Frank's final U.S. Supreme Court appeal decision which contains the affirmation of the majority of the court that no undue influence upon the jury was involved in Frank's conviction. Instead, the only such text allowed to appear in the "Appeals" section is a misguided quote from a dissenting judge stating his contrary, individual, non-binding opinion. And more recently, the text which previously identified this quote as coming from a dissenting judge has also been removed.

This Wikipedia article has most obviously been, and continues to be crafted by proponents of Frank in a purposeful effort to exclude any facts or evidence which tend to support his lawful conviction. They must do so with the knowlege that in light of such facts or evidence, readers might come away from the article with the impression that Frank's conviction just might have been a result of something other than any kind of a conspiracy of prejudice or bigotry.

This conspiracy theory fails because there is too much evidence in the official record which supports Frank's conviction. This conspiracy theory fails because the grand jury which unanimously indicted Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan contained a fair number of members of Frank's own people who were part of that unanimous vote. This conspiracy theory fails because the jury that convicted Frank was one of the most closely examined juries of the period. This conspiracy theory fails because Leo Frank was well represented by a "dream team" of lawyers who had every right to seek a change in venue if such a conspiracy had actually existed, but did not do so for lack of reasonable cause. This conspiracy theory fails because the presiding judge of Frank's original trial was known to be a "model of judiciousness", and free of any prejudice or bigotry. This conspiracy theory fails because throughout the course of the Leo Frank trial, which became at that time the longest trial in Georgia history, and at each and every stage of his subsequent appeals, Leo Frank was afforded an extraordinary level of due process not available to the vast majority of Georgia citizens, and at every turn his lawyers failed to convince any court that any undue influence upon the jury was involved in Frank's conviction. Yet this conspiracy theory is the only theory which is accepted, and is actually being promoted by Wikipedia through its inclusion in this overwhelmingly biased, POV article on Leo Frank.64.134.43.3 (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

(Format edit.)64.134.43.3 (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe anti-Semitism was responsible for Leo Frank being suspected, indicted, convicted or having his appeals rejected, even though Frank's appeals make accusations of anti-Jewish prejudice. However Frank's lynching does have some clear elements of anti-Semitism behind it via Tom Watson and you can view Watson's Magazine issues August https://archive.org/details/TheCelebratedCaseOfLeoFrank and September https://archive.org/details/TheOfficialRecordInTheCaseOfLeoFrankJewPervertSeptember1915 to see for yourself. The problematic nature of the case is that the anti-Semitism associated with Frank's lynching has been repeatedly backdated and applied retroactively to the earlier events. My concern is that all the evidence suggesting Frank was guilty not be added to the article. If someone wants to flesh out the trial another article should be created for it. If someone wants to flesh out the appeals, another article should be created for it. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

We certainly don't need separate articles for the trial and appeals. For the IP's concern about old edits, that edit included excessive detail such as a paragraph solely on what Phagan was wearing and considerably lengthy quotes. This article shouldn't include every minute detail about the case, but give the most important information about the case. There is no set KB limit and any important information not already in the article should be added, but this was resolved in late 2013 and has stabilized since. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There is so much information about the Leo Frank trial in the various books published over the last 100 years that there most definitely should be an article about the Leo Frank trial. It would help to flesh everything out about it that has been obscured for so long. There are many misconceptions about the Leo Frank trial, like claims there was no evidence against him, but only rumors and hearsay. Or people were screaming bloody murder through the windows at the the jury. I think it's time there was an article about his trial. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2015 TC)

In the argument, (User GingerBreadHarlot 01:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)) the OP offers no acknowledgement of the gross injustice of governor Slaton's actions in thumbing his nose at his duty to see that the laws of the state be faithfully executed, and over-stepping his bounds by attempting to overturn the courts by single-handedly re-trying the case to benefit one of his own law partner's clients, but only the same old tired emotional jargon whose original purpose was, and always has been, a dishonest, and purely opportunistic tactical legal maneuver in an attempt to demonize the people's cry for justice and make a martyr out of the lawfully convicted murderer of an innocent child.

Here the OP also invokes Thomas E. Watson, and makes the all too common mistake of confusing righteous indignation with mere prejudice and bigotry. I would suggest the OP, as well as other like-minded individuals put aside their own prejudice and bigotry long enough to read and digest the clear and correct arguments this well-seasoned attorney and statesman makes on these matters in the article beginning at page 182 of the August 1915 issue of Watson's Magazine titled, "The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank":

http://archive.org/download/WatsonsMagazineAugust1915Volume21No.4FeaturingLeoFrankMaryPhagan/watsons-magazine-august-1915-v21-n4.pdf

No one deserves a special pass to commit crimes and escape just punishment by simply claiming some sort of class-related victimhood. A criminal is a criminal, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, or national origin, and no one is obligated to excuse them simply because they claim to be a member of an "oppressed" minority. Leo Frank was lawfully convicted of the murder of Mary Phagan because of the weight of the evidence presented against him. As a lawfully convicted murderer, he was given a well-deserved "extrajudicial" hanging by outraged citizens of Georgia because the outgoing governor of Georgia, who was a partner in a law firm which represented Frank, in order to spare the life of their client, abused his authority in a serious conflict of interest by commuting his death sentence. So this often used defamation tactic of claiming "anti-semitism" is wearing more than a little thin, and Wikipedia is engaged in a disgraceful act of public deception as long as they continue the attempt to validate it through the consistent obsfucation of the evidence in the Frank case and thereby use this Wikipedia article as a vehicle to whitewash the image of Leo Frank. Even if "anti-semitism" were a factor in Frank's hanging... and it wasn't... the brutal murder of an innocent child trumps any kind of "thought crime" you can name... especially one that is made up out of whole cloth.64.134.71.235 (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

GingerBreadHarlot thanks for your observations. I agree that the trial and appeal could be separate articles, given the body of research on the subjects. With regard to the motivation of the lynch mob: I think that it would be best to see if we can find significant anti-Semitic remarks from the Knights of Mary Phagan, in order to attribute that motivation to the lynching. Watson was definitely making anti-Semitic remarks at that time, and trying to whip up that thinking among his readers, but he wasn't one of the Knights of Mary Phagan. Were they motivated by other passions? (Regional tensions/class tensions/the perception of Frank as a sexual pervert/or just anger at someone who nearly got away with murder). Or was the agitation of the northern press, perceived as a Jewish campaign to free Frank (along with Watson's remarks/responses) enough to anger rank and file Georgians, and put anti-Semitism foremost in the minds of the masses and the lynch mob? It is a really interesting question, one that probably should have its own article, as well.

Regarding the comments about Slaton: Even if he acted out of self interest, or some other impure motivation, lynching is never justified. We must respect the rule of law, even when the brutal murder of an innocent child is not perfectly avenged, and when justice is not completely served. Gulbenk (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank was not "lynched" (See definition below). His lawful sentence was merely carried out by the people of Marietta Georgia. Yes, as you say... "We must respect the rule of law"... but that axiom applies not only to the people, but most especially to their elected public servants as well. In America, the people are the source of all power. They merely assign to public officials the duty of acting as administrators of that power for the benefit and general weal of the people themselves. When those administrators fail in that duty, particularly by illegal means, the people themselves are therefore entitled to act on their own, to see that justice is completely served. In 1913, the people of Georgia still well understood this concept, and acted accordingly... and that is why none of the participants in the so-called "lynching" of Leo Frank were ever prosecuted, or even charged with any crime. Governor Slaton most obviously understood this concept as well, and that is most likely the very reason he chose to high-tail it out of Georgia after the fact, for fear that if he remained, his own neck might also end up being put in the noose.64.134.71.235 (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I present incontrovertible proof that Tom Watson's successful attempts at erroneously blaming and falsely accusing the national press (particularly the northern press) for transmogrifying the Leo Frank case into a Jewish insurrection against Georgia's laws, a racist anti-Gentile cause celebre and media carnival of hate, were really nothing more than codewords for the century old anti-Semitic canard of "Jewish dominated media control" that played out in 'Watson's Magazine, October, 1915, Leo Frank and Rich Jews Indict a State, the Whole South Traduced!' See https://archive.org/details/RichJewsIndictTheStateOfGeorgia for yourself and tell me what I claim above is not 100% true. I challenge you to go to Internet Archive and read the three Atlanta daily newspapers (Georgian, Constitution and Journal) from April to August of 1913, and then tell me that these press reports didn't ruin any chance of Leo Frank having a fair trial. I implore you to look at Tom Watson's other writing in his Jeffersonian publications (Watson's Magazine and Jeffersonian Weekly newspaper) for definitive proof of undeniable inflammation of public sentiment against Leo Frank that can be retrofitted and back-dated. Watson called Leo Frank a Jewish Sodomite. Watson made ad hominem attacks against Leo Frank's aggressive animal jaw, averted eyes (Leo Frank had one lazy eye) and "fearfully sensual" satyr goat lips -- these are all timeless anti-Semitic stereotypes seen in many old cartoons and charatures of Jews. In world war two propaganda posters you can see caricatures of Jews with bloated camel faces, and plump purple bottom lips grotesquely protruding. Therefore Watson's anti-Semitism did not begin in 1915, it began in 1914, read the Jeffersonian newspaper https://archive.org/details/the-jeffersonian-050714-may-07-1914-volume-11-issue-19-pages-01-03-05-09-10 and Watson's Magazine January, March, August, September and October (1915) so that this point about anti-Semitism partly instigating the murder of Leo Frank becomes an objective fact no longer needing to be discussed and debated. What's missing from this encyclopaedic article about Leo Frank is the presentation of more evidence of anti-Semitism, which represents the consensus of the case and I suggest more examples of anti-Semitism be included in the article before the centennial of the lynching. The Samuelses', Leonard Dinnerstein, Elaine Marie Alphin, Donald Eugene Wilkes, Robert Seitz Fray, Jeffrey Paul Melnick, Matthew Bernstein, Stephen J. Goldfarb and more are in consensus this case has lineaments of anti-Semitism that run deep from the lynching backward to the trial. These source listed above should be used to create a Leo Frank trial page. I'd like to see you create a page for the trial once you have something to work with. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As to Watson's so-called "anti-semitic" remarks, the OP fails to make a convincing argument. Instead, we are merely treated to yet another brash conclusion, apparently based only upon the collective, retroactive opinion of a number of various biased jewish authors. It is here asserted as an "incontrovertible fact", or "an object fact no longer needing to be discussed".

The OP consistently bemoans Watson's remarks as being "anti-semitic"... a purely opportunistic, defamatory characterization that is shared by his mostly jewish proponents then and now, and further perpetuated by Wikipedia itself. Yet the OP does not shrink from the idea, which is promulgated in this article, that the execution of Leo Frank was the result of a conspiracy of prejudice and bigotry carried out by the gentile population of Georgia. This is the very height of hypocrisy, and Wikipedia is engaged in a disgraceful act of public deception, selective defamation, and anti-gentilism by letting it stand, and promoting it as if it were "incontrovertible fact".

Tom Watson simply spoke freely in the vernacular of the times he lived in, as did everyone else of that era. Writings of that time, as well as of times previous, are literally filled with examples where people were generally referred to in terms of their race, religion, natural origins, or other distinctions such as white, negro, jew, irish, catholic, french, english, men, or women. One can not presume to retroactively apply the principles of 21st century political correctness to anyone in the past, because those unnatural principles were unknown to them, and most likely would have been rejected by most all of them as an abomination against humanity... that is, excepting certain unscrupulous individuals who may have happened to see some kind of profit in it for themselves, or their own particular group.

The OP further claims, "What's missing from this encyclopaedic article is evidence of anti-Semitism." Here I would agree, and go even further to observe that the reason such evidence is missing is because it simply does not exist, and never did. For it to exist at all, it would have to be the result of a total fabrication. This is the reason the OP, as well as other like-minded Frank proponents must engage in such mental gymnastics as referring to "code words", "retrofitting", "back-dating", and "consensus" in order to "prove" an "incontrovertible", "object fact no longer needing to be discussed".

The only fact that is material to the issue of Frank's so-called "lynching" is that he was lawfully convicted of the brutal murder of an innocent young girl, and that fact was enough to justify the ultimate carrying out of the sentence imposed upon him by the courts which found him guilty. To prove that "anti-semitism" had anything to do with it, one would have to incontrovertibly show that Frank would have been hanged anyway, even if he had not murdered Mary Phagan. This, of course, is an impossibility, because the fact remains that the weight of the evidence proved that Frank did indeed commit the murder, and he was lawfully convicted for it.

Take note that the reason I, and others, refer to Frank's execution as a "so-called 'lynching'", is because the very definition of "lynching" is "to murder (an accused person) by mob action AND without lawful trial, as by hanging" (Webster's New World Dictionary - Emphasis mine). What happened to Leo Frank was certainly not "murder", by any means, but only the carrying out of the lawfully imposed sentence upon him by the people of Marietta following Governor Slaton's attempt to illegally circumvent it through a blatant violation of law. "Murder" is what Leo Max Frank did to Mary Anne Phagan... a fact that is consistently downplayed in this Wikipedia article to the obvious disgrace of Wikipedia itself... and Frank was duly made to suffer the ultimate penalty for his lawful conviction for that crime.

I thank the OP for mentioning the article titled, "The Rich Jews Indict a State! The Whole South Traduced in the Matter of Leo Frank" from the October, 1915 issue of Watson's Magazine:

https://archive.org/details/RichJewsIndictTheStateOfGeorgia

Within it, Tom Watson presents a rather thorough examination of how fabricated rumors of "mob spirit" evolved in the jewish owned press following Frank's conviction, in order to save the life of one of their own, and gave an accurate summation of the origin of the false quote attributed to the "mob" outside the courthouse, in their deceptive attempt to achieve that end. Watson correctly states (Parenthesis mine):

"Judge Roan had officialy declared that Leo Frank had had a fair trial. The Supreme Court had officially declared that he had been legally convicted upon sufficient evidence.

The verdict of the jury was six months old: and before it had been announced, Hearst's Sunday American had declared that the long trial of Leo Frank, stretching over a period of four weeks, had been as fair, as it was possible for human minds and human efforts to make it.

Nobody contradicted this deliberate statement of the Hearst Atlanta paper. Frank's lawyers did not; the correspondents of Northern papers did not. But when the Haas brothers, months afterwards, followed up the Cohen attack on the witnesses, the jurors, the judges, and the people of Atlanta, there arose a clamor about the mob, the frenzied mob, the jungle fury of the mob, the blood lust of the mob, and the psychic drunk of the mob.

That clamor grew louder and louder, spread farther and farther, became bolder and bolder, until millions of honest outsiders actually believed that the mob stood up in the courtroom during the month of the trial, and yelled at the jury:

'Hang the damned Jew, or we will hang you!'

It was not until John Cohen and James R. Gray, of the Atlanta Journal, had started this flood of libel against the State, that The Jeffersonian said one word about the case. Then the Jeffersonian did what no other editor with a general circulation seemed willing to do: I came out in defense of the Law, the Courts and the People.

Are the Laws not entitled to support? Are the Courts not worthy of respect? Are the People not deserving of fair treatment?

The Jeffersonian did not stoop to any personalities, or mean abuse, or malignant misrepresentation. We had given to Leo Frank as much as we had to give to anybody. We had measured him by the same yardstick that measures Gentiles before they are condemned.

We (the People of Georgia) could not kill poor old Umphrey, of Whitfield County, on circumstantial evidence, and then refuse to execute a Jew. The one was an aged tenant, aggravated by a dispute with his landlord, about his share of a bale of cotton; the other was a middle-age Superintendent of a factory, presuming on his power over the girls hired to him. We could not kill Bart Cantrell and Nick Wilburn— led astray by evil women — and then find a different law for the 31-year-old married man, led astray by his own lusts.

No! By the Splendor of God! We couldn't have two Codes in Georgia, one for the Rich and the other for the Poor."64.134.71.235 (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations, GingerBreadHarlot, but you only recount a few of Tom Watson's statements. You do not show the effect of those statements on the public, nor upon the Knight of Mary Phagan. Regarding Watson's timeline, in his publications his coverage of the Frank trial was sensationalistic. Yet it "rarely and only in inconsequential ways touched upon Jews" (that quote comes from Lindemann). After the conviction, Watson didn't comment at all for one year, during the appeals. When he resumed commenting, beginning in March 1914, his statements were unquestionably anti-semitic. But, again, that was Watson. That wasn't the Knights of Mary Phagan. So, for all your verbiage, I don't see your point. Gulbenk (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

IP why don't you create a user name and participate as a user. I just think a lot of these arguments smack of http://www.LeoFrank.org the Mary Phagan Leo Frank research library, which arguably is not be a source of mainstream reliable positions.GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If the arguments to which the OP refers to here "smack" of anything, they "smack" only of fact... and common sense. Let me state it again: This Wikipedia article has most obviously been, and continues to be, crafted by proponents of Frank in a purposeful effort to exclude any facts or evidence which tend to support his lawful conviction. This is clearly done with the knowledge that in light of such facts or evidence, readers might come away from the article with the impression that Frank's conviction just may have been a result of something other than any kind of a conspiracy of prejudice or bigotry, and this is what makes the article a poor candidate for GA status.

I would invite the OP and others to review the version of the Leo Frank page prior to the edits in question being made [(link)] and compare with the version which was subsequently vandalized [(link)]. Take note that nothing of substance was removed from that prior version. Information was merely added. What was added to the article was a number of fully referenced facts from the official Brief of Evidence [(link)], referenced background information from the 1987 book by Mary Phagan/Kean, along with a small number of properly referenced quotes from contemporary news reports, and that is exactly what was removed from the article, in total, by a deliberate act of POV vandalism. No prior discussion was had on the talk page. No debate over this portion or that. Just capricious, deliberate, wholesale removal.

The reason for such wholesale removal of this properly referenced, factual, and pertinent material is obvious. It is so damaging to the point of view regarding Frank that Wikipedia intends to promote here that it could not be left to stand. With a subsequent "protection" of the article, the information removed was intentionally kept out of the article for months, thereby preserving it as an obvious POV piece, and clearly demonstrating that the inclusion of such information in the Leo Frank article was unwanted and unwelcome, and would be met with the same or similar action should it be added again. This article was thereby constructed to cover up the evidence in the case, because the evidence serves to discredit the point of view the article intends to convey.

The near complete removal and continued suppression of material crucial to any readers' understanding of the matter of Leo Frank therefore constitutes an act of purposeful public deception through selective censorship, and clearly reveals itself as a strategy of pushing the obvious POV agenda that is presented by the "consensus" of the editors of this Leo Frank article. The conclusions of this "consensus", though presented as if they were "incontrovertible" truths, are shown by this act of vandalism to be dependant upon a coverup of the actual truth in order to appear convincing to casual readers. It is nothing more than a demonstration by certain privileged senior Wikipedia editors of their intent to take part in and promote the continuing effort to exonerate Leo Frank and completely absolve him of the crime for which he was lawfully convicted.

Most all of the so-called, "reliable sources" used to build this Wikipedia article on Leo Frank are extremely biased works of partial fiction and fabricated evidence (See Tom Watson quote above regarding media spin). However, a review of the site mentioned by the OP, LeoFrank.org, reveals to any reader a balance of information from all sides of the issues. Both the prosecution and defense positions are well represented, and references include not only the official records, but all of the "reliable sources" used to craft the present Wikipedia article on Leo Frank as well. For this simple reason, in total, LeoFrank.org is truly far more reliable than all of this article's so-called, "reliable sources" combined.

In light of this self-evident fact, it would certainly be interesting to know exactly why this particular source is supposed to be "unreliable", or as the OP puts it, "not be a source of mainstream reliable positions". So is it "positions" now? Is Wikipedia putting forward its "position" on the matter of Leo Frank? Is this "position" the only "reliable position"? Isn't this "position" wholly dependent upon the obfuscation of relevant facts? Is it the "politically correct position"? What other "position" can one take from the present Wikipedia article than that Leo Frank was an innocent man, railroaded into a murder conviction as a result of some kind of a conspiracy of prejudice or bigotry? And how does this "position" jibe with the much vaunted Wikipedia guideline of a "neutral point of view"? What other "position" can one take from a repository of all available information on the Frank murder case such as LeoFrank.org? Perhaps that the evidence, testimony, and facts surrounding this case, when honestly weighed by logical minds tends to support Frank's conviction of the murder of Mary Phagan? Is this "position" the "unreliable position"? Why?

The only "unreliable" thing about the site referenced here therefore appears to be the fact that it doesn't go out of its way to lead the reader to believe that Leo Frank was innocent, as the present Wikipedia article does by deliberate omission of pertinent facts, but instead presents all available information regarding Frank to the public, both pro and con. As a result, this site doesn't have to go out of its way to convince the reader of Frank's guilt, because the amount of testimony, evidence, and history of the case made available there is sufficient to do so on its own. So even if the site itself actually does openly convey the idea that Leo Frank was guilty, that idea is fully justified and supported by the testimony, evidence, and history of the case. So here again, the OPs charge proves the point made earlier... that the only sources considered "reliable" here are sources which, through deliberate and purposeful omission of fact, promote the false, unsupported, and heavily biased point of view that Leo Frank was innocent. This is obviously done in order to force an opinion, but this opinion can not be maintained when the facts of this case are revealed in light of its recorded history, as well as the primary testimony and evidence preserved in the official Brief of Evidence.

In order to even approach neutrality, which is a major qualification for GA status, this article must present more information than only that which supports the single point of view that is exclusive to Frank's proponents. What is needed, at the very minimum, are references to the following items of fact, testimony and evidence:

Under "Mary Phagan", these topics need inclusion or expansion:

1. Demonstrated Innocence of Mary Phagan. 2. Family and Public Reacts To Her Murder. 3. Little Mary's Funeral.

Under "Evidence Implicating Frank", these topics need inclusion or expansion:

1. Frank Denies Knowing Mary Phagan. 2. Frank Behaves Strangely. 3. Blood And Hair In The Metal Room. 4. Defense Attempts to Direct The Investigation. 5. Monteen Stover. 6. Minola McKnight / State's Exhibit J. 7. Nina Formby. 8. Lemmie Quinn. 9. Frank Incriminates Himself.

Under "Jim Conley", these topics need inclusion or expansion:

1. Conley's Testimony Corroborated and Sustained by Multiple Witnesses. 2. Conley's Testimony Corroborated and Sustained by Multiple Items Of Evidence. 3. Conley Not Charged With Murder Due To Lack of Sufficient Evidence Against Him.

Under "Hearings, sentencing, and clemency", these topics need inclusion or expansion:

1. Coroner's Inquest - Description with verbatum quote of the inquest's conclusion. 2. Grand Jury - Description with verbatum quote of the Grand Jury's decision. 3. Trial - Inclusion of much material with verbatum quote from Hearst's Sunday article on fairness of trial. 4. Appeals - Inclusion of verbatum quote of the final Supreme Court majority decision. 5. Commutation of sentence - Inclusion or expansion of criticisms claiming that Governor Slaton's actions were illegal.

A topic heading titled "Charges of Perjury, Forgery, Bribery, and Witness Tampering" needs to be created, and the following topics need inclusion and expansion:

1. Charges Against The Prosecution - Inclusive of those made by witnesses who changed their stories. 2. Charges Against The Defense - Inclusive of those made and prosecuted of witness tampering and planting of evidence.

Under "Lynching of Frank", these topics need inclusion or expansion:

1. Textbook Definition of "lynching". 2. Hanging Conducted in the Official Manner of State Execution. 3. Insider Narrative of Frank's Execution as Reported by Tom Watson. 4. Governor Slaton's Role.

Under "Aftermath", these topics need inclusion or expansion:

1. Lucille Selig Frank Refuses to be Buried Beside her Husband.

Under "Memorials and Historical Markers", these topics need inclusion or expansion:

1. Mary Phagan.

This would be a start toward making this article a reasonable candidate for GA status. But failure to include this information will only further demonstrate that Wikipedia is actively allowing and deliberately promoting a fraudulent narrative to the public.

It really shouldn't take an "IP" to point all of this out to the user names here. It really shouldn't have to be said at all. It should be glaringly self-evident to anyone of average intelligence who would simply compare this article with even a casual review of both the recorded history and the official record of the case that Frank's conviction of the murder of Mary Phagan was justified, and that his execution was carried out by the citizens of Marietta Georgia not as a result of any conspiracy of prejudice or bigotry, but only in response to Governor Slaton's attempt to illegally circumvent it through a blatant violation of law.

It isn't rocket science. One need only use common sense. 64.134.71.194 (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

(Links added) 64.134.71.194 (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

IP get a wikiname, you are bring Tom Watson's magazine and Jeffersonian newspaper into discussion, items which are considered outside mainstream. You bring up Watson's magazine oct-1915, and other anti-semitic topics from his magz known sept-1915, aug-1915, mar-1915, jan-1915, none are non-extremist. People should read Watson's magazine 1915 magz about Frank, they're anti-semitic poison; not worthy.GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

OP... Please read carefully what I have previously written above, because you have obviously missed something along the way.

I find especially interesting... as well as wildly amusing... the OP's claim that "I" am the one who "are bring Tom Watson's magazine and Jeffersonian newspaper into discussion", when it remains crystal clear, and easily shown upon a simple review of this very talk page, that it was actually the OP, and not I, who first brought Watson into this discussion. Here the OP demonstrates once again how brazenly Frank's proponents will exhibit their often repeated tendency to reverse facts in order to pursue or sell their agenda... as if no one would notice... and then the OP actually goes on to AGAIN recommend that everyone read Watson. Such an obvious attempt to deceive, such a nonsensical characterization of the work of Tom Watson as "anti-semitic poison", and such blatant hypocrisy repeatedly demonstrated by the OP is patently absurd.

But since the OP brought it up... let's talk about Tom Watson as a "reliable source":

Watson was a contemporary of Leo Frank. In other words, he was there when it all happened. He was aslo a well respected, and highly sucessful lawyer and statesman, who dedicated his life to the pursuit of truth and justice. The information he provided on the Leo Frank trial and its aftermath does not fail the test of fact-checking, as nothing of consequence that he reports upon can be proven to be untrue. This can not be said about the so-called "reliable sources" Wikipedia presently relies upon, like Leonard Dinnerstein, Elaine Marie Alphin, Donald Eugene Wilkes, Robert Seitz Fray, Jeffrey Paul Melnick, Matthew Bernstein, Stephen J. Goldfarb, and other extremely biased "authorities" who ALL rely upon the shameful obfuscation of relevant facts, as well as fabricated nonsense in order to push their common, and all too obvious, agenda.

For example... One question:

How, exactly, did the so-called "anti-semitic" "mob" of Atlanta intimidate both the Supreme Court of Georgia, as well as the US Supreme Court into upholding Frank's conviction?

These so-called "reliable sources" upon which the pro-Frank editors of this article rely have no answer to that.

Tom Watson does... He truthfully points to the fact that such a thing was impossible, and explains why, in fact, it never occurred, and never could occur.

I will not here go on at length to explain why Watson is THE most reliable source on this subject, because his writings regarding Frank speak well for themselves in that respect. I will only say that the reason he is not considered to be reliable by the so-called "consensus" of the pro-Frank editors here is because he actually IS the most reliable secondary source on the subject of the Leo Frank that ever existed, and that fact can never be honestly denied. 64.134.98.220 (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

And yet again, we may bear witness to another blatant act of POV vandalism as described above, which only serves to prove that this article is a sham again and again. For those who didn't get it the first few times around, let me spell it out for you one more time: This Wikipedia article has most obviously been, and continues to be, crafted by proponents of Frank in a purposeful effort to exclude any facts or evidence which tend to support his lawful conviction. This is clearly done with the knowledge that in light of such facts or evidence, readers might come away from the article with the impression that Frank's conviction just may have been a result of something other than any kind of a conspiracy of prejudice or bigotry, and this is what makes the article a poor candidate for GA status.

The link to this recent major act of vandalism is [HERE.]

Taking note of what was removed, and the quickness with which it was done leaves little doubt as to why it was done.

Yet the editor responsible for this particular act of POV vandalism had little to say about it other than the following three insolent quips:

1. "Ridiculously undue level of detail."

Really? And just what makes this "level of detail" so "ridiculously undue", especially when the overall tone and message of the article is devoted to the mere and unprovable speculation by heavily biased "historians" that Frank was "innocent"?

2. "Non neutral language."

Really? How so? What is so "non neutral" about it? Since no further discussion was offered, we are left to guess.

3. "Discuss on talk page, if you really must."

This final statement plainly demonstrates that the revert was made in bad faith, as the statement's obvious implication is that the editor responsible for this particular act of POV vandalism would rather not have any discussion at all, even though this was already made clearly evident by the very act of so quickly reverting the contribution without first discussing it on the talk page per the guidelines of WP:REMOVAL. Such is the arrogance displayed here by Frank's proponents, as they cling to their constantly changing interpretations of "the rules"... which are ever revolved to suit their own clear and obvious agenda.

Undue weight is given throughout the article to the idea of Leo Frank's supposed "innocence", which is totally based upon mere speculation and spurious claims made by Frank supporters, while the actual facts of the case are either given short shrift, biased interpretation, or no mention at all. And whenever the actual facts of the case are added to the article in good faith, they are quickly removed via POV vandalism as described herein.

Clearly, this needs to be addressed and corrected. So let us begin with an examination of every part of what was so quickly removed, and discuss each portion in regard to the my questions raised above. We'll start with the first portion, as follows, and progressively move on from there:

. . .

Suspicion falls on Frank

As Leo Frank was the superintendant of the pencil factory, he was initially questioned by the Atlanta police as a matter of course, before any suspicion was raised against him.

Suspicion against Frank was subsequently aroused by a string of circumstances and events which came to light during, and following the time of his initial questioning, and was further strengthened by elements of his own testimony, as well as that of a number of witnesses examined at the Coroner's Inquest.[31]

Evidence Implicating Frank

Frank Denies Knowing Mary Phagan

Leo Frank initially told the police that he didn't know Mary Phagan, and that he would have to look through his payroll records to confirm whether a girl by that name worked at the factory.[32] However, two days after the murder he informed Harry Scott, the Superintendant of the Pinkerton detectives, that an ex-employee of his, James M. Gantt, "knew Mary Phagan very well, that he was familiar and intimate with her. He seemed to lay special stress on it at the time. He said that Gantt paid a good deal of attention to her." [33]

In his own statements to investigators, Gantt, who had known Mary Phagan since childhood, stated that although he knew her, he was not intimate with her.[34] He later testified that Frank did indeed know who Mary Phagan was, and revealed on the witness stand that on at least one occasion Frank had commented upon Gantt's relationship with her, calling her by name, saying, "You seem to know Mary pretty well."[35]

Phagan's friend and neighbor, 15-year-old pencil factory worker George Epps, stated at the Coroner's Inquest that Frank had flirted with Mary Phagan and had frightened her. Epps testified that Mary told him that on some occasions when she was leaving the factory, that "Frank would rush out in front of her and try to flirt with her as she passed." Epps also stated that she told him that Frank had often "winked at her, tried to pay her attention, would look hard and straight at her, and smile." [36]

Another witness, pencil factory worker W.E. Turner, testified that in the middle of March 1913, he personally saw Frank approach, harrass, and frighten Mary Phagan, using his position as factory superintendent to pressure her into talking with him. [37]

A number of other witnesses testified that Frank either knew, or flirted with Mary Phagan. One witness, Miss Dewey Hewell, claimed to have seen him standing next to, and talking to Mary on various occasions while she was working, sometimes putting his hand on her shoulder and leaning in close as he spoke to her.[38]

. . .

If the pro-Frank editors cannot, or refuse to provide reasonable, justifiable answers, it will only confirm what I have been saying all along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.99.153 (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr. IP address, can you please create a wiki account with a name? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As no reasonable reason has been given for this latest act of vandalism as described above, nor any discussion offered here in order to show why it should not be considered vandalism, I am reverting said vandalism with a new edit. Please do not remove it again without reasonable justification. 64.134.241.190 (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Category List of wrongful convictions in the United States (revert) January 1st 2015

Alas the cowardly Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles issued a shamefully patronizing & appeasing "Pardon" for Leo Frank in 1986 based on hokey technicalities (re: "to heal old wounds") and refused to actually address the real issue of his https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto de facto *innocence* or de jure "guilt". The other of the technicalities listed was only half-hokey, the State failed to protect Frank so he could "continue further appeals", but unfortunately SCOTUS and GSC had already made their final decisions, refusing unanimously any further appeals in Dec 1914 & April 1915 respectively. Only part of the technicality, the failure to protect Frank was a valid claim, but had absolutely nothing to do with the kangaroo legal proceedings during the summer of 1913. Alas, Leo Frank was never officially absolved of murdering Phagan and his conviction remains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_jure de jure. However as we approach the centennial of Leo Frank's lynching (August 17, 2015), I hope the legal efforts to exonerate Leo Frank of the crime never loses steam. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That's true; they deliberated extensively but realized it would be impossible to conclusively determine Frank's guilt or innocence 70 years after the fact. I agree with removing the "wrongful conviction" category since it's impossible to prove that it was in fact a wrongful conviction, although many scholars believe this was the case. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The GBPP (Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles) also gave the official lie they were unable to address the issues of Leo Frank's guilt because the trial records had been lost. However, they were never lost https://archive.org/details/leo-frank-georgia-supreme-court-case-records-1913-1914 because Government researchers made the records available on microfilm. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems like you are assuming - contrary to significant evidence, that Frank was guilty. Why do you assume that - because the story MUST be about a WHOLLY INNOCENT Jew and mindless, anti-Semitic goyim? This whole entry is slanted from the outstart.

does it occur to you that Frank was guilty and the mob primarily acting after the rape and murder of a little girl?

Because Frank was a Jews, however, we can expect that Jewsih/hasbara editors will make sure that Frank's death is spun, as much as possible, as requiring the ADL to form.... that group with along with the AJC, AIPAC, and others, spends so much time championing human rights regardless of race, and almost no time trying to get America to "support" a tiny foreign ethnarchy 99.9% of American soldiers and marines could not move to.

Seriously - this entire article takes the politically correct interpretation for granted. I don't know if he was innocent and neither do you - but simply assuming it because Frank, as a Jew, "could not be guilty" - and this must be more mindless, reason-less anti-Semitism, is the sort of nonsense making wiki unreliable on controversial topics, very much including entries which simply apply "anti-Semitism" to the conversation without meaningful argument or discussion.

50.252.249.155 (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)mpk40

Why don't you create a real account instead of an IP? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Snuggums

Snuggums is blitzing across wikipedia with this falsehood "Only nationality should be in the lead per MOS:BIO". According to MOS:BIO the notion of the absolutist modifier (also adverb, adjective, conjunction, idium) [7] "Only" is a misrepresentation, there are relevant exceptions, re: "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Nothing in that statement that says "Only". In this affair, Leo Frank's ethnicity is decidedly relevant to the article because the consensus amongst scholars is that he became the lead suspect, was indicted, convicted and lynched because of anti-Semitism. Therefore Leo Frank's ethnicity / religion is very much relevant to the lead. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

50.252.249.155 (talk)really? that's the consensus, or the consensus youve gleaned from Jewish sources. Most of the documents from the period point to the fact he was fingered because he was guilty of murdering a little girl.

Why do you rule that out - because the "anti-Semitism" story is just too good as PR? This is conclusory, at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.252.249.155 (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

POV Reverts by Gulbenk

It is beyond doubt that historians have serious questions about Frank's guilt. Our article needs to give those questions proper weight. The article, after Gulbenk's edit, eliminated any reference to these questions from the article lede. He claims that the language describing Conley as potentially the actual murderer is "speculation." Maybe it is, but it is speculation by reliable sources (Lindemann and Woodward are cited) andwidely mentioned in the secondary sources of the Frank case (Oney and Dinnerstein to name just two)-- it belongs in the lede.

Gulbenk also wants to label Frank as a "convicted murderer" in the first sentence, saying it is a "factual statement." Based on the significant doubts about Frank's guilt, we can say he was convicted but cannot say in wikipedia's voice that he was an actual murderer. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Gulbenk reverted, stating ""Many" people (some with advanced degrees in relevant fields) mistakenly believe that 9/11 was a US Government conspiracy."[8] This is nonsense -- he is comparing the dominant authorities on Frank with conspiracy nuts. Indeed, I believe Gulbenk has cited Lindemann elsewhere in the article. It is a serious POV violation to omit a significant subject covered in the major works on Frank. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Oney actually says [[9]] in an interview "I’m pretty sure that Jim Conley murdered Mary Phagan" and his book makes the same case. A CNN analysis [[10]] states, "The consensus of historians is that the Frank case was a miscarriage of justice. Crime scene evidence was destroyed, they say. A bloody hand print was not analyzed. Transcripts from the trial vanished. Perhaps someone can come up with scholarly or other reliable sources that do not dedicate significant portions of their discussions to the injustice of the entire process involving Frank. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Without any discussion, editor Solntsa90 deleted material needed for balance. Interestingly he added, yet again, the phrase "convicted murderer" to a sentence that already states that Frank was convicted of murder. Then he added this source [11] which DOES NOT use his preferred phrase "convicted murderer" but DOES USE very similar language that Solntsa90 for some reason finds insufficient ("convicted of the murder", "convicted of murdering"). Very, very strange.

Then he deleted the references to the fact that significant sources have named an alternative suspect without ANY DISCUSSION at all. The lead now is totally inconsistent with the secondary literature on the subject which emphasizes the doubts that Frank ever murdered anybody. I have placed an appropriate POV tag on the lede until this issue is fully discussed. This is particularly important in light of articles such as [12] and [13]. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

(North Shoreman) thank you for your willingness to discuss this issue at Talk, coming after your serial deletions. I think this is the best method to resolve differences, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter in detail. I would object, however, to your slur in labeling my edits as POV, when all I have attempted to do is keep the article factual. You wish to inject opinion into the lede.

I have a great deal of respect for the professionalism of both Oney and Lindemann. One says that he is "pretty sure" that Conley did it, the other says (without further details) that current evidence supports the Conley-as-murderer theory. Conley's attorney, 100 years ago, thought he did it. The CNN quote you cite simply says that the crime scene investigation was very sloppy by today's standards. I agree with that, but it doesn't point to Conley. All of that is just speculation, by some very interesting people. To balance that, we have authorities of the day (100 years ago), including two governors (with access to all the information, and extensive knowledge of the case) who are certain that the trial court reached the right verdict. The only governmental authority to review the case in detail, in recent years, could not find evidence that Conley did it, and did not absolve Frank of the crime. Frank remains, to this day, a convicted murderer.

Your serial deletions, and the placement of a dispute tag on the article appears to be an attempt by you to force your personal point of view, and is not helpful to the article. Your notice on my personal Talk page, accusing me of edit warring, appears to project blame on me for your serial deletions. I have asked you to stop edit warring.

Thank you, once again, for taking this matter here as the proper venue for discussion. Your editing, in the more distant past, has been helpful to this article. I hope that we can work together to improve the Leo Frank article, and advance it to Featured Article, if possible. Gulbenk (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Your reply is largely non-responsive to the issues I have raised. The fact is, analysis of facts by recognized scholars have always been considered reliable sources on wikipedia. You need to check out the policy on NPOV (see WP:YESPOV) which states:

"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

So when you tell me that I "wish to inject opinion into the lede", you're right. It would be unusual if legitimate opinions were not included in the lede. WP:WEIGHT is also an issue. The only sentence in the lede concerning Conley is:

"During trial proceedings, Frank and his lawyers resorted to racial stereotypes in their defense, accusing another suspect, James Conley – a Black factory worker and an admitted accomplice to the crime who had testified against Frank — of being especially disposed to lying and murdering because of his ethnicity."

The facts that historians consider him as the likely murderer, that his own lawyer identified him as the killer, that the belated ID of him carrying Phagan's body, and the fact that while in police custody for weeks he constantly changed his story all show that he was more than just "another suspect". All the other suspects fell by the wayside -- Conley is still considered a suspect. A second sentence simply stating, with appropriate footnotes, that some historians' (actually probably an understatement) analysis judge him to be the actual killer should not even be a controversial issue.

Similarly, the difference between changing "convicted murderer" and "convicted of murder" should not be controversial. Perhaps you can explain what the significance is of the change is. Going back to WP:YESPOV:

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

That Frank was convicted of murder is uncontested; that he was an actual murderer is contested. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(North Shoreman), 'Convicted Murderer' is a legal term, meaning that one is convicted of murder, and that they have been found guilty of the crime of murder by a jury of their peers in a court of law. In this instance, saying that Leo Frank is a 'Convicted Murderer' is completely factual. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I am very skeptical that "Convicted Murderer" is some "legal term" with a different connotation than the plain English meaning. Since most readers will read it as I do, it will appear that Wikipedia is ignoring the very real historical questions concerning the murder and saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that Frank did murder Phagan. Here is the first sentence of the article, the first boldface is what you added and the second boldface is language that was ALREADY in the article (you've already read this on your own talk page):

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American factory superintendent and convicted murdererwhose widely publicized and controversial murder trial and conviction in 1913, appeals and extrajudicial hanging in 1915 by a lynch mob planned and led by prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia, drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States.

Since the sentence already contains the phrase "murder trial and conviction", isn't your redundant accusation unnecessary and overkill? Doesn't the phrase "murder trial and conviction" already tell the reader everything she needs to know? You could even replace "convicted murderer" where you placed it with "convicted of murder". What exactly is wrong with that?

You also deleted this without ANY EXPLANATION:

"Jim Conley is now believed by some historians to be the real murderer".

I asked you why you deleted this and this was your reply on your talk page:

Solntsa90 "The references you're pushing have their own agenda, and would not pass Wikipedia's measures for scrutiny. With that said, Leo Frank is a convicted murderer as he was found guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan in a court of his peers.

Furthermore, there is hardly a consensus that 'Jim Conley was the real murderer'. That is utter rubbish, nothing more need to be said about it".

Please tell us exactly what the agenda is of Albert Lindemann and C. Vann Woodward which disqualifies them from being considered reliable sources? Or Steve Oney who I reference earlier in this discussion and is often used as a source in this article? Or Leonard Dinnerstein, also used as a source in the article, who wrote "The new development which stirred Atlanta and those working to save Frank was the announcement, made on October 2, 1914, by William M. Smith, lawyer for Jim Conley, the state's key witness at the trial, that his own client had murdered Mary Phagan."

There is an historical consensus that Leo Frank did not murder Phagan. After years of contentious discussion on this page nobody has come up with reliable secondary sources that claim Frank definitely murdered Phagan. But for the purposes of this discussion, the issue is whether proper weight is given to the claims about Conley. Since our article already discussed it and most of the reliable sources mention it in detail, it should be included in the article lead. WP:WEIGHT is clear -- our article should treat conflicting ideas "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Ignoring any mention of Conley's potential guilt or the bigger issue of Frank's potential innocence in the article lead is a serious neutrality violation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

There is ZERO historical consensus about the Frank murder, and in fact, most historians believe he was responsible, with the defence relying entirely on bigoted racial stereotype of African Americans to pin the murder on Conley. Solntsa90 (talk)

Personally I believe the article should be reverted to [this edit] by North Shoreman on 28 April. There don't need to be sources in the lead section, especially not to make a point about the "convicted murderer" part - the fact is not in question, but the placement and weight is. I do believe we should keep the lines about "jubilation in the streets" at Frank's hanging and the line/sources talking about Conley as the real murderer.

It might also be worth noting that the GA nomination has been open for 4 1/2 months and we should be getting a review in a few weeks. However, the POV banner and this dispute could derail the nomination. I hope we can reach a consensus soon. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

An equally serious problem for GA approval is the size of the lede (seeWP:LEADLENGTH). At the time of the completion of the peer review the lede was an acceptable four paragraphs -- it is now up to five paragraphs. Many of the changes involve excessive detail, especially the third paragraph that also has POV issues and a different slant from what the body of the article says. Many of the other changes also show a "POV creep" -- the new version reflecting a subtle shift toward making Frank appear more guilty. I intend to expand on this later but a clear example is the first paragraph. The current version says of the pardon:

Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986, which the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles described as "an effort to heal old wounds", without officially absolving him of the crime.

The boldfaced language was changed from "without addressing the question of guilt or innocence." The older shorter version also has important additional information to clarify that there was more than simply "an effort to heal old wounds." This version also said:

"On March 11, 1986, the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles granted Frank a pardon, citing the state's failure to protect him or prosecute his killers."

A more NPOV reworking of the existing sentence could say:

Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986. Unable to address the question of guilt or innocence due to missing records, the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles did admit that the state had failed to protect Frank (which prevented the exercise of further appeals) or prosecute his killers. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Strong dislike; they never absolved Frank of guilt, I don't think it was an oversight, and anything to the contrary is original research unless you can back it up with sources that aren't as POV-pushing as those you have placed attempting to absolve Frank of guilt. Solntsa90 (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing POV about stating that Frank was a convicted murderer, since he was most well-known for the murder of Mary Phagan (no matter how much we can dispute this, I trust the justice system's ruling) and his subsequent conviction and execution-turned-stay-of-execution by the governor who was Frank's lawyer's law firm partner, which led to the lynching.

This is what he is most notable for. If anything, saying he was a factory superintendent as the lead is POV-pushing. Solntsa90 (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I've revised the lead:

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American factory superintendent convicted of murder[1][2] whose widely publicized and controversial trial for the murder of Mary Phagan and conviction in 1913, appeals, death sentence, and controversial[3] stay-of-execution[4], as well as his subsequent extrajudicial hanging in 1915 by a lynch mob planned and led by prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia, drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States.

This is hardly POV, as it merely reflects the details of the case.

This article should be reverted to the version by KasparBot on 4 May due to the following:

• User:Solntsa90 added the phrase "convicted murderer" back to the lead sentence and added two citations, but these citations miss the point. No one is arguing whether Frank is a convicted murderer, but simply that it is repetitive ("conviction" shows up later in the same sentence) and thus gives undue weight to the conviction. Also, as a general Wikipedia practice, citations are not required in the lead if the fact is cited in the body of the text, as it is in this case.

• A "citation needed" tag was added later in the lead, and this is covered by reference #35 in the body. As I mentioned at the end of the above bullet point, a citation is not needed here.

• Three unnecessary categories were added, and the latter one, "American murderers of children", is the most obvious POV issue.

For these three reasons, let's revert to the version by KasparBot and remove the neutrality tag at the top of the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's the problem with your appeal to reason. Solntsa says above, "There is ZERO historical consensus about the Frank murder, and in fact, most historians believe he was responsible, with the defence relying entirely on bigoted racial stereotype of African Americans to pin the murder on Conley." Of course, this statement is nonsense -- it makes an unsupported and unsupportable claim about what the reliable sources say and totally minimizes the real evidence against Conley. Basic facts are being ignored in order to pursue a regrettable POV. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not POV. He was an American murderer of a child, ergo the category stays. Solntsa90 (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that I was away, during all this excitement. I would like to commend and support the edits undertaken by Tonystewart14. He strikes the right balance, and moves the article forward. It is not surprising that editors with good intentions should have such varied and strongly held opinions about this article. So much has been learned/disclosed about the Leo Frank case in just the past few decades. Much of what we thought we knew is now shown to be wrong. One only has to read the 1983 NYT article, referenced below, to see how many wrong notions were presented as "fact" just a few years ago. Much of the credit for setting the record straight goes to Oney, who is likely the preeminent modern expert on this matter. Again, I support the Toneystewart14 edits. Gulbenk (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

At one point, Tony agreed (see [14]) the article should be restored to this edit [15]. Is this what you are agreeing to? If so, I will consider this resolved enough to remove the tag -- assuming Solntsa doesn't revert. If not, we should go with an RFC or Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

Separate from the POV issues is the fact that the lede is probably too long for a successful Class A review. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, North Shoreman. I mistakenly believed that it was Tonystewart14 who had changed the sentence from "convicted murderer" to "convicted of murder" which seemed to address your point about using the Wikipedia "voice" to say that Frank was, in fact, the murderer. I saw "convicted of murder" as a truthful and more neutral statement.

Regarding the placement of the sentence "Jim Conley is now believed by some historians to be the real murderer" in the lede. The best support for that sentence (without the word "real") is found in those two statements by Oney and Lindemann. Both are very careful in their wording. Lindemann, the historian, simply states that current evidence supports the Conley-as-murderer theory. I'm not sure if, by that, Lindemann is saying that he believes Conley did it, or if simply some recent "evidence" (like the Mann affidavit) points to Conley. Oney, the author/journalist, says that he is "pretty sure" that Conley did it. He doesn't say "It's clear Conley did it", or even "I believe Conley did it". He qualifies his statement with "pretty sure" which indicates a degree of ambivalence. The "some historians" sentence appears (almost intact), as one line in the extensive Conley section. The article also contains two references to William Smith's belief that Conley was the murderer, although it doesn't explain why (exactly) he believed that. If this speculation requires additional weight, it might be appropriate to add the Oney / Lindemann statements to the First application for pardon section, provided that another statement quoting the pardons and parole board is also added (for balance). There is a good quote from the board, stating that the Alonzo Mann affidavit is not impactful because (even if taken at face value) it only shows that Conley took the stairs, not the elevator. Other than that, the Mann affidavit only corroborates Conley's sworn testimony. So, again, placement of these beliefs and feelings in the body of this article seems appropriate to the degree that we have already undertaken. But the addition of the sentence in the lede, without further explaining that it's just a hunch, gives this speculation the weight of nearly conclusive fact, which diminishes the veracity of an otherwise commendable article Gulbenk (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"Just a hunch", huh? When folks such as Dinnerstein, Oney, Woodward, Lindemann, et al present their informed analysis it's much more than "just a hunch." In fact there is a large section on Conley in our article that shows that he consistently lied while in police custody. There are also significant discrepancies between his final testimony and other evidence. All four of the authors I listed spend considerable energy discussing Conley -- Oney has 28 separate listings under Conley in his index and "as murder suspect" lists 57 separate pages. Yet our article's lede contains a single sentence about Conley that only cites racial slurs against him by the defense -- interesting but nowhere close to the proper weight based on his coverage by reliable sources. Why is it more important to describe the characterization of Conley while hiding the UNDISPUTED FACT that he repeatedly lied? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Academic dishonesty or academic misconduct is any type of cheating that occurs in relation to a formal academic exercise. It can include

   Plagiarism: The adoption or reproduction of original creations of another author (person, collective, organization, community or other type of author, including anonymous authors) without due acknowledgment.
   Fabrication: The falsification of data, information, or citations in any formal academic exercise.
   Deception: Providing false information to an instructor concerning a formal academic exercise
   Cheating: Any attempt to give or obtain assistance in a formal academic exercise (like an examination) without due acknowledgment.
   Bribery: or paid services. Giving assignment answers or test answers for money.
   Sabotage: Acting to prevent others from completing their work. This includes cutting pages out of library books or willfully disrupting the experiments of others.
   Professorial misconduct: Professorial acts that are academically fraudulent equate to academic fraud and/or grade fraud.
   Impersonation: assuming a student's identity with intent to provide an advantage for the student.[1][2][3][4]

The key one is Fabrication when it comes to the Frank case. A lot of stuff is made up out of thin air with no proof from a lot of these authors. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Mary Phagan Picture

There is a more well known picture of Mary Phagan from the Adoplph Ochs collection at the New York Public Library that would be more apropos for the article. There is also a series done in blackface commissioned by Ochs that actually shows how Mary Phagan was really killed in that same collection. Would someone do the leg work to get those images added to wikipedia photo library collection? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Controversial

Moved from my talk page:

Regarding your recent revert of my edit. What are the controversial aspects of the Frank trial which you wish to highlight with this edit, and how do they eclipse the controversy of the Governor's commutation? Gulbenk (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

They both were controversial. Why did you remove "controversial" from the trial without at least adding a synonym? If you check the editing history you will find that the second "controversial" was added in an edit after the first one was already in place. Trying to deny that the trial in and of itself was controversial is more POV pushing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman), you throw the POV accusation around with very little regard for the truth. I simply want you to explain your edit. So, again, I specifically ask you what you regard as the controversial aspects of the Frank trial. Gulbenk (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The most controversial aspect is that Frank was found guilty. I use the term the same way Jeffrey Melnick does in "Black-Jewish Relations on Trial: Leo Frank and Jim Conley in the New South" when he writes about Frank's "controversial trial". He describes, accurately, the current state of the historiography, "Unlike say, Sacco and Venzetti, or the Rosenbergs, Leo Frank’s guilt or innocence is rarely debated these days. There is near unanimity around the idea that Frank was most certainly innocent of the crime of murdering Mary Phagan; it is something like unspeakable to suggest otherwise." Now maybe you can explain why you don't believe the trial itself was controversial.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what I was looking for. You believe (100 years after the trial) that Frank was innocent, so therefore (in your opinion) the trial was controversial. I see Melnick expressing his opinion that there is near unanimity that Frank was innocent. I don't see any support for WHY he (or others) believe that Frank is innocent... when two modern tribunals didn't come to that conclusion. Nor did eight lawyers on the Frank defense team (who had significant funds and resources at their disposal) provide any convincing evidence (much less proof) that Conley was the murderer (other than saying that he was a monster liar and brute... which he may well have been). Nor did numerous courts of appeal, including the U.S. Supreme Court (twice) find reason for overturning the jury's finding of guilt. I don't believe that Governor Slaton (who had access to all the records, and who researched the case more than any modern historian) ever said that he believed Frank was innocent. He only said that guilt was not proven with absolute certainty. No judicial review or official government inquiry has declared Conley guilty or Frank innocent. But you want to insert your opinion of innocence into the lede by calling the trial controversial. One should not go about accusing others of POV violations when you yourself are a POV pusher. As I have said before, the matter of Conley's involvement is discussed extensively in the body of the article. We make references to those who believe that Conley was guilty. But it should always be clear that this is unsupported opinion. Gulbenk (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

What's relevant is the opinion of the reliable sources. What isn't relevant is your opinion of the significance of events of 100 years ago. If your opinions have any validity then you should be able to provide reliable secondary sources that share your opinions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A fact, even one from 100 years ago, is still a fact. An opinion is no more than an opinion. When you represent an opinion as fact, as you did, it is not only wrong but also dishonest. Gulbenk (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you actually disagree that the phrase "whose widely publicized and controversial trial for the murder of Mary Phagan" is inaccurate? If you do disagree, state your reasons -- if you agree why are you wasting our time? The actual language in the article is, after all, what this discussion should be about about.

Your latest comment is non-responsive to anything we have discussed. Opinions by reliable secondary sources, especially widely shared opinions, are relevant to this article as well as most others. You are being dishonest when you suggest that I am trying to present opinions as facts. How is this sentence (which you have deleted) opinion disguised as fact: Conley is now believed by many historians to be the real murderer. Surely you're not talking about using the word "controversial" -- that would be very hypocritical since you used the exact same word in the issue we are now discussing. I'm preparing to submit over a dozen reliable secondary sources that contest the accuracy of the verdict and the conduct of the trial. Can you produce ANY reliable secondary sources saying that the jurors got it exactly right and that the trial was perfectly fair. You keep avoiding naming any such sources -- why is that? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Heh, apt section header for this discussion. Why not remove the adjective and say something like 'the trial generated such-and-such controversy', being specific and sticking to what sources say? That way you "show don't tell."delldot ∇. 17:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd be glad to do that. What the sources say is that Frank was innocent and Conley was the likely actual killer. I have yet to see any reliable sources presented that contest either of these contentions. A reader of this article needs to know, up front in the article lede, that the historical consensus is that entire Frank case was based on a very flawed trial. Right now I suppose Steve Oney's book is the best recent source and he says of his work:

It was in no way a fair trial. It would be declared a mistrial very quickly by today's standards." "In the end, though, so much of the prosecution's case doesn't hold water. I think you can tell by the end of the book that I'm pretty certain Frank was innocent." "I'm 95 percent certain Conley did it. A year or so after the trial, Conley's lawyer, William Smith, conducted a study of the murder notes and became convinced they were the original composition of his former client. There are other things, too. During the trial, the prosecution said that Frank had assaulted Phagan outside his office on the factory floor and that she'd struck her head against a lathe, where some of her hair had been found. It turned out that the hair did not come from Phagan's head, and the prosecutor, Hugh Dorsey, knew it and withheld that information from the defense. The key physical evidence from the supposed crime scene was fallacious. To me, that's incredibly damning."

Dinnerstein, the author of an older and more scholarly work, wrote of the trial, The Frank case not only was a miscarriage of justice but also symbolized many of the South's fears at that time.

Albert Lindemann (who is footnoted 9 times already in the article wrote), "The best evidence now available indicates that the real murderer of Mary Phagan was Jim Conley, perhaps because she, encountering him after she left Frank's office, refused to give him her pay envelope, and he, in a drunken stupor, killed her to get it."

C. Vann Woodward, a Pulitzer prize winning historian and biographer of Tom Watson in which he devotes a full chapter to the Frank case wrote "The city police, publicly committed to the theory of Frank's guilt, and hounded by the demand for a conviction, resorted to the basest methods in collecting evidence. A Negro suspect [Conley], later implicated by evidence overwhelmingly more incriminating than any produced against Frank, was thrust aside by the cry for the blood of the 'Jew Pervert.'"Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree that if there's a consensus today that should be clear in the lead, perhaps in a single sentence. If I understand Gulbenk right, they were questioning whether it was controversial at the time, right? At any rate, that first sentence is meandering and tortured and should be turned into two or three sentences. How about, for a compromise, using 'famous' or 'highly publicized' or something in that first sentence, then fleshing out the current consensus in a separate sentence in the lead? delldot ∇. 21:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This [16]is the version of the article right after a peer review was completed. Nothing in the peer review suggested the changes that were made. The first paragraph was clearer and the issue of the pardon was covered in more detail, although it was split between the first and fourth paragraphs. Using this old version as a starting point and your suggestions, I would propose the following rewrite:

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American factory superintendent whose murder conviction and extrajudicial hanging in 1915 by a lynch mob planned and led by prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia, drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States. There is widespread disagreement that Frank was actually guilty of the crime. Without addressing the question of guilt or innocence since the state had lost most of the evidence from the trial, Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles. The Board cited the state's failure to protect Frank, preserving his opportunity for continued legal appeal, or prosecute his killers.

You can check out this [17] very rough draft of the type of sourcing that supports the questioning of the guilt. My intention is to turn that info into a two paragraph or so subsection in the main article which would then support more fully the addition to the lede, although support already is spread out throughout the article. My original intention was to present the above in an RFC format due to relatively small participation in the discussion. Perhaps your participation will trigger such participation (there are 125 watchers of this article). Thoughts? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

IMHO the 'Without addressing the question of guilt or innocence since the state had lost most of the evidence from the trial' is too much detail for the lead. Also I would move the sentence starting, 'The Board cited the...' to further down in the article. But what do you think, Gulbenk? delldot ∇. 00:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

My problem is the POV of the present sentence which says, "Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986, which the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles described as "an effort to heal old wounds", without officially absolving him of the crime." Rather than the meaningless "effort ...", which suggests that there was no substance to the pardon, I felt that the more concrete reasons are relevant. As far as "without officially...", this suggests that the Board made a factual finding of guilty (which is not true). The best solution would be a simple statement "Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986", leaving it to the reader to go to the body of the article (Leo Frank#Alonzo Mann's affidavit, first application for pardon and the following section) for the details. The two sections should probably be combined and renamed to something simple like "Pardon" to make for easier navigation for the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by North Shoreman (talk • contribs)

I like the idea of the streamlined "Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986" for the lead with the detail below. What do others think? delldot ∇. 18:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Amazing. In his quest to label anything contrary to his world view as POV, Tom (North Shoreman) even attacks the direct quote of the Pardons and Paroles Board. He deletes their rationale, ("effort...") as well, for the same reason. Finally, he deletes, from the lede, the fact that they did not absolve Frank of the crime, by claiming their actions are not "official" (although he embraces the limited pardon). This is POV pushing in its most basic form. I most sincerely disagree. Gulbenk (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As for the Oney statement, this (more complete) quote might put it in context:

Q: The jury convicted Frank on the second ballot. Was that a reasonable verdict?

A: (Oney): Yes, I can see it happening.

I don't know what I would have done if I had been on that jury. All I can tell you is that when I was writing the book, I would come into the kitchen at the end of the day and tell my wife that Leo Frank was guilty -- especially when I was reading Conley's testimony. It was so mesmerizing and specific, I'd think: He could not make this up. Then I'd walk into the kitchen the next week and say, "Leo Frank is innocent. This is a completely trumped-up case.

In the end, though, so much of the prosecution's case doesn't hold water. I think you can tell by the end of the book that I'm pretty certain Frank was innocent. Gulbenk (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually I insist that if we do quote from the Pardon, then we use the language that addresses the substance of what they said -- you know, state failures, lost evidence. As far as the context of the Oney statement, the only thing it adds is that it shows he made a good faith final evaluation based on a thorough review of all the facts. The context serves to show how absurd your claims are that his views are just a "hunch". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The evidence was never lost, the trial brief of evidence and georgia supreme court records of the case are still with us. The prosecutors notes on the case are not evidence, because they are not official records. The consensus of the law is that Leo Frank is guilty. I would think the law is the final word on the matter. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles did not exonerate Leo Frank. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Good luck, GingerBreadHarlot, trying to convince Tom (North Shoreman). He would rather substitute his own unyielding view (based on opinion) for the facts. The fact that the official records are still intact, as well as notes from Conley's attorney (Oney used those in his research), doesn't keep Tom from saying otherwise, or from deleting statements that don't support his view (see his efforts with regard to the parole board, above). This article should not be a vehicle for folks, like Tom, to promote their opinions. It is an encyclopedia. If Tom wants to start a blog, or his own web page, where he can thump his chest, fine. Gulbenk (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Still don't understand about wikipedia and opinions, do you? Let me try again -- from wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:No original research:

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[5] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[6] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.[7]

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.

Get it yet? You see when Oney, Lindemann, Dinnerstein, Woodward, Melnick, et al say that Frank was likely innocent, this is those authors providing their own thinking based on primary sources. These authors have looked at the facts and provided their own thinking based on primary sources. That's what historians are EXPECTED to do. Wikipedia in turn is EXPECTED to base their articles on their works. Seems clear. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Having looked closer at these authors, Oney, Dinnerstein (hasn't updated his book since 87) and Melnick, they can not be considered scholars or references on the Frank case. These authors have engaged in pseudohistoriography by putting the Phagan bitemark hoax into their book. There is no evidence from autopsy reports in the brief of evidence or georgia supreme court records of Phagan having bitemarks on her neck and shoulder (hoax origin: To Number Our Days by Pierre van Paassen, pages 237, 238 http://archive.org/details/ToNumberOurDaysByPierreVanPaassen on IA.) Dinnerstein wrote only half a page about Leo Frank's trial statement, this is not scholarship. Dinnerstein manufactured anti-Semitic hoaxes that people mobs of people were shouting anti-semitic death threats at the jury during trial proceedings through the window. This is pseudo-scholarship at its best, "The intense summer heat necessitated that the courtroom windows be left open, and remarks from the crowds could be heard easily by those inside. "Crack the Jew's neck!" - "Lynch him!" - were some of the epithets emerging from the more boisterous. Threats were also made "against the jury that they would be lynched if they did not hang that 'damned sheeny.'" (Leo Frank and the American Jewish Community (1968), Dinnerstein: http://archive.org/details/LeoFrankAndTheAmericanJewishCommunity on IA.) Oney says in his 2003 book (and dead shall rise) that dorsey convinced grandjury to indict frank on the basis that later he would provide the evidence. This is pure anti-scholarship. Grand juries dont indict people on basis that after they indict someone the evidence will be shown. Get it yet? Using pseudo-scholarship is not what makes a good encyclopedia. I'm sure there are a lot more examples like these. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible new lead section

I concur with Tom's comment in the previous section that the lead section of the article following the peer review last December was better in most respects than the current one. I think the rest of the article has had some improvements since then, most notably the addition of several photographs, but the old version of the lead was more concise and neutral.

I'm proposing a new lead that is similar to the old one, but incorporates some new improvements that change the sentence and paragraph structure to improve the flow. I've also removed some content that isn't central enough to the case to be in the lead, but is already in the body of the article. Let me know how this looks and I'll update it and remove the tag if there is consensus. Edited 5/18:

Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American factory superintendent who was convicted of the murder of one of his factory employees, 13-year-old Mary Phagan. His conviction, appeals, death sentence, commutation, and subsequent extrajudicial hanging in 1915 by a lynch mob planned and led by prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia, drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States.

An engineer and director of the National Pencil Company in Atlanta, Frank was convicted on August 25, 1913 for the murder of Phagan. She had been strangled on April 26 of that year and was found dead in the factory cellar the next morning. The basis for Frank's conviction largely centered around the testimony of another suspect, James "Jim" Conley, an admitted accomplice who worked as a sweeper in the factory. Conley changed his testimony several times in various affidavits and admitted to fabricating certain parts of his story. After his conviction, Frank and his lawyers commenced a series of unsuccessful appeals, losing their final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in April 1915. Governor John M. Slaton, stating there may have been a miscarriage of justice, commuted his sentence to life imprisonment to great local outrage. A crowd of 1,200 marched on Slaton's home in protest. Two months later, Frank was kidnapped from prison by a group of 25 armed men who called themselves the "Knights of Mary Phagan". Frank was driven 170 miles to Frey's Gin, near Phagan's home in Marietta, and lynched. A crowd gathered after the hanging; one man repeatedly stomped on Frank's face, while others took photographs, pieces of his nightshirt, and bits of the rope to sell as souvenirs. Some modern scholars believe that the motivation behind the crowd's ferocity towards Frank derived from antisemitic prejudice.

His criminal case became the focus of powerful class, regional, and political interests. Raised in New York, he was cast as a carpetbagging representative of Yankee capitalism, a bourgeoisie northern Jew in contrast to the poverty experienced by child laborers like Phagan and many working-class adult Southerners of the time, as the agrarian South was undergoing the throes of industrialization. During trial proceedings, Frank and his lawyers resorted to racial stereotypes in their defense, accusing Conley – who was African-American – of being especially disposed to lying and murdering because of his ethnicity. There was jubilation in the streets when Frank was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging.

At the request of the ADL, a prominent Jewish civil rights organization founded in the wake of Frank's conviction, Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles. The Board described the pardon as "an effort to heal old wounds" without addressing the question of guilt or innocence due to insufficient evidence. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of good in your proposal -- you've eliminated excessive detail, much of it apparently added to promote a specific POV. However your end product still has significant POV problems and does not comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.

1. The lead guideline states that "the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." Leo Frank is notable because he was lynched, drawing national to antisemitism. This info needs to be in the first sentence. These two sentences do not need to be in the first paragraph:

"An engineer and director of the National Pencil Company in Atlanta, Frank was convicted on August 25, 1913 for the murder of Phagan. She had been strangled on April 26 of that year and was found dead in the factory cellar the next morning."

2. All references to Tom Watson or general rabble raising based on antisemitism have been eliminated. Your version says in the fourth paragraph that Frank "drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States" but doesn't say why.

3. The only critique of the trial itself is "Frank and his lawyers resorted to racial stereotypes in their defense." With all of the documentation available on why the trial results were tainted against Frank, the current proposal only mentions rhetorical misconduct by the defense that had very little effect on anything.

4. Your proposal still doesn't address any of the issues raised concerning Conley's probable guilt. Which is more significant to the case -- the fact that the defense said racist things about Conley or that Conley was the main witness against Frank, that he dramatically changed changed his testimony five different times while in police custody, and that he is considered by many as the likely killer.

5. The lead guidelines state that the lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies and " "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." Your version sustains the problems of the current version -- there is no mention of the controversy of the fairness of the trial, the consensus that Frank was probably innocent, and the probability that Conley was the actual killer. The themes of Frank's probable innocence and Conley's likely guilt is present throughout the reliable secondary sources on Frank. There are few if any reliable sources arguing that the jury got it right.

I've tried to generate a discussion of this focusing on what the reliable sources say. Unfortunately the two proponents of the status quo won't, because they can't, present reliable secondary sources to support their positions. Instead they dismiss the leading scholars on the subject as presenting "unsupported opinion" or "just a hunch", while comparing their research as akin to a 9/11 government conspiracy. The lead guidelines point out that "The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead." We have to get it right. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the proposed lead above with your suggestions. Although it might not be quite what you're looking for in terms of suggesting Conley was the likely killer, it does mention Conley's affidavits that changed his story and his later admissions of lying. Also remember that while many present-day scholars believe Frank was innocent, this is not a unanimous opinion (Mary Phagan Kean being the most famous example). I think the lead above is something that will be seen as suitable by yourself as well as Gulbenk and the others who have commented on this talk page. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive changes. I can live with not mentioning Conley as the suspect if the lead otherwise mentions the widespread belief among reliable sources that Frank was innocent. Mary Phagan Kean is not a journalist, not an historian, and is unpublished (I believe) except for the one book. I could find no reviews of her book on JSTOR and no scholarly reviews from Google. I did find a review (repeated at Amazon) from the Library Journal, which states:

The author is the great-niece of the murdered Mary Phagan. In 1913, Leo Frank, a northern-reared, Jewish manager of an Atlanta factory, was convicted of the murder of a 13-year-old employee, Mary Phagan. Frank, who was almost certainly innocent, was hung by a lynch mob; new evidence points to the likely guilt of the chief prosecution witness, a black janitor. Despite the author's evenhanded approach, this book cannot be recommended. Leonard Dinnerstein's Leo Frank Case (1968; reissued in 1987 by Univ. of Georgia Pr.) remains the best account of the case and the anti-Semitic, anti-industrial milieu that shaped it.

You imply that there are other reliable sources arguing for Frank's guilt. Can you provide specific works and authors? My arguments concerning the failure to include the documentation for Frank's innocence remain. Whether the belief is unanimous or simply the vast majority, it still must be included in the lead in order to comply with the lead guidelines. We have sources that meet the requirements for academic consensus (see WP:RS/AC). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the lead and removed the POV tag. I changed the last sentence of the second paragraph to read, "Modern scholars including Steve Oney and Leonard Dinnerstein believe that the motivation behind the crowd's ferocity towards Frank derived from antisemitic prejudice and that Frank was in fact innocent." That way, it avoids the weasel word 'some' at the beginning and mentions the two major Frank scholars by name. I also added the fact that they think Frank was innocent at the end. There are some other sources that believe Frank was guilty, but not published in the way that Oney and Dinnerstein are. I hope that this settles it for now and we can get some good feedback during GA review. I think that both the lead and body will continue to improve substantially in a few weeks. Thanks for your quick replies. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I have problems with the term "modern scholars" since it is too vague. Dinnerstein was originally published in 1966 and other writers with a similar theme had preceded him. I replaced modern with a more specific sixty years. I also moved the reference to this to the start of the fourth paragraph -- it really doesn't belong at the end of a long paragraph that is mainly about events after the trial and fits nicely in a paragraph that discusses guilt and innocence. I also removed the references concerning antisemitism -- it didn't effectively replace the omission of Watson references. Antisemitic agitation should still be referenced in that paragraph but it is not enough of a problem to maintain the POV tag.

As it is, I am very reluctant to say that this satisfies completely the POV issues. When there is a consensus on a subject, attribution is not necessary and misleading in that it suggests only the people specifically listed held that view. You, however, wrote the sentence artfully enough for it to be acceptable. Changing it to "some scholars" would present a real POV problem. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Your edits look good. I think that one sentence in the lead is in a better spot and "sixty years" is in fact more specific and less "weasel". I don't know if we'll ever get a lead that is 100% to the satisfaction of everyone who posts on this talk page, but I think the current one looks good and will continue to improve during GA. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Tony, always remember Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Article Revert

The article had been turned into something very stale and POV political, so I reverted it to a good recent version. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I think there are problems with your recent edits, anti-Frank slant. PatGallacher (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The version you reverted to does not have all the salient information about the case in the lead. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please provide the justification for the "salient" info you believe needs to be added. Of course you deleted the actually "salient" info added about Conley and the info on the historical consensus on Frank's likely innocence. You seem to share the POV pushed by folks that reject wikipedia policy by insisting that only primary sources count and all secondary sources be ignored. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The lead should be an overview of the article. It should review the pivotal and central highlights of Frank's life and place in history in a cogent number of paragraphs. Number of paragraphs is always dependent on article length. The central features of Leo Frank's life were his career, role in Jewish community (B'nai B'rith), sensational trial & conviction, brief mention of his appeals failing, controversial commutation, throat slashing at penitentiary, lynching by prominent georgians, aftermath and posthumous pardon without exoneration. These are all the relevant events of his life worth mentioning in the lead, not touting a journalist or academic who hasnt updated his book since 1987. Dinnerstein and Oney are pseudoscholars, both repeat the phagan bitemark hoax in their book as if it is fact (To Number Our Days by Pierre van Paassen (see pages 237, 238 about the Leo Frank case): http://archive.org/details/ToNumberOurDaysByPierreVanPaassen on IA.) Dinnerstein has manufactured pseudo-historiography with "The intense summer heat necessitated that the courtroom windows be left open, and remarks from the crowds could be heard easily by those inside. "Crack the Jew's neck!" - "Lynch him!" - were some of the epithets emerging from the more boisterous. Threats were also made "against the jury that they would be lynched if they did not hang that 'damned sheeny.' " such an event would have been reported in Frank's appeals and in the newspapers. Such an incident occurring would be grounds for an immediate mistrial. No records from defense, prosecution, judge, appeals or newspapers reported this anti-Semitic hoax. This is not scholarship, but a racist crime against truth. Dinnerstein repeats Golden who writes Conley died in 1962, both are mistaken. There are no records of Conley's death in Georgia records or obituary in newspaper as Golden says (he is mistaken). We know this thanks to Oney who did the research. However, Slaton in 1955 memorandum said Conley died in 1952, so the 1962 is likely a typo. Stating Conley died in 1962 is repeating pseudoscholarship. There is no evidence for this death date. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Conley died in 1962 Debunked by Steve Oney

I removed the sentence - Conley is believed to have died in 1962. Reference Golden p. 312. and Dinnerstein 1987, p. 158. Steve Oney's archival research debunked the rumor / myth that Jim Conley died in 1962. The reality is no one knows what happened to him or how he was made to disappear. There are no obituaries (1962) for Jim Conley as Golden falsely claimed or death record for Conley at Georgia vitals and statistics department. Golden's Estate papers have no record of an obituary according to Professor Koenigsberg of Brooklyn College who researched the matter. There is however, one mention of Conley having passed away in 1952 by former Governor John Slaton in a January 1955 memorandum. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I checked Golden, his statement is slightly vague and unsourced, although it may have been a genuine mistake over what he regarded as a minor matter. PatGallacher (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Frank's trial was one of the longest and most expensive in Southern jurisprudence at the time according to secondary sources. Conley's role in the case wasn't diminutive. He was one of the prosecution's star witness'. All Dinnerstein had to do was call / write government offices of Atlanta determine if there was a death certificate for James Conley (age 27 in 1913, Colored). Instead of relying on Golden's dubious research. Tom Northshoreman recently placed notification onto Frank's article for dispute on Leonard Dinnerstein's recognition as a scholar. This is more evidence of Dinnerstein having little integrity for scholarship (re: Tom NOrthshoreman's dispute.)GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It may not be as simple as that. I don't know how it works in Georgia, but I have some experience of searching Scottish death records in Edinburgh, if you don't know when somebody died you have to plough through several years, there's no guarantee he died in Georgia, etc.. PatGallacher (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

PatGallacher, Georgia computerized every birth and death record for instant Boolean search. Conley was 27 in 1913. No death record for him. Harry Golden said there is obituary for Conley in 1962. Golden's estate papers have no Conley obituary. No 62' obituary exists in any Georgia newspaper for him either. Scholars don't repeat other peoples false and unverified research, they go to the birth and death record office themselves, call or write them by pen for answers. We must thank Oney, Dr. Koenigsberg for determining the fallacious 1962 claim. Former Gov. Slaton in January 1955 puts Conley's death at 1952. Do you see how anti-scholarship works? Everyone now quotes Golden's false 1962 claim. Some anti-Scholars are even claiming Conley made death bed confession in 1962. The Slaton Memorandum: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23886389?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents A Governor Looks Back At His Decision to Commute the Death Sentence of Leo Frank by STEPHEN J. GOLDFARB, American Jewish History, Vol. 88, No. 3 (September 2000), pp. 325-339. Before Tom-northshornman accuses me of promulgating primary sources, question to everyone is whether Slaton's memorandum is a primary source or secondary source? We have 1952 from slaton, false 1962 from golden. What 2 do here? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Tom Northshoreman POV dispute on Leonard Dinnestein's scholarship

Tom Northshoreman placed dispute on Frank's article for POV about removing Dinnerstein / Oney from the lede. I've no problem with mentioning Dinnerstein / Oney in body of article, but they don't belong in lede. I'm just now finding a lot of research on the web / archives-here about Dinnestein's predilection for academic dishonesty. Thanks to Oney, I learned there is no evidence (appeals / appellate courts / newspapers) about boisterous mobs of hawkers screaming Antisemitic death threats at the jury during open court in Frank's trial. Dinnerstein's "Antisemitic hoax" about "The intense summer heat necessitated that the courtroom windows be left open, and remarks from the crowds could be heard easily by those inside. "Crack the Jew's neck!" - "Lynch him!" - were some of the epithets emerging from the more boisterous. Threats were also made "against the jury that they would be lynched if they did not hang that 'damned sheeny.' " (re: Dinnerstein, Leonard, 68', American Jewish archive journal, volume 20. number 2. "Leo M. Frank and the Jewish Community", pp. 110). Wikipedia academic dishonesty article calls it fabrication (lying). There's other research on the web about "Phagan bitemark hoax" that Dinnerstein "promulgates" (re: Van Paassen, Pierre, 64', "To Number Our Days", pp. 237-8.) This is anti-scholarship, not scholarship. Gulbenk maybe you can chime in on these recent discoveries about Dinnerstein's academic dishonesty and lack of integrity for scholarship? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

There was a discussion, here, some time ago about the bogus Hang the Jew claim that Dinnerstein promoted in his original dissertation. Dinnerstein's assertion was footnoted, with a reference to an obscure (now defunct) northern (weekly?) paper (of unknown integrity) which, well over a year after the claimed events, printed a letter from an unnamed individual who claimed to have been in or from Atlanta, and who claimed to have been a witness to those events. No explanation was given as to why this anonymous Atlantan should stay quiet for so long, then find his way to this small northern town, and choose to suddenly make these claims to a weekly newspaper. But the publication of this anonymous letter coincides with the Ochs/Lasker public relations blitz to exonerate Frank. No other source/newspaper coverage had previously mentioned these sensational claims, even though there was extensive media coverage of the trial, and intense pressure to print every little detail. Subsequent to Dinnerstein's dissertation, MANY sources repeated the false accusation. I know that Oney looked into this claim, and could find no support for it. I looked for quite some time, and could find nothing pre-dating the Dinnerstein dissertation (apart from that one mention in the highly questionable northern weekly), that supports this claim. Even Dinnerstein doesn't provide another source for the claim.

The fact that Dinnerstein offers up this claim, which nicely supports the basic premise of his dissertation, without question, or even one shred of reflection on the unreliability of the source, supports GingerBreadHarlot's point about academic dishonesty. Gulbenk (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I emailed Dinnerstein in December during the peer review and I mentioned the "Hang the Jew!" quote and how Gulbenk objected to it. He replied by saying:

In fn#39 you quote Woodward saying that some contemporaries used the term "Jew pervert." I would drop the phrase "Hang the Jew" and try to use the Woodward quote. I would agree with your editor that the source for the phrase, "Hang the Jew" is not sufficient but no on would question what Woodward wrote; so use his comment.

"Your editor" refers to Gulbenk. Even Dinnerstein himself agreed that it wasn't reliable, although I don't think this should disqualify the entire work.
Incidentally, Dinnerstein also wrote later in the email:

I think Olney's book is the best one on the Frank case. I am surprised that you did not include it in your bibliography. Some of the items that you have included have serious errors in them.

Of course, we do have Oney in the bibliography, but it was buried at the time and he didn't see it. The last sentence is interesting and perhaps ironic since he casts doubt on other materials, but obviously not his own book or Oney's. Thus, the "reliability" question could go both ways. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

What a great bit of correspondence! Thanks for sharing that. I would like to see Dinnerstein update his work on Frank, to see what insights he may have gained from all the modern research, and discover the full extent of his revised thinking about this case. Have you also been in touch with Oney? Gulbenk (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and it was indeed great to hear from him. He is in his 80s, and noted to me that most of his work on the case took place in the two years preceding the first edition about 50 years ago. Thus, he probably wouldn't update it. I do agree that it would be interesting to hear his take on the more recent scholarship.
As far as Oney goes, I haven't heard from him, although I did email him once asking about Conley's family history. There was some discussion on his death year above, but I also wanted to know what the names of his parents were. I know they worked at Capital City Laundry, but that's about it. That information might shine some light on Conley's upbringing and circumstances leading up to becoming a sweeper at the NPC factory. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Another interesting bit about Oney is that he wrote an article called America's Only Anti-Semitic Lynching where right under the headline he describes Frank as "the only Jew ever lynched in the US," apparently forgetting about Samuel Bierfield. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting read, and nicely written/researched article. We can probably give Oney a pass for overlooking it, though. The motivation for the Bierfield killing doesn't appear to be anti-Semitic, and he was shot. Not what one normally thinks of when the term "lynching" is used. Gulbenk (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Tony Stewart, since you were able to email Dinnerstein on FaceBook and get him to concede as "insufficient" his fabricated evidence (that he promolgated for almost half a century in his writings) of mobs of people screaming "hang the Jew" directly at the trial jury, maybe you could ask him about the Phagan Bitemark hoax? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Harry Golden copyright violation?

Patgallacher you added the IA link https://archive.org/details/ALittleGirlIsDeadByHarryGolden of Golden's 64' Leo Frank case book "A Little Girl is Dead", isn't it copyrighted? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is, and I reverted his edit. I think having an online version to refer to is nice, and his edit was in good faith, but the article has to respect copyright law. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Harry Golden wrote another book "The Lynching of Leo Frank" 1966 https://archive.org/details/TheLynchingOfLeoFrankByHarryGolden1966 it's on IA. It looks similar to "A Little Girl is Dead" 1965. Are these two books same? ANyone know iff Golden wrote anything else about the frank case? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

They are effectively the same book, The Lynching of Leo Frank is just the British version of A Little Girl is Dead (they did not even change to British spelling). PatGallacher (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

50 years is longtime. Having second thoughts in favor of PatGallacher's recommendation for keeping it in further reading. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

POV tag

I went ahead and removed the POV tag since Oney and Dinnerstein are no longer mentioned in the lead and the points about Frank as a Yankee and the racial stereotypes used by the defense are both in the third paragraph. If it should still be there, please let me know in a comment below with what else needs to be resolved. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you concluded that the POV tag was resolved by the omission of refeences to Oney and Dinnerstein. I added the tag back when Harlot deleted this sentence:

"Scholars over the past sixty years, including Steve Oney and Leonard Dinnerstein, believe that Frank was in fact innocent."

All the issues raised before need to be addressed. If you want to add the sentence back while omitting "including Steve Oney and Leonard Dinnerstein" that is fine with me. I have avoided doing an RCP since these tend to drag on, but that is the next move. Based on the history, you, me, and Gallagher have supported some version of the language -- this seems to represent the majority of the active participants at this time. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)