Talk:Leo Frank

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)

First sentence

Is it just me or does it read weirdly? It follows a certain WP pattern but the juxtaposition of the mundane (factory superintendent) and the horrific (lynching victim) in summarising in such a short sentence why a person has an article about them is jarring and slightly surreal. Obviously it's relevant to the fact pattern of the story that he was the factory superintendent but is it really the first thing the reader should be told about him? It seems to me to make more sense to combine the first two sentences as "...was an American lynching victim convicted in 1913 of the murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan, an employee in a factory in Atlanta, Georgia where he was the superintendent." DeCausa (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

WP first sentences are prone to bloat but this seems like a sensible proposal. JBL (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The claim that he, Mr. Leo Frank, was "wrongfully convicted" and that there is a consensus regarding his innocence is highly dubious

Resolved via administrative action
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Greetings. I recently encountered this article and was astonished to find such a claim included within its content. There are indeed sources, some of which are credible and thus acceptable, asserting that he was wrongfully convicted; however, it is crucial to note that this does not imply Mr. Frank's innocence. Nonetheless, the implications are evident. Moreover, there exist other credible sources that present an opposing viewpoint, which certainly challenges the idea of a "consensus." It is unacceptable to dismiss every article and book as being produced by Neo-Nazis who harbor strong resentment and are inclined to act on that resentment in a covert manner. It seems that the editors who have suggested there are no credible sources contradicting the assertion of Mr. Frank's innocence may either be unwilling to seek them out or, more likely, have not conducted a thorough enough search, as such sources are indeed available and numerous. I will identify two credible sources that strongly contest the notion of Frank's innocence. However, the more significant issue at hand is the potential harm caused by the inclusion of such bold claims regarding a contentious subject on Wikipedia. Our objective is to create an encyclopedia that provides a fair and balanced perspective on these issues. A cursory inquiry into public opinion regarding the Leo Frank case would reveal that the majority of individuals familiar with the case believe him to be guilty. While there are certainly those who firmly believe in his innocence, this very dichotomy underscores the troubling nature of the article. Readers may come away with the impression that he is, in fact, innocent, which is misleading. Furthermore, what greater authority exists to determine an individual's guilt or innocence than a jury trial by peers? There are none. Additionally, the numerous appeals and legal motions that have been undertaken further complicate the matter. As of now, including developments from just a few years ago, every legal attempt to vindicate Frank in relation to this crime has been met with rejection. This cycle of denial has occurred repeatedly. If this article implies that there is a genuine consensus regarding his wrongful conviction, it raises the question of why the legal system consistently disagrees. In straightforward terms, a consensus is lacking. There are credible sources that ought to be cited here, and the article needs considerable modification. I acknowledge the controversial aspects of this issue, which further emphasizes the importance of presenting a truly unbiased and logical text that does not mislead readers. ChillingPepper (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC) Historian C. Vann Woodward concludes that the evidence against Frank was substantial and that his conviction was not merely a product of anti-Semitism. He ultimately suggests that Frank bears responsibility and is culpable for various reasons. The evidence stacked against Frank was compelling, and his statements lacked consistency. Additionally, his testimony was weak, and his defense team failed to provide a convincing rationale for his innocence. Notably, they did not present any alternative theories or suspects, despite having access to top-tier legal representation. C. Vann Woodward, a respected historian and author. He is certainly not a Neo-Nazi and is regarded as credible by all standards. While the article does not include specific page numbers, the conclusion can be found at the end of the October 1968 issue. The Lynching of Leo Frank. (Woodward, C. Vann, American Heritage, October 1968). & In his book, Steve Oney presents a detailed analysis of the Leo Frank case and concludes that Frank was most likely guilty of the murder of Mary Phagan. Oney, a respected journalist, spent years researching the case and examining the evidence. On page 745, Oney writes, "I believe that Leo Frank sexually abused Mary Phagan and, in doing so, caused the chain of events that led to her death." He then goes on to explain his reasoning based on the evidence he uncovered during his extensive research. The entire Epilogue discusses Oney's perspective on Frank's guilt and the factors that contributed to his conviction and subsequent lynching. And the Dead Shall Rise: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank, Oney, Steve, 2003 ChillingPepper (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC) 1. C. Vann Woodward makes no such claim in his book. If anything, he writes "A Negro suspect, 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."" Furthermore, the doesn't seem to have ever had a 1968 publishing. The October 1968 issue of American Heritage (magazine) has nothing about Leo Frank, nor anything written by Vann. 2. And The Dead Shall Rise has 742 pages and no semblance of your quote. The epilogue, which ends on page 649, is mostly about what happened to Jim Conley after the affair and the attempted pardons. Hence, I believe you asked a LLM "please hallucinate evidence for my cause". DatGuyTalkContribs 23:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC) The article needs to be amended to more accurately state the current "consensus" (or lack thereof) regarding Frank's guilt/innocence. Thank you. ChillingPepper (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC) I'm more interested in how you arrived here. I see two likely possibilities. One is that you are a sock puppet of a recently blocked editor. More likely is that somewhere off Wikipedia there is a discussion of this article that inspired you to come here. Doug Weller talk 07:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC) Isn't there a case for upping the protection of this talk page? For a long time now it's been side tracked by an endless parade of IPs and new SPAs with the same repetitive story. As you suggest, most are MEAT or socks. DeCausa (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC) Maybe. I can't do it, I'm involved. Doug Weller talk 08:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC) I'm not. Semiprotected for 6 months. Bishonen | tålk 09:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC). While you are questioning motives, can I ask why editors here are so eager to say Frank was innocent? There are lots of examples of innocent men being convicted, so that by itself is not much of a story. Even if he were guilty, he would not deserve to be lynched. The fact that Frank was Jewish and the likely perp was Black adds interest to the story. Apparently some were influenced by this, but maybe not everyone. Some aspects of the case will never be known. I think it is better to stick to known facts. They are interesting enough. Roger (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC) The fact that Frank was Jewish and the likely perp was Black adds interest to the story. Well certainly it does for antisemites and racists. The rest of us are pretty happy to trust the clear academic consensus, I imagine. --JBL (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC) Really? Let us know if there are any academics who manage to ignore the Jewish and Black angles to the story. My hunch is that they emphasize those angles as much as anyone else. Roger (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC) Well, yeah, obviously; the thing about studying historical hate crimes is that the hate tends to come up. Not taking that into account would be farcical; Leo Frank wasn't just chosen randomly to be convicted and lynched, and was coincidentally Jewish. The problem is with your assumption that, because historians are engaging with the hatred-and-prejudice aspects of the case, that they themselves are biased. That's not how history works. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC) Roger Schlafly has been indefinetly blocked.[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 08:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)