![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A large number of reliable sources include information that Leo Frank was innocent of the murder. Many of these sources name James Conley as the likely murderer. Very few, if any, reliable secondary sources either dispute these determination or affirm the guilt of Frank. Should this statement "Scholars over the past sixty years believe that Frank was in fact innocent" be in the article lede? Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 16:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
NOTE: As of this posting there have been four or five suggestions, w/o criticism of the sources, on a better way to write the sentence. At some point, depending on how long the comments come in, I will open a section to discuss the actual language. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 12:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
This section can be used to add works supporting Frank's innocence. I've started it off -- the page numbers cited, unless it indicates otherwise, are to the author's works listed in the article bibliography. 75 of the 125 footnotes in the article are attributed to authors listed below with the majority coming from Oney and Dinnerstein so there can be little doubt of the reliability of these sources.
Dinnerstein -- Dinnerstein has written the most significant academic work on the Frank case. From his writings: "The new development which stirred Atlanta and those working to save Frank was the announcement, made on October 2, 1914, by William M. Smith, lawyer for Jim Conley, the state's key witness at the trial, that his own client had murdered Mary Phagan."(p 114) Dinnerstein (p. 162) quotes John Roche, who, he writes, chronicled the development of civil rights in the 20th century: "As one who has read the trial record half a century later, I might add... that Leo Frank was the victim of circumstantial evidence which would not hold up ten minutes in a normal courtroom then or now."("The Quest For the Dream p.91) He also writes writes that Harry Golden, another author of a Frank work, echoed Roche's opinion that no one would be convicted today on the same evidence. ("A Little Girl is Dead" p. xiv) In the New Georgia Encyclopedia (see [1] he writes “Slaton reviewed more than 10,000 pages of documents, visited the pencil factory where the murder had taken place, and finally decided that Frank was innocent. He commuted the sentence, however, to life imprisonment, assuming that Frank's innocence would eventually be fully established and he would be set free.” "The Frank case not only was a miscarriage of justice but also symbolized many of the South's fears at that time."
Oney -- Steve Oney, a journalist, has written the widely and positively reviewed account of the Frank case. The controversy over the guilty verdict started almost immediately. Speaking of the national perception of the Frank case in the first weeks of 1915,Oney writes, "Outside Georgia, the perception that the state and its citizens were involved in an anti-Semitic persecution of an innocent man became universal." (Oney p. 462) Oney in an interview with the Atlanta Constitution summarized his conclusions on the case: "It was in no way a fair trial. It would be declared a mistrial very quickly by today's standards." "In the end, though, so much of the prosecution's case doesn't hold water. I think you can tell by the end of the book that I'm pretty certain Frank was innocent." "I'm 95 percent certain Conley did it. "A year or so after the trial, Conley's lawyer, William Smith, conducted a study of the murder notes and became convinced they were the original composition of his former client. There are other things, too. During the trial, the prosecution said that Frank had assaulted Phagan outside his office on the factory floor and that she'd struck her head against a lathe, where some of her hair had been found. It turned out that the hair did not come from Phagan's head, and the prosecutor, Hugh Dorsey, knew it and withheld that information from the defense. The key physical evidence from the supposed crime scene was fallacious. To me, that's incredibly damning."
Carter -- Historian Dan T. Carter in a review of Oney's work in a review of Oney places his work within the context of previous works, "On the central issue he agrees with earlier researchers: Leo Frank did not murder Mary Phagan, and the evidence strongly suggests that Jim Conley did so." (The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 71, No. 2 (May, 2005), pp. 491-493)
Tindale George B. Tindall wrote in a review of Dinnerstein's book, "Both Governor Slaton and the judge who presided over the trial doubted Frank's guilt, as did many newsmen who covered the case and most of the subsequent students of the episode. (The Journal of American History, Vol. 55, No. 4 (Mar., 1969), pp. 877-878)
Woodward -- C. Vann Woodward wrote, "Outside the state the conviction was general that Frank was the victim of a gross injustice, if not completely innocent. He presented his own case so eloquently and so ingenuously, and the circumstance of the trial were such a glaring indication of a miscarriage of justice, that thousands of people enlisted in his cause." (p. 346) "The city police, publicly committed to the theory of Frank's guilt, and hounded by the demand for a conviction, resorted to the basest methods in collecting evidence. A Negro suspect [Conley], later implicated by evidence overwhelmingly more incriminating than any produced against Frank, was thrust aside by the cry for the blood of the 'Jew Pervert.'" (p. 435)
Melnick -- Jeffrey Melnick in "Black-Jewish Relations on Trial: Leo Frank and Jim Conley in the New South", write "unlike say, Sacco and Venzetti, or the Rosenbergs, Leo Frank’s guilt or innocence is rarely debated these days. There is near unanimity around the idea that Frank was most certainly innocent of the crime of murdering Mary Phagan; it is something like unspeakable to suggest otherwise.” (p. 7)
Lindemann -- Albert S. Lindemann wrote, "The best evidence now available indicates that the real murderer of Mary Phagan was Jim Conley, perhaps because she, encountering him after she left Frank's office, refused to give him her pay envelope, and he, in a drunken stupor, killed her to get it." (p. 254) Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 17:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Moseley -- Clement Charlton Moseley (from The Georgia Historical Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 1 (March, 1967), pp. 42-62), "The entire testimony of the floorsweeper, contradictory from the beginning, offered no less than five versions of the crime." (p. 44) "The much more concrete evidence against Conley was thrust aside as the public cried for the blood of the 'Jew pervert.'(p. 45)"
Watson -- D. R. Watson, in a review of Lindemann's book in "The Journal of Modern History Vol. 66, No. 2 (Jun., 1994), pp. 393-395 wrote "Turning to his main theme, Lindemann provides a succinct and very scholarly account of the three cases he compares, Dreyfus, Beilis (in which a Jew was tried in Kiev in 1913), and Frank (in which a Jew was convicted of rape and murder in Atlanta, Georgia,in 1915).There can be no doubt, of course, that all three were innocent."
Sorin -- Gerald Sorin in a book review in the AJS Review, Vol. 20, No. 2 (1995), pp. 441-447, in comparing Frank to another case wrote, "Leo Frank, on the other hand, was unjustly and wrongly convicted of murder,and later lynched." Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 18:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Arneson -- Review by Eric Arnesen, professor of history and African- American studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago in Chicago Tribune http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-01-11/entertainment/0401090529_1_mary-phagan-leo-frank-national-pencil-factory “The outlines of the story are familiar to scholars and students of the history of anti-Semitism and the South. Accused of the crime by Jim Conley, an African-American sweeper in the factory who claimed to be Frank's accomplice (Conley was the likely solo killer), Frank was relentlessly pursued--and persecuted--by the police and local prosecutors who would stop at nothing for his conviction. They got their way.” “The actual evidence against Frank was, in many cases, contradictory, exaggerated or fabricated.” Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 14:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Wilkes -- Donald E. Wilkes Jr., a Professor of Law at the University of Georgia School of Law wrote in Flagpole Magazine, "POLITICS, PREJUDICE, AND PERJURY" p. 9 (March 1, 2000) :
"The modern historical consensus, as exemplified in the Dinnerstein book, is that, in addition to being apparently the only Jewish person ever lynched in American history, Leo Frank was an innocent man convicted at an unfair trial. As two historians who closely studied his case wrote in 1956 [reference is to Charles and Louise Samuels, Night Fell on Georgia]: "Leo Frank was the victim of one of the most shocking frame-ups ever perpetrated by American law-and-order officials." History has thus vindicated the contemporary observer who witnessed the monstrous injustices committed against Frank and wrote shortly after the lynching: "Future writers ... will unanimously admit that Leo M. Frank was the victim of a biased sentiment, that his judicial rights were denied him, and that his hanging on a lonely oak was the climax of a series of flagrant violations of justice which ignominiously but undoubtedly will raise him to the position of ... [a] martyr." The PDF for this article can be downloaded from [2] in the section PUBLISHED ENCYCLOPEDIA, MAGAZINE, NEWSPAPER, AND PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL ARTICLES ONLINE. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 15:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Since so much bad information (IMO) has been presented below about Dinnerstein, I am providing below excerpts from reviews of his work in reputable, scholarly journals:
George B. Tindall The Journal of American History, Vol. 55, No. 4 (Mar., 1969), pp. 877-878
"Dinnerstein's work,however,is the first scholarly treatment and, while brieferand less detailed, explores more satisfactorily the many ramifications of the case. The author's thorough researchh is careful organization of the findings, his cautious and dispassionate appraisal presented in lean and readable prose, all combine to inspire confidence that historians now have as nearly as they shall ever have the complete account of this tragedy."
Horace Montgomery The Georgia Historical Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3 (Fall, 1970), pp. 435-437
"Dinnerstein has written the most scholarly work yet to appear on the Frank case. His research has been thorough, his judgements on legal matters are dispassionate, and his writing style is commendable."
Gene Weinstein American Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2, Part 2: Supplement (Summer, 1969), pp. 365-366
"Leonard Dinnerstein's contribution is not limited to his lucid account of the overwhelming evidence indicating Frank's innocence; drawing from interpretations of writers like Cash, Hofstadter and Higham, he also plausibly explains why Frank's guilt became a matter of faith for so many Southerners."
Bernard H. Goldstein Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Apr., 1970), pp. 171-172
"The book tells the story of the Frank case in a most illuminating and scholarly way. The Frank case deserves such treatment and it gets it here. The author gives a detailed account of the events leading up to the trial, the trial itself, and of the appeals. The Jewish and antisemitic implications are put in proper perspective in a chapter entitled 'An American Dreyfus.' It is no easy task to write about a trial without losing the dramatic effect and at the same time presenting the important implications that reside in it. This the author has done exceedingly well and he is to be commended for it."
Donald G. Macrae Journal of American Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Jul., 1970), pp. 136-137
"But he has written the best and most fully researched study of the case. I only wish he had said more about its wider implications." Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 12:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Despite extensive discussions prior to initiating this RFC, no reliable secondary sources have been presented that dispute the above references. One book by a relative of Phagan was suggested, but this book has not been reviewed in scholarly journals and the author has no academic credentials. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 17:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
1. Mary Phagan Kean The Murder of Little Mary Phagan, 1989.
2. Bradford L. Huie ( Leo Frank Trial Analysis Introduction, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank Trial Week Three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four, Closing Arguments of Frank Arthur Hooper, Luther Zeigler Rosser, and Reuben Rose Arnold, Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey, One Hundred Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty)
3. Elliot Dashfield ( Leonard Dinnerstein's Book "The Leo Frank Case", A Pseudo-History)
4. Mark Cohen ( Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case? and Did Leo Frank Confess?)
5. Scott Aaron ( Atlanta, Southern Jewry and Leo Frank)
6. Jasper Dorsey ( Marietta Daily Journal, Friday January 20, 1984 "If Trial Were Today, Frank Would Still Be Found Guilty"). Quote "The evidence there also shows Frank's religion had nothing to do with his conviction. He would have been convicted had he been a Presbyterian minister. He would also be convicted today."
7. Tom Watson Brown Notes on the Case of Leo Frank and its Aftermath Emory University, Georgia.
8. Augusta Chronicle-Herald, May 15, 1983, statement by Justice Randall Evans Jr. (see The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 297-290)
These are all well researched and scholarly treatments of the Case of Leo Frank, based on the official records and facts, unlike the so-called "scholars" really anti-Scholars that Tom Northshoreman cites as "reliable sources" (who are really POV warriors who use academic dishonesty and plagiarism in their mission to convince us Leo Frank is innocent). GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 00:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent edits.
The link you want is Here.
Notice there how User Tom (North Shoreman) has unnecessarily, but ostensibly invoked the "antisemitism" smear, as well as references to the ADL and SPLC within his request for editor comments upon the reliability of the very reliable sources you have provided. It seems clear to me that by doing so, he is hoping to attract and solicit opinions from editors with a strong personal bias in order to supplement and support him in his own personal POV. In my opinion, this type of behavior borders upon an attempt to "Game the System" in a not so obvious way, but in light of the editing history of the Leo Frank article, it is fairly obvious, at least to me, that this is the very strategy being purposely employed here.
However, take note that, regardless of whatever some editors here would like you to believe, "consensus" in Wikipedia is not determined by a majority vote. See "Wikipedia is not a democracy".
See also the Wikipedia policy on Consensus, as well as the section of the Wikipedia essay on consensus, "What consensus is not".
In order to improve this article, we must not allow ourselves to be bullied by any majority of POV pushing editors who wish to promote a fraudulent narrative to the public. 64.134.70.25 ( talk) 19:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
In here, Judge Randall Evans, Jr., stated the review of the case and discussed Leo Frank's appeals to the Supreme Court of Georgia:
Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 287
. . . The Supreme Court consisted of legendary giants — Justice Lumpkin, Justice Beverly Evans, Justice Fish, Justice Atkinson, Justice Hill, and Justice Beck. That court affirmed the conviction, with Justices Fish and Beck dissenting as to the admission of certain
Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 288
evidence; but on motion for rehearing by Frank, the entire court unanimously refused to grant the motion for rehearing.
Frank then filed an extraordinary motion for a new trial before Superior Court Judge Hill, which was overruled, and this decision was unanimously affirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia.
On June 6, 1914, Frank filed a motion to set aside the verdict, again before Judge Hill, which motion was denied. And all of the justices concurred in the denial, except Justice Fish, who was absent.
So at this point in time the record shows that two impartial judges of Superior Court in Fulton County, twelve impartial jurors in Fulton County, and six impartial justices of the Supreme Court of Georgia, all held that Leo Frank was legally tried, convicted, and sentenced to be hanged.
Bear in mind, this was not in a rural county of Georgia where influential politicians are sometimes thought to sway juries, but it was in the most populous county in the South where it was not shown or even suggested that Jews are the objects of bias.
Leo Frank's race was not an issue in the case during the trial.
But the Jewish community of the entire United States sought to shield Frank by saying he was convicted because he was a Jew! Nothing is further from the truth! Money was raised on the streets of New York and elsewhere in the Jewish community for Leo Frank's defense; the best lawyers were employed, including the top defense lawyer in Georgia, Reuben Arnold, associated with and aided by Rosser and Brandon, Herbert Haas and Leonard Haas. But the evidence was overwhelming — and it is still so today.
It is interesting to note that Gov. John M. Slaton's term as governor expired on June 21, 1915.
Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 289
Frank's final date for execution was set for the next day, June 22, 1915. On his last day in office, Governor Slaton commuted Frank's sentence to life imprisonment, thereby thwarting and overturning the due process of law as set forth by the Superior Court of Fulton County and the Supreme Court of Georgia. People were so aroused and dumbfounded by this maneuver they went
to the Slaton Mansion. But the Governor called out the National Guard for his protection, and succeeded in escaping. Mobs formed in many other parts of Georgia on learning of the rape of the judicial process by Slaton.
The Jewish community nationwide directed its wrath in large part towards Thomas E. Watson of Thomson, charging that Watson had written incendiary articles in his Jeffersonian, which contributed to Frank's conviction. They urged that Frank was a victim of racial prejudice and bias towards Jews.
Now comes "newly discovered evidence" which is claimed would have proven Frank innocent. Not so! A year ago the new witness, one Alonzo Mann, was first located, and said that as a young man he saw a Negro with the body of Mary Phagan in the basement of the factory building, and that he had remained silent for around seventy years because he was so young at the time, and he just didn't know what to do about it. Our State Department of Archives even wrote in one of its publications that this "new evidence" seemed to prove Frank innocent. I wrote the Department of Archives and pointed out that this was not new evidence at all — that during the trial of the case it was plainly proven that Jim Conley took the body to the basement — and the Archives Department replied with an apology and, in effect, said it had goofed. That correspondence is now a part of our Department of Archives.
Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 290
The suggestion that a governor or Board of Pardons and Paroles may pardon a deceased person is completely ridiculous.
The Constitution of Georgia provides that "the legislative, judicial, and executive powers shall forever remain separate and distinct." The executive department has no power whatever to reverse, change, or wipe out a decision by the courts, albeit while the prisoner is in life he may be pardoned. But a deceased party can not be a party to legal proceedings (Eubank v. Barber, 115 Ga. App. 217-18). If Leo Frank were still in life, he could apply for pardon, but after death neither he nor any other person may apply for him. As the Supreme Court of Georgia held in Grubb v. Bullock, Governor, 44 Ga. 379: "It [pardon] must be granted the principal upon his application, or be evidenced by ratification of the application by his acceptance of it [the pardon]." Leo Frank's case was finally terminated absolutely against him by the Supreme Court of Georgia on June 6, 1914. He lived thereafter until August 16, 1915, and never did apply for pardon. It is too late now for any consideration to be given a pardon for Leo Frank. Pardon can only be granted to a person in life, not to a dead person. To illustrate the folly of such proceedings, could someone at this late date apply for a divorce on behalf of Leo Frank?
The blood of a little girl cries out from the ground for justice. I pray the sun will never rise to shine upon that day in Georgia when we shall have so blinded ourselves to the records, to the evidence, to the judgments of the court, and the judgment of the people, as to rub out, change, and reverse the judgment of the courts that has stood for seventy years! God forbid!
End of Quote. Obviously there are many prominent people who support the guilt of Leo Frank, the consensus of researchers is that Leo Frank's guilt or innocence is divided. GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 21:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Nine reliable sources arguing Leo Frank's guilt. GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 03:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
A secondary source must pass the test of reliability before it can be deemed a reliable source, and especially so when such secondary sources conflict with primary sources, as is the case here. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability the test of reliability requires, at the bare minimum, "a reputation for FACT-CHECKING and ACCURACY" (Emphasis mine).
Wikipedia:Verifiability specifically identifies acceptable reliable sources as follows:
"If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.
Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications."
Other reliable sources include:
University-level textbooks Books published by respected publishing houses Magazines Journals Mainstream newspapers
Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria."
Wikipedia:Verifiability does not place a heirarchy upon these sources as to reliability other than saying that "academic and peer-reviewed publications are USUALLY the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science" (Emphasis mine). This is not to say, however, as User Tom (North Shoreman) would have us believe, that they are the ONLY reliable sources that Wikipedia deems acceptable.
But beyond this, before ANY source can be considered a "reliable source" it MUST pass the test of reliability.
When a "scholar", such as Dinnerstein, promulgates supposed facts that are demonstrably wrong, he not only fails the test of fact checking, but the test of accuracy as well. This alone damages his reputation for fact checking, AND accuracy, and renders his work unreliable. Any subsequent "scholar" who follows Dinnerstein, and includes his erroneous material in their own works have failed these tests as well. It is not a matter of having a majority. If the stated facts are wrong, they are wrong, no matter how many "scholars" agree that they are so. One has to provide evidence against evidence, not conjecture against evidence.
For example, if a million "scholars" claim that the Earth is flat, and only one hundred "scholars" claim that the Earth is round, that does not make the Earth flat, even though using User Tom (North Shoreman)'s logic, it would. Yet if Wikipedia stated in its own voice that the Earth was flat, based upon the million, but without regard for the hundred who convey the fact that the million are very demonstrably wrong, its own reputation for fact checking and accuracy would very soon suffer greatly for it, and this is exactly what is happening in regard to its article on Leo Frank.
By pushing their own POV, the pro-Frank editors here are doing just that, as they are collectively engaged, and involving Wikipedia in a disgraceful act of public deception as long as they continue the attempt to validate their POV through the use of seriously questionable sources, as well as consistent obsfucation of the true facts, history, and evidence in the Frank case in order to employ this Wikipedia article as a dishonest vehicle to whitewash the image of Leo Frank.
On a related note, does User Tom (North Shoreman) have anything to say about the purposeful POV vandalism as regards deletion of relevant facts as demonstrated at length in the "FA candidate" discussion above, other than his usual sneering and smearing (especially in regard to my own good faith contributions)? No.
Again, as stated in Wikipedia:Verifiability -
"The word 'source' in Wikipedia has three meanings:
The type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book) The creator of the work (for example, the writer) The publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press)
All three can affect reliability."
In this case, the reliability of certain creators (writers) of various works supporting the proposed lede statement are being brought into question over the issues of anti-scholarship historiography and academic dishonesty, but the editor who initiated the Request for Comment here also maintains that certain sources which dispute the proposed conclusion or affirm the guilt of Frank are either too few, or "unreliable".
The question of "too few" is addressed above. As to the question of reliability of the various sources attacked by this editor, I hereby offer the following discussion:
When User Tom (North Shoreman) argues that, "One book by a relative of Phagan was suggested, but this book has not been reviewed in scholarly journals and the author has no academic credentials."
He thereby implies that the book by Mary Phagan Kean is not a reliable source. Accordingly, he ostensibly expects everyone here to accept his own personal opinion, over that of Wikipedia itself, as to what constitutes a reliable source.
The publishing information from Mary Phagan Kean's book is as follows:
New Horizon Press, P.O. 669, Far Hills, New Jersey 07931.
Is the New Horizon Press not a respectable publishing house?
Is Mary Phagan Kean therefore not a reliable non-academic source?
Does she not pass the test of reliability in terms of fact checking and accuracy?
Remembering that according to Wikipedia:Verifiability "peer review in any scholarly journal" is not required for such sources, is Mary Phagan Kean's book "unreliable" as well?
What about Tom Watson Brown's book, Published by Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.?
Is U.S. Senator Tom Watson's Jeffersonian Publishing Company not a respectable publishing house?
Does Tom Watson Brown not pass the test of reliability in terms of fact checking and accuracy?
Remembering that according to Wikipedia:Verifiability "peer review in any scholarly journal" is not required for such sources, is Tom Watson Brown's book "unreliable" as well?
What about Tom Watson's magazine?
Is it not a "magazine" as listed in Wikipedia:Verifiability under the label, "Other reliable sources"?
Does it not pass the test of reliability in terms of fact checking and accuracy?
Remembering that according to Wikipedia:Verifiability "peer review in any scholarly journal" is not required for such sources, is it "unreliable" as well?
Is it not stated in the[ New Georgia Encyclopedia] that, "Despite controversy and opposition, Watson's weekly and monthly publications commanded a loyal political force, and no Georgia governor between 1906 and 1922 was elected without Watson's support"?
According to User Tom (North Shoreman), and his fellow travelers, the unwarranted smear of "antisemitism" is enough to disqualify both Watson, and his grandson. But is the demonstrated anti-black racism of Leo Frank's defense team, as well as all of the pro-Frank "scholars" who, without sufficient evidence, accuse the negro Jim Conley of murder enough to smear them as well?
Let us consider the charge of "antisemitism" leveled against Tom Watson. As also stated in the[ New Georgia Encyclopedia]:
"...Watson, who had refused offers to assist in the defense and in the prosecution, remained publicly silent on the case until Hoke Smith's newspaper printed (a pro-Frank/anti-Georgia) editorial.
Watson assailed the Journal for judicial tampering (the case was under appeal), took on northern publishers who clamored for a new trial, and began a two-year defense of Georgia's judicial system and demonstration of the guilt of the "libertine Jew." Editorials in his weekly exploded into expansive evidentiary and trial reviews in Watson's Magazine. Georgia governor John M. Slaton commuted Frank's death sentence during his final days in office, outraging many Georgians and prompting Watson to ask his readers "whether Lynch law is not better than no law at all." Two months later Frank was taken from the jail in Milledgeville by a group of prominent Marietta citizens, driven back to Marietta, and hanged. Watson responded to the news through the Jeffersonian: 'Now let outsiders attend to their own business, AND LEAVE OURS ALONE.' For many, the episode branded Watson as an anti-Semite for the only time in his life."
Take note that the New Georgia Encyclopedia specifically states that it was the ONLY TIME IN HIS LIFE that Watson was branded an anti-semite. Does User Tom (North Shoreman) consider even the possibility that perhaps this charge was levied against Watson merely to discredit him, or assassinate his character, without having any basis in fact?
When User Tom (North Shoreman) argues that, "So your idea of scholarship is a relative of Mary Phagan (Kean), the murder victim, and a relative of Tom Watson (Brown), the antisimetic and racist politician who helped incite the lynching of Frank. Between Kean and Brown I count one published book (unreviewed in any scholarly journal) and zero articles in peer reviewed journals." He is unjustifiably attacking two people simply because they are RELATED to two major figures in the history of the Phagan murder, and because they disagree with him as to the guilt of Leo Frank, his points regarding "scholarship", and "review" being moot, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability as shown above.
Then User Tom (North Shoreman) goes on to attack Tom Watson Brown for publishing the following statement: "Leo Frank cult members (known as Frankites) are posing as neutral reviewers and attempting to convince people not to read Tom Watson's analysis about the Frank-Phagan affair. Watson's analysis of the case is the controversial forbidden fruit of truth that has been censored for more than 100 years."
My take on this? That it is EXACTLY what is truly happening, it is, in fact, happening in this very article, and it is NOT "antisemitism" to tell the truth.
As to User Tom (North Shoreman)'s unsubstantiated, reckless language against Tom Watson Brown, and in a lesser sense, Mary Phagan Kean, I would say it borders on a BLP violation.
Now: What about the Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta Georgian, and the Atlanta Journal?
Are/were they not "Mainstream newspapers"?
Remembering that according to Wikipedia:Verifiability "peer review in any scholarly journal" is not required for such sources, are they "unreliable" as well?
Perhaps so, as far as User Tom (North Shoreman) is concerned, because they actually recorded and published much of the raw testimony and evidence in the Frank case on a daily basis, AS IT HAPPENED, and, as it happens, NONE of them reported a word about the "Hang the Jew", or "Bite marks" nonsense found in User Tom (North Shoreman)'s so-called, "reliable sources" which are now being brought into question.
It seems to me, especially when one considers the large number of individual reporters who actively and contemporaneously contributed articles to the above mentioned newspapers, we have numerous reliable secondary sources either arguing Frank's guilt, or providing supporting evidence which leads the reader to that conclusion, yet according to User Tom (North Shoreman), and his fellow travelers, it appears the very fact that they DO, either directly or indirectly, infer or promote the idea of Frank's guilt renders them altogether "unreliable".
Again, I oppose, because the statement User Tom (North Shoreman) wants to put in the lede is based upon the works of various writers who have brought the reliability of their own "scholarship" into question, not only by excluding certain relevant items of fact or evidence crucial to the understanding of the story of Leo Frank, but by the purposeful inclusion in their writings of certain items which are demonstrably false.
One other thing, somewhat related to this discussion:
Regarding the lede statement, "...drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States" should be changed to something in the order of "...sparked accusations by the Jewish community of antisemitism in the United States". 64.134.98.211 ( talk) 05:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
User Tom (North Shoreman) needs to worry less about "who" I am, and more about what I have to contribute. 64.134.98.211 ( talk) 00:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
ALSO: No. The sentence is NOT totally accurate and NOT fully supported by Lindemann. Far from it.
It was NOT Frank's "conviction, appeals, death sentence, commutation, and subsequent extrajudicial hanging in 1915" which "drew attention to questions of antisemitism" in the United States. It WAS the Ochs and Lasker MEDIA CAMPAIGN, and that campaign didn't "draw attention" to questions of "antisemitism", it RAISED them; it PROVOKED them; it CREATED them. Reversing cause and effect here is no different than outright lying. 64.134.70.25 ( talk) 00:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
In response to Bus stop - 11:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC):
"I think that most sources affirm the presence of the factor of antisemitism in this case."
First of all, "good, quality sources" do not rely upon fabricated falsehoods and obsfucation of evidence in order to make their point. Secondly, the issue of using the term "most sources" here borders upon logical fallacy, as this has already been addressed in terms of "the million vs the hundred" example given above.
No matter how many people you can find who are willing, for whatever reason, to promulgate a lie, it still remains a lie. Therefore, your contention that "We should abide by the findings of most good quality sources", however true on its face, is demonstratably NOT true, when the sources you refer to are actively, and collectively engaged in promoting an obvious, provable lie.
The language the in lede statement, "...drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States" strongly implies the idea that there existed an atmosphere of "antisemitism" in the United States, and especially in the South, either during, or even prior to the trial and conviction of Leo Frank, and User Gulbenk has already rather eloquently explained to you why that simply was not so.
The change I have proposed there is more fitting to the actual truth of the matter, because there were no existing "questions of antisemitism" to draw anyone's attention to prior to the ones created out of whole cloth by the post-conviction Jewish media campaign to exonerate Frank. Please see for yourself in the following reliable source: "The Rich Jews Indict a State! The Whole South Traduced in the Matter of Leo Frank" from the October, 1915 issue of Watson's Magazine. 64.134.98.211 ( talk) 23:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Dopey IP, your link doesn't even work. What is preventing you from getting a real account on wikipedia? GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 01:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
What do we know about PBS? According to Wikipedia "The service has more than 350 member television stations, many owned by educational institutions or non-profit groups affiliated with a local public school district, collegiate educational institution or by state government-owned or related entities." I would contend that there is a degree of scholarship behind a PBS production. Bus stop ( talk) 17:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
User Tom (North Shoreman) and friends seem to be pulling out all stops to mislead and convince other editors here into believing that certain sources which may be biased are not reliable sources. It's almost like they are intentionally playing people to see if they can get them to surrender to User Tom (North Shoreman)'s strong, but erroneous, point of view.
While promoting his own biased sources, which have now come under scrutiny for non-reliability, User Tom (North Shoreman) now claims that certain sources with an opposing bias can not be cited to support critical examination of his own preferred sources. This is untrue, no matter what User Tom (North Shoreman) and his fellow travelers have to say.
According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, as to biased or opinionated sources:
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.
According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, as to bias in sources:
A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view.
Attributing and specifying biased statements
Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.
Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player. But they will not argue over this.
According to Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources, as to non-neutral sources:
One of the perennial issues that arises during editor disputes is how the neutral point of view policy interacts with the reliable sources guideline. Arguments often arise which contend that a given source ought to be excluded as unreliable because the source has an identifiable point of view. These arguments cross a wide variety of topics and stem from a common misunderstanding about how NPOV interacts with RS. The neutral point of view policy applies to Wikipedia articles as a whole: articles should reflect an appropriate balance of differing points of view. The reliable sources guideline refers to a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and reliability--not the source's neutrality. Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view.
Therefore, the references User GingerBreadHarlot has brought into this discussion are not only perfectly valid as points of argument in this particular Request for Comment, or on this talk page in general, but are also perfectly valid to use as reliable sources in the article itself, User Tom (North Shoreman) and his fellow travelers' opinions notwithstanding. 64.134.98.211 ( talk) 19:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |author=
(
help)GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 15:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Leonard Dinnerstein was interviewed for the video documentary The People vs. Leo Frank (2009). In that interview, he makes statements [redacted, WP:BLP] about the death notes found on Mary Phagan’s body. The documentary shows us a dramatization of the interrogation of Jim Conley by the Atlanta Police in May, 1913 – and Dinnerstein then states: “They [the Atlanta police] asked him [Jim Conley] about the notes. He said ‘I can’t read and write.’ That happened to come up in a conversation between the police and Frank, and Frank said, ‘Of course he can write; I know he can write, he used to borrow money from me and sign promissory notes.’ So Conley had not been completely honest with the police.” (The People vs. Leo Frank, 2009). This Dinnerstein segment has been posted on YouTube and the documentary is commercially available. Notice that Dinnerstein’s clear implication is that Leo Frank blew the whistle on Jim Conley’s false claim of being illiterate, and that Frank was the instrument of this discovery. [redacted, WP:BLP] Leo Frank was arrested on April 29, 1913 and Jim Conley was arrested two days later, on May 1. Leo Frank never admitted to the police that he knew Jim Conley could write until weeks after that fact was already known to investigators. Pinkerton detective Harry Scott was informed that Jim Conley could write by an operative who spoke to a pawnbroker – not by Leo Frank. On May 18, 1913, after two and a half weeks of interrogation, Atlanta police finally got Conley to admit he wrote the Mary Phagan death notes — but Conley revealed he did so at the behest of Leo Frank. After several successive interrogations, the approximate chain of events became clear. Leo Frank kept completely quiet about the fact that Jim Conley could read and write for more than two weeks, even though Jim Conley – working as a roustabout at the factory – had done written inventory work for Frank. Leo Frank also allowed Jim Conley to run a side business out of the National Pencil Company, wheeling and dealing pocket watches under questionable circumstances. In one of these deals, Conley was said to have defrauded Mr. Arthur Pride, who testified about it at the Leo Frank trial. Frank himself vetted and managed Conley’s pocket watch contracts, keeping them locked in his office safe. Leo Frank would take out small payments from Conley’s weekly wages and pay down the pawnshop owner’s loans. Leo Frank didn’t tell investigators he was overseeing Conley’s watch contracts until it was far too late, after the police had found out about it independently. I encourage people to read the official Leo Frank trial Brief of Evidence, 1913, to see for themselves whether or not Leo Frank informed the police about Jim Conley’s literacy immediately after he was arrested – or if he only admitted to that fact after the police had found out about it through other means weeks later. This is something that Leonard Dinnerstein, familiar as he has been – for decades – with the primary sources in the case, must have known for a very long time. Yet in this very recent interview, he [redacted, WP:BLP] tries to make us believe that Frank was the one who exposed this important fact. [redacted, WP:BLP
Comments were received above that supported the concept that the information should be included in the lead, but there were differences on how to phrase it. Bob K31416 proposed the following language that would replace the current fourth paragraph of the lead (the language in contention is in bold):
Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, which said that it was done "Without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence…”. The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted.
Along with this, a section "Criticism of the trial and the verdict" is being added to the body of the article. [18] This section attributes in the text the issue of consensus to one source with two supporting sources in a footnote. There are also numerous other footnotes to specific authors expressing their opinions on Frank's innocence. A second paragraph provides an overview of the critics arguments. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 19:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I count the vote as 6 opposing and 5 supporting. You don't have consensus. Please check the count again. GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 18:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment The new wording says basically what I believe the original proposal said. I believe the new section added to the body of the article addresses the concerns about attributing the statement raised by Fyddlestix, Tonystewart14, and lisa needs braces!. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 20:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I counted the RFC vote, and it looked to me as if the vote was 6 opposed to 5 supporting. Can someone check this for me? Looks like the opposed have higher vote. GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 18:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
sorry to jump in but I think the intro paragraph sentence re "consensus" needs a citation. I think there was substantial evidence of Frank's guilt, and over and over it seems that some people are just assuming - *a priori* - that because he was Jewish he was wrongly convicted. This is nonsense - at best it can be said there is reasonable doubt, but consensus? amongst who, ADL and AIPAC members? Consider {with no recommendation to the website generally, just the article:
http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/04/100-reasons-proving-leo-frank-is-guilty/
I think this article has attracted both anti-Semites and Jews each of whom fail to consider the primary evidence, and in the case of the latter, often turn to Jewish apologists for Frank, some of whom have been discredited, most of whom may be presumed to have set out to prove him innocent and cherry-picked here and there, with no interest in considering fairly the whole record. I see this conversation has been held, but I think it should be reconsidered. Frank was convicted on a great deal of evidence which a jury believed. An encyclopedia, in whatever form, should not be a place where ethnic loyalties [or prejudice] hold sway.
The Jewish community rallied around Frank immediately, showing no sign of considering that he was guilty - hence a certain cult of personality has grown up around Frank. He *must* be innocent as the ADL was formed, and aren't they tireless fighters for justice? Everyone knows that Wikipedia is heavily patrolled by Israeli "hasbara" editors and presumably entries like this have similar treatment. I don't blame them, one bit, I would too, but here - this article reads like propaganda, and does not reflect what the preponderance of the credible evidence indicates: Leo Frank murdered a little girl, and the Jewish community didn't care one bit from the word go whether or not the evidence pointed to Frank's guilt. They simply presupposed he was innocent {and some simply may not have cared that the victim was not Jewish}. 38.97.64.130 ( talk) 17:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reb6477
In the lead Meishern added "who at the time was a law partner of Frank's lead defense attorney" to the sentence speaking of Slaton's commutation. Meishern claimed in his edit summary that "added important fact (backed by 5 references) that balances article out, otherwise the reason for the rioting mentioned in the following sentence is never mentioned." In fact, Slaton's commutation had nothing to do with the status of his law practice and the sources Meishern cites do not support Meishern's claims. The five sources:
Dinnerstein pp. 123-124 -- These pages mention the partnership but do not link it to the rioting.
Frey p. 79 -- Mentions the partnership but does not mention the riot at all.
Lindemann pp.269-270 Mentions the partnership but does not claim that the rioting had anything to due with his partnersip status. In fact, Lindemann says that the governor had received a thousand death threats while he was considering the case. He mentions that Watson claimed that Slaton "had sold out to the Jews and their agents."
Spector p. 115 -- This provides a very cursory review of the Frank case (about two pages), and does not mention the riot at all. He does say that because of the partnership and the fact that Slaton had previously had a Jewish partner the "cry went out that 'Jew money' had purchased a commutation." In fact this was largely circulated by Watson and occurred after the riot.
Martin p.9 -- You used an incorrect link -- the actual one is [22]. It mentions the Frank case but says absolutely nothing about the riot and only mentions Slaton's courage.
Reliable sources make it clear that the rioting was based on the outrage over the fact of the commutation, but nowhere do they state that it was the partnership, rather than hatred and prejudice against Frank, that sparked the outrage. The partnership (Dinnerstein has an excellent explanation of how it came about) is not a significant enough fact for it to be included in the lead. It was not mentioned in the lead at the time of the peer review and has only recently become a hobby of the banned GBH, one new editor whose first and only edits ever supported GBH, and one other new editor banned as a sockpuppet of GBH. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 01:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
PS Here are the sentences in question after I reverted Meishern: "Then Governor John M. Slaton commuted Frank's sentence to life imprisonment. A crowd of 1,200 marched on the governor's mansion in protest." I think it is self explanatory that they protested because they thought the commutation was wrong. Plus, there is much more discussion about Slaton's thoroughness and political bravery in the reliable sources than about the partnership -- this would be more significant for the lead than veiled references to a COI. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 01:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow - fwiw re "The partnership (Dinnerstein has an excellent explanation of how it came about) is not a significant enough fact for it to be included in the lead." I find that assertion to be absurd. If Defendant has a sentence COMMUTED by a politician who was in any way associated with defendant's LAWYER - that is **clearly** important, and **clearly** suggestive if not simply demonstrative of undue influence and a commutation based not on fact but connections.
Note that the posthumous pardon didn't even reach guilt or innocence - in other words the organized Jewish community got a second commutation for a guy who was porbably guilt because he was Jewish and the vic wasn't - and above I see a seasoned wiki editor clearly engaging in rhetorical legerdemain and simple dishonesty. Perhaps an ADL employee? If Frank wasn't Jewish, few would doubt his guilt on the actual trial evidence
http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/04/100-reasons-proving-leo-frank-is-guilty/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.64.130 ( talk) 17:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a new one -- at 11 a.m you're in the middle of a content dispute on the article and by 1:30 p.m. you claim to be an objective reviewer with no conflict of interest in the results. While it is true that you've only made one edit to the main article, you ignore the fact that you spent considerable time debating the article contents in the recently closed Rfc (in which you were strongly against the consensus opinion which prevailed). You made over a dozen edits (not counting small edits to correct typos) and consistently projected a point of view that rejected the legitimacy of the major reliable sources on the subject.
In this edit [23] you wrote, "Furthermore, WP:MOSINTRO warns us to pay extra care to keep the lede WP:NPOV, while this sentence is far from neutral, especially when it unconvincingly relies on other watery WP:POV sources that crumble when WP:IRS is applied." In fact, the "watery sources" you refer to are listed here and include the sources that are used for the majority of the info in the article.
In this edit [24] Please address the concerns regarding the lede statement I have expressed, or perhaps the sentence in question should be rewritten as "Since mid-1970's, Mr. Steve Oney, an educated Georgian blogger, believes that Frank was in fact innocent." In fact, Oney has written possibly the most respected work on the Frank case and he is far from a mere "blogger".
In this edit [25] you wrote, "So far these gurus sound somewhat incompetent, never mind their racism for trying to push the guilt from Frank onto an African American. As though there are not enough false accusations of African Americans raping and murdering white girls in the post-reconstruction south for these writers to go out of their way to create yet another vile stereotype." In fact, as the Rfc affirmed, the majority of historians acknowledge that Frank did not murder Phagan and Conley is the only other suspect -- indeed if Frank didn't do it then Conley's testimony clearly implicates himself as the murderer. Yet you label any historian who disagrees with you as a racist who is simply creating a trumped up case against Conley.
In the recent debate, I reverted your edit because you edit summary contained false claims -- clams that weren't supported by your edit summary. You acknowledged that you were wrong in this edit [26] but in this edit [27] you threaten to treat a difference of opinion as vandalism and accuse me of pursuing a "personal POV". This charge of a personal POV was made constantly by folks on your side during the Rfc, but the result was that the Rfc confirmed that the only POV in play on my part was the POV presented by the majority of historians. This type of personal attack on my motives may be acceptable in normal talk page discussions, but they have no place in a Class A review -- especially when the person you attacked is a major contributor to the article. You can't unring the attacks you have made on the reliable sources and on my motives. You need to withdraw as reviewer. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 23:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
"Two months later, Frank was kidnapped from prison by a group of 25 armed men and driven 170 miles (270 km) to Marietta, Georgia where he was lynched." should have a comma before where — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.14.197 ( talk) 09:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
If you go to the front page of Wikipedia, Leo Frank is mentioned under "On this day...". Incidentally, today is the 100th anniversary of Frank's lynching. I was hoping for this article to be under Today's Featured Article as I started to work on it several months ago, but I believe we can nonetheless be proud of it being on the front page and getting people to view the article, which seems to be the case so far today. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 09:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Leo Frank has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Marietta is not 170 miles from Atlanta. It's 20 miles from Atlanta. 207.69.174.7 ( talk) 13:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I happened across this argument, and my feeling is that there's something to the complaint, but the approach is wrong. You should not be removing a sentence about Frank's wrongful conviction, but you should slightly modify it - but the real problem is simply that the article has a "Criticism" section. Separate criticism sections are always problematic, especially when people use that term in the sense of opposition rather than scholarly evaluation, because they encourage POV.
The RFC currently is much clearer than the article - it lists sources for arguments for and against the idea that Leo Frank was innocent. I don't know which of those sources is reliable and which is fringe - that's up to you. But provided they are not all from some fringe Nazi sympathizers someplace, the proper text is not The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted. More like Many researchers believe that Frank was wrongly convicted, though others argue that his guilt was established by the facts at trial (or whatever, I'm not really sure about what they actually said). And of course you have a block of citations behind each part of that.
The same citations should appear below in a section that, to be clearer, shouldn't be "Criticism of the trial and the verdict" but maybe "Analysis of the trial and verdict". Or "Legal analysis", maybe. That section should include both points of view without prejudice.
Remember - Wikipedia should be striving for verifiability, not truth. We cannot decide whether Frank is innocent or guilty; it's beyond our pay grade. Our mission is just to get a summary of the major thoughts about the idea, studded with references that the serious researcher can pursue to make his own decision. Wnt ( talk) 22:36, 19 August 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A large number of reliable sources include information that Leo Frank was innocent of the murder. Many of these sources name James Conley as the likely murderer. Very few, if any, reliable secondary sources either dispute these determination or affirm the guilt of Frank. Should this statement "Scholars over the past sixty years believe that Frank was in fact innocent" be in the article lede? Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 16:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
NOTE: As of this posting there have been four or five suggestions, w/o criticism of the sources, on a better way to write the sentence. At some point, depending on how long the comments come in, I will open a section to discuss the actual language. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 12:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
This section can be used to add works supporting Frank's innocence. I've started it off -- the page numbers cited, unless it indicates otherwise, are to the author's works listed in the article bibliography. 75 of the 125 footnotes in the article are attributed to authors listed below with the majority coming from Oney and Dinnerstein so there can be little doubt of the reliability of these sources.
Dinnerstein -- Dinnerstein has written the most significant academic work on the Frank case. From his writings: "The new development which stirred Atlanta and those working to save Frank was the announcement, made on October 2, 1914, by William M. Smith, lawyer for Jim Conley, the state's key witness at the trial, that his own client had murdered Mary Phagan."(p 114) Dinnerstein (p. 162) quotes John Roche, who, he writes, chronicled the development of civil rights in the 20th century: "As one who has read the trial record half a century later, I might add... that Leo Frank was the victim of circumstantial evidence which would not hold up ten minutes in a normal courtroom then or now."("The Quest For the Dream p.91) He also writes writes that Harry Golden, another author of a Frank work, echoed Roche's opinion that no one would be convicted today on the same evidence. ("A Little Girl is Dead" p. xiv) In the New Georgia Encyclopedia (see [1] he writes “Slaton reviewed more than 10,000 pages of documents, visited the pencil factory where the murder had taken place, and finally decided that Frank was innocent. He commuted the sentence, however, to life imprisonment, assuming that Frank's innocence would eventually be fully established and he would be set free.” "The Frank case not only was a miscarriage of justice but also symbolized many of the South's fears at that time."
Oney -- Steve Oney, a journalist, has written the widely and positively reviewed account of the Frank case. The controversy over the guilty verdict started almost immediately. Speaking of the national perception of the Frank case in the first weeks of 1915,Oney writes, "Outside Georgia, the perception that the state and its citizens were involved in an anti-Semitic persecution of an innocent man became universal." (Oney p. 462) Oney in an interview with the Atlanta Constitution summarized his conclusions on the case: "It was in no way a fair trial. It would be declared a mistrial very quickly by today's standards." "In the end, though, so much of the prosecution's case doesn't hold water. I think you can tell by the end of the book that I'm pretty certain Frank was innocent." "I'm 95 percent certain Conley did it. "A year or so after the trial, Conley's lawyer, William Smith, conducted a study of the murder notes and became convinced they were the original composition of his former client. There are other things, too. During the trial, the prosecution said that Frank had assaulted Phagan outside his office on the factory floor and that she'd struck her head against a lathe, where some of her hair had been found. It turned out that the hair did not come from Phagan's head, and the prosecutor, Hugh Dorsey, knew it and withheld that information from the defense. The key physical evidence from the supposed crime scene was fallacious. To me, that's incredibly damning."
Carter -- Historian Dan T. Carter in a review of Oney's work in a review of Oney places his work within the context of previous works, "On the central issue he agrees with earlier researchers: Leo Frank did not murder Mary Phagan, and the evidence strongly suggests that Jim Conley did so." (The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 71, No. 2 (May, 2005), pp. 491-493)
Tindale George B. Tindall wrote in a review of Dinnerstein's book, "Both Governor Slaton and the judge who presided over the trial doubted Frank's guilt, as did many newsmen who covered the case and most of the subsequent students of the episode. (The Journal of American History, Vol. 55, No. 4 (Mar., 1969), pp. 877-878)
Woodward -- C. Vann Woodward wrote, "Outside the state the conviction was general that Frank was the victim of a gross injustice, if not completely innocent. He presented his own case so eloquently and so ingenuously, and the circumstance of the trial were such a glaring indication of a miscarriage of justice, that thousands of people enlisted in his cause." (p. 346) "The city police, publicly committed to the theory of Frank's guilt, and hounded by the demand for a conviction, resorted to the basest methods in collecting evidence. A Negro suspect [Conley], later implicated by evidence overwhelmingly more incriminating than any produced against Frank, was thrust aside by the cry for the blood of the 'Jew Pervert.'" (p. 435)
Melnick -- Jeffrey Melnick in "Black-Jewish Relations on Trial: Leo Frank and Jim Conley in the New South", write "unlike say, Sacco and Venzetti, or the Rosenbergs, Leo Frank’s guilt or innocence is rarely debated these days. There is near unanimity around the idea that Frank was most certainly innocent of the crime of murdering Mary Phagan; it is something like unspeakable to suggest otherwise.” (p. 7)
Lindemann -- Albert S. Lindemann wrote, "The best evidence now available indicates that the real murderer of Mary Phagan was Jim Conley, perhaps because she, encountering him after she left Frank's office, refused to give him her pay envelope, and he, in a drunken stupor, killed her to get it." (p. 254) Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 17:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Moseley -- Clement Charlton Moseley (from The Georgia Historical Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 1 (March, 1967), pp. 42-62), "The entire testimony of the floorsweeper, contradictory from the beginning, offered no less than five versions of the crime." (p. 44) "The much more concrete evidence against Conley was thrust aside as the public cried for the blood of the 'Jew pervert.'(p. 45)"
Watson -- D. R. Watson, in a review of Lindemann's book in "The Journal of Modern History Vol. 66, No. 2 (Jun., 1994), pp. 393-395 wrote "Turning to his main theme, Lindemann provides a succinct and very scholarly account of the three cases he compares, Dreyfus, Beilis (in which a Jew was tried in Kiev in 1913), and Frank (in which a Jew was convicted of rape and murder in Atlanta, Georgia,in 1915).There can be no doubt, of course, that all three were innocent."
Sorin -- Gerald Sorin in a book review in the AJS Review, Vol. 20, No. 2 (1995), pp. 441-447, in comparing Frank to another case wrote, "Leo Frank, on the other hand, was unjustly and wrongly convicted of murder,and later lynched." Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 18:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Arneson -- Review by Eric Arnesen, professor of history and African- American studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago in Chicago Tribune http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-01-11/entertainment/0401090529_1_mary-phagan-leo-frank-national-pencil-factory “The outlines of the story are familiar to scholars and students of the history of anti-Semitism and the South. Accused of the crime by Jim Conley, an African-American sweeper in the factory who claimed to be Frank's accomplice (Conley was the likely solo killer), Frank was relentlessly pursued--and persecuted--by the police and local prosecutors who would stop at nothing for his conviction. They got their way.” “The actual evidence against Frank was, in many cases, contradictory, exaggerated or fabricated.” Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 14:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Wilkes -- Donald E. Wilkes Jr., a Professor of Law at the University of Georgia School of Law wrote in Flagpole Magazine, "POLITICS, PREJUDICE, AND PERJURY" p. 9 (March 1, 2000) :
"The modern historical consensus, as exemplified in the Dinnerstein book, is that, in addition to being apparently the only Jewish person ever lynched in American history, Leo Frank was an innocent man convicted at an unfair trial. As two historians who closely studied his case wrote in 1956 [reference is to Charles and Louise Samuels, Night Fell on Georgia]: "Leo Frank was the victim of one of the most shocking frame-ups ever perpetrated by American law-and-order officials." History has thus vindicated the contemporary observer who witnessed the monstrous injustices committed against Frank and wrote shortly after the lynching: "Future writers ... will unanimously admit that Leo M. Frank was the victim of a biased sentiment, that his judicial rights were denied him, and that his hanging on a lonely oak was the climax of a series of flagrant violations of justice which ignominiously but undoubtedly will raise him to the position of ... [a] martyr." The PDF for this article can be downloaded from [2] in the section PUBLISHED ENCYCLOPEDIA, MAGAZINE, NEWSPAPER, AND PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL ARTICLES ONLINE. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 15:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Since so much bad information (IMO) has been presented below about Dinnerstein, I am providing below excerpts from reviews of his work in reputable, scholarly journals:
George B. Tindall The Journal of American History, Vol. 55, No. 4 (Mar., 1969), pp. 877-878
"Dinnerstein's work,however,is the first scholarly treatment and, while brieferand less detailed, explores more satisfactorily the many ramifications of the case. The author's thorough researchh is careful organization of the findings, his cautious and dispassionate appraisal presented in lean and readable prose, all combine to inspire confidence that historians now have as nearly as they shall ever have the complete account of this tragedy."
Horace Montgomery The Georgia Historical Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3 (Fall, 1970), pp. 435-437
"Dinnerstein has written the most scholarly work yet to appear on the Frank case. His research has been thorough, his judgements on legal matters are dispassionate, and his writing style is commendable."
Gene Weinstein American Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2, Part 2: Supplement (Summer, 1969), pp. 365-366
"Leonard Dinnerstein's contribution is not limited to his lucid account of the overwhelming evidence indicating Frank's innocence; drawing from interpretations of writers like Cash, Hofstadter and Higham, he also plausibly explains why Frank's guilt became a matter of faith for so many Southerners."
Bernard H. Goldstein Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Apr., 1970), pp. 171-172
"The book tells the story of the Frank case in a most illuminating and scholarly way. The Frank case deserves such treatment and it gets it here. The author gives a detailed account of the events leading up to the trial, the trial itself, and of the appeals. The Jewish and antisemitic implications are put in proper perspective in a chapter entitled 'An American Dreyfus.' It is no easy task to write about a trial without losing the dramatic effect and at the same time presenting the important implications that reside in it. This the author has done exceedingly well and he is to be commended for it."
Donald G. Macrae Journal of American Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Jul., 1970), pp. 136-137
"But he has written the best and most fully researched study of the case. I only wish he had said more about its wider implications." Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 12:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Despite extensive discussions prior to initiating this RFC, no reliable secondary sources have been presented that dispute the above references. One book by a relative of Phagan was suggested, but this book has not been reviewed in scholarly journals and the author has no academic credentials. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 17:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
1. Mary Phagan Kean The Murder of Little Mary Phagan, 1989.
2. Bradford L. Huie ( Leo Frank Trial Analysis Introduction, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank Trial Week Three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four, Closing Arguments of Frank Arthur Hooper, Luther Zeigler Rosser, and Reuben Rose Arnold, Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey, One Hundred Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty)
3. Elliot Dashfield ( Leonard Dinnerstein's Book "The Leo Frank Case", A Pseudo-History)
4. Mark Cohen ( Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case? and Did Leo Frank Confess?)
5. Scott Aaron ( Atlanta, Southern Jewry and Leo Frank)
6. Jasper Dorsey ( Marietta Daily Journal, Friday January 20, 1984 "If Trial Were Today, Frank Would Still Be Found Guilty"). Quote "The evidence there also shows Frank's religion had nothing to do with his conviction. He would have been convicted had he been a Presbyterian minister. He would also be convicted today."
7. Tom Watson Brown Notes on the Case of Leo Frank and its Aftermath Emory University, Georgia.
8. Augusta Chronicle-Herald, May 15, 1983, statement by Justice Randall Evans Jr. (see The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 297-290)
These are all well researched and scholarly treatments of the Case of Leo Frank, based on the official records and facts, unlike the so-called "scholars" really anti-Scholars that Tom Northshoreman cites as "reliable sources" (who are really POV warriors who use academic dishonesty and plagiarism in their mission to convince us Leo Frank is innocent). GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 00:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent edits.
The link you want is Here.
Notice there how User Tom (North Shoreman) has unnecessarily, but ostensibly invoked the "antisemitism" smear, as well as references to the ADL and SPLC within his request for editor comments upon the reliability of the very reliable sources you have provided. It seems clear to me that by doing so, he is hoping to attract and solicit opinions from editors with a strong personal bias in order to supplement and support him in his own personal POV. In my opinion, this type of behavior borders upon an attempt to "Game the System" in a not so obvious way, but in light of the editing history of the Leo Frank article, it is fairly obvious, at least to me, that this is the very strategy being purposely employed here.
However, take note that, regardless of whatever some editors here would like you to believe, "consensus" in Wikipedia is not determined by a majority vote. See "Wikipedia is not a democracy".
See also the Wikipedia policy on Consensus, as well as the section of the Wikipedia essay on consensus, "What consensus is not".
In order to improve this article, we must not allow ourselves to be bullied by any majority of POV pushing editors who wish to promote a fraudulent narrative to the public. 64.134.70.25 ( talk) 19:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
In here, Judge Randall Evans, Jr., stated the review of the case and discussed Leo Frank's appeals to the Supreme Court of Georgia:
Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 287
. . . The Supreme Court consisted of legendary giants — Justice Lumpkin, Justice Beverly Evans, Justice Fish, Justice Atkinson, Justice Hill, and Justice Beck. That court affirmed the conviction, with Justices Fish and Beck dissenting as to the admission of certain
Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 288
evidence; but on motion for rehearing by Frank, the entire court unanimously refused to grant the motion for rehearing.
Frank then filed an extraordinary motion for a new trial before Superior Court Judge Hill, which was overruled, and this decision was unanimously affirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia.
On June 6, 1914, Frank filed a motion to set aside the verdict, again before Judge Hill, which motion was denied. And all of the justices concurred in the denial, except Justice Fish, who was absent.
So at this point in time the record shows that two impartial judges of Superior Court in Fulton County, twelve impartial jurors in Fulton County, and six impartial justices of the Supreme Court of Georgia, all held that Leo Frank was legally tried, convicted, and sentenced to be hanged.
Bear in mind, this was not in a rural county of Georgia where influential politicians are sometimes thought to sway juries, but it was in the most populous county in the South where it was not shown or even suggested that Jews are the objects of bias.
Leo Frank's race was not an issue in the case during the trial.
But the Jewish community of the entire United States sought to shield Frank by saying he was convicted because he was a Jew! Nothing is further from the truth! Money was raised on the streets of New York and elsewhere in the Jewish community for Leo Frank's defense; the best lawyers were employed, including the top defense lawyer in Georgia, Reuben Arnold, associated with and aided by Rosser and Brandon, Herbert Haas and Leonard Haas. But the evidence was overwhelming — and it is still so today.
It is interesting to note that Gov. John M. Slaton's term as governor expired on June 21, 1915.
Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 289
Frank's final date for execution was set for the next day, June 22, 1915. On his last day in office, Governor Slaton commuted Frank's sentence to life imprisonment, thereby thwarting and overturning the due process of law as set forth by the Superior Court of Fulton County and the Supreme Court of Georgia. People were so aroused and dumbfounded by this maneuver they went
to the Slaton Mansion. But the Governor called out the National Guard for his protection, and succeeded in escaping. Mobs formed in many other parts of Georgia on learning of the rape of the judicial process by Slaton.
The Jewish community nationwide directed its wrath in large part towards Thomas E. Watson of Thomson, charging that Watson had written incendiary articles in his Jeffersonian, which contributed to Frank's conviction. They urged that Frank was a victim of racial prejudice and bias towards Jews.
Now comes "newly discovered evidence" which is claimed would have proven Frank innocent. Not so! A year ago the new witness, one Alonzo Mann, was first located, and said that as a young man he saw a Negro with the body of Mary Phagan in the basement of the factory building, and that he had remained silent for around seventy years because he was so young at the time, and he just didn't know what to do about it. Our State Department of Archives even wrote in one of its publications that this "new evidence" seemed to prove Frank innocent. I wrote the Department of Archives and pointed out that this was not new evidence at all — that during the trial of the case it was plainly proven that Jim Conley took the body to the basement — and the Archives Department replied with an apology and, in effect, said it had goofed. That correspondence is now a part of our Department of Archives.
Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 290
The suggestion that a governor or Board of Pardons and Paroles may pardon a deceased person is completely ridiculous.
The Constitution of Georgia provides that "the legislative, judicial, and executive powers shall forever remain separate and distinct." The executive department has no power whatever to reverse, change, or wipe out a decision by the courts, albeit while the prisoner is in life he may be pardoned. But a deceased party can not be a party to legal proceedings (Eubank v. Barber, 115 Ga. App. 217-18). If Leo Frank were still in life, he could apply for pardon, but after death neither he nor any other person may apply for him. As the Supreme Court of Georgia held in Grubb v. Bullock, Governor, 44 Ga. 379: "It [pardon] must be granted the principal upon his application, or be evidenced by ratification of the application by his acceptance of it [the pardon]." Leo Frank's case was finally terminated absolutely against him by the Supreme Court of Georgia on June 6, 1914. He lived thereafter until August 16, 1915, and never did apply for pardon. It is too late now for any consideration to be given a pardon for Leo Frank. Pardon can only be granted to a person in life, not to a dead person. To illustrate the folly of such proceedings, could someone at this late date apply for a divorce on behalf of Leo Frank?
The blood of a little girl cries out from the ground for justice. I pray the sun will never rise to shine upon that day in Georgia when we shall have so blinded ourselves to the records, to the evidence, to the judgments of the court, and the judgment of the people, as to rub out, change, and reverse the judgment of the courts that has stood for seventy years! God forbid!
End of Quote. Obviously there are many prominent people who support the guilt of Leo Frank, the consensus of researchers is that Leo Frank's guilt or innocence is divided. GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 21:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Nine reliable sources arguing Leo Frank's guilt. GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 03:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
A secondary source must pass the test of reliability before it can be deemed a reliable source, and especially so when such secondary sources conflict with primary sources, as is the case here. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability the test of reliability requires, at the bare minimum, "a reputation for FACT-CHECKING and ACCURACY" (Emphasis mine).
Wikipedia:Verifiability specifically identifies acceptable reliable sources as follows:
"If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.
Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications."
Other reliable sources include:
University-level textbooks Books published by respected publishing houses Magazines Journals Mainstream newspapers
Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria."
Wikipedia:Verifiability does not place a heirarchy upon these sources as to reliability other than saying that "academic and peer-reviewed publications are USUALLY the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science" (Emphasis mine). This is not to say, however, as User Tom (North Shoreman) would have us believe, that they are the ONLY reliable sources that Wikipedia deems acceptable.
But beyond this, before ANY source can be considered a "reliable source" it MUST pass the test of reliability.
When a "scholar", such as Dinnerstein, promulgates supposed facts that are demonstrably wrong, he not only fails the test of fact checking, but the test of accuracy as well. This alone damages his reputation for fact checking, AND accuracy, and renders his work unreliable. Any subsequent "scholar" who follows Dinnerstein, and includes his erroneous material in their own works have failed these tests as well. It is not a matter of having a majority. If the stated facts are wrong, they are wrong, no matter how many "scholars" agree that they are so. One has to provide evidence against evidence, not conjecture against evidence.
For example, if a million "scholars" claim that the Earth is flat, and only one hundred "scholars" claim that the Earth is round, that does not make the Earth flat, even though using User Tom (North Shoreman)'s logic, it would. Yet if Wikipedia stated in its own voice that the Earth was flat, based upon the million, but without regard for the hundred who convey the fact that the million are very demonstrably wrong, its own reputation for fact checking and accuracy would very soon suffer greatly for it, and this is exactly what is happening in regard to its article on Leo Frank.
By pushing their own POV, the pro-Frank editors here are doing just that, as they are collectively engaged, and involving Wikipedia in a disgraceful act of public deception as long as they continue the attempt to validate their POV through the use of seriously questionable sources, as well as consistent obsfucation of the true facts, history, and evidence in the Frank case in order to employ this Wikipedia article as a dishonest vehicle to whitewash the image of Leo Frank.
On a related note, does User Tom (North Shoreman) have anything to say about the purposeful POV vandalism as regards deletion of relevant facts as demonstrated at length in the "FA candidate" discussion above, other than his usual sneering and smearing (especially in regard to my own good faith contributions)? No.
Again, as stated in Wikipedia:Verifiability -
"The word 'source' in Wikipedia has three meanings:
The type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book) The creator of the work (for example, the writer) The publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press)
All three can affect reliability."
In this case, the reliability of certain creators (writers) of various works supporting the proposed lede statement are being brought into question over the issues of anti-scholarship historiography and academic dishonesty, but the editor who initiated the Request for Comment here also maintains that certain sources which dispute the proposed conclusion or affirm the guilt of Frank are either too few, or "unreliable".
The question of "too few" is addressed above. As to the question of reliability of the various sources attacked by this editor, I hereby offer the following discussion:
When User Tom (North Shoreman) argues that, "One book by a relative of Phagan was suggested, but this book has not been reviewed in scholarly journals and the author has no academic credentials."
He thereby implies that the book by Mary Phagan Kean is not a reliable source. Accordingly, he ostensibly expects everyone here to accept his own personal opinion, over that of Wikipedia itself, as to what constitutes a reliable source.
The publishing information from Mary Phagan Kean's book is as follows:
New Horizon Press, P.O. 669, Far Hills, New Jersey 07931.
Is the New Horizon Press not a respectable publishing house?
Is Mary Phagan Kean therefore not a reliable non-academic source?
Does she not pass the test of reliability in terms of fact checking and accuracy?
Remembering that according to Wikipedia:Verifiability "peer review in any scholarly journal" is not required for such sources, is Mary Phagan Kean's book "unreliable" as well?
What about Tom Watson Brown's book, Published by Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.?
Is U.S. Senator Tom Watson's Jeffersonian Publishing Company not a respectable publishing house?
Does Tom Watson Brown not pass the test of reliability in terms of fact checking and accuracy?
Remembering that according to Wikipedia:Verifiability "peer review in any scholarly journal" is not required for such sources, is Tom Watson Brown's book "unreliable" as well?
What about Tom Watson's magazine?
Is it not a "magazine" as listed in Wikipedia:Verifiability under the label, "Other reliable sources"?
Does it not pass the test of reliability in terms of fact checking and accuracy?
Remembering that according to Wikipedia:Verifiability "peer review in any scholarly journal" is not required for such sources, is it "unreliable" as well?
Is it not stated in the[ New Georgia Encyclopedia] that, "Despite controversy and opposition, Watson's weekly and monthly publications commanded a loyal political force, and no Georgia governor between 1906 and 1922 was elected without Watson's support"?
According to User Tom (North Shoreman), and his fellow travelers, the unwarranted smear of "antisemitism" is enough to disqualify both Watson, and his grandson. But is the demonstrated anti-black racism of Leo Frank's defense team, as well as all of the pro-Frank "scholars" who, without sufficient evidence, accuse the negro Jim Conley of murder enough to smear them as well?
Let us consider the charge of "antisemitism" leveled against Tom Watson. As also stated in the[ New Georgia Encyclopedia]:
"...Watson, who had refused offers to assist in the defense and in the prosecution, remained publicly silent on the case until Hoke Smith's newspaper printed (a pro-Frank/anti-Georgia) editorial.
Watson assailed the Journal for judicial tampering (the case was under appeal), took on northern publishers who clamored for a new trial, and began a two-year defense of Georgia's judicial system and demonstration of the guilt of the "libertine Jew." Editorials in his weekly exploded into expansive evidentiary and trial reviews in Watson's Magazine. Georgia governor John M. Slaton commuted Frank's death sentence during his final days in office, outraging many Georgians and prompting Watson to ask his readers "whether Lynch law is not better than no law at all." Two months later Frank was taken from the jail in Milledgeville by a group of prominent Marietta citizens, driven back to Marietta, and hanged. Watson responded to the news through the Jeffersonian: 'Now let outsiders attend to their own business, AND LEAVE OURS ALONE.' For many, the episode branded Watson as an anti-Semite for the only time in his life."
Take note that the New Georgia Encyclopedia specifically states that it was the ONLY TIME IN HIS LIFE that Watson was branded an anti-semite. Does User Tom (North Shoreman) consider even the possibility that perhaps this charge was levied against Watson merely to discredit him, or assassinate his character, without having any basis in fact?
When User Tom (North Shoreman) argues that, "So your idea of scholarship is a relative of Mary Phagan (Kean), the murder victim, and a relative of Tom Watson (Brown), the antisimetic and racist politician who helped incite the lynching of Frank. Between Kean and Brown I count one published book (unreviewed in any scholarly journal) and zero articles in peer reviewed journals." He is unjustifiably attacking two people simply because they are RELATED to two major figures in the history of the Phagan murder, and because they disagree with him as to the guilt of Leo Frank, his points regarding "scholarship", and "review" being moot, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability as shown above.
Then User Tom (North Shoreman) goes on to attack Tom Watson Brown for publishing the following statement: "Leo Frank cult members (known as Frankites) are posing as neutral reviewers and attempting to convince people not to read Tom Watson's analysis about the Frank-Phagan affair. Watson's analysis of the case is the controversial forbidden fruit of truth that has been censored for more than 100 years."
My take on this? That it is EXACTLY what is truly happening, it is, in fact, happening in this very article, and it is NOT "antisemitism" to tell the truth.
As to User Tom (North Shoreman)'s unsubstantiated, reckless language against Tom Watson Brown, and in a lesser sense, Mary Phagan Kean, I would say it borders on a BLP violation.
Now: What about the Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta Georgian, and the Atlanta Journal?
Are/were they not "Mainstream newspapers"?
Remembering that according to Wikipedia:Verifiability "peer review in any scholarly journal" is not required for such sources, are they "unreliable" as well?
Perhaps so, as far as User Tom (North Shoreman) is concerned, because they actually recorded and published much of the raw testimony and evidence in the Frank case on a daily basis, AS IT HAPPENED, and, as it happens, NONE of them reported a word about the "Hang the Jew", or "Bite marks" nonsense found in User Tom (North Shoreman)'s so-called, "reliable sources" which are now being brought into question.
It seems to me, especially when one considers the large number of individual reporters who actively and contemporaneously contributed articles to the above mentioned newspapers, we have numerous reliable secondary sources either arguing Frank's guilt, or providing supporting evidence which leads the reader to that conclusion, yet according to User Tom (North Shoreman), and his fellow travelers, it appears the very fact that they DO, either directly or indirectly, infer or promote the idea of Frank's guilt renders them altogether "unreliable".
Again, I oppose, because the statement User Tom (North Shoreman) wants to put in the lede is based upon the works of various writers who have brought the reliability of their own "scholarship" into question, not only by excluding certain relevant items of fact or evidence crucial to the understanding of the story of Leo Frank, but by the purposeful inclusion in their writings of certain items which are demonstrably false.
One other thing, somewhat related to this discussion:
Regarding the lede statement, "...drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States" should be changed to something in the order of "...sparked accusations by the Jewish community of antisemitism in the United States". 64.134.98.211 ( talk) 05:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
User Tom (North Shoreman) needs to worry less about "who" I am, and more about what I have to contribute. 64.134.98.211 ( talk) 00:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
ALSO: No. The sentence is NOT totally accurate and NOT fully supported by Lindemann. Far from it.
It was NOT Frank's "conviction, appeals, death sentence, commutation, and subsequent extrajudicial hanging in 1915" which "drew attention to questions of antisemitism" in the United States. It WAS the Ochs and Lasker MEDIA CAMPAIGN, and that campaign didn't "draw attention" to questions of "antisemitism", it RAISED them; it PROVOKED them; it CREATED them. Reversing cause and effect here is no different than outright lying. 64.134.70.25 ( talk) 00:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
In response to Bus stop - 11:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC):
"I think that most sources affirm the presence of the factor of antisemitism in this case."
First of all, "good, quality sources" do not rely upon fabricated falsehoods and obsfucation of evidence in order to make their point. Secondly, the issue of using the term "most sources" here borders upon logical fallacy, as this has already been addressed in terms of "the million vs the hundred" example given above.
No matter how many people you can find who are willing, for whatever reason, to promulgate a lie, it still remains a lie. Therefore, your contention that "We should abide by the findings of most good quality sources", however true on its face, is demonstratably NOT true, when the sources you refer to are actively, and collectively engaged in promoting an obvious, provable lie.
The language the in lede statement, "...drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States" strongly implies the idea that there existed an atmosphere of "antisemitism" in the United States, and especially in the South, either during, or even prior to the trial and conviction of Leo Frank, and User Gulbenk has already rather eloquently explained to you why that simply was not so.
The change I have proposed there is more fitting to the actual truth of the matter, because there were no existing "questions of antisemitism" to draw anyone's attention to prior to the ones created out of whole cloth by the post-conviction Jewish media campaign to exonerate Frank. Please see for yourself in the following reliable source: "The Rich Jews Indict a State! The Whole South Traduced in the Matter of Leo Frank" from the October, 1915 issue of Watson's Magazine. 64.134.98.211 ( talk) 23:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Dopey IP, your link doesn't even work. What is preventing you from getting a real account on wikipedia? GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 01:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
What do we know about PBS? According to Wikipedia "The service has more than 350 member television stations, many owned by educational institutions or non-profit groups affiliated with a local public school district, collegiate educational institution or by state government-owned or related entities." I would contend that there is a degree of scholarship behind a PBS production. Bus stop ( talk) 17:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
User Tom (North Shoreman) and friends seem to be pulling out all stops to mislead and convince other editors here into believing that certain sources which may be biased are not reliable sources. It's almost like they are intentionally playing people to see if they can get them to surrender to User Tom (North Shoreman)'s strong, but erroneous, point of view.
While promoting his own biased sources, which have now come under scrutiny for non-reliability, User Tom (North Shoreman) now claims that certain sources with an opposing bias can not be cited to support critical examination of his own preferred sources. This is untrue, no matter what User Tom (North Shoreman) and his fellow travelers have to say.
According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, as to biased or opinionated sources:
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.
According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, as to bias in sources:
A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view.
Attributing and specifying biased statements
Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.
Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player. But they will not argue over this.
According to Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources, as to non-neutral sources:
One of the perennial issues that arises during editor disputes is how the neutral point of view policy interacts with the reliable sources guideline. Arguments often arise which contend that a given source ought to be excluded as unreliable because the source has an identifiable point of view. These arguments cross a wide variety of topics and stem from a common misunderstanding about how NPOV interacts with RS. The neutral point of view policy applies to Wikipedia articles as a whole: articles should reflect an appropriate balance of differing points of view. The reliable sources guideline refers to a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and reliability--not the source's neutrality. Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view.
Therefore, the references User GingerBreadHarlot has brought into this discussion are not only perfectly valid as points of argument in this particular Request for Comment, or on this talk page in general, but are also perfectly valid to use as reliable sources in the article itself, User Tom (North Shoreman) and his fellow travelers' opinions notwithstanding. 64.134.98.211 ( talk) 19:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |author=
(
help)GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 15:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Leonard Dinnerstein was interviewed for the video documentary The People vs. Leo Frank (2009). In that interview, he makes statements [redacted, WP:BLP] about the death notes found on Mary Phagan’s body. The documentary shows us a dramatization of the interrogation of Jim Conley by the Atlanta Police in May, 1913 – and Dinnerstein then states: “They [the Atlanta police] asked him [Jim Conley] about the notes. He said ‘I can’t read and write.’ That happened to come up in a conversation between the police and Frank, and Frank said, ‘Of course he can write; I know he can write, he used to borrow money from me and sign promissory notes.’ So Conley had not been completely honest with the police.” (The People vs. Leo Frank, 2009). This Dinnerstein segment has been posted on YouTube and the documentary is commercially available. Notice that Dinnerstein’s clear implication is that Leo Frank blew the whistle on Jim Conley’s false claim of being illiterate, and that Frank was the instrument of this discovery. [redacted, WP:BLP] Leo Frank was arrested on April 29, 1913 and Jim Conley was arrested two days later, on May 1. Leo Frank never admitted to the police that he knew Jim Conley could write until weeks after that fact was already known to investigators. Pinkerton detective Harry Scott was informed that Jim Conley could write by an operative who spoke to a pawnbroker – not by Leo Frank. On May 18, 1913, after two and a half weeks of interrogation, Atlanta police finally got Conley to admit he wrote the Mary Phagan death notes — but Conley revealed he did so at the behest of Leo Frank. After several successive interrogations, the approximate chain of events became clear. Leo Frank kept completely quiet about the fact that Jim Conley could read and write for more than two weeks, even though Jim Conley – working as a roustabout at the factory – had done written inventory work for Frank. Leo Frank also allowed Jim Conley to run a side business out of the National Pencil Company, wheeling and dealing pocket watches under questionable circumstances. In one of these deals, Conley was said to have defrauded Mr. Arthur Pride, who testified about it at the Leo Frank trial. Frank himself vetted and managed Conley’s pocket watch contracts, keeping them locked in his office safe. Leo Frank would take out small payments from Conley’s weekly wages and pay down the pawnshop owner’s loans. Leo Frank didn’t tell investigators he was overseeing Conley’s watch contracts until it was far too late, after the police had found out about it independently. I encourage people to read the official Leo Frank trial Brief of Evidence, 1913, to see for themselves whether or not Leo Frank informed the police about Jim Conley’s literacy immediately after he was arrested – or if he only admitted to that fact after the police had found out about it through other means weeks later. This is something that Leonard Dinnerstein, familiar as he has been – for decades – with the primary sources in the case, must have known for a very long time. Yet in this very recent interview, he [redacted, WP:BLP] tries to make us believe that Frank was the one who exposed this important fact. [redacted, WP:BLP
Comments were received above that supported the concept that the information should be included in the lead, but there were differences on how to phrase it. Bob K31416 proposed the following language that would replace the current fourth paragraph of the lead (the language in contention is in bold):
Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, which said that it was done "Without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence…”. The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted.
Along with this, a section "Criticism of the trial and the verdict" is being added to the body of the article. [18] This section attributes in the text the issue of consensus to one source with two supporting sources in a footnote. There are also numerous other footnotes to specific authors expressing their opinions on Frank's innocence. A second paragraph provides an overview of the critics arguments. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 19:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I count the vote as 6 opposing and 5 supporting. You don't have consensus. Please check the count again. GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 18:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment The new wording says basically what I believe the original proposal said. I believe the new section added to the body of the article addresses the concerns about attributing the statement raised by Fyddlestix, Tonystewart14, and lisa needs braces!. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 20:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I counted the RFC vote, and it looked to me as if the vote was 6 opposed to 5 supporting. Can someone check this for me? Looks like the opposed have higher vote. GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 18:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
sorry to jump in but I think the intro paragraph sentence re "consensus" needs a citation. I think there was substantial evidence of Frank's guilt, and over and over it seems that some people are just assuming - *a priori* - that because he was Jewish he was wrongly convicted. This is nonsense - at best it can be said there is reasonable doubt, but consensus? amongst who, ADL and AIPAC members? Consider {with no recommendation to the website generally, just the article:
http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/04/100-reasons-proving-leo-frank-is-guilty/
I think this article has attracted both anti-Semites and Jews each of whom fail to consider the primary evidence, and in the case of the latter, often turn to Jewish apologists for Frank, some of whom have been discredited, most of whom may be presumed to have set out to prove him innocent and cherry-picked here and there, with no interest in considering fairly the whole record. I see this conversation has been held, but I think it should be reconsidered. Frank was convicted on a great deal of evidence which a jury believed. An encyclopedia, in whatever form, should not be a place where ethnic loyalties [or prejudice] hold sway.
The Jewish community rallied around Frank immediately, showing no sign of considering that he was guilty - hence a certain cult of personality has grown up around Frank. He *must* be innocent as the ADL was formed, and aren't they tireless fighters for justice? Everyone knows that Wikipedia is heavily patrolled by Israeli "hasbara" editors and presumably entries like this have similar treatment. I don't blame them, one bit, I would too, but here - this article reads like propaganda, and does not reflect what the preponderance of the credible evidence indicates: Leo Frank murdered a little girl, and the Jewish community didn't care one bit from the word go whether or not the evidence pointed to Frank's guilt. They simply presupposed he was innocent {and some simply may not have cared that the victim was not Jewish}. 38.97.64.130 ( talk) 17:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reb6477
In the lead Meishern added "who at the time was a law partner of Frank's lead defense attorney" to the sentence speaking of Slaton's commutation. Meishern claimed in his edit summary that "added important fact (backed by 5 references) that balances article out, otherwise the reason for the rioting mentioned in the following sentence is never mentioned." In fact, Slaton's commutation had nothing to do with the status of his law practice and the sources Meishern cites do not support Meishern's claims. The five sources:
Dinnerstein pp. 123-124 -- These pages mention the partnership but do not link it to the rioting.
Frey p. 79 -- Mentions the partnership but does not mention the riot at all.
Lindemann pp.269-270 Mentions the partnership but does not claim that the rioting had anything to due with his partnersip status. In fact, Lindemann says that the governor had received a thousand death threats while he was considering the case. He mentions that Watson claimed that Slaton "had sold out to the Jews and their agents."
Spector p. 115 -- This provides a very cursory review of the Frank case (about two pages), and does not mention the riot at all. He does say that because of the partnership and the fact that Slaton had previously had a Jewish partner the "cry went out that 'Jew money' had purchased a commutation." In fact this was largely circulated by Watson and occurred after the riot.
Martin p.9 -- You used an incorrect link -- the actual one is [22]. It mentions the Frank case but says absolutely nothing about the riot and only mentions Slaton's courage.
Reliable sources make it clear that the rioting was based on the outrage over the fact of the commutation, but nowhere do they state that it was the partnership, rather than hatred and prejudice against Frank, that sparked the outrage. The partnership (Dinnerstein has an excellent explanation of how it came about) is not a significant enough fact for it to be included in the lead. It was not mentioned in the lead at the time of the peer review and has only recently become a hobby of the banned GBH, one new editor whose first and only edits ever supported GBH, and one other new editor banned as a sockpuppet of GBH. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 01:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
PS Here are the sentences in question after I reverted Meishern: "Then Governor John M. Slaton commuted Frank's sentence to life imprisonment. A crowd of 1,200 marched on the governor's mansion in protest." I think it is self explanatory that they protested because they thought the commutation was wrong. Plus, there is much more discussion about Slaton's thoroughness and political bravery in the reliable sources than about the partnership -- this would be more significant for the lead than veiled references to a COI. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 01:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow - fwiw re "The partnership (Dinnerstein has an excellent explanation of how it came about) is not a significant enough fact for it to be included in the lead." I find that assertion to be absurd. If Defendant has a sentence COMMUTED by a politician who was in any way associated with defendant's LAWYER - that is **clearly** important, and **clearly** suggestive if not simply demonstrative of undue influence and a commutation based not on fact but connections.
Note that the posthumous pardon didn't even reach guilt or innocence - in other words the organized Jewish community got a second commutation for a guy who was porbably guilt because he was Jewish and the vic wasn't - and above I see a seasoned wiki editor clearly engaging in rhetorical legerdemain and simple dishonesty. Perhaps an ADL employee? If Frank wasn't Jewish, few would doubt his guilt on the actual trial evidence
http://theamericanmercury.org/2013/04/100-reasons-proving-leo-frank-is-guilty/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.64.130 ( talk) 17:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a new one -- at 11 a.m you're in the middle of a content dispute on the article and by 1:30 p.m. you claim to be an objective reviewer with no conflict of interest in the results. While it is true that you've only made one edit to the main article, you ignore the fact that you spent considerable time debating the article contents in the recently closed Rfc (in which you were strongly against the consensus opinion which prevailed). You made over a dozen edits (not counting small edits to correct typos) and consistently projected a point of view that rejected the legitimacy of the major reliable sources on the subject.
In this edit [23] you wrote, "Furthermore, WP:MOSINTRO warns us to pay extra care to keep the lede WP:NPOV, while this sentence is far from neutral, especially when it unconvincingly relies on other watery WP:POV sources that crumble when WP:IRS is applied." In fact, the "watery sources" you refer to are listed here and include the sources that are used for the majority of the info in the article.
In this edit [24] Please address the concerns regarding the lede statement I have expressed, or perhaps the sentence in question should be rewritten as "Since mid-1970's, Mr. Steve Oney, an educated Georgian blogger, believes that Frank was in fact innocent." In fact, Oney has written possibly the most respected work on the Frank case and he is far from a mere "blogger".
In this edit [25] you wrote, "So far these gurus sound somewhat incompetent, never mind their racism for trying to push the guilt from Frank onto an African American. As though there are not enough false accusations of African Americans raping and murdering white girls in the post-reconstruction south for these writers to go out of their way to create yet another vile stereotype." In fact, as the Rfc affirmed, the majority of historians acknowledge that Frank did not murder Phagan and Conley is the only other suspect -- indeed if Frank didn't do it then Conley's testimony clearly implicates himself as the murderer. Yet you label any historian who disagrees with you as a racist who is simply creating a trumped up case against Conley.
In the recent debate, I reverted your edit because you edit summary contained false claims -- clams that weren't supported by your edit summary. You acknowledged that you were wrong in this edit [26] but in this edit [27] you threaten to treat a difference of opinion as vandalism and accuse me of pursuing a "personal POV". This charge of a personal POV was made constantly by folks on your side during the Rfc, but the result was that the Rfc confirmed that the only POV in play on my part was the POV presented by the majority of historians. This type of personal attack on my motives may be acceptable in normal talk page discussions, but they have no place in a Class A review -- especially when the person you attacked is a major contributor to the article. You can't unring the attacks you have made on the reliable sources and on my motives. You need to withdraw as reviewer. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 23:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
"Two months later, Frank was kidnapped from prison by a group of 25 armed men and driven 170 miles (270 km) to Marietta, Georgia where he was lynched." should have a comma before where — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.14.197 ( talk) 09:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
If you go to the front page of Wikipedia, Leo Frank is mentioned under "On this day...". Incidentally, today is the 100th anniversary of Frank's lynching. I was hoping for this article to be under Today's Featured Article as I started to work on it several months ago, but I believe we can nonetheless be proud of it being on the front page and getting people to view the article, which seems to be the case so far today. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 09:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Leo Frank has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Marietta is not 170 miles from Atlanta. It's 20 miles from Atlanta. 207.69.174.7 ( talk) 13:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I happened across this argument, and my feeling is that there's something to the complaint, but the approach is wrong. You should not be removing a sentence about Frank's wrongful conviction, but you should slightly modify it - but the real problem is simply that the article has a "Criticism" section. Separate criticism sections are always problematic, especially when people use that term in the sense of opposition rather than scholarly evaluation, because they encourage POV.
The RFC currently is much clearer than the article - it lists sources for arguments for and against the idea that Leo Frank was innocent. I don't know which of those sources is reliable and which is fringe - that's up to you. But provided they are not all from some fringe Nazi sympathizers someplace, the proper text is not The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted. More like Many researchers believe that Frank was wrongly convicted, though others argue that his guilt was established by the facts at trial (or whatever, I'm not really sure about what they actually said). And of course you have a block of citations behind each part of that.
The same citations should appear below in a section that, to be clearer, shouldn't be "Criticism of the trial and the verdict" but maybe "Analysis of the trial and verdict". Or "Legal analysis", maybe. That section should include both points of view without prejudice.
Remember - Wikipedia should be striving for verifiability, not truth. We cannot decide whether Frank is innocent or guilty; it's beyond our pay grade. Our mission is just to get a summary of the major thoughts about the idea, studded with references that the serious researcher can pursue to make his own decision. Wnt ( talk) 22:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)