![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
[Edit deleted since it contained strong BLP violations] Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 19:46, 25 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
"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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Agreed ! Thanks for looking into that. Gulbenk ( talk) 17:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(Format edit.) 64.134.43.3 ( talk) 01:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
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":
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 /info/en/?search=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 /info/en/?search=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)
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 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)
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)
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), '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)
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)
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.
It's not POV. He was an American murderer of a child, ergo the category stays. Solntsa90 ( talk) 09:43, 5 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)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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 /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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 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)
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:
"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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
[Edit deleted since it contained strong BLP violations] Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 19:46, 25 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
"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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Agreed ! Thanks for looking into that. Gulbenk ( talk) 17:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(Format edit.) 64.134.43.3 ( talk) 01:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
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":
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 /info/en/?search=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 /info/en/?search=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)
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 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)
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)
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), '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)
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)
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.
It's not POV. He was an American murderer of a child, ergo the category stays. Solntsa90 ( talk) 09:43, 5 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)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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 /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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 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)
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:
"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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)