Talk:Leo Frank

Citation 1 does not include supposed quote

In the first paragraph of the article, it is claimed that the modern consensus is that Mr. Frank was wrongfully convicted, although the citation ([1]) does not contain the quote listed in [n 1] Iamsombrero (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The quoted text begins on the third line of the second page of the archived pdf of the cited source. NebY (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, I apologise.

Viewing from mobile, more than one page weren’t evident. Iamsombrero (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"Modern Consensus" is used in the cited article however the author solely pulls from Leonard Dinnerstein's book, The Leo Frank Case (printed in 1968 but cited article states 1987). One person does not constitute a consensus. --Asr1014 (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Plenty of sources in the article support the assertion that there is a modern consensus. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The cited article is Professor Wilkes' review of Dinnerstein's book; his statement concerning the modern consensus is not based solely on Dinnerstein and Wilkes explicitly identifies other books and articles. NebY (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Consensus of wrongful conviction?

It seems odd to me that the evidence indicating a consensus among historians is single comment from a non-scholarly news source (CNN). It's a low-quality source for such a strong claim. JDiala (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the entire article, not just the lede? Specifically the section "Later consensus: a miscarriage of justice"? Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, right. Strenuously disagree (I think he was guilty), but fighting this fight is probably not worth it on my end. JDiala (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

What is your assertion that he was guilty based on? Longhornsg (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I suspect part of the answer is, he was a rich man found to be guilty by a jury of his peers beyond a reasonable doubt. He had the resources to defend himself properly and he used them, but was still found guilty at his trial.

I suspect the other part of the answer is, he was a Jewish man that was lynched and the historians who are asked about this are either Jewish themselves and find his lynching abhorrent for that reason, or they are non-Jewish and are afraid of being labelled anti-Semitic if the say they think he was guilty. Either way, they come to the conclusion that Leo Frank was actually innocent, potentially without actually believing this. 2603:7080:402:D900:8F1:B239:2FA8:1095 (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You're really telling on yourself when you assume that "being Jewish" is the only reason someone could find the lynching of a Jewish person abhorrent. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if my earlier statements lent themselves to being misinterpreted, as appears to be the case. I do not pretend to know whether Jim Conley or Leo Frank were in fact guilty in this case (or if it was some other third party), nor do I have particularly strong feelings one way or the other. I personally suspect Jim Conley was the actual rapist/murderer, but I would only say that I have ~60% confidence in this belief.

My earlier statements were my suspicions/theories in regard to why other people believe that Leo Frank is guilty. The part of my statement that you take issue with (the second part) is my theory about why a person (presuming good faith in that person) would disagree with most historians about this case being a miscarriage of justice. My theory is as follows:

Talk pages aren't for lengthy sources less theorizing about the motivations of scholars or historians, or criticism of the ADL
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Historians look at this case and see that Leo Frank was a victim of a lynch mob. Lynching (extrajudicial killing) is wrong, even when there are legitimate reasons to believe that the lynching victim has committed heinous acts (such as a guilty verdict in a court). They also see that there was a lot of antisemitism in the press at the time, and given this antisemitism (and aggressive press coverage before the trial) it was unlikely that Leo Frank received a fair trial. Furthermore, the historians see that there was an alternative suspect, Jim Conley, who-given the pressure to quickly charge and convict the perpetrator-may not have been fully considered/investigated, especially if the wider community was already convinced they knew who the killer was. The historians look at all this and more, and they come to the conclusion that it was more likely that Jim Conley was the killer than Leo Frank, and that an innocent man was wrongly convicted and subsequently lynched. I believe that people who disagree with these historians may be thinking that the real reason the historians are coming to the conclusion that Leo Frank was innocent is specifically because he was lynched and the historians want Leo Frank to be innocent so that the lynch mob is wrong not just in their actions but also in all their beliefs that led to their actions. This desire for the lynch mob to be wrong in both action and thought would be particularly strong for Jewish historians who might see themselves in (an innocent) Leo Frank and for non-Jewish historians who are concerned about being considered anti-Semitic if they come to any other conclusion about the case. Additionally people that disagree with the historians might simply have disdain for the ADL, which was founded in response to this case. If someone dislikes the ADL they will want Leo Frank to be guilty because then it will mean that the ADL was founded on a lie.

2603:7080:402:D900:CC30:A083:FB94:BD94 (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems like this post is being heavily misinterpreted. This post does not theorize with the motivations of scholars/historians, it theorizes about the motivations of people who disagree with scholars/historians. It also doesn't criticize the ADL; it points out that people critical of the ADL will be motivated to think Leo Frank is guilty (potentially when the majority of the evidence suggest otherwise. I think it is important to remind users of the "assume good faith" policy. 134.6.207.163 (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, this talk page isn't a forum for your views concerning Frank or the ADL, it is for specific, reliably sourced article improvement. "My theory is as follows" is not an appropriate use of any talk page. Acroterion (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I know, that's why I haven't been using it as a forum for my views concerning Frank or the ADL. One of the users "JDiala" took issue with the claim "The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted" and I was explaining why I thought he and others would take issue with this wording, although-I'll admit-it's gotten a bit off topic. Re-wording this claim to include that this is the view expressed by Jessica Ravits (CNN) and/or Donald Eugene Wilkes Jr. (Flagpole Magazine) would be better, in my opinion. Although I think superior to either of those sources would be to directly quote/reference Leonard Dinnerstein (Historian/Professor), since Eugene Wilkes Jr. relies on Dinnerstein's book in his article anyway. 134.6.207.163 (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

If you are the same editor who attacked Acroteria on an IPv6 address expect to be blocked if you do it again. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2024

The first sentence in the last paragraph in the section "Abduction and lynching of Frank" is not accurately sourced. The source that discusses Frank's body in Atlanta being forced to be on view to the public after threats of violence is from The Sun newspaper based in New York, printed on August 18, 1915. Here is a link to the correct source: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030272/1915-08-18/ed-1/seq-2/#words=%5Bu’Frank’,%20u’FRANK’,%20u’l.eo’,%20u’LEO’,%20u’Leo’%5D&date1=1915&date2=1915&sequence=&lccn=&state=&rows=20&ortext=&proxtext=Leo+Frank&year=&phrasetext=&andtext=&proxValue=&dateFilterType=yearRange&index=17

If you check the current source you will see there is no mention of Frank's body in Atlanta on view both on the sourced page, page 1, but also not mentioned on page 3 of the source which is the continuation of the front page story.

The source also does not mention bricks specifically, only crashed in windows so the section "after they began throwing bricks, they were allowed to file past the corpse." should be changed to "after the mob began breaking glass panes, they were allowed to file past the corpse." A sentence directly following this can also be added stating, "Around 15,000 people were estimated to have looked upon Frank's body. Policemen guarded Frank's casket for fear of further violence." 2603:3003:1B05:D100:940B:AD89:CCC6:42B (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Request to change the last sentence of the first paragraph entirely

In no way should folks get the impression that Leo Frank was innocent. A jury of the man's peers found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Dinnerstein, writing a highly biased article over 50 years after the fact, does NOT speak for all researchers. It should be noted and is quite obvious that the net has been scrubbed clean of any credible articles on the murder of Mary Phagan.

Mr. Frank had all the resources anybody could have ever possibly wanted in order to defend himself in a fair trial. He was subsequently found guilty.

I wonder, if in 50 years, some were to write a biased book claiming that the death of George Floyd and the subsequent trial of Derek Chauvin was incorrect and that most researchers believe that he was not murdered? What source can trump the actual trial which took place? If you were to read the actual source you'd find it claims that most researchers think he is innocent but gives nothing to back it up.

I look forward to the replies to this request, thank you. Swiftozis (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the sourced body of the article, is not solely tied to a single reference, and is not required to be referenced at all, since the sources are all present in the article body. The lede is required to summarize the article's content. There are over 200 references and an extensive bibliography, including a significant section on historical review. That reference is there because of past disruption by agenda-driven editors who insist that there is no consensus of historians and who keep demanding sources in the lede, a common obfuscating tactic. The note and reference are not to Dinnerstein, but rather to an academic review of the Dinnerstein book which summarizes the consensus of multiple authors, including Dinnerstein. Read the rest of the article and all of the references. As for your assertion that justice is infallible in all times, places, and circumstances, that is at best naive. Your analysis is not admissible in place of scholarly consensus. And read the rest of this talkpage and its archives. Frank is a perennial bugbear for drive-by complaints, and Dinnerstein is well-regarded by his peers. Acroterion (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I will admit I've not read anything by Dinnerstein on this subject besides what is quoted in the article, but did he make an actual argument as to why he was wrongly convicted? By what is being quoted, it seems his entire point was that people in Atlanta back then were hysterical, which ignores the overwhelming evidence included here. Swinub (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The article discusses the trial, post-trial developments, and commutation in detail. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There are good reasons for believing that Frank was innocent, but there does not appear to be any consensus. The cited sources do not say that there is any consensus. Apparently Georgia officials revisited the issue in 1986 and 2019, and were unable to declare that Frank was innocent. So I agree with the above comment that the challenged sentence should be removed. Roger (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You can't have read the cited sources which clearly describe the consensus. Consensus isn't unanimimity though. There's the neo-Nazi websites specialising in the case. In reviewing them the NYT (in currently citation 247) noted that "the sites, of course, dispute the historical consensus of Frank’s innocence". DeCausa (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

As you know, the lede summarizes the sourced body of the article. You need to gain consensus for changes to the article body before asking that things be modified or struck in the lede. Acroterion (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not see any consensus. Maybe one side is mostly neo-nazis and pedophiles, and the other side has respectable citizens. I don't know, but it is still not a consensus. Roger (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Roger. To say there is a consensus is not accurate. I feel there are good points to be made toward Frank's culpability on both sides of this debate.

However, one important fact that weighs heavily on Frank's guilt is that he was found guilty by a jury of his peers in the original criminal trial which was the longest and most comprehensive criminal trial in Georgia's history up to that point. Moreover, all of his appeals were flatly denied and his execution was finalized and a date set. This was finally derailed by a

Indeed, there are factions on both sides with their agenda. Some anti-semitic folks proclaim his guilt as would be anticipated. Dinnerstein, who hails from the same ethnic background as Frank, is equally quick to assert that Frank's innocence is largely undisputed. Whilst that fact may or may not be relevant is would be naive to not mention the possibility that it may have biased the claim of Frank's innocence and the consensus behind it. He goes a step further and says that there is a consensus amongst historians on this point. I have seen no evidence of this bold claim. Everywhere I look the exact opposite rings true, including this very talk page.

More troublesome in my view is that the source listed gives no concrete reasons as for why Frank was wrongfully convicted.

Moreover, two more recent legal actions most recently in 2019 refused to clear Frank's record. There was a "pardon" given to Frank, but this pardon distinctly refused to touch on the guilt of Frank but rather the inability for the state to protect his person. If a consensus existed, why would a court of law twice flatly refuse to declare his innocence?

There is anything but a consensus. This article ought to be changed. Perhaps a request for comment action would be in order to get further input? Swiftozis (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The amount of people, whom I assume are not prejuidiced and assuming good faith, that have taken issue with the notion that there is a consensus regarding Frank having been wrongfully committed here on this talk page is enough to show that no such thing currently exists. Swiftozis (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not enough, and neither is your own opinion about Frank's trial or Dinnerstein's "ulterior motives". Wikipedia works on verifiability and reliable sources. The article cites ample reliable sources that specifically indicate there is a consensus among historians--not among Wikipedia editors, among historians--about Frank's wrongful conviction (see the many, many previous threads in the talk page archives about this). You need equivalent reliable sourcing that says otherwise to dispute it. Anything else is a waste of everyone's time. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm interested in knowing what attracted a brand new editor to land here to complain. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not see much consensus. Just what is it? The CNN article says: "The consensus of historians is that the Frank case was a miscarriage of justice. Crime scene evidence was destroyed, they say. A bloody hand print was not analyzed. Transcripts from the trial vanished." Okay, maybe there is a consensus about those things. A consensus about missing evidence does not necessarily mean that Frank was innocent. Roger (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You know what? I'm just going to copy Dumuzid's response, to you, on this exact subject on this exact page, from nearly a year ago:

It seems to me our interlocutor is objecting that the exact terminology "wrongfully convicted" is not present. While I don't agree that we can't summarize similar statements ("miscarriage of justice" etc.), those words are not hard to find. Observer says "The nearly unanimous consensus of contemporary researchers is that Frank was wrongfully convicted." The New Yorker describes Frank as "a Jewish pencil-factory manager in Georgia who in 1913 was wrongfully convicted of, and later lynched for, raping and murdering a white girl." The Jerusalem Post described him as " . . . an American Jew wrongfully convicted of murder in Georgia in 1915." The Tennessean, in reprinting its major reporting regarding the statements of Alonzo Mann, wrote about "Leo Frank, who was wrongfully convicted of killing Mary Phagan in 1913 in Atlanta." The New York Daily News, in describing the tsuris surrounding the Broadway show "Parade," described it as "a musical about an American Jew who was wrongfully convicted of murder and lynched a century ago." NBC New York described the same show as "a musical about the true story of Leo Frank -- a Jewish man lynched in 1915 after he was wrongfully convicted for the rape and murder of a 13-year-old girl." USA Today says the show is about "Leo Frank, the Jewish superintendent of a pencil factory in Atlanta, who in 1913 was falsely accused and wrongfully convicted of the murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan." Similarly, Salon says the show "follows the true story of Leo Frank, a Jewish factory manager who was convicted of raping and murdering a 13-year-old employee named Mary Phagan in 1913. Today, the consensus is that he was wrongly convicted, but at the time, amid rising antisemitic tensions across Georgia, Frank was kidnapped from prison in 1915 and lynched in Phagan's hometown" (emphasis added). Again regarding the show, Vice says Frank was "a Jewish man lynched in 1915 after he was wrongfully convicted of raping and murdering a 13-year-old girl in Georgia." Even the American Film Institute gets in on the action, describing a 1915 film as having a story "based in large part on actual events surrounding the much publicized case of Leo M. Frank, wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Georgia . . ." Suffice it to say, I believe the "wrongfully convicted" language is adequately supported. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You have been beating this dead horse for almost a year, if not more: I wish you would do something more productive with your time. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone who googles this subject will see that there is no consensus that Frank was innocent. Roger (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, when I google from the UK I get these as the top three results:

• New Georgia Encyclopedia: "The Frank case not only was a miscarriage of justice..."
• Encyclopaedia Britannica: "The investigation was fraught with controversy and included the torture of witnesses. Press coverage surrounding the trial and subsequent appeals—sensationalized by a...white supremacist, Tom Watson. The prosecution based its case against Frank on coached testimony of Jim Conley."
• History.com: "Frank had been convicted—by most historians' accounts wrongly..."

But that's google for the UK. Maybe in your part of the world the American neo-Nazi websites get more prominence. DeCausa (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's with neutral search terms and the wrong search engine. The top result in a Bing/DuckDuckGo search for Leo Frank no consensus was www.leofrank.org, a website concerned with - as its latest article by Kevin Alfred Strom has it - "Jewish sex killer Leo Frank" and "the genocidal nature of the Jewish agenda". But yes, after that the results do settle down to reaffirmations of a miscarriage of justice and consensus of innocence wrongful conviction. NebY (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It's weird, but for some reason, "Anyone who googles this subject will see that there is no consensus that Frank was innocent" doesn't look like a citation to a reliable source. Doubly weird that, given that Google searches are essentially lists of links, it would've been trivial to copy and paste those links to prove it. Ah well, I suppose it will remain one of the great mysteries of our time. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Are there notable dissenters from the consensus that Frank was wrongfully convicted? Of course there are. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. Does the fact that some people disagree mean there is no consensus? It does not. If unanimity were required, we would all be put in the shoes of the universal skeptic, unable to accept anything at all as real. I think I did an okay job in my post above (as quoted by Writ Keeper) in gathering some relevant sources. Roger, if you want to pursue this, I would suggest you try to do something similar. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not trying to prove Frank guilty. I accept that he was probably innocent. I would not even object to text that mirrored those UK google hits. Go ahead and say that the case was a miscarriage of justice, or it was fraught with controversy, or that most historians disagree with the trial outcome. But there is no agreement that Frank was innocent. Most of the sources recognize that. I am a little mystified as to why editots here insist on a position that is so obviously wrong. Roger (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"Wrongly convicted" and "miscarriage of justice" are not equivalent to definitely "innocent" in law and society. Acroterion (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, ACroterion is right on with this. There is a big difference between the two phrases but some folks here have interpreted them incorrectly as meaning the same exact thing. They are not. Swiftozis (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The space in between is the "beyond a reasonable doubt" part of the law. It is the reason someone is found "not guilty" instead of "innocent." Acroterion (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

But there is no agreement that Frank was innocent. We do have sources that say there is a historical consensus that Frank was innocent. You have still managed to avoid providing any sources that disagree with them. I wonder why that is. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

With all respect, your sources are based off of a single author who took a very personal interest in the Leo Frank case, by his own admission.

I find it troubling that we are to take the trial and subsequent conviction itself so lightly and Dinnerstein's dissertation as matter-of-fact, despite the latter being 55 years late. That doesn't explain the many requests for pardons made by Frank during his life. All of them were denied, except for one special legal "pardon" that said it did not take a position regarding the innocence or guilt of Frank but rather the inability of the State to protect him.

Here are a couple sources to back up what I and many others have said makes the sentence inappropriate.

According to Steve Oney, the notion that Dorsey was desperate for a conviction and that there was unethical behavior in the prosecutions conduct was unfounded. He asserts "there is no indication at all Hugh M. Dorsey was motived to indict Leo Frank without legal sufficiency and wrongfully convict this defendant just to bolster his own legal career or political ambitions. Dorsey’s case against Frank was credible and convincing"

Source - Oney, Steve. People vs. Leo Frank. Public Broadcasting Service, 2009,

Moreover, Jewish-American author/historian Moses Jacobs states the following:

The 21st Century Verdict of History Concerning Leo Frank: Innocent or Guilty?

We now know, at long last, with reliable certainty, Frank’s conviction on August 25th, 1913, was incontrovertibly the correct conclusion and accusations he was railroaded for the murder primarily because of anti-Judaic religious intolerance are categorically false, prejudiced, bigoted, racist and anti-Gentilic in nature.

Jacobs, Moses. "Why Was Leo Frank Convicted?" Medium, 29 July 2019

It would have been best for my talk page comment to have begun with source material. Here we have multiple sources that are credible and not tainted with neo-Nazi ideology or racist sentiments.

By no means is there a consensus among wikipedia editors, historians, or everyday people regarding the innocence of Leo Frank and now having provided multiple credible sources which indeed dispel any illusion of a consensus existing.... the sentence should have rewritten entirely to accurately state that Frank's trial was contentious both then and now and many questions are unanswered as to his guilt or innocence regarding the murder of Mary Phagan.

I appreciate your pushing for source material to back these requests up. I apologize for not having started off with the sources in my initial talk page comment. Swiftozis (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

So, your sources are:

• an interview with a historian, who's already cited in the article for his book wherein he agrees with earlier researchers: Leo Frank did not murder Mary Phagan, talking about a single aspect of a case in a documentary about what the AP describes as a century-old miscarriage of justice, and...
• an unreliable Medium blog.

You'll need to do better than that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Alas, I do not think there is any source that I could give here that would satisfy you.

Dinnerstein, the corporate press, and the fictional play Parade is an acceptable source whilst historians are not. We all know CNN's reputation is anything but veracious - I hope you can agree with me here.

What factors contribute to the unreliability of an article written by a historian who has thoroughly sourced the entire piece, whereas an article written by a journalist who merely mentions Frank's innocence and quotes Dinnerstein is acceptable? Are you aware the same CNN article likewise includes the opinion of a descendant of Mary Phagan's who states the following:

"Leo Frank was guilty as sin. He was a sexual pervert."?

That "unreliable Medium blog" author is also a professor at University of North Florida. He is credentialed and the "unreliable" part is merely your opinion. The article he wrote is itself sourced throughout beginning to end.

The first source I should have clarified earlier. In the wiki article, it is implied that anti-Semitism was rampant and largely to blame for Frank's guilty verdict. He contradicts this notion - emphatically. The point that I should have elaborated on is that the contention that the trial was marred by anti-Semitism is merely an opinion. Moreover, there is a difference between a "miscarriage of justice" and someone who is in fact innocent being found guilty. Miscarriage of justice is not nearly as strong as saying there is a consensus about Frank's innocence.

Why not put this up as a request for comment? Let's see what other people have to say about this. If there truly is a consensus that should be plain to see.

There's no reason why a CNN journalist should be considered reliable when other more qualified people aren't. Swiftozis (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

What are you basing the assertion that he's a professor at the University of North Florida on? I don't see any evidence of this on their Medium blog, nor do I find any indication of a Professor Moses Jacobs on UNF's website, nor do I find any research papers by someone of that name (UNF or otherwise). Not even any relevant Google hits or reverse image searches. This precisely is one of the reasons that Medium is not a reliable source; it's self-published, so there's no guarantee that anyone writing there has any of the credentials they say they have.

Another reason is that, just because someone is a professor (even in a relevant field), doesn't make everything they say or write a reliable source. Peter Duesberg may be a professor of molecular and cell biology, but any unvetted material from him would be wholly inappropriate to use as a source for HIV/AIDS. Professors are just as capable of having axes to grind as the rest of the population; that's why the gold standard for sourcing on Wikipedia is secondary sources, not primary sources like this would be (assuming it's legit).

Also, I'm not declaring that this Medium person is made up, but "mash together the name of two of the most prominent characters from the Old Testament" is as basic and obvious a way to make up a "Jewish-sounding" name as I can think of.

Your disdain for the reliable sources already cited in the article is understood, but irrelevant. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not have disdain for the sources in the article other than use of a fictional play, Parade, having been used. Moreover, CNN article which just a paragraph before quoting Dinnerstein's consensus included another different quote referring to Frank being guilty as sin. So that is cherry-picking an notoriously unreliable source and leaving the bits of it that go against Frank's supposed innocence completely out of the article.

I just want to say that I do not know if Frank is guilty or not with certainty. Of course, I do think more likely than not he is culpable for the crime as did a jury of his peers during his trial. I object to some of the sources used in this article. More importantly it is an egregious mistake to say that there is ANY consensus regarding Frank's culpability but especially not one that states he is innocent whilst a legitimate trial found him guilty.

I apologize you are correct, there is no record of a Moses Jacob at the University of North Florida. I was searching for awhile and everything began to run together in my head, and things became blurry if you will. Nevertheless, he claims to be a "Jewish-American historian/journalist" and his article is thoroughly sourced beginning to end which is much more than we can say of a great deal of the sources currently used on the Page. I see no reason whatsoever to have such hostility to what is by all standards a reasonably reliable article. Swiftozis (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Because self-published sources like Medium blogs are not reliable, especially when the author's credentials are dubious or nonexistent: as RSP says: Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided. You don't have to like it, but this is how Wikipedia works. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC on whether a consensus currently exists regarding the innocence or guilt of Leo Frank in the murder of Mary Phagan

Does a consensus exist regarding either the guilt or the innocence of Leo Frank in regard to the murder of Mary Phagan? Swiftozis (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This is inane. The consensus of historians on Leo Frank's innocence is well-cited in the article, and neither OP nor any of the other swarm of SPAs on this topic have ever presented anything resembling a reliable source indicating otherwise. Without sources, OP has no leg to stand on. I hope this RfC can be speedy-closed to avoid wasting everyone's time even further. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The antagonistic attitude shown here is unprodcutive and unwarranted. I acknowledge and respect your Wikipedia contributions, but you are not the ultimate judge of when a consensus exists. A consensus by definition is a general agreement. The purpose of this is to establish if this actually exists.

I suggest that people answer questions briefly and avoid negative & unhelpful comments. Swiftozis (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not whether there is a consensus among *Wikipedia editors*. The issue is whether there is a consensus among *historians*. That is a question that can only be assessed through reliable sourcing. And as I've said, you have provided *none*. That's how Wikipedia works. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Where in the request for comment did the word "historians" appear? Never was the qualification of historian included, so why you are bringing it up is beyond me.

Nevertheless, I provided an actual historian who painstakingly published an original piece of work with comprehensive sources given beginning to end is, according to you, unreliable. Contrarily, on the other hand, CNN and the fictitiousParade musical, are unimpeachably acceptable.... for you, at least. I find this incredible.

In addition, I provided another source, who is already sourced in other sections, directly contradicting the notion of anti-Semitism being responsible for Frank's ultimate conviction.

You are *not* the final arbiter of what is acceptable or who shall be considered reliable. You are *not* the sole authority on what constitutes a consensus amongst wikipedia editors, historians, or anybody else on such a contentious topic.

Let the community have their say. I will continue to consider your posts, but I am finding it harder and harder to sincerely believe you are here to do the same for mine. If there is nothing new to add, kindly refrain from adding to this request for comment and allow the community to have their say. Thank you for you feedback. Swiftozis (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I know the RfC doesn't mention historians; what I'm saying is that the RfC is asking the wrong question.

Clearly, you are not actually considering my posts, because otherwise you would have acknowledged the several policy links I've included that illustrate why the Medium blog you keep referring to is unreliable. You're right that I am not the final arbiter of what is or is not a reliable source, but neither are you; that is something that is subject to community consensus (unlike the question of Frank's innocence itself), and the community has already decided that self-published sources in general, and Medium blogs in particular, are not reliable, whereas CNN, for example, is. You persistently misrepresent the sources used in the article: it's not the play Parade itself being cited to support Frank's innocence, but the review of the play, while it is discussing the actual, historical events the play is based on. Moreover, you have absolutely no evidence that that blog was written by an actual historian other than their self-professed label, and completely ignore the obvious axe they have to grind on this topic.

I may be a bit short with you, but that's because people have been pulling this nonsense for years, and it gets old. And as the Washington Post says, while talking about the historical consensus of Frank’s innocence, most of the people who are pushing for Frank to be considered guilty are Neo-Nazis and avowed white supremacists, so I'm sure you'll understand my frustration that we keep having to have this conversation, and my skepticism at the company you're keeping in this "debate". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Seriously? Nobody has come forth in the history of this talkpage with a policy-compliant set of scholarly references that support anything other than what the article says. I-don't-like-what-scholars-say-so-let's-take-a-vote-and-decide-ourselves is not how the encyclopedia operates. "The community" doesn't decide to ignore sources. The policies are set by the community, which enforces them. That remove is to keep things like this from being subject to straw polls like this. The statements are well-sourced, and the sources that contradict either have no standing as reliable sources, or are promoting anti-Semitic agendas, or both. Acroterion (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• There is plenty of RS that supports the current wording "wrongly convicted". We as editors are not supposed to decide guilt or innocence. It is our job to cite good sources in accordance with policy. Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, there is a consensus that Frank was innocent. The sourcing in the body makes it clear there's a near-unanimous consensus that Frank was innocent and that the trial was a miscarriage of justice; nor has anyone here actually presented any serious voices doubting it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• No, no consensus. Just google it. A lot of people have well-thought-out arguments for his guilt. Even more have good arguments that evidence was lost or unreliable, and insufficient for a guilty verdict, but insufficient to establish innocence. Roger (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Just for the record, "just google it" is about the worst advice you could possibly give for this subject, especially when there are garbage websites like leofrank.info, which is a smear campaign run by white supremacists, pedophiles, and ancient-alien conspiracy theorists. There's a reason why we have WP:RS and not a page that just says "just google it". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• There is consensus. The consensus of the community is that we give WP:DUE weight to WP:RSs; that's how we build the encyclopedia. OP may be labouring under one or more illusions, such as that consensus requires unanimity; that a blog post on a non-RS site by someone calling themselves a historian is a WP:RS, even without any verifiable indication of that person's standing, credentials, other works which constitute WP:RS, or existence other than as an antisemitic invention; that one source's argument rejecting one posited motivation for an event constitutes a lack of consensus that the event occurred; that OP's persistent denial of the well-sourced statements that Modern researchers generally agree that Frank was wrongly convicted and The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted is in any way well-founded and not vexatious; that this RfC, coming after long discussion in which editors have been generous with their time and attention in explaining the above, is anything but a demonstration of WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE. NebY (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

References