Talk:Leo Frank/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Request for Comment -- Inbalance in the article lede

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)

Reliable secondary sources arguing Frank's innocence

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)

Reviews of Dinnerstein from JSTOR

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)

Tom, we're living in the 21st century and you're citing people from the 60s and 70s. Atlanta Gov released thousands of pages of legal records about Frank's case after 2010 debunking all these social-justice-warrior activists. Do you have any more sources (like the ones you listed above) that use academic dishonesty to agitate and activist monger on Leo Frank's behalf? you call these sources reliable, but they aren't reliable. Verifiability is the hallmark of Wikipedia. According to Elliot Dashfield, "historian" Dinnerstein uses academic dishonesty and misconduct, quote" Leonard Dinnerstein was interviewed for the video documentary The People vs. Leo Frank (2009). In that interview, he makes statements that he must know to be untrue 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. But that is a bald-faced lie. 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." Woodward - "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)" -- this is a fallacious statement, he never presents the evidence. In fact, no one can seem to provide any "overwhelmingly more incriminating" evidence that Jim Conley and not Leo Frank committed the rape-strangulation of Phagan. Conley admitted to writing the notes, and removing the body from the men's toilet to the basement. Goldstein -- There are little parallels, other than fabrication and Antigentilism, between the Dreyfus and Frank case. None of these POV warriors you mentioned above can back up their claim that Leo Frank is innocent with any real evidence deemed reliable by the 1986 Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles. There are many examples of Steve Oney and Dinnerstein using academic dishonesty in their mission to convince us that Leo Frank was innocent. Both Oney and Dinnerstein use the Mary Phagan bitemark hoax. According to Elliot Dashfield, Quote"Dinnerstein knowingly references claims that do not stand up to even minimal scrutiny. For example, he uncritically accepts the 1964 hoax by hack writer and self-promoter Pierre van Paassen, who claimed that there were in existence in 1922 X-ray photographs at the Fulton County Courthouse, taken in 1913, of Leo Frank’s teeth, and also X-ray photographs of bite marks on Mary Phagan’s neck and shoulder – and that anti-Semites had suppressed this evidence.. Van Paassen further alleged – and Dinnerstein repeated – that the dimensions of Frank’s teeth did not match the “bite marks,” thereby exonerating Frank. Here’s the excerpt from van Paassen’s 1964 book To Number Our Days (pages 237 and 238) that Dinnerstein endorses: “The Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building. Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime. “I took to reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place. “Though, as I said, the man died several years before, it was not too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frank’s innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested. Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles old resentments might be stirred up and, who knows, some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community. “That someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: ‘Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy.’ The unsigned warning was reinforced one night or, rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch….” Dinnerstein references these pages in his book (page 158 of the 2008 edition), saying “In 1923, at the height of the Ku Klux Klan’s power, a foreign journalist, working for The Atlanta Constitution, became interested in Leo Frank and went back to study the records of the case. He came across some x-rays showing teeth indentations in Mary Phagan’s left shoulder and compared them with x-rays of Frank’s teeth; but the two sets did not correspond. On the basis of this, and other insights garnered from his investigation, the newspaperman wanted to write a series ‘proving’ Frank’s innocence. One anonymous correspondent sent him a printed note: ‘Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy,’ but this did not deter him.” Since Dinnerstein is such a lofty academic scholar and professor, perhaps he simply forgot to ask a current freshman in medical school if it was even possible to X-ray bite marks on skin in 1913 – or necessary in 2012, for that matter – because it’s not. In 1913, X-ray technology was in its infancy and never used in any criminal case until many years after Leo Frank was hanged. Was Leo Frank’s lawyer named “Harry Alexander” or Henry Alexander? Why would the famous attorney who represented Leo Frank during his most high-profile appeals say he didn’t have his trial yet?! Leo Frank was not lynched on his way to trial in Milledgeville – he wasn’t on his way to anywhere, and it happened in Marietta, 170 miles away. And it defies the laws of physics, and all logic and reason, to believe that any person driving a motor vehicle in 1922 – when there were virtually no safety features in automobiles – could suffer a direct collision with a “fast-moving streetcar” and survive “without a scratch.” Oddly, Dinnerstein says van Paassen “was not deterred” from writing the supposed series of articles, though even the hoaxer himself clearly implies that he was indeed deterred. (Even the most basic online research would also have shown that van Paassen is a far from credible source who once publicly claimed to have seen supernatural “ghost dogs” which could appear and disappear at will.) Not only did Dinnerstein completely fail to point out the obviously preposterous nature of van Paassen’s account, but he blandly presents his claims as established historical fact. Surely Leonard Dinnerstein has had, and continues to have, access to the primary sources in this case. Certainly he can read the official legal documents online at the State of Georgia’s online archive known as the Virtual Vault, as I have done without difficulty. It is hard to fathom the deep contempt that Leonard Dinnerstein must have for his readers. Did he think that these official legal records, once buried in dusty government vaults, would never make their way online? Did he think that Georgia’s three major newspapers from 1913 to 1915, the Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta Journal, and Atlanta Georgian, would never make their way online? Or does his contempt run even deeper – did he think that, online or not, none of us would ever check up on his claims? Leonard Dinnerstein uses the anti-Semitic hoax of people screaming bloody chants of murder "hang the Jew" at the trial Jury that is like an Al Sharpton / Tawana Brawley style racist hatecrime hoax and Antigentile bloodlibel (Dinnerstein admitted in 2014/2015 his anti-Semitic hoax is not sufficient). According to Elliot Dashfield, Quote, "In his article in the American Jewish Archive Journal (1968) Volume 20, Number 2, Dinnerstein makes his now-famous claim that mobs of anti-Semitic Southerners, outside the courtroom where Frank was on trial, were shouting into the open windows “Crack the Jew’s neck!” and “Lynch him!” and that members of the crowd were making open death threats against the jury, saying that the jurors would be lynched if they didn’t vote to hang “the damn sheeny.” But not one of the three major Atlanta newspapers, who had teams of journalists documenting feint-by-feint all the events in the courtroom, large and small, and who also had teams of reporters with the crowds outside, ever reported these alleged vociferous death threats. And certainly such a newsworthy event could not be ignored by highly competitive newsmen eager to sell papers and advance their careers. Do you actually believe that the reporters who gave us such meticulously detailed accounts of this Trial of the Century, even writing about the seating arrangements in the courtroom, the songs sung outside the building by folk singers. and the changeover of court stenographers in relays, would leave out all mention or notice of a murderous mob making death threats to the jury? During the two years of Leo Frank’s appeals, none of these alleged anti-Semitic death threats were ever reported by Frank’s own defense team. There is not a word of them in the 3,000 pages of official Leo Frank trial and appeal records – and all this despite the fact that Reuben Arnold made the claim during his closing arguments that Leo Frank was tried only because he was a Jew. The patently false accusation that European-American Southerners used death threats to terrorize the jury into convicting Leo Frank is a racist blood libel, pure and simple. Yet, thanks to Leonard Dinnerstein, this fictional episode has entered the consciousness of Americans of all stations as “history” – as one of the pivotal facts of the Frank case. It has been repeated countless times, in popular articles and academic essays, on stage and on film and television, and, as the 100th anniversary of the case approaches, it will be repeated as many times again – until there is not a single man, woman, or child who is unaware of it. That is anti-history, not history. I would say shame on Leonard Dinnerstein – if I thought him a being capable of shame. Dinnerstein, who supported himself almost his entire life by writing about anti-Semitism, would surely know better than anyone else that if such an incident had actually happened, it would have been the stuff of lurid headlines long before 1918, to say nothing of 1968. His contempt for us – his firm belief that we will not check any of his claims – is palpable." Stop altering what I write in the Talk page Tom. Keep your hands off altering my posts. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You didn't give any reliable sources that criticized Dinnerstein. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Elliot Dashfield, from the American Mercury. He debunked 3 major examples of academic dishonesty by Leonard Dinnerstein in the article "The Leo Frank Case: A Pseudo-History" (2012'). Before anyone starts claiming this source is anti-Semitic, I checked the article for Hitlerism. There is nothing touting National Socialism ideology or that Hitler was a great man in the article. So taking that tact is illogical. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think this article is a reliable source per WP:SOURCE? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

And who is Elliot Dashfield? Why don't you take your American Mercury stuff to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard since you repeatedly refuse to tell us who these people are that you keep citing? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources arguing Frank's guilt

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)

Actually the sources have no reliability. You have repeatedly refused to explain why the websites you mention should be considered reliable (who runs them?) or explain why the authors cited are relaible (what are their credentials -- most seem to be pseudonyms). These have all been discussed below except for the Jasper Dorsey article -- Dorsey is apparently the son of one of the lynchers. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually you are mistaken. They are reliable and their credentials are obvious they are research journalists writing in scholarly manner. The articles from The American Mercury about the Leo Frank case are obviously well written scholarly research treatments and reliable sources. It is your POV that these articles are written pseudonymously. Claiming Jasper Dorsey is apparently the son of one of the lynchers is your own opinion there is no definitive proof of it. You are really resorting to loathsome tactics trying to suggest someone is a son of a lyncher. Similar to your loathsome tactic of conflating someone with anti-Semitism because they agree with Tom Watson that the evidence proved Frank guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Wikipedia is not a battleground for your POV, we use scholarly an reliable sources here. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I've taken this to the reliable sources noticeboard -- let's see what others have to say about your sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you please provide the link to the reliable noticeboard? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 01:06, 25 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)

Also, perhaps it would help if you contacted The American Mercury directly, explained to them the situation here, and requested some information or references from them that would demonstrate or affirm their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 64.134.70.25 (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom-No is using the ADL / SPLC anti-Gentile canard approach of equating the articles with anti-Semitism and neo-Nazism. None of the articles about the Leo Frank case on the American Mercury promote National Socialism, Hitlerism, anti-Jewish stereotypes or religious prejudice against Jews. This really is a viciously hideous and infantalized approach to stir up ethnic and religious emotional anomosity. Instead of fact checking the articles, he is smearing them with charges or racial and religious bigotry to make it impossible for anyone to look at the American Mercury articles objectively. I have look at the archives of Leo Frank article and Tom-No's contribution history to wikipedia, both show his POV warrior bias to be his long standing approach. IP do you know of any other secondary sources that argue for Leo Frank's guilt? Please create a name account on wikipedia, I have been accused of being you!GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

My response to Tom-No's reliable sources notice board: Tom-No's modusoperandi of making fallacious accusations smack of monomaniacal POV warrior activism by using emotionally laden terms like Antisemitism and neo-Nazi as red-herrings to distract from the actual content/substance of these articles. Factchecking, critical thinking, commonsense, reason and logic are the primary apertures that we apply when determining verifiability, accuracy, veracity, and objectivity. Falsely accusing scholarly research articles about the Frank case of neo-nazism and ethnoreligious bigotry when their is not one scintilla of evidence for race-hatred in them, is Tawana Brawley level race baiting. I ask all the administrators on wikipedia to read the specific articles on The American Mercury by Bradford L. Huie (son of William Bradford Huie), Mark Cohen and Elliot Dashfield about the Leo Frank Case to point out anything in them that promotes national socialism, hitler or modern neo-nazism. The following articles being accused of racism are by 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; Elliot Dashfield (Leonard Dinnerstein's Book "The Leo Frank Case", A Pseudo-History); and Mark Cohen (Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case? and Did Leo Frank Confess?). GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

8. Augusta Chronicle-Herald, May 15, 1983, statement by Justice Randall Evans Jr.

Quote "Judge Randall Evans, Jr., from the Augusta Chronicle-Herald dated May 15, 1983.

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)

I'm updating this now, there are 9 reliable sources arguing Leo Frank's guilt that I found.

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)

9. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles ruled there was no evidence to prove Leo Frank was innocent, 1982-1986.

Nine reliable sources arguing Leo Frank's guilt. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of the issues

• Support As the originator of this RFC, I support adding the sentence. The lead guidelines (see [3] state that the lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies and " "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." As the article now exists, there is no mention of the controversy on the fairness of the trial, the consensus that Frank was probably innocent, and the probability that Conley was the actual killer. The themes of Frank's probable innocence and Conley's likely guilt is present throughout the reliable secondary sources on Frank. There are few if any reliable sources arguing that the jury got it right. Without this basic information in the lead, readers are denied significant information. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Proposal as written - phrases like "a large number of reliable sources," or "very few" or "many of these sources" are weasel words and as written this looks like synthesis to me. I would, however, support a properly cited and attributed statement that says something similar. I'd suggest something along the lines of "according to historian Matthew Bernstein, 'most students of the case now agree' that it was likely Jim Conley, rather than Leo Frank, who killed Mary Phagan." source. I'm sure there are other similar quotes out there that could be used, that's just what I found with a quick search. The point is that it's not our place to determine what "most" reliable sources say - that statement itself needs to be properly sourced & attributed, or it's OR. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The proposed language to be added to the article does not include the language you object to. Only the boldfaced text would go into the article. The article as proposed would not quantify (i.e all historians, some historians, most historians), but I have no problem going in your direction, either. The Melnick quote above says the same thing as Bernstein. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like i misread the proposal, sorry about that! Ive struck the bit about weasel words. But unless it's directly attributed to a specific source, the statement that "Scholars over the past sixty years believe that Frank was in fact innocent" is still problematic as SYNTH/OR. I would support a version that uses the Melnick quote instead. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with the previous comment; this would need to be sourced from one specific author. Melnick's quote would be a good substitute. If this course is taken, then it should also be mentioned somewhere in the body and cited there, eliminating the need for a citation in the lead. There should be a good place in the body for this quote as well, with some more elaboration than the lead. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

How would you write, for the lead, what you are proposing? This is what Melnick actually says, "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.” Something like this seems like an adequate paraphrase: "Jeffrey Melnick indicates there is a clear historical consensus that Frank was innocent."

As far as adding info to the body, I have been working on that -- see the top section at User:North Shoreman/Sandbox. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

PS You seem to be concerned about footnotes in the lead. However WP:LEADCITE seems to make it clear that this shouldn't be a problem. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose re-reading archive-here tom-north-shoreman and his cohorts behavior is despicable, having been POV warrior attacking anyone questioning anti-scholarship historiography and academic dishonesty of pro-frank authors for YEARS. I'm now discovering examples of extremist misconduct, fabrication (lying according to wikipedia page on academic dishonesty) and academic dishonesty in the authors tom-north-shoreman touts as scholars (re: Dinnerstein). Being prolific writers, having Ivyleague or academic credentials doesn't make a scholar, it takes dispassionate research scholarship. Dinnerstein has proven himself to be an anti-scholar and practiced academic dishonesty in his PHD dissertation paper (re: anti-semitic hoax of "hang the jews" being screamed at trial jury during open court, now suggesting 2014/2015 by dinnerstein to be false accordding to tonystewart through FACEBOOK e-conversations and still needing debunking is dinnerstein's promulgation of "phagan bitemark hoax" re pierre van paassen 64'). In 1986, the ADL with insensitive insolence pressed the alonzo-mann-hoax fraud; resulting in Georgia pardon board stating there was no evidence in Mann's statements showing certainty of Frank's innocence. If a modern Georgia pardon board refused to exonerate Frank, then his guilt remains legally binding since 86'. Two reliable sources point to Frank's guilt. One Mary Kean https://archive.org/details/TheMurderOfMaryPhaganByLeoFrankIn1913 "The Murder of Little Mary Phagan" 89' and Two https://archive.org/details/NotesOnTheCaseOfLeoMaxFrankAndItsAftermath "Notes on the Case of Leo M. Frank" 1982 Tom W. Brown, Emery University, Atlanta, Georgia. I agree statements about "modern scholars" should go in body, not the lede. Tom, I think you forgot about Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. These sources you cite some promote Dinnerstein's anti-semitic hoax "hang the jew" and "Phagan Bitemark Hoax", the prior an admitted fabrication (Wikipedia calls it a LIE in academic dishonesty) Dinnerstein (re: user Tony Stewart) just admitted is no longer valid. Oney promotes the phagan bitemark hoax. The other "scholars" you listed provide little to no evidence that Conley is guilty. This is not scholarship. These writers you listed are not scholars, because they provide no evidence for their assertions. These are biased POV Warrior anti-Scholars. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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. Is that about right? The first website you list contains this ridiculous claim: "Most importantly, Phagan-Kean dispels one of the central anti-Christian, anti-Southern and anti-Gentile blood libel conspiracies perpetuated by the Jewish community about the Frank-Phagan Case -- the hatecrime hoax that has been reasserted in the popular culture for more than one hundred years as of 2013 ..." Brown defends the "scholarship" of Tom Watson with this in your second website: "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 have been censored for more than 100 years."This advocacy of a Jewish conspiracy is not going to be found in any reliable sources and it doesn't take membership in a "cult" to recognize the ugly, antisemitic nature of Watson's writings.

For all your talk about hoaxes and fraud, can you cite any reliable source that makes such charges? Didn't think so. Your blanket dismissal of ten scholars as "POV Warrior anti-scholars" is silly. They all are writing either in books reviewed positively in scholarly journals (found on JSTOR) or in JSTOR indexed articles. The credentials of the authors listed can be easily verified online. Your unsubstantiated, reckless language against Dinnerstein borders on a BLP violation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with conflating any anti-Semitic reviews pro / con of anyone's writing. Mary Kean's book "The Murder of Little Mary Phagan" is accurately described as "the most even handed book about the subject." and is used quite often by every modern scholar of the Frank case. I found no anti-Semitism in her book or anti-scholarship. Give me an example of anti-Scholarship in her book. She dispels Dinnerstein's "hang the Jew" hoax and Phagan bitemark hoax in 87' / 89' treatment. Oney dispelled Dinnerstein's anti-semitic "hang the jew" death-threats-being-screamed-at-the-trial-jury hoax. If you can show me examples of anti-Semitism in the Kean book, please share it. Tom W. Brown was an attorney and professor at Emory University, who was trained in evaluating testimony weight or "sifting" as another user put it. Show me examples of anti-Semitism in Tom W. Brown's 1982 research report on Frank case. I found no racism or anti-Judaism. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles said Alonzo Mann's testimony and other evidence presented was insufficient to exonerate Leo Frank. Therefore in 1986, Leo Frank's guilt is fully established by GA law, contrary to these so-called scholars providing no substantial evidence that hasn't been reviewed by the Georgia tribunal during four years (82'-86'). The board reviewed all the modern claims pressed by ADL and other cohorts who-worked-together-for-exoneration that were ruled insufficient to address Frank's innocence or guilt. Verifiability and reliability are scholarship hallmarks at Wikipedia. Nothing silly bout' that. Credentials don't make scholars when they use fabrication (academic dishonesty) and fallacious evidence. Making claims and not supporting them with evidence deemed officially valid by the Georgia BOPAP is not scholarship, it's anti-scholarship. Using fabrication (according to Wikipedia academic dishonesty or academic misconduct is a serious violation) to convince people someone is innocent or guilty is not scholarship, it's lying, which is anti-scholarship. Anyone can say Leo Frank is innocent. Anyone can say Leo Frank is guilty. But verifiable and reliable evidence is required. Dozens of the sources listed in bibliographia of the Frank article use Dinnerstein's now acknowledged-by-him as "insufficient", or as Gulbenk put it bogus "hang the jews", (re: Leo M. Frank and the American Jewish Community', American Jewish Archive Journal, 1968, Volume 20, number 2), is not scholarship, it's academic dishonesty / academic misconduct. Dinnerstein and Oney both promulgating Pierre van Paasen's Mary Phagan bitemark hoax 64' as "real evidence" this not scholarship, it's called academic dishonesty / academic misconduct. These other so-called scholars you mentioned, the evidence they present in their books is insufficient according to Georgia BOPAP. Isn't it silly to say Kean's book isn't scholarship when it represents a lifetime of scholarly research? Isn't it silly to accuse Tom W. Brown of conflated guilt by association because of his grandfather's words from 1915? Isn't it silly that everytime someone discovers one of the so-called scholars of the frank case you tout fabricated evidence, or promulgates false evidence or is put in question, you behave like a POV warrior making attacking accusations against the person suggesting anti-Semitism (re: Tom W. Brown)? I turn now to Tony Stewart who emailed Dinnerstein and finally got him to admit the "hang the Jews" is not reliable or verifiable (Where's the newspaper clipping? Does it even exist?). Tony, please find out once and for al from Dinnerstein about the Phagan bitemark hoax he promulgates as "real evidence" of Frank's innocence in his PHD thesis paper and books. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

(This discussion was brought to my attention by GingerBreadHarlot.[4])

GingerBreadHarlot, Could you give an excerpt from a reliable source stating that Leo Frank is not innocent? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I stated above Mary Kean's book "The Murder of Little Mary Phagan" yrs 87' / 89', and Tom W. Brown, Attorney and Professor at Emory University, Notes on Leo M. Frank Case, 82'. Tom northshoreman tried to conflate guilt of anti-Semitism because authors came to same conclusion as Tom Watson. Other people who think Leo Frank is guilty are Bradford L Huie, 100 Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty, April 26, 2013, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank trial Week three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four. Eliot Dashfield The Leo Frank Case A Pseudo-History. Mark Cohen Who Really Solved the Mary Phagan Murder Case?. That's 5 authors who wrote articles or books showing evidence, without hoaxes that Frank was guilty. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Your response didn't give the requested excerpt. Here's the request again: Could you give an excerpt from a reliable source stating that Leo Frank is not innocent? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Off the top of my head no, but I gave you 5 authors whose central thesis is Leo Frank is guilty and their entire articles are written to prove the point with evidence, not hoaxes (re: Phagan bitemark hoax / anti-Semitic hoax of people screaming death threats at jury during trial). The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles (BOPAP) ruled there is no evidence to exonerate Leo Frank. That's an official government tribunal stating the opposite of what some of these "scholars" are asserting. The evidence some of these authors Tom northshoreman touts use evidence that has Georgia BOPAP ruled is insufficient. Alonzo Mann's testimony was ruled insufficient evidence to exonerate Leo Frank. Dinnerstein admitted the "hang the Jew" claim was insufficient. Now we are waiting on Tony Stewart to find out about the Phagan bitemark hoax. Saying Leo Frank is innocent, but not providing any verifiable evidence is not scholarship, it's academic dishonesty. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The American Mercury, the vehicle used by your "5 authors", is hardly a reliable source. Check out The American Mercury#Revival and the links provided there -- one of the sources describes it as "H.L. Mencken’s historic magazine, resurrected online by neo-Nazis several years ago". None of the authors you mention have any qualifications as reliable sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Er. What? Neo-Nazi? Anyone who posts the trial transcript now gets accused of propaganda, Neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism? You're quoting sources like ADL. Are you aware that on two locations of http://www.ADL.org they promulgate Dinnerstein's anti-Semitic hoax about people shouting "hang the Jew" at the trial jury during open court? ADL promotes Dinnerstein's BIGLIE anti-Semitic hoax. Abe Foxman tried to prevent the U.S. congress from recognizing the 1915 genocide of Armenians in Turkey (re: ADL Wikipedia article). This smacks of holocaust denial. Both of these examples are something I would expect from a disreputable organization, not a civil rights group. Article on the American Mercury shows what kind of dirty-tricks organization ADL with its anti-Semitism canard and criminal ties to mafia and other heinous behavior, ADL One Hundred Years of Hate. You are trying to conflate Neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism with the articles written about Frank's legal case, but none of the articles on American Mercury about Frank mention Hitler or National Socialism or Nazism. Here are the examples I posted from American Mercury = Bradford L Huie, 100 Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty, April 26, 2013, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank trial Week three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four. Eliot Dashfield The Leo Frank Case A Pseudo-History. Mark Cohen Who Really Solved the Mary Phagan Murder Case? Can you give me examples of Hitler being promoted by these Frank case articles or are you trying to conflate that anyone who thinks the American legal system was correct for not absolving Frank with Neo-Nazism / Neo-Nazis? The Torah / Old Testament is very clear about homosexuality, but the SPLC calls many Christian organizations that are against homosexuality as extremists / domestic extremists. A psychopath killed a member from one of these traditionalist christian groups. The killer saying he got his inspiration and information from the SPLC web site. These organizations don't get to decide that something is anti-Semitic because it proves with trial testimony / evidence that Leo Frank was guilty. Many of these scholars you cite above are promoting anti-african-american racism by using fabricated / fallacious / disingenuous evidence to blame an african-american man for a crime he didn't commit, but admitted to being an accessory. ADL, SPLC, Jewish forward do not get to decide that something is anti-Semitic or not credible because it disagrees with their lying-by-omission and anti-scholarship. That's heinous and evil you would conflate neo-nazism with scholarly articles written about the Leo Frank case that show evidence of his guilt. Show me in the the American Mercury articles about Leo Frank where it promotes Hitler. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Summoned by RfC bot. Language proposed seems to be amply supported by the reliable sources. Coretheapple (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It has been the objective of Tom (North Shoreman) to use the Wikipedia voice to advocate for Frank's innocence. His acknowledged reason for saying (in the lead) that the Frank trial was "controversial" is because the outcome (guilty verdict) was simply not in keeping with his personal beliefs. Now he is attempting to place other language in the lead, to achieve the same objective. I accept that he is not alone in his beliefs. There are numerous individuals, many of them authors, who want Frank to be innocent. They have expressed that in various works. Oney, who is perhaps the best of the lot, says he is "pretty sure" that Frank was innocent. But when it comes to offering a reason for their beliefs, this crowd of Frank supporters gets very vague. Oney says that the prosecution case "doesn't hold water". Whatever that specifically means is unknown. Others try to cling to the Mann affidavit, which the BOPAP reviewed and rejected as proof of anything other than the fact that Conley used the ladder instead of the elevator. The bite mark fraud (cited by others) is a fabrication. The atmosphere of rabid anti-Semitism, and jury intimidation, which was the argument of nearly every learned author and historian of the last half of the 20th century, and cited as absolute proof that Frank was railroaded, is now shown to be false. So many sincere beliefs have not held up to unbiased examination. So when it comes to stating beliefs, we can continue to include them in the body of the text, with the proper weight, stating that it is an opinion. But when we insert those opinions and beliefs in the lead, the way it is proposed, we are wrongfully lending the authority of this encyclopedia to support those beliefs and that point of view. Gulbenk (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

My personal beliefs are shaped by the reliable sources mentioned above. Where are your reliable sources -- all I see are your unsubstantiated claims? You claim that all Oney says about the case against Frank is that it "doesn't hold water." That of course is not true. In 650 pages of text Oney has quite a bit to say about problems with the case. The book has been extensively reviewed in scholarly journals -- nobody says that he fails to produce evidence. Where are the reviews that support your claim? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The sources listed above support the suggested wording. Bus stop (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support - summoned by bot. I also believe the consensus is heavily in favor of his innocence or is WP:OR, but I also suggest, Most modern scholars doubt Frank's guilt. if people think "innocent" is too strong. I don't see how this is WP:SYNTHESIS. (I'm not sure where I'm supposed to leave this message because of the rambling article of text below by IP user - I don't know if this is all one message or two and someone didn't leave signature... it's preferable to have a "vote" section and underneath it a "long discussion" section. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose A secondary source which obviously contradicts primary source material is suspect on its face, and should not be considered a reliable source. Allowing editors to intentionally ignore primary sources in favor of arguably biased, or dishonest secondary sources not only promotes anti-scholarship and academic dishonesty, but results in a purposeful public deception as well. Undue weight is given throughout this article to various questionable secondary sources, while contradictory primary sources, along with contradictory reliable secondary sources, are virtually ignored. The statement, "Scholars over the past sixty years believe that Frank was in fact innocent" is especially misleading in that its clear implication is that "(All) scholars over the past sixty years believe that Frank was in fact innocent", and further implies that the statement is undisputed. Yet the statement he proposes is based upon a collection of biased, unreliable sources, as will be demonstrated below. The statement is therefore not only unbalanced, but inaccurate, unverifiable, and POV.

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)

64.134.98.211—you say "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'." I think that most sources affirm the presence of the factor of antisemitism in this case. Can you perhaps call our attention to a source supporting the absence of antisemitism in the Leo Frank case? We should abide by the findings of most good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop is correct that many older sources "affirm" the presence of anti-Semitism. That (as I pointed out in my comments, above, about the dangers of substituting popular opinion for fact) was the overwhelming opinion of authors and historians in the last half of the 20th century. Chief among that group was Dinnerstein and Golden, who brushed aside the findings of Governor Slaton (who unambiguously stated that anti-Semitism was not a factor in the trial) and the lack of anti-Semitism in the actual trial evidence. Instead, Dinnerstein and others seemed to have been heavily influenced by the post-trial Ochs/Lasker media campaign to exonerate Frank, which concentrated and expanded on the charge of anti-Semitism, a defense initially raised by the Frank team at trial.

Albert Lindemann's 1991 book The Jew Accused looks at the charge, and has this to say: "The case that Dorsey built against Frank was not based in any overt way upon anti-Semitism... And at the trial Dorsey vigorously countered the charges of the defense that Frank was a victim of an anti-Semitic frame-up. In his summation to the jury, Dorsey explicitly denounced racial anti-Semitism, indeed, indulged in some of the common philo-Semitic rhetoric of the day... In short, Atlanta was not Kishinev or Kiev; government officials, the police, the political establishment in general had never acted prejudicially against Jews, individually or collectively, openly or covertly. Dorsey was not an anti-Semite, nor was he operating in a previously existing ant-Semitic climate. Attacks on Jews had not been used in the past to gain popularity or public office." Lindemann goes on to characterize Dorsey as "the friend of Jews".

Dinnerstein has, in more recent years, retracted or modified a few of his unsupportable statements, but has not retracted his core assertion that Frank was a victim of an anti-Semitic frame-up. But detailed and unbiased analysis by Lindemann and other more recent scholarly works have shown the opposite, and it would be very difficult to support Dinnerstein's assertions as the prevailing view today. Gulbenk (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Misleading. Lindemann does present a very nuanced analysis of the Frank case and is an excellent source for the fact that Frank was innocent. Lindemann could also be used as a source for the statement in question that the Frank case "drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States." Lindemann writes (p. 268):

"Throughout the United States, large numbers of Americans, by no means only or even primarily Jews, responded as if this was another Dreyfus or Beilis affair, a horrible miscarriage of justice, unthinkable in the United States -- or perhaps possible only in the 'bigoted South'."

Similarly, reducing Dinnerstein's analysis to an "anti-Semitic frame-up" is simply a straw man argument. Check out this 2003 article [5] by Dinnerstein which is consistent with his book. Rather than "anti-Semitic frame-up", Dinnerstein writes in the first paragraph, consistent with Lindemann and our own article's lead, "The degree of anti-Semitism involved in Frank's conviction and subsequent lynching is difficult to assess, but it was enough of a factor to have inspired Jews, and others, throughout the country to protest the conviction of an innocent man. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Once again it is Tom (North Shoreman) in the role of the pot calling the kettle black. Specifically, it is Tom who seeks to mislead. The quote from Lindemann pertains to the period after the trial, when Ochs and Lasker were whipping up public opinion, in their campaign to exonerate Frank. The public, outside of Georgia, was largely unaware of Frank before that. The Ochs/Lasker effort was a purposefully crafted campaign of misinformed and half truths. It would be hard to find a source (even the ADL) claiming that The New York Times (Ochs' paper) editorials and articles about the Frank trial were fair and balanced. One only has to look at Lindenmann's last words in the quote - about the perception of a 'bigoted South'. Lindemann goes to great length in his book to show (some of which I have previously quoted) that there was no overhanging atmosphere of anti-Semitism in the South at the time of the trial. With regard to Jews, there was no 'bigoted South', until Ochs and Lasker created that image with their media campaign. And, of course Tom knows that. Gulbenk (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You need to pay attention and stay on topic. Yes, the statement from Lindemann pertains to the period after the trial. However the question asked by Bus stop also pertains to the period after the trial. The entire sentence questioned is "His conviction, appeals, death sentence, commutation, and subsequent extrajudicial hanging in 1915 by a lynch mob planned and led by prominent citizens in Marietta, Georgia, drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States." All of the events in bold happened after the trial, didn't they? The sentence is totally accurate and fully supported by Lindemann. You and the IP (who could be anybody) have failed to support your shared claim.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:01, 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)

• Comment — After reviewing the arguments here, there’s a lot that I could discuss. I think the simplest thing for me to do is to offer an edit. It seems to me that the originally proposed edit of this RfC is related to the last sentence paragraph of the lead.

At the request of the ADL, a prominent Jewish civil rights organization, Frank was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles. The Board described the pardon as "an effort to heal old wounds" without addressing the question of guilt or innocence. Leo Frank was not officially absolved of the crime."

I would change this paragraph to the following.

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.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Fyddlestix and Tonystewart14 have suggested a similar solution and I also have no problem with it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

These aren't researchers (Tom's list), they're racists, most of who use every sort of academic dishonesty and misconduct to fallaciously convince people that Frank was innocent. Many of them are promoting anti-Black racism and bigoted conspiracy theories by falsely accusing an african american man of actually committing the crime alone. Conley helped solve the crime of Phagan's murder, but it took the police weeks to finally break him down using goodcop-badcop. These so-called scholars often present no official evidence from the trial, except poppycock from 50 years after the conviction. These anti-scholars support their anti-black racism with 64' Pierre van Paassen's Phagan bitemark hoax, the Alonzo Mann Hoax (1982-1986) and Dinnerstein's anti-Semitic hoax "Hang the Jew, Hang the Jew". This is not research and these are not researchers, this is racism being pushed by racists. Dinnerstein is not a researchers, he is a hoaxer. Dinnerstein's anti-semitic hoax (re: Tony Stewart, contacted Dinnerstein who admitted "hang the Jew, hang the Jew" is not sufficiently supported) is now being propounded by ADL, and many other authors now. Look at the damage done with so-called "researcher" Dinnerstein's PhD academic dishonesty = two places on the ADL.org website promote the anti-Semitism hoax ADL History 1913 and ADL Domestic Anti-Semitism. Looking elsewhere, Zman magazine now promulgates Dinnerstein's academic dishonesty The Tragic Saga of Leo Frank, and Jewniverse “Hang That Jew Or We’ll Hang You!” by Marc Davis, Times of Israel The ADL and KKK, born of the same murder, 100 years ago, Jewish Chronicle 'Hang the Jew' by Lee, ADL About.com Anti-Defamation League by Pierre Tristam, The Story of the Jews: The Leo Frank Case by Jeremy Katz, Atticus Finch—Right and Wrong by Monroe H. Freedman, New York Times PARDON DENIED FOR LEO FRANK IN 1913 SLAYING by Fay S. Joyce 1983, New York Times 1995 How Leo Frank's Death Fueled Fight for Justice mentions SPLC, Jewish Virtual Library Leo Frank (1884-1915 also talks about Dinnerstein's other false claims about the Frank trial jury, Oh goodie even Max Blumenthal is promoting Dinnerstein's anti-Semitic hoax on the Huffington Post Toby Keith's Pro-Lynching Publicity Tour Hits Colbert, CBS and More (2008) by Max Blumenthal, Virtual Jerusalem Jewplexed: Seneca Falls, Selma, & Stonewall - Is There a Jewish Place Too?, it literally goes dozens of pages deep on google of people promoting Dinnerstein's BIGLIE anti-Semitic Hoax. Oney is not a researcher, he used the Phagan bitemark hoax to try and trick people into thinking Leo Frank was innocent. Now even Sandy Berman of the Breman is claiming Mary Phagan had bitemarks all over her neck in a recent youtube video. Do you see the damage done by some these so-called researchers? They're not researchers, their racists who will use any fabrication or manipulation they can find to claim Leo Frank is innocent. These are not researchers, they are people who will stop at nothing, and use any fraud, rumors, fabrications, fallacious evidence, cherry picking, deceit, lies, hoaxes or anything they can get their hands on to falsify history. One can not be called a researcher when they use fabrication and academic dishonesty to prove their position. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

GingerBreadHarlot—you say "Oney is not a researcher". I find the following: "Steve Oney, author of And the Dead Shall Rise, the definitive book on the incident". Calling it the "definitive book" is an endorsement of that book, and he is certainly a "researcher" as the article makes clear. Bus stop (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Y'all seriously need to tone down the rhetoric in here - accusations of racism and anti-semitism are not going to resolve this dispute or change anyone's mind, it's just going to inflame things. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The so-called "scholars" and "researchers" Tom claims quote each other to form an academic web for creating historical consensus, are not actually scholars or researchers. They use fabricated evidence and academic dishonesty to mendaciously trick people into thinking anti-Semitism was "behind it all" and Frank was "innocent". They use every form of deceit, lies, fabrication, erroneous, cooked-up, fictitious, fraudulent, and counter-factual evidence to trick people into thinking Jim Conley is guilty. This is pure anti-black racism, "blame the black guy". Dinnerstein after 50 years (1966 - 2015) of promulgating his racist anti-Semitic hoax about people screaming and chanting death threats directly at the trial jury during open court, now just admitted to wiki user Tonystewart that the evidence for the "hang the Jew" death threats at the jury isn't sufficient. Dinnerstein has been using this heinous racist BIGLIE in his academic misconduct PhD to trick people into thinking Leo Frank didn't get a fair trial. Mary Kean exposed this heinous BIGLIE in her book "The Murder of Little Mary Phagan (87'/89'), even Steve Oney debunked Dinnerstein's anti-Semitic hoax BIGLIE. Sadly Steve Oney uses Pierre van Paassen's 64' Phagan Bitemark hoax to trick readers into thinking Leo Frank was innocent, and Conley guilty. These are not researchers, these are racist liars falsely accusing a black man of a crime he did not commit. These so-called "scholars and researchers" are willing to say, write, fabricate or do absolutely anything, no matter how evil or outrageous, to trick people into thinking Jim Conley is guilty. That's pure racist academic dishonesty against Conley who eventually helped the police solve the crime. 100 years of racism against Conley is enough. Never forget Dinnerstein uses 2 hoaxes = the Phagan bitemark hoax and his own fabricated anti-Semitic hoax to trick people into believe Frank was innocent. Oney uses a lot of fabrication too in his book to prejudice the reader. Oney claims Hugh Dorsey convinced the grandjury to indict Leo Frank on the promise of later finding evidence and presenting it. Grandjuries dont indict on the promise that after they indict, a prosecutor will show the evidence. These are not researchers, these are anti-researchers. Researchers dont fabricate lies and evidence to convince people or prove their position. To quote Mark Cohen = "Steve Oney, makes the absurd claim, the indictment of Leo Frank occurred on faith alone, because Hugh Dorsey (the prosecutor) gave the Grand Jury his assurances, "that at the appropriate moment, he would reveal all" (Oney, p. 116), but that's not how a Grand jury investigation works. A Grand Jury doesn't vote 21 to 0 against someone (Leo Frank) because an inexperienced prosecutor "gives them his assurances" that *after the indictment* he will reveal evidence." GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

And who is Mark Cohen? Credentials? Scholarly works? Anything factual to rebut this [6]? The quote you provided comes from an Amazon Review (see [http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2HP6TOE2TPET8/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B001PIHV1W#R2HP6TOE2TPET8]) by Mr. Cohen -- not the best source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:17, 30 May 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)

• Oppose Such a statement does not belong in the article lede. First of according to WP:MOSINTRO significant information should not appear in the lede if it is not covered in the remainder of the article and I didn't see anything in the remainder of the article to justify this sentence. The úse of the word 'scholars' in this context is WP:WEASEL and use of '60 years' is WP:ORIGINAL (why not 65 years?) 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.Meishern (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Meishern—it is hard to see what is "watery" about good quality research. We read: "In a lonely part of Elbert County, the road passes through a tiny town called Bowman. There’s a well shelter in Bowman, and in the mid-1970s a dozen or so old men gathered there every afternoon to swap tales and play Rook. Whenever I could, I pulled over and joined these fellows in conversation. Most were at least 80, a couple 90, and they talked to me about the Frank case, particularly about Tom Watson, the agrarian rebel who was Frank’s chief antagonist. Several of the men had seen Watson on the stump in the 1920s when he ran for and won a U.S. Senate seat. They initiated me into this primal Southern mystery, and I never forgot it." We also read from Oney: "In 1985 I wrote an article for Esquire based on the late-in-life revelations of Alonzo Mann, Frank’s long-ago office boy. Mann’s story — that on the day of the murder he saw Jim Conley, the janitor at the pencil factory Frank managed, carrying the body of Mary Phagan — spurred the Southern counsel for the Anti-Defamation League and a partner at the law firm of King & Spalding to file a posthumous pardon application for Frank." Oney additionally writes: "My piece generated some interest from New York publishers, but I was uncertain if I wanted to write a book. My fear was that any telling would degenerate into a 'good Jews versus bad yahoos' stalemate. But while reporting the article I had learned about William Smith, the lawyer who’d represented Jim Conley. Smith initially believed Frank was guilty, but slowly he changed his mind, coming to the conclusion that his own client murdered the Phagan girl. Smith offered me the opportunity to write about the Frank case in a fresh way. Almost as important, Smith’s children were still alive, and his son had kept his father’s papers about the case. So I banged out a proposal and sold it." I think this constitutes good quality research. Hardly anything "watery". Bus stop (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The book written by Oney, [http://www.amazon.com/And-Dead-Shall-Rise-Lynching/dp/0679764232 "And the Dead Shall Rise"], received the National Jewish Book Award for history and the American Bar Association’s Silver Gavel Award. Bus stop (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Same case with Dinnerstein. I have added above a section "Reviews of Dinnerstein from JSTOR". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Bus Stop, are you aware that Steve Oney studied the Leo Frank Case for 17 years and has been discovered to have used fabrication (lying / academic dishonesty) and lied-by-omission about what happened at the trial? There is an article which debunks Steve Oney as a scholar and researcher = Who Really Solved the Mary Phagan Murder Mystery? By Mark Cohen. I have looked at this article, and I found nothing in it anti-Semitic, or promoting Hitlerism, National Socialism, and Neo-Nazism. Tom has conflated these articles about the Leo Frank Case with anti-Semitism and Neo-Nazism(re: see above). There is no neo-nazism or anti-Semitism anywhere in the articles written about Leo Frank on The American Mercury. Tom, there are several examples of Leonard Dinnerstein using forgery, academic misconduct and lying by omission, that are so egregious that his PhD dissertation should be audited for academic fraud. Dinnerstein can not be called a scholar when he is so willing to break the rules of Academic honesty, here are some examples = Analysis of Leonard Dinnerstein's book The Leo Frank Case and also his PhD Dissertation. Show in this article where it promotes Neo-Nazism, National Socialism, Hitlerism or Anti-Semitism as you have conflated all the articles written about Leo Frank on The American Mercury. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself. Who is Mark Cohen? Credentials? Scholarly works? Anything factual to rebut this [7]? Why won't you answer this? Surely you aren't trying to pass him off as a reliable source when you don't have a clue who he is? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

GingerBreadHarlot—The American Mercury is reported to have an antisemitic slant. This can be the case even in the absence of "Hitlerism, National Socialism, and Neo-Nazism". At The Jewish Daily Forward I find: "The American Mercury, H.L. Mencken’s historic magazine, resurrected online by neo-Nazis several years ago, has published several revisionist articles to coincide with this year’s anniversary." Bus stop (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop, the RfC is about a sentence stating that 60 years of scholars support a position regarding guilt or innocence. While failing to address my objections, you continually use a single person (the word scholars is plural) who was born 60 years ago. So your argument for keeping the statement "Scholars over the past sixty years believe that Frank was in fact innocent" in the lede is the opinion of Mr. Steve Oney who was born 60 years ago? 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." Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Meishern—the innocence of Leo Frank is a widely-held position. This is not an opinion held only by Oney. Please see time marker 27:15 in this documentary. Note the following: "There was not one scintilla of evidence against him [Leo Frank]". This is a documentary produced by PBS. I think that source has a degree of stature that can't easily be dismissed. And something I learned in that documentary, is that in 1915 the governor of Georgia, John M. Slaton, in commuting Leo Frank's sentence from "death" to "life imprisonment", uttered the following: "I would be but a murderer if I allowed this man to hang."

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)

Meishern Regarding the 60 years, it was based on several works that appeared in the 1950s. Several suggestions for alternative language have been made and the specific time will not survive. Obviously, the discussion is very difficult to follow at this point. This diff [8] shows a proposal that I agree with and several other editors have suggested similar changes. This diff [9] further discusses the issue. The intent is to open a new section very soon with reworked language (see this diff [10] that modified the original RFC statement). By that time there will also be language that will go in the main body of the article covering the issue in about three paragraphs. A draft of this is available at User:North Shoreman/Sandbox#Criticism of the trial and the verdict. Much of the discussion to this point has been involved with the reliable sources. The sources listed at the start of this RFC include the leading sources on this subject. No reliable sources to provide the alternative argument (i.e the Frank trial was fair and the verdict accurate) have been presented. The websites submitted as reliable by those oposing changing the lead have numerous problems, not the least of which is that there is no available information on who wrote the articles (it appears that at least some of the names are pseudonyms) or their qualifications. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman), I am not sure what the purpose of this RfC even is. Fighting over one vague sentence when the entire lede section needs to be rewritten since after the first paragraph it reads like a 'tit for tat' to some extent with no flow, way too much detail that is probably at the least repeated in the body and perhaps not even with the same level of detail as in the lede. In my opinion, it would make more sense to first rewrite the entire lede into something more presentable and then to see about support/opposition for addition or removal of sentences. Because the way things stand, the last thing the lede needs is the addition of yet another disjointed sentence... at least until the content that's there now is first fixed up, etc.. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Meishern The lead is actually in much better shape than it was a few weeks ago -- a large paragraph of excessive POV detail was eliminated. The RFC is about POV. The article as it now stands omits one of the most significant facts about the Leo Frank case -- the nearly universal belief by researchers, historians, news sources, and the general public that Frank was innocent. A reader of the article lead needs to have that information. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:34, 2 June 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)

The Wikipedia policy on what counts as a reliable source can be found at WP:SOURCE. If you think that any reference is being wrongly challenged as not being a reliable source, please show that it is a reliable source according to that section of Wikipedia policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The policy you point to redirects to the very policy I quoted immediately above, and as I have already shown, that policy clearly states that the primary qualification of a reliable source is a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I think it better you look at your own sources in that respect before you seek to criticize others.

Nearly every one of the so-called "reliable sources" touted over and over again on this page is based upon Dinnerstein, and Dinnerstein has recently openly admitted that his dissertation on the Frank case is not supported and unverifiable. If Dinnerstein is wrong, as he himself clearly admits, then everyone who followed him is wrong as well. The onus is therefore on you to show that your sources are compliant with the Wikipedia policy to which we both refer. 64.134.241.190 (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I responded to your similar request in a section below.[11] --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

• We should WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Researcher A says he didit,researcher B says he didn't. This avoids synthesis. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 10:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Attribution has been mentioned before and can be incorporated into the sentence -- see the first two comments in this section after my original one. It has been suggested that attribution to Melnick (in which he states "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.") with footnoting the other numerous references in the body of the article solves the problem. I've also made a note above on the original RFC description to let other editors realize that the language is not fixed in stone. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Synthesis is avoided by using the following reliable source and excerpt from the list at the beginning of this RfC.

Jeffrey Melnick (2012). Black-Jewish Relations on Trial: Leo Frank and Jim Conley in the New South. University Press of Mississippi. p. 7. ISBN 978-1604735956. {{cite book}}: External link in |author= (help)

"There is near unanimity around the idea that Frank was most certainly innocent of the crime of murdering Mary Phagan;”

The author is a professor at the University of Massachusetts.[12] --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added a second source above that speaks of historical consensus, Donald E. Wilkes Jr., a law professor emeritus at the University of Georgia. He writes, "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." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman), this is exactly why I dislike these pompous phrases 'law professor emeritus' or '60 years of geniuses concur', etc.. being used in the content, because it creates in the reader (and editor) a dangerous sense of trust in their views/quotes/statements based solely on the prestige of the introduction. What is factual is that Mr. Leo Frank was not the only Jew lynched in US history, and was not even the first Jew who was lynched in the United States.

So for Mr. Wilkes to make such a an erroneous statement as you've quoted above, he is either completely outside his field of expertise (torts law) and never knew, or he simply forgot, which in either case makes him an unreliable source in regard to this topic. I can't and won't make any accusations of him knowingly omitting information in order to prove a point since I doubt someone as esteemed as him would have resorted to such base tactics.

Yet nonetheless, it was (and is) well known that the first lynching of a Jewish American took place in 1868 in Tennessee. His name was Mr. Samuel Bierfield, and it was a double lynching along with an African American. There are enough primary/secondary sources regarding this to stand up to any inquest, which again make Mr. Wilkes statements so puzzling. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Meishern This [13] article argues that it is not as well known as you say. Bierfield was shot (not hung) as a carpetbagger during Reconstruction and it is not clear at all that his religion had anything to do with the assassination. I am fairly well read on Reconstruction -- I've never heard of him and checked the indexes of six books I have discussing, specifically, violence during Reconstruction and didn't find his name.

If you dismiss authors for single mistakes you're going to find very few reliable sources out there. Describing a reliable sources credentials is hardly pompous -- I expect someone arguing that someone is a reliable source to tell me who that person is. There is no suggestion that this description would show up in the article -- the article would have a footnote and the source. Contrast this source with what is being offered by the "other side". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman), the word 'lynching' just means an extra-judicial informal murder without any requirement that a hanging must take place. You may be in support of the opinion that Bierfield's lynching had nothing to do with his religion but there are esteemed civil rights organizations who disagree. The point however nobody is denying was the man's religion. The quote you are trying to include says nothing about being lynched because of his religion, since Leo Frank was not lynched for being Jewish, if that were the case, the mob could have grabbed someone Jewish walking down the street, without going through the trouble of busting into a prison, if the only qualification they were looking for was to lynch someone Jewish. Bierfield was lynched for being an outsider carpetbagger [historical antisemitism] who was putting wrong ideas into the heads of the freed slaves [meddling, whispering to cause divisions within community leading to rebellion, a historical blood libel] and all the while getting rich of the local [Christians] (this is yet another historical blood libel coming into play).

I am not dismissing a source for a single mistake, but for a mistake in the very sentence being used. If the source was wrong/mistaken about the first half of the sentence, why would you use the second half especially when the error is being connected to the rest of the sentence by the author with their use of 'in addition to' ? '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.' ... "in addition to (a factually incorrect, statement without reliability), he was (statement to include as fact based on reliability).' The phrase 'in addition to', seals this statement as unreliable, since "in addition to being the only Jewish Astronaut ever lynched in American History, he was also innocent due to an unfair trial." So please do not include this quote since it doesn't pass the test. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Bottom line -- this article has been contentiously debated for years. It is easy to find reliable sources supporting the proposed language and apparently impossible to find reliable sources saying the opposite. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

So the matter is settled. Wilkes is dropped as an unreliable source, since why taint the article when truly reliable sources backing up the same position can easily be found. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. Here's the sentence of interest.

"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."

The usual meaning of lynching is a mob committing murder by hanging, which I think is what the author meant. A similar statement came from another reliable source, CNN: "the only lynching of a Jew on American soil".

For reference, here's a few definitions of lynch from an online dictionary.[14]

"To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry."

"1. (Law) (tr) (of a mob) to punish (a person) for some supposed offence by hanging without a trial"

"to put to death, esp. by hanging, by mob action."

Anyhow, there's no uncertainty about the meaning of the innocence part of the sentence and that's the part that this Wikipedia article is using. The notion that the author is unreliable in general because the term lynching can be used to mean more than murder by hanging by a mob, and because another Jew was shot to death by a mob, I think is faulty reasoning. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You mischaracterize the reason. If in a single sentence someone who claims to be an authority on the subject states that this was the first lynching of a Jewish person in United States (which is factually false) and 'in addition' makes other statements then those statements need to be ignored since they were an addition to a factually false statement a true expert in the fields would not make, though an amateur in the field would be surprised that anyone even knows about such things. That's precisely what separates an expert from a recreational reader. For an expert astronomer to say "The sun truly rotates around the earth, and in addition (does it even matter at this point what is being added?)" Please find a better quote from someone who knows what they are talking about, since this subject is obviously not their strong point. Doesn't he have other quotes where he starts off the sentence with something factual and verifiable, since i won't accept that everything he said was half defective.

So Dinnerstein lifted the Wilkes quote, (did he even attribute the quote to Wilkes...) since it sounds good to anyone who never bothered to explore the subject in any length. And between the two of them they even managed to drag CNN into repeating this falsehood. Typical. So does that mean Mr. Samuel Bierfield died of old age surrounded by his loved ones? The fact that one so called expert made a sexy quote, that another man who also lacked the expertise to realize that it was factually wrong and so added it to his own writing, which CNN quoted, incorrectly assuming that these are experts on the subject so must know this topic well enough, that it's safe to quote them without the need for verification. 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. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

In my last message I tried to address your previous points. I carefully read your response with interest and it seems that you didn't address the points that I made: regarding the two reliable sources Wilkes and CNN, they were using the word lynching in the usual meaning of the word, which is hanging by a mob; and the innocence part of the subject sentence, which is what went into the article, had no uncertainty about the meaning of its words; and your faulty reasoning that Wilkes is an unreliable source for the statement about innocence, which does not depend on the fact that Frank was the only Jew ever lynched (in the usual sense meaning hung) in America. Your analogy about astronomy didn't seem appropriate to the case at hand, which I think was about the uncertainty in the interpretation of what the authors meant by the word lynch, rather than a false statement. I couldn't follow your second paragraph at all, which may have gotten names mixed up, but even so didn't seem to make sense. Perhaps you could check it over. Also, the last part seemed to be going off on a forum-like digression about your personal opinion and accusations about racism, which I don't think was helpful. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Bob K31416, wasn't my intent to skip any points you've made. I will address it shortly. A bit frustrated at the moment since there is way to much after-the-fact editing taking place on this page. When you take time to write a coherent response only to discover what you are responding to has been removed or rewritten (someone else, not you or Tom), it feels like wasted that time that could have been used in a more sustainable, earth friendly manner Cheers! Meishern (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC).

Bob K31416, Sorry for taking so long to answer you. Your argument is that Mr. Frank was lynched with a noose while Mr. Bierfield was lynched with a gun shot, thus semantics could very well allow Frank to be called the first lynched Jew in America if the writer(s) meant lynching as in a hanging. Fair enough. Did you know that another Jewish man was lynched (hanging by noose) prior to Mr. Frank? In Georgia too. Just 2 days prior to Mr. Frank being lynched, Mr. Albert Siegfried Bettelheim, a Jewish journalist convicted of murder was lynched by a crowd on August 15, 1915 in Georgia. I also know of two other lynchings of Jewish victims in the 19th century via a noose. I hope this answers the valid point you brought up. Mr. Frank was not the first Jewish victim of lynching in America. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

PS If you check the link I gave in the sources section at the top of this RFC you will find that rather than just torts law, Wilkes does write legal history, putting Frank right in his wheelhouse. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

One of the best articles out there showing that Leonard Dinnerstein [redacted, WP:BLP] is The Leo Frank Case: A Pseudo-History by Ann Herndon

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]

GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

So who is Ann Hendon? Credentials? Scholarly publications? Real person or pseudonym? Same questions for Elliot Dashfield who apparently actually is credited with writing the article. As discussed above the American Mercury is not a reliable source. Even Gulbenk (see [15] and [16]) rejects the site. If you're going to continue to dump stuff from the site, perhaps you should make your case at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Tom. Stop altering my posts on here about debunking the anti-Scholar Leonard Dinnerstein. Do not change the remarks I post on TALK. Elliot Dashfield, quote "Leonard Dinnerstein was interviewed for the video documentary The People vs. Leo Frank (2009). In that interview, he makes statements that he must know to be untrue 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. But that is a bald-faced lie. 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." Verifiability is the hallmark of Wikipedia as another editor stated emphatically. Leonard Dinnerstein uses academic dishonesty as part of his mission to convince of Leo Frank's innocence. This is not scholarship, it is anti-Scholarship. Dinnerstein is a agitating POV Warrior for Leo Frank and the fact that he has no self-control when it comes to his plagiarism, fabrication and academic misconduct is obvious. Do not alter my posts on the talk page Tom. Do not modify my posts. Keep your hands to yourself. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Support a flat statement in the lede that makes it clear that the overwhelming consensus of actual scholars is that Frank was innocent, leaving out any accusation of anybody else. Old racist and antisemitic nonsense such as GingerbreadHarlot keeps dragging into the issue have no place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 00:36, 5 June 2015‎ (UTC)

That might be a tad harsh ... since things have quieted down.[17] --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

OrangeMike and Bob, Verifiability is the hallmark of wikipedia. Most of these anti-scholars (poser scholars) who wrote books about the Leo Frank have used fabrication (lies), which according to wikipedia is academic dishonesty. Both Dinnerstein and Steve Oney use fallacious evidence like the Phagan bitemark hoax. Dinnerstein is responsible for creating the antisemitic meme about people screaming antisemitic death threats at the jury in the form of chants, "hang the Jew or we'll hang you"... "Lynch the damn sheeny"... "crack the Jews neck".. and suggesting the jury would be lynched if they didn't convict Frank. If you search on google, bing and yahoo for the keywords "hang the Jew" we can now see Dinnerstein's racist antigentile hatecrime hoax meme everywhere on the Internet. Dinnerstein's biglie meme has given birth to countless scores of people citing this anti-Gentile (Blacks in on this hoax too?), racist anti-White, and anti-Southern hatecrime hoax. Both authors have numerous examples of using fake evidence. Oney claims Moses Frank was a confederate veteran, turned out to be false on fact-checking. According to other sources, enlistment records for the war between states, indicates no records for Moses Frank. None of Moses Frank's eulogies mention him as confederate veteran. Really, the list goes on. I could write a 20,000 word post showing all the fallacious evidence, fabrication, academic misconduct used by all these so-called "scholars". The best Tom can do is dig up positive reviews for dinnerstein from 1969s an the 1970s before most of us were born. In the last 5 years all the legal records and newspapers were released on the Internet and we are just discovering all the racist lies of these anti-Scholars. An audit of their "research" shows these "scholars" don't pass even the least bit of scrutiny, as others have so eloquently put it.. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Rewording of the Rfc

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)

Discussion of the rewording

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)

This looks good, and the Melnick source is fine. It flows better than the current text. Also, the discussion above is verbose and I may have missed something, but I believe we should be able to take the neutrality tag off. The RfC has brought in a lot of good discussion and editors, but I'm not aware of a neutrality dispute at this point. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus says:

"In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."

I believe, based on the weakness of the arguments by the opponents to changing the language, that the consensus is that we add the language. If there are no objections, we can change the language and consider this discussion closed. However, I have to note that a new registered user just added more POV to the lead. I'm going to revert it now and see what happens. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A similar change [19] was made recently by Monochrome Monitor. I just now implemented the above reworded proposal.[20] The last sentence of the current lead [21] summarizes the first three sentences of the section Criticism of the trial and the verdict, which are extensively supported by reliable sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Monochrome_Monitor 15:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

What was the final count (opposed and support) on the RFC? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

RFC Vote on "researchers believe Leo Frank was wrongfully convicted"

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)

I don't know about the accuracy of your count, but if we assume it's accurate, you're counting votes in the wrong section. The proposal was reworded using criticism from the section of the original proposal. The reworded proposal was supported by 4 editors with no objections and was implemented. That's the way these type of discussions are supposed to work in a productive editing environment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom and Bob, 6 people voted to oppose the idea that the consensus: Leo Frank was wrongfully convicted (wrongfully convicted is a weasel way of saying innocent). Mainly because Tom quoted people from 1969/1970 and Dinnerstein has been proven with certainty to have committed academic dishonesty in his Ph.D. dissertation and book. Just as Oney uses Mary Phagan bitemark hoax in his mission to convince us of Leo Frank's "innocence". There was great opposition, so you just put it in anyway after rewording it. The overwhelming opposition remains. Why not remove the weasel and cowardly words "wrongfully convicted", when you can put innocent. Apparently lots of these so-called "scholars" and "researchers" say he was innocent and Jim Conley the guilty one. Why not add that as well instead of the weasel wording approach? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You seemed to ignore the points of my message and went off on other topics. Seems like you don't have anything more to offer at this article. I think it's time for you to drop the stick and move on. I expect my further interaction with you will be minimal if any. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Bob, do not play evade the issue game and turn the blame around on me. I have no patience for infantilized behavior. Six people opposed the inclusion. I asked you for an opposition count. What is it Tom and Bob, I know you can add. My count was 6 opposed. Despite the clear opposition, you then took that as an opportunity to just push it through anyway with a new rewording. If you're not going to take into consideration the divided vote and lack of consensus, then at least don't play the weasel word game. The consensus of Tom's "scholars" is that Leo Frank is innocent (which obviously implies the weaselish words wrongfully convicted) and James "Jim" Conley is guilty. How about we add to "wrongfully convicted" "and Jim Conley is guilty" or "Frank is innocent and Conley Guilty"? There is certainly enough support for this addition, just ask Tom. There' s lots of historical consensus that Jim Conley is guilty from Frank partisans and they spell it out too. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I come up with 9-4 in favor. One "oppose" (Tony) changed their mind and a second was a conditional oppose and we met his condition (attribution). And as Bob said, after the language was changed, no opposition was registered. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I just did another count an this is what I came up with. Oppose 4. 1. Oppose (GingerbreadHarlot -- because Tom-No is an aggressive POV warrior with a long history of using anti-Scholars (people who use academic dishonesty) who quote each others racist hatecrime hoaxes (accusations of anti-Semitism), academic dishonesty, academic misconduct and fallacious evidence in their mission to convince us that Leo Frank is innocent. Tom Northshoreman does the infantile and racist thing of trying to conflate people with anti-Semitism for agreeing with Tom Watson that Leo Frank is guilty (see leofrank talk page). 2. Oppose (Gulbenk) 3. Oppose - (Meishern) 4. Oppose - (IP) Support 7: 1. Support (coretheapple) 2. Support (bus stop - who posts an anti-Gentile video in leofrank talkpage by Alfred Uhry falsely claiming that there isn't one scintilla of evidence of Frank's guilt - pure lies) 3. support (МандичкаYO) 4. support (bob) 5. Support (Tom-No) 6. Support (Fyddlestix, change if melnick quote is used - was melnick quote used? No) 7. Support (TonyStewart44). Not sure where you got 9 from. This looks like a divided vote 7 to 4. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

GingerBreadHarlot, Please see Wikipedia policies WP:BATTLE and WP:NPA. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Bob, "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." Would you say that Tom Northshoreman attempting to conflate someone's believing that Leo Frank to be guilty with Tom Watson and Anti-Semitism, as an example of WP:BATTLE (nurturing prejudice, hatred and fear)? Would you say that Tom Northshoreman attempting to block an inclusion in the article that would suggest Leo Frank is guilty an example of WP:BATTLE (ideological battle)? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that you're just providing more evidence for getting yourself blocked for persistent battleground behaviour. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

No battleground behavior, i'd like us to be adults about our discussions on this talk page without conflations of anti-Semitism. I am offering an eighth source (that's not anti-Semitic) saying Leo Frank was guilty. Number 8 (people arguing Frank's guilt) = Augusta Chronicle-Herald, May 15, 1983, statement by Justice Randall Evans Jr. Quote "Judge Randall Evans, Jr., from the Augusta Chronicle-Herald dated May 15, 1983. 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) 21:07, 30 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

Slaton yet again

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)

Tom, please address my edit itself. Is there something in it that is not factual? Was Slaton a partner in the same law firm with Frank's lead defense lawyer at the time he commuted Frank's sentence? If the answers are yes (which the 5 references including Dinnerstein readily admit to), then it is my mistake in the edit summary which I need to corrected, and not the actual edit itself. I apologize for the incorrect edit summary, yet the edit fits in there like hand in glove, as you see. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I've addressed most of this below. The info you added was accurate yet misleading as isolated facts without context often are. There are many facts in the body of the article (including your facts) that don't make it to the article lead. You need to demonstrate why this out of context fact is so important. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:43, 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)

Five references including 2 already in use talk about the issue of the governor's partnership. It's too important of a fact that everyone at the time was aware of to ignore and it fit perfectly where I placed it. Please state a better reason for reverting 5 academic references than personal POV, otherwise I will look at your edit as vandalism. Please explain the "veiled reference to WP:COI" that you mention, since I fail to see how that applies here. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism? Don't think so. You sound more like GBH every day. You claim it is "too important of a fact" yet your claim of its importance is, in your own words, that it was "the reason for the rioting." None of your sources make that claim, do they? Since the reliable sources consistently speak of Slaton's sincerity and diligence, why is this one fact about Slaton so important? The decision ruined Slaton's career and he knew it would ruin it. Watson offered to support him for the Senate if he allowed Frank to be executed, but Slaton said no. This seems much more important that a partnership that no reliable sources think effected his decision. Certainly, none of your five sources make this claim. Do you have any sources that say otherwise? Several sources mention the fact that Slaton previously had a Jewish law partner and this was brought out by Slaton's opponents, saying more about the opponents than Slaton. Why isn't this as important as the alleged COI?

Why do you want to emphasize one seemingly negative factor above all the ones that are positive? What drives your personal POV? Your stated reason about it being "the reason for the rioting" is clearly false. Saying it is "too important" without stating a reason is simply your opinion until you explain why, using reliable sources, it is "too important." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

PS My reference to COI had nothing to do with the wikipedia policy on the subject. It had to do with your efforts to add out of context info that creates an impression on a reader that is not supported by reliable sources (i.e. that his partnership effected his decision). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I also made some other minor changes to the lead, and mentioned that Slaton commuted Frank's sentence after deliberation, which is detailed by Oney in his book which has Slaton physically going to the factory and poring over a trove of documents. I agree that a conflict of interest was not the reason for the commutation. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tony. You mind referencing that? The lead doesn't have a single reference, which makes it a weak candidate for Good Article. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That fact is cited under the "Commutation of sentence" section, and citations are not required in the lead per the "When not to cite" subsection under WP:WHYCITE: "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." Note that this fact is already in the main body of the article, so I do not cite it in the lead. Tonystewart14 (talk) 12:54, 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)

Objections to Meishern as an impartial reviewer

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)

Frankly, Tom, I think you need to ease your grip on this article. You have been here for months probably with good intentions, but with a very obvious and seemingly unshakable conviction that Frank was wholely innocent and that it was a mainly ethnic case. Your most staunch opponent, a clear POV pusher on the far other side of the spectrum, was blocked as a result of his disputes with you, and you are taking an aggressive stance on Meishern. You also immediately reverted my edit claiming "sources are in the body of the article and consensus to include in the lede established by a Rfc", even though the RfC was the shakiest I've ever seen and the sources should also be in the lead. "consensus" here means without possibly credible opposition, which is a tad extreme.

You can't say Meishern has no right to allege racism in the sources of that time. I have no doubt it was easy to mock the statements made by Conley, just as it was for Frank's lawyer to resort to racism against a jury. In the post-war South, it was extremely rare for a suspected black, poor, barely literate American to be found innocent while a white, wealthy, charming factory owner is found guilty. It was also rare for viciously racist future-KKK to lynch a white man over a black man. I find it weird how you can so strongly defend a man who profited off of child labour, and who was said by his labourers to have harassed women often. This article paints him like an angel.

Anyhow, this is not a review of you as a user and editor. I'm merely critical of what appears to be your ownership of the article.

Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I did "immediately reverted [your] edit." Your edit ignored a recently established consensus and ignored the fact that the material you deleted without any discussion at all was thoroughly documented in the body of the article. Contrary to your claim that "the sources should also be in the lead", WP:LEADCITE clearly states that "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." In this case, if you had reviewed the Rfc you would see that whether or not to include sourcing in the lede was discussed and a determination not to include was made. By ignoring the discussion that had gone on well before you took notice of the article, reverting your edit (with an appropriate explanation) was the exactly correct action to take. Did you even bother to read the article before you decided to delete material from the lede?

You claim that "can't say Meishern has no right to allege racism in the sources of that time." It's not true that I said anything about what rights Meishern may exercise. More important, you misread what Meishern actually said. He didn't criticize the sources of that time, he criticized ALL the sources that claimed Frank was innocent. This includes Oney, Dinnerstein, and all of the other sources listed in the Rfc.

You talk about how it was easy "for Frank's lawyer to resort to racism against a jury." In the first place, it was not racism "against" the jury but an appeal to the assumed racism of the jury -- a not unreasonable assumption of a Georgia jury in the 1910's. More importantly, you ignore the fact that the prosecution also appealed to the assumed racism of the jury -- they just did a better job of it. In Dorsey's closing argument he stated of Frank's refusal to meet with Conley w/o his attorney that "never in the history of the Anglo-Saxon race...did an ignorant, filthy negro accuse a white man of a crime and that man decline to face him." Does that sound racist to you?

Melnick, one of the sources relied on in the article wrote of this issue that the defense tried to picture Conley as "a new kind of African American -- anarchic, degraded, and dangerous; to them Conley was just the sort of 'New Negro' who loafed, got drunk, and attacked white women." Dorsey however wanted to picture Conley as "a familiar type. Drawing on the conventions of the minstrel show and the plantation-school novel, Dorsey insisted that Conley be understood within the context of 'old negro.'" Both sides tried to sell negative racial stereotypes.

How about this quote from Lindemann, "The solicitor general apparently reasoned that Conley, like most Blacks of his class, was an inveterate liar, a conclusion that was pefectly natural for a Southern White, even one who was liberal in his views of Blacks. ... Faced with transparent lie after lie from Conley, Dorsey could continue to question him until the truth emerged, until Conley 'finally' told the truth, as southern lore maintained would ultimately happen with a 'lying nigger'." Another source from the time quotes Dorsey as saying "it was a constitutional habit of a negro to keep on lying until he finally lit on the truth."

You accuse me of "ownership". In fact, I was the one that initiated the Rfc -- how is actively soliciting unknown editors to contribute to the article an act of ownership? I was also the one that initiated a request to the reliable sources noticeboard to review the use of the sources that the blocked user and an IP were relying on. Once again, I invited strangers to participate in the discussion. You have a very strange concept of "ownership".

As far as "taking an aggressive stance on Meishern", I believe everything I said was justified. Have you ever seen a case where an editor was a vocal advocate of the "losing" side of an Rfc who then became engaged in another dispute and then, within hours of the last dispute, decided he would qualify as an objective reviewer of the article's Class A status? I think the fact that Meishern then failed, without any explanation or withdrawal, to ignore his review obligations for three weeks justifies my questions over his sincerity in signing up as a reviewer. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Missing comma

"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)

I added the comma in. Thanks for pointing that out. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

On this day feature for centennial

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2015

Marietta is not 170 miles from Atlanta. It's 20 miles from Atlanta. 207.69.174.7 (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - No-one is saying Marietta is 170 miles from Atlanta he was abducted from Milledgeville State Penitentiary - Arjayay (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Passing comment

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)

The fact is, the vast majority of the sources listed by the blocked user's side are fringe. The other fact is that it is that there are reliable sources that state what the consensus is and these sources are cited. It would be wrong for the article to ignore what these sources say about consensus. Not a single peer reviewed work has been presented that offers an alternative view. The only sources unrelated to the websites that you accurately referenced were two 1984 local newspaper commentaries (neither of which qualify as "researchers") by people with ancestors who were among the lynchers and a book by a non-academic ancestor of Phagan that openly admits that she was putting forward her family's view. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

PS As far as a separate "criticism" section, there are no policies or guidelines against them. The often quoted essay (which I generally agree with) allows that sometimes such sections are justified. Perhaps a way to address this issue is to rename the section "Historical consensus" and make the section 4.3. This would put it right at the end of the portion of the article covering the crime, trial, appeals, and commutation and right before the portion of the article that involves the lynching. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, looking at the sources I see what you mean. Still, it does no harm to make it, say, "A wide range of peer reviewed sources agree" and "but some commentators argue". It raises hackles when you see an article and it's all beautiful consensus for one side of what was obviously an argument with two. The only way to properly stuff a sock in the 'wrong' side is to cite their best publications so people see how weak those are. Wnt (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I think saying the "consensus of researchers" is fine. That is a lot different than saying the unanimous opinion of everyone with an opinion on the case. Out of everyone who could reasonably be considered a "researcher", there is a clear consensus that Frank is innocent, as Tom argues above. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)