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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The article states that Frank was nervous on being taken to the undertaker and that this nervousness counted against him. Frank was president of the Atlanta chapter of B'nai B'rith, and in those times that would make him Orthodox, no question about it. Therefore he could justifiably have been nervous on account of the fact that Jews are to avoid being in the presence of a dead body. If the police had compelled him to identify Phagan's body, he might not have been so nervous, but if they had offered him the choice, he may have been caught between a desire to be helpful and the requirement of his religion, hence his nervousness.
Secondly, if Frank was strictly Orthodox, what is he doing working on the Saturday Sabbath, and doubly worse, handling money (wages)? Both of these things violate Jewish law and there's no way Frank can be excused for not knowing. I don't know what any of this can add to the article, except as background information for readers of this Talk page. Akld guy ( talk) 03:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
While the guidelines are that the talkpages of articles are for the development of the article rather than general discussion of the topic, Wikipedians are fairly tolerant, and will allow some general discussion. I don't think we should be encouraging it, though, on this topic, as it might invite further views and personal opinions, and inappropriate debates may arise. I suggest this conversation, along with any similar general or off-topic comments, be archived sooner rather than later. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
User:DiscoTent added the text of a marker honoring Gov. Slaton that was installed earlier this year in this edit. It includes line breaks in the same locations that the actual marker does. While that makes it more realistic, it also adds a significant amount of white space on both sides. I revised this in this edit to significantly reduce white space and the number of lines in the paragraphs.
Feel free to post here if there is any support for the line break version. I think it's good to include the text as the two markers above it also include the text, but I don't want it to extraneously add to the article's length. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 07:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Pretty clear consensus that the article should remain a biography and details significantly more than just his trial. Jenks24 ( talk) 17:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Leo Frank →
Trial of Leo Frank – The article is not about Leo Frank but an incident in which he was a central figure. Sources vary on which title they use, some use "Murder of Mary Phagan", which is the title of a two part TV docudrama:
The Murder of Mary Phagan, others use Leo Frank's name in variety of titles: [http://www.amazon.com/An-Unspeakable-Crime-Prosecution-Persecution/dp/1467746304 The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank],
The Leo Frank Case,
The Lynching of Leo Frank,
The Leo Frank Trial,
The Trial of Leo Frank,
The Celebrated Case of Leo Frank, etc, some use both names: [http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Silent-Damned-Murder-Lynching/dp/081541188X The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank]. A
Google search throws up a variety of titles, only one of which appears to use just the Leo Frank name - and that is our Wikipedia article. While the article gives some background info on Leo Frank, the main focus is on the murder, trial, and the aftermath - it is the event that is notable, not the person. Per
WP:CRIME and
WP:ONEEVENT we write about the event not the person, unless there is sufficient material to have a standalone article on an individual involved in the event, or if it is the person rather than the event that is notable. In this article it is clear that it is the event that is notable.
WP:NCEVENTS gives some guidance on how to name an event article where there isn't an existing agreed name. As the main historical focus is on Frank Leo it would be inappropriate to name it just after Mary Phagan, though some consideration could be given to "Murder of Mary Phagan and trial of Leo Frank"; other possible titles include: "Trial of Leo Frank", "Leo Frank case", "Lynching of Leo Frank". I wanted to set up this discussion without a suggested name; however, experience has shown that without a suggested name folks may not end up agreeing on a name, and the default close would then be to the current title, so I have suggested what I feel is a neutral and factual title, and one which is used by a good number of sources. Other suggestions are welcome.
SilkTork
✔Tea time
09:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Based on the ongoing review, I suggest to rewrite the first part of the lede something like this:
I came to a stop at the bold faced question because I noted that nowhere in the article do we say why he was arrested and nowhere is the reader given a clear view of how soon the arrest was made. The arrest came well before Conley started claiming Frank had committed the murder. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 13:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I filled in the rest of the lede so my proposal would read as follows:
I tried to address the reviewers request by adding more details of the court arguments and focused a little more attention to the lynching as well as the threat (or fear) of violence that went back to the actual trial. I've added back material referencing the effects of newspapers on public opinion without going in the specifics that were removed from the lede earlier. This lede assumes that additions will be made to the body of the article (i.e. timeline details, reorganization of newspaper coverage, more focused info on the lynching, info on prosecution's racist appeals, info on the original arrest).
I'm not locked into any of the specific language or even the organization and respect the fact that Tony is probably working on a similar reorg right now. I just think it is important to start putting ideas in writing. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 02:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American factory superintendent who was convicted of the murder of a 13-year-old employee named Mary Phagan at the factory he managed. His legal case and lynching in Georgia became the focus of powerful class, regional, and political interests and brought attention to the topic of antisemitism in the United States. Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, which said that its action was performed "[w]ithout attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence". The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted.
Mary Phagan had been strangled on April 26 of that year and was found dead in the factory cellar the next morning. Frank, an engineer and director of the National Pencil Company in Atlanta where Phagan worked, was arrested on April 29, 1913. Police based the arrest on Frank's nervousness while being interviewed and their interpretations of his admissions concerning his actions on the day of the murder. By the time the case went to trial, the issues involved Frank's character and the timeline for his activities on the day of the crime. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of another suspect, James "Jim" Conley, an admitted accomplice after the fact, who worked as a sweeper in the factory. Frank's defense consisted of challenging the veracity of Conley's court testimony, relying on admissions by Conley that he changed his testimony several times in various affidavits and fabricated certain parts of his story. The defense also resorted to racial stereotypes, accusing Conley – who was African-American – of being especially disposed to lying and murdering because of his ethnicity. The prosecution, in turn, used a different stereotype, presenting Conley as if he were an unthreatening character from a minstrel show or a contented plantation worker. Both sides presented witnesses to either support or refute the timeline suggested by Conley's testimony and to praise or condemn Frank's character.
A guilty verdict was announced on August 25, 1913. Frank and his lawyers made a series of unsuccessful appeals, limited by law to arguing procedural and due process issues rather than a reconsideration of the evidence. Their final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court failed in April 1915. Considering arguments from both sides as well as evidence not available at trial, Governor John M. Slaton commuted Frank's sentence to life imprisonment. By this time, the Frank case was a national issue. Outside Georgia, there was a widespread belief expressed by newspapers throughout the country that Frank's conviction was a travesty. Within Georgia, this outside criticism fueled hatred for Frank and antisemitic attacks against him.
Immediately after the commutation, a crowd of 1,200 marched on the governor's mansion in protest. 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. The new governor vowed to bring these people to justice, but even though the lynchers included prominent citizens of Marietta, Mary Phagan's hometown, and their roles in the lynching were generally known locally, none were ever brought to justice.
I went ahead and made the changes although the support for the language regarding appeals has not yet been added to the body of the article. While SmittyLiver has raised a small objection, it does not effect this edit since the material he/she disputes is only rearranged. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 01:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The reviewer of the article has suggested that the background section be expanded to include more than just the biographical material on Frank and Phagan. Towards that end I am proposing the following new subsection to head the background section:
The pathological conditions in the city menaced the home, the state, the schools, the churches, and, in the words of a contemporary Southern sociologist, the 'wholesome industrial life.' The institutions of the city were obviously unfit to handle urban problems. Against this background, the murder of a young girl in 1913 triggered a violent reaction of mass aggression, hysteria, and prejudice." [12]
Comments? Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 00:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The reviewer has asked us to reconsider the format of the article. I have found several places where the narrative is broken up by necessary, but difficult to place sections. At the same time it has been suggested that more details were warranted regarding the issues at trial. As part of this, I felt that elaboration on the details were necessary outside of simply the trial section. This particularly applies to the Appeals and Commutation sections which have been a continuing source of dispute in the article's talk pages. The following is my suggested reorganization.
Much of the existing language will be incorporated and needed details can be obtained from earlier versions of the article. Some new language and sourcing will be needed. I am not proposing any reorganization for the rest of the article.
Comments? Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 00:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The above title would replace the current "Suspicion falls on Frank". This section would follow the "Discovery" section and would fit in with the proposed reorganization described above. The main intent of the changes is to fill in details and make it clear why Frank was arrested. I've generally used the names of the days rather than the dates in order to make it clear the short period of time between the murder and Frank's arrest. I've also not used the names of specific people to simplify the narrative. The proposed section:
Police investigation
Comments? Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 00:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The existing language says very little about the actual indictment. The references to Tom Watson don't really serve any purpose -- it could possible be added back elsewhere in the article as an ironic aside. Likewise, the reference to Jews on the jury and the absence of anti-Semitism in this particular phase is misplaced here and should maybe be introduced later on based on the reorganization that I've proposed and nobody has expressed opposition to. I'm proposing the following language that is based in part on the October 2010 version of the article. I've also added info on later efforts initiated by the Grand Jury to indict Conley. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 16:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Content moved from GA review page:
One cannot, with fairness, honesty, and integrity, provide a proper overview of a case involving the conviction of an individual accused of the commission of a crime without providing a synopsis of the evidence relied upon to support that conviction. Any attempt to do so, especially when that attempt is made with the assertion of an implication that the individual in question was either unfairly, or otherwise improperly convicted, is more than simple POV pushing, it is an obvious, and outright mendacity. It is not only dishonest, but borders upon an additional crime in itself, making those who do so accessories after the fact, by serving to aid and abet the escape from justice of one guilty of the commission of a criminal act.
The suppression or deletion of references to the evidence relied upon by the trial jury to convict, and the appeals courts to subsequently uphold that conviction of Leo Frank is actually tantamount to murdering Mary Phagan a second time. 64.134.98.223 ( talk) 03:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I have now adjusted in Preferences so my time is the same as everyone else's! SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
To keep references consistent, and for simplicity, I don't believe we need years after most sources. For example, "Oney 2003" can just be "Oney" since the only reference to Oney in the Sources subsection is his book. At one point we had a "Further reading" section with a separate Oney link, but at this point it's redundant. We should also take care to have commas and periods uniform throughout the article. For example, a reference might look like "Oney p. 123." or "Oney pp. 123-125." with no comma after the name (assuming there is no year, in which case it would be "Dinnerstein 1987, p. 12."). There is also a period after each page number.
It might seem trivial, but I noticed it's started to become inconsistent, although the new material overall is good for the article. If anyone feels the formatting should be different, feel free to reply below. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 05:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Leo Frank actually changed the timing four times that he told people 13-year-old Little Mary Phagan allegedly had had entered his second floor window-front business office at the National Pencil Company on Georgia Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday April 26, 1913. Which one should we use for the article? What do we do in a situation where the protagonist gives us 4 distinct times? Do we pick the one that benefits or incriminates him?
1. On Sunday morning, April 27, 1913, standing in his office, Frank told first responders (Atlanta police) that Phagan had had arrived in his office yesterday at 12:03 p.m. April 26, 1913. (see: People v. Leo Frank documentary by Ben Loeterman and Steve Oney; Leo Frank trial brief of evidence, 1913).
2. On Monday morning, April 28, 1913, at the Atlanta stationhouse in an interrogation room, surrounded by police detectives and witnessed by his elite attorneys Luther Rosser (Governor John Slaton's lawpartner) and Herbert Haas, that Frank said Phagan had had arrived in his office on Georgia Confederate Memorial Day between 12:05 p.m. to 12:10 p.m. maybe 12:07 p.m. This unsworn statement was stenographed by Gay C. Febuary and became State’s Exhibit B at the Leo Frank trial (Q and A published in Atlanta Constitution, August 2nd 1913 at The Internet Archive).
3. On Monday, May 5th and Thursday May 8th, 1913, Frank told the Coroner’s jury that on the day of the murder, Phagan had had arrived in his office between 12:10 p.m to 12:15 p.m. (Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta Georgian & Atlanta Journal, May, 1913).
4. On Monday, August 18, 1913, Frank mounted the witness stand at his trial, made an unsworn oral statement to the jury and said that Phagan had had arrived in his office between 12:12 p.m to 12:17 p.m. (Leo Frank’s statement to the jury on August 18, 1913, trial brief of evidence, 1913).
Which one should we use for the article? or all of them? SmittyLiver ( talk) 11:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
You say to User SmittyLiver, "You still don't answer the question I asked."
This is not true. In regard to the significance of the arrival times of Mary Phagan and Monteen Stover, User SmittyLiver fully answered your question, and in the affirmative, that question being:
"Do you have any reliable secondary sources that say any of the above was seen as significant at the trial by anyone involved?"
User SmittyLiver then proceeded to cite numerous quotes and references which directly addressed the subject of your question.
So how do you then deny that your question was answered? 64.134.98.223 ( talk) 19:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I provided rewrites for these two sections to provide more details based on previous discussions. Like my previous edits, my feelings won't be hurt is the decision is made to condense the material. There was no "smoking gun" in either section and the sections should reflect that. I went through Oney's account of the trial page by page in order to write these sections -- many, many details are omitted that reflect the back and forth that inevitably occurs in a contested murder trial. Most factual issues were contested and many of the witnesses' integrity was questioned. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 22:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
No, Tom. What it actually means is that Mary Phagan rolled out of bed around 11 am, did whatever personal care things they did back then, peed (?), got dressed for her holiday activities, ate her meager breakfast at 11:30, and left the house to catch her trolley at 11:45. 64.134.98.223 ( talk) 19:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, wasn't there a photo of Jim Conley in the article at one point? Was it removed? If not shouldn't one be added? Would it also benefit the article to add an image of Alonzo Mann? SmittyLiver ( talk) 00:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I have just added a reorganized appeals section. This will allow the reader to recognize that the process was not simply a rehearing over and over again of the same facts -- it shows that specific issues were examined at each step of the process. It also shows that the evidence produced at the original trial in many cases may be either complete or inaccurate. Some of the material in the old section is more appropriate for the to-be-written section "Antisemtism and local and national newspaper coverage." Once again, this is a lot of detail but much is still left out. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 20:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I've added an expansion of this section based on the proposed reorganization above. This should give the reader a better picture of how the general knowledge of the evidence continued to evolve from the original trial and appeals. Some material sourced directly to Slaton's message was rewritten and sourced to secondary sources that said the same thing. I also changed the section levels based on a suggestion by Tony. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 13:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the modifications in the trial section according to the proposed reorganization. The trial section still needs two additional sections which should be added tomorrow. These edits, along with earlier edits, should give a good preview of the type of detail that is being returned/added to the article. Other editors may wish to start consolidating language and shortening it. In particular, I'm not sure that the last part of the "Timeline" section can't be reduced. The reviewer has suggested more detail might be beneficial -- we might want to start discussing how detailed to go. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 01:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This article should not receive GA status before the following issues, among others raised here are properly addressed and rectified in re GA criteria:
2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
No. References appearing in the article are heavily weighted toward sources which promote the idea that Frank was "wrongfully convicted", and which themselves have been repeatedly shown to fail the test of fact-checking and accuracy.
B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary
No. The inclusion of reliable sources, especially primary sources, which support Frank's conviction have been consistently attacked, branded "unreliable", and removed from the article by pro-Frank editors in order to promote the fringe idea that he was "wrongfully convicted".
C. No original research
No. At least one editor has involved himself in OR by personally contacting one or more author(s) of secondary source material in order to aquire advice and information to support or bolster the fringe POV that Frank was "innocent".
4. Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias
No. The article continues to be heavily biased in favor of Frank. The evidence, reasoning, and sources which support the official determination of Frank's guilt by every level of the judicial system is repeatedly and relentlessly removed, obscured, mischaracterized, or otherwise attacked throughout the article by pro-Frank editors lobbying for exclusive reliance upon pro-Frank sources who all employ a shameful obfuscation of relevant facts, as well as fabricated nonsense in order to push their common, and all too obvious agenda, which is to promote the idea of Frank's "innocence".
Although a very cleverly worded article, it is full of weasel words, and still pushes an obvious pro-Frank POV.
See [ THIS] discussion, and [ THIS] discussion as examples of the type of chicanery that has been present in this article for years.
See also [ THIS] discussion, as well as this entry from the recent [ Aborted Review] as only 2 of many relevant examples of disruptive editing and ownership behavior by one of the most fervently pro-Frank editors of this article:
Tom, you are not allowing any constructive edits. I think you are classic WP:OOA showing all the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR symptoms. The way the article currently looks is straight WP:POV due to your WP:DRNC, and I am not alone in this thinking. I took a break after your last attack. But as this article is basically being held hostage by you, I can only fail the GA nomination. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 13:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc
No. A false "consensus" has only ever been temporarily maintained as a result of the selective, and highly questionable reverting, harassment, or blocking of individual editors who attempt to include factual information and sources which tend to demonstrate the guilt of Frank, a most notable example of which appears [ HERE].
This article remains "stable" only when it is "protected" by those who share an interest in preserving it merely as a vehicle to exonerate Frank. No doubt a number of editors seeking a neutral POV have become reluctant to even participate in the building of this article because the concerted efforts of various pro-Frank editors and administrators to push a pro-Frank POV have evolved to the point of lodging accusations of sockpuppetry against editors who attempt to bring the article into a state of neutrality.
Given the huge amount of properly resourced facts and evidence concerning this case that over time have been capriciously and unjustifiably removed from this article, a prime example of which may be found [ HERE], and [ HERE],has merely served to preserve this article as a POV whitewashing of Leo Frank. To ignore these issues renders any promotion to GA status as nothing less than ridiculous. 64.134.98.223 ( talk) 19:01, 9 October 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The article states that Frank was nervous on being taken to the undertaker and that this nervousness counted against him. Frank was president of the Atlanta chapter of B'nai B'rith, and in those times that would make him Orthodox, no question about it. Therefore he could justifiably have been nervous on account of the fact that Jews are to avoid being in the presence of a dead body. If the police had compelled him to identify Phagan's body, he might not have been so nervous, but if they had offered him the choice, he may have been caught between a desire to be helpful and the requirement of his religion, hence his nervousness.
Secondly, if Frank was strictly Orthodox, what is he doing working on the Saturday Sabbath, and doubly worse, handling money (wages)? Both of these things violate Jewish law and there's no way Frank can be excused for not knowing. I don't know what any of this can add to the article, except as background information for readers of this Talk page. Akld guy ( talk) 03:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
While the guidelines are that the talkpages of articles are for the development of the article rather than general discussion of the topic, Wikipedians are fairly tolerant, and will allow some general discussion. I don't think we should be encouraging it, though, on this topic, as it might invite further views and personal opinions, and inappropriate debates may arise. I suggest this conversation, along with any similar general or off-topic comments, be archived sooner rather than later. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
User:DiscoTent added the text of a marker honoring Gov. Slaton that was installed earlier this year in this edit. It includes line breaks in the same locations that the actual marker does. While that makes it more realistic, it also adds a significant amount of white space on both sides. I revised this in this edit to significantly reduce white space and the number of lines in the paragraphs.
Feel free to post here if there is any support for the line break version. I think it's good to include the text as the two markers above it also include the text, but I don't want it to extraneously add to the article's length. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 07:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Pretty clear consensus that the article should remain a biography and details significantly more than just his trial. Jenks24 ( talk) 17:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Leo Frank →
Trial of Leo Frank – The article is not about Leo Frank but an incident in which he was a central figure. Sources vary on which title they use, some use "Murder of Mary Phagan", which is the title of a two part TV docudrama:
The Murder of Mary Phagan, others use Leo Frank's name in variety of titles: [http://www.amazon.com/An-Unspeakable-Crime-Prosecution-Persecution/dp/1467746304 The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank],
The Leo Frank Case,
The Lynching of Leo Frank,
The Leo Frank Trial,
The Trial of Leo Frank,
The Celebrated Case of Leo Frank, etc, some use both names: [http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Silent-Damned-Murder-Lynching/dp/081541188X The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank]. A
Google search throws up a variety of titles, only one of which appears to use just the Leo Frank name - and that is our Wikipedia article. While the article gives some background info on Leo Frank, the main focus is on the murder, trial, and the aftermath - it is the event that is notable, not the person. Per
WP:CRIME and
WP:ONEEVENT we write about the event not the person, unless there is sufficient material to have a standalone article on an individual involved in the event, or if it is the person rather than the event that is notable. In this article it is clear that it is the event that is notable.
WP:NCEVENTS gives some guidance on how to name an event article where there isn't an existing agreed name. As the main historical focus is on Frank Leo it would be inappropriate to name it just after Mary Phagan, though some consideration could be given to "Murder of Mary Phagan and trial of Leo Frank"; other possible titles include: "Trial of Leo Frank", "Leo Frank case", "Lynching of Leo Frank". I wanted to set up this discussion without a suggested name; however, experience has shown that without a suggested name folks may not end up agreeing on a name, and the default close would then be to the current title, so I have suggested what I feel is a neutral and factual title, and one which is used by a good number of sources. Other suggestions are welcome.
SilkTork
✔Tea time
09:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Based on the ongoing review, I suggest to rewrite the first part of the lede something like this:
I came to a stop at the bold faced question because I noted that nowhere in the article do we say why he was arrested and nowhere is the reader given a clear view of how soon the arrest was made. The arrest came well before Conley started claiming Frank had committed the murder. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 13:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I filled in the rest of the lede so my proposal would read as follows:
I tried to address the reviewers request by adding more details of the court arguments and focused a little more attention to the lynching as well as the threat (or fear) of violence that went back to the actual trial. I've added back material referencing the effects of newspapers on public opinion without going in the specifics that were removed from the lede earlier. This lede assumes that additions will be made to the body of the article (i.e. timeline details, reorganization of newspaper coverage, more focused info on the lynching, info on prosecution's racist appeals, info on the original arrest).
I'm not locked into any of the specific language or even the organization and respect the fact that Tony is probably working on a similar reorg right now. I just think it is important to start putting ideas in writing. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 02:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American factory superintendent who was convicted of the murder of a 13-year-old employee named Mary Phagan at the factory he managed. His legal case and lynching in Georgia became the focus of powerful class, regional, and political interests and brought attention to the topic of antisemitism in the United States. Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, which said that its action was performed "[w]ithout attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence". The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted.
Mary Phagan had been strangled on April 26 of that year and was found dead in the factory cellar the next morning. Frank, an engineer and director of the National Pencil Company in Atlanta where Phagan worked, was arrested on April 29, 1913. Police based the arrest on Frank's nervousness while being interviewed and their interpretations of his admissions concerning his actions on the day of the murder. By the time the case went to trial, the issues involved Frank's character and the timeline for his activities on the day of the crime. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of another suspect, James "Jim" Conley, an admitted accomplice after the fact, who worked as a sweeper in the factory. Frank's defense consisted of challenging the veracity of Conley's court testimony, relying on admissions by Conley that he changed his testimony several times in various affidavits and fabricated certain parts of his story. The defense also resorted to racial stereotypes, accusing Conley – who was African-American – of being especially disposed to lying and murdering because of his ethnicity. The prosecution, in turn, used a different stereotype, presenting Conley as if he were an unthreatening character from a minstrel show or a contented plantation worker. Both sides presented witnesses to either support or refute the timeline suggested by Conley's testimony and to praise or condemn Frank's character.
A guilty verdict was announced on August 25, 1913. Frank and his lawyers made a series of unsuccessful appeals, limited by law to arguing procedural and due process issues rather than a reconsideration of the evidence. Their final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court failed in April 1915. Considering arguments from both sides as well as evidence not available at trial, Governor John M. Slaton commuted Frank's sentence to life imprisonment. By this time, the Frank case was a national issue. Outside Georgia, there was a widespread belief expressed by newspapers throughout the country that Frank's conviction was a travesty. Within Georgia, this outside criticism fueled hatred for Frank and antisemitic attacks against him.
Immediately after the commutation, a crowd of 1,200 marched on the governor's mansion in protest. 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. The new governor vowed to bring these people to justice, but even though the lynchers included prominent citizens of Marietta, Mary Phagan's hometown, and their roles in the lynching were generally known locally, none were ever brought to justice.
I went ahead and made the changes although the support for the language regarding appeals has not yet been added to the body of the article. While SmittyLiver has raised a small objection, it does not effect this edit since the material he/she disputes is only rearranged. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 01:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The reviewer of the article has suggested that the background section be expanded to include more than just the biographical material on Frank and Phagan. Towards that end I am proposing the following new subsection to head the background section:
The pathological conditions in the city menaced the home, the state, the schools, the churches, and, in the words of a contemporary Southern sociologist, the 'wholesome industrial life.' The institutions of the city were obviously unfit to handle urban problems. Against this background, the murder of a young girl in 1913 triggered a violent reaction of mass aggression, hysteria, and prejudice." [12]
Comments? Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 00:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The reviewer has asked us to reconsider the format of the article. I have found several places where the narrative is broken up by necessary, but difficult to place sections. At the same time it has been suggested that more details were warranted regarding the issues at trial. As part of this, I felt that elaboration on the details were necessary outside of simply the trial section. This particularly applies to the Appeals and Commutation sections which have been a continuing source of dispute in the article's talk pages. The following is my suggested reorganization.
Much of the existing language will be incorporated and needed details can be obtained from earlier versions of the article. Some new language and sourcing will be needed. I am not proposing any reorganization for the rest of the article.
Comments? Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 00:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The above title would replace the current "Suspicion falls on Frank". This section would follow the "Discovery" section and would fit in with the proposed reorganization described above. The main intent of the changes is to fill in details and make it clear why Frank was arrested. I've generally used the names of the days rather than the dates in order to make it clear the short period of time between the murder and Frank's arrest. I've also not used the names of specific people to simplify the narrative. The proposed section:
Police investigation
Comments? Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 00:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The existing language says very little about the actual indictment. The references to Tom Watson don't really serve any purpose -- it could possible be added back elsewhere in the article as an ironic aside. Likewise, the reference to Jews on the jury and the absence of anti-Semitism in this particular phase is misplaced here and should maybe be introduced later on based on the reorganization that I've proposed and nobody has expressed opposition to. I'm proposing the following language that is based in part on the October 2010 version of the article. I've also added info on later efforts initiated by the Grand Jury to indict Conley. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 16:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Content moved from GA review page:
One cannot, with fairness, honesty, and integrity, provide a proper overview of a case involving the conviction of an individual accused of the commission of a crime without providing a synopsis of the evidence relied upon to support that conviction. Any attempt to do so, especially when that attempt is made with the assertion of an implication that the individual in question was either unfairly, or otherwise improperly convicted, is more than simple POV pushing, it is an obvious, and outright mendacity. It is not only dishonest, but borders upon an additional crime in itself, making those who do so accessories after the fact, by serving to aid and abet the escape from justice of one guilty of the commission of a criminal act.
The suppression or deletion of references to the evidence relied upon by the trial jury to convict, and the appeals courts to subsequently uphold that conviction of Leo Frank is actually tantamount to murdering Mary Phagan a second time. 64.134.98.223 ( talk) 03:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I have now adjusted in Preferences so my time is the same as everyone else's! SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
To keep references consistent, and for simplicity, I don't believe we need years after most sources. For example, "Oney 2003" can just be "Oney" since the only reference to Oney in the Sources subsection is his book. At one point we had a "Further reading" section with a separate Oney link, but at this point it's redundant. We should also take care to have commas and periods uniform throughout the article. For example, a reference might look like "Oney p. 123." or "Oney pp. 123-125." with no comma after the name (assuming there is no year, in which case it would be "Dinnerstein 1987, p. 12."). There is also a period after each page number.
It might seem trivial, but I noticed it's started to become inconsistent, although the new material overall is good for the article. If anyone feels the formatting should be different, feel free to reply below. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 05:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Leo Frank actually changed the timing four times that he told people 13-year-old Little Mary Phagan allegedly had had entered his second floor window-front business office at the National Pencil Company on Georgia Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday April 26, 1913. Which one should we use for the article? What do we do in a situation where the protagonist gives us 4 distinct times? Do we pick the one that benefits or incriminates him?
1. On Sunday morning, April 27, 1913, standing in his office, Frank told first responders (Atlanta police) that Phagan had had arrived in his office yesterday at 12:03 p.m. April 26, 1913. (see: People v. Leo Frank documentary by Ben Loeterman and Steve Oney; Leo Frank trial brief of evidence, 1913).
2. On Monday morning, April 28, 1913, at the Atlanta stationhouse in an interrogation room, surrounded by police detectives and witnessed by his elite attorneys Luther Rosser (Governor John Slaton's lawpartner) and Herbert Haas, that Frank said Phagan had had arrived in his office on Georgia Confederate Memorial Day between 12:05 p.m. to 12:10 p.m. maybe 12:07 p.m. This unsworn statement was stenographed by Gay C. Febuary and became State’s Exhibit B at the Leo Frank trial (Q and A published in Atlanta Constitution, August 2nd 1913 at The Internet Archive).
3. On Monday, May 5th and Thursday May 8th, 1913, Frank told the Coroner’s jury that on the day of the murder, Phagan had had arrived in his office between 12:10 p.m to 12:15 p.m. (Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta Georgian & Atlanta Journal, May, 1913).
4. On Monday, August 18, 1913, Frank mounted the witness stand at his trial, made an unsworn oral statement to the jury and said that Phagan had had arrived in his office between 12:12 p.m to 12:17 p.m. (Leo Frank’s statement to the jury on August 18, 1913, trial brief of evidence, 1913).
Which one should we use for the article? or all of them? SmittyLiver ( talk) 11:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
You say to User SmittyLiver, "You still don't answer the question I asked."
This is not true. In regard to the significance of the arrival times of Mary Phagan and Monteen Stover, User SmittyLiver fully answered your question, and in the affirmative, that question being:
"Do you have any reliable secondary sources that say any of the above was seen as significant at the trial by anyone involved?"
User SmittyLiver then proceeded to cite numerous quotes and references which directly addressed the subject of your question.
So how do you then deny that your question was answered? 64.134.98.223 ( talk) 19:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I provided rewrites for these two sections to provide more details based on previous discussions. Like my previous edits, my feelings won't be hurt is the decision is made to condense the material. There was no "smoking gun" in either section and the sections should reflect that. I went through Oney's account of the trial page by page in order to write these sections -- many, many details are omitted that reflect the back and forth that inevitably occurs in a contested murder trial. Most factual issues were contested and many of the witnesses' integrity was questioned. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 22:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
No, Tom. What it actually means is that Mary Phagan rolled out of bed around 11 am, did whatever personal care things they did back then, peed (?), got dressed for her holiday activities, ate her meager breakfast at 11:30, and left the house to catch her trolley at 11:45. 64.134.98.223 ( talk) 19:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, wasn't there a photo of Jim Conley in the article at one point? Was it removed? If not shouldn't one be added? Would it also benefit the article to add an image of Alonzo Mann? SmittyLiver ( talk) 00:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I have just added a reorganized appeals section. This will allow the reader to recognize that the process was not simply a rehearing over and over again of the same facts -- it shows that specific issues were examined at each step of the process. It also shows that the evidence produced at the original trial in many cases may be either complete or inaccurate. Some of the material in the old section is more appropriate for the to-be-written section "Antisemtism and local and national newspaper coverage." Once again, this is a lot of detail but much is still left out. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 20:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I've added an expansion of this section based on the proposed reorganization above. This should give the reader a better picture of how the general knowledge of the evidence continued to evolve from the original trial and appeals. Some material sourced directly to Slaton's message was rewritten and sourced to secondary sources that said the same thing. I also changed the section levels based on a suggestion by Tony. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 13:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the modifications in the trial section according to the proposed reorganization. The trial section still needs two additional sections which should be added tomorrow. These edits, along with earlier edits, should give a good preview of the type of detail that is being returned/added to the article. Other editors may wish to start consolidating language and shortening it. In particular, I'm not sure that the last part of the "Timeline" section can't be reduced. The reviewer has suggested more detail might be beneficial -- we might want to start discussing how detailed to go. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 01:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This article should not receive GA status before the following issues, among others raised here are properly addressed and rectified in re GA criteria:
2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
No. References appearing in the article are heavily weighted toward sources which promote the idea that Frank was "wrongfully convicted", and which themselves have been repeatedly shown to fail the test of fact-checking and accuracy.
B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary
No. The inclusion of reliable sources, especially primary sources, which support Frank's conviction have been consistently attacked, branded "unreliable", and removed from the article by pro-Frank editors in order to promote the fringe idea that he was "wrongfully convicted".
C. No original research
No. At least one editor has involved himself in OR by personally contacting one or more author(s) of secondary source material in order to aquire advice and information to support or bolster the fringe POV that Frank was "innocent".
4. Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias
No. The article continues to be heavily biased in favor of Frank. The evidence, reasoning, and sources which support the official determination of Frank's guilt by every level of the judicial system is repeatedly and relentlessly removed, obscured, mischaracterized, or otherwise attacked throughout the article by pro-Frank editors lobbying for exclusive reliance upon pro-Frank sources who all employ a shameful obfuscation of relevant facts, as well as fabricated nonsense in order to push their common, and all too obvious agenda, which is to promote the idea of Frank's "innocence".
Although a very cleverly worded article, it is full of weasel words, and still pushes an obvious pro-Frank POV.
See [ THIS] discussion, and [ THIS] discussion as examples of the type of chicanery that has been present in this article for years.
See also [ THIS] discussion, as well as this entry from the recent [ Aborted Review] as only 2 of many relevant examples of disruptive editing and ownership behavior by one of the most fervently pro-Frank editors of this article:
Tom, you are not allowing any constructive edits. I think you are classic WP:OOA showing all the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR symptoms. The way the article currently looks is straight WP:POV due to your WP:DRNC, and I am not alone in this thinking. I took a break after your last attack. But as this article is basically being held hostage by you, I can only fail the GA nomination. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 13:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc
No. A false "consensus" has only ever been temporarily maintained as a result of the selective, and highly questionable reverting, harassment, or blocking of individual editors who attempt to include factual information and sources which tend to demonstrate the guilt of Frank, a most notable example of which appears [ HERE].
This article remains "stable" only when it is "protected" by those who share an interest in preserving it merely as a vehicle to exonerate Frank. No doubt a number of editors seeking a neutral POV have become reluctant to even participate in the building of this article because the concerted efforts of various pro-Frank editors and administrators to push a pro-Frank POV have evolved to the point of lodging accusations of sockpuppetry against editors who attempt to bring the article into a state of neutrality.
Given the huge amount of properly resourced facts and evidence concerning this case that over time have been capriciously and unjustifiably removed from this article, a prime example of which may be found [ HERE], and [ HERE],has merely served to preserve this article as a POV whitewashing of Leo Frank. To ignore these issues renders any promotion to GA status as nothing less than ridiculous. 64.134.98.223 ( talk) 19:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)