What has a so-called consensus among modern historians to do with anything?

There is a strong cultural consensus now and since '68, that no convicted murderer, esp. if s/he is a member of a minority can ever possibly be guilty (Angela Davis, George Jackson, Huey Newton, Dylan's "Hurricane" from the 60's/70's; Joe Hill, Sacco & Vanzetti, from the I.W.W. period).

Passed on Comintern propaganda, the 100% consensus of historians was, that SA was guilty of the Reichstagsbrand. A canard very popular again today. -- Ralfdetlef ( talk) 14:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Ralfdetlef: No idea what any of this means for the article. How are you suggesting the article be changed, exactly? Writ Keeper  ⚇ ♔ 15:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Writ Keeper if I’d seen this earlier I’d have reverted it per WP:NOTFORUM. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply

They already have two warnings for using talk pages as forums. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply

one of you two is making a point, and the other is posturing. 74.109.13.35 ( talk) 19:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

"No idea what any of this means for the article."

He's saying that using a consensus as the arbiter of truth is silly . Are the historians forming this consensus murder investigators? What use is their consensus, then?

"How are you suggesting the article be changed?"

You are being willfully ignorant. What he's suggesting is obvious.... i.e. remove all references to Leo Frank being "wrongfully" accused.

Also, attempts to paint his lynching as racism are even more silly. These horrible racists declined to lynch the BLACK MAN, instead lynching the man who looks almost caucasian. Sure, that's how racism works.

I'm sure you're going to delete this. Not a forum, right? You won't even finish reading this before you hit delete, because it doesn't matter if I'm right, it doesn't matter if I'm actually using the talk page as intended, it doesn't matter of WP has become a Snopes-level JOKE... as long as YOU are right. Make sure you say out loud "Take that, racist!" as you click the delete button. 74.109.13.35 ( talk) 19:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

You're right. This place is awful. You should probably just leave and never come back. That'll show 'em. Dumuzid ( talk) 19:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is compromised my dude. You're never, ever going to see a truthful page on a Jewish individual. Might as well save your time. 184.146.136.205 ( talk) 19:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Perhaps it's time to go find brave truth tellers on some other site? Dumuzid ( talk) 19:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Perhaps it's time you stop defending convicted murders and trying to rewrite history. What evidence do you have, or can you source, that shows his innocence? We have loads proving the opposite. The second we provide legitimate sources, it is discarded as anti-Semitic. 2601:346:880:5940:98D7:BF49:6FB1:9E12 ( talk) 22:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Take a look at the article for the answer to your question. Also, "We have loads proving the opposite". Who is the "we"? Is it the neo-Nazi and white supremacist websites that The Washington Post says, in this article, are the only people who "dispute the historical consensus of Frank's innocence"? DeCausa ( talk) 22:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Based on the editing history of this /64 range, I think you're wasting your time [1] Acroterion (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Blocked, this is the 2nd block for this range for making personal attacks. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I apologize for my confusion regarding the '/64 range'. I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide a brief explanation of this matter.

There exist numerous individuals who have expressed their disapproval towards the notion that there exists a consensus, or that the articles that support their presumption of innocence are backed up by the most shaky evidence, if any. The evidence presented for his innocence was insufficient to sway the grand jury, the numerous judges who all ruled against his numerous appeals, or the jury that conducted his trial. So we are to toss out all these formal and recorded judgements over what exactly? Dinnerstein, of whom is the source given for the last sentence at the end of the first paragraph boldyl claims there is a supposed consensus about his wrongful conviction. Dinnerstein is not a reliable source. In her prologue she admits to having a personal stake, in her own words, "as a proud sSmitic woman" who aims to "set the record straight." This is not to say Jewish folks cannot have their own opinions on this matter ,but if we have any amount of credibility you must acknowledge that there is, very naturally, a high likelihood of kin naturally having biased views. Those who share certain similarities, ethnic or otherwise, invariably are predisposed to defend each other as comes naturally. Inevitably ,in almost all cases this is a universal truth. I submit to you that it is therefore improper to use Dinnerstein as a source for such a sweeping blanket statement.

Do not insult our collective intelligence by smearing anybody who points this out as being prejudiced. Clearly, this is the most elementary and pathetic reflexive defensive possible which has been used more than once in this talk page. My mother is Jewish from her mothers' side just the same. Speaking for myself, I take issue with the egregious claim regarding a supposed consensus of innocence — but I have no axe to grind, so-to-speak. My hopes are that the majority or entirety of the people here are of the same heart. Instead, when we come across outrageous claims that continue to be actively pushed it is incumbent on us all to resist the record from being tarnished. In essence, history is being manipulated with flagrantly misleading claims at best, or malicious deceptive lying at worst. Given the fervor of some defenders of this article I have begun to lean towards the latter.

Are you being willfully ignorant about the many folks above who are in agreement that the blanket statement that he was wrongfully convicted is inappropriate? Clearly, there are over a dozen likely well-intentioned probable historians, researchers (myself being one of them), and average interested people that strongly object to the suggestion that there is any "consensus" regarding the innoncene of Mr. Frank. That is the "we", since you failed to recognize the plurlilty of good folks who take issue on this important historical subject.

What is worse yet, this has very generously given the coveted "good article" designation. A travesty no doubt when such claims are made in the first paragraph. This only serves to cement the historical revisionism, something I am increasingly convinced is the very purpose of the defenders here of this consensus statement.

If the consensus statement has any validity to it, I would love to hear the reasons for its existance. To my knowledge, it is based almost entirely on conjecture via Dinnerstein's book. The author, that is Leonard Dinnerstein, tells us of the deathbed confession of one Alonzo Mann. Mann signed an affidavit claiming he saw Conely carrying Phagan's body inside the pencil factory. He was scared to tell on him, only informing his parents, who in turn told him to be silent. Mann said his life was threatened by Conely if he spoke to anybody. This deathbed confession came a staggering 69 years after the fact. Mann was said to be not entirely lucid, almost certainly suffering from mild dementia if not worse. He was dead shortly thereafter. I am not going to poke holes in his affidavit any further but rest assured anybody with half a brain could very easily show this first-hand account to be nothing more than a fantasy by a dying man, who's motives are also in question. In short, the claim that there is a consensus almost entirely stems from Leonard Dinnerstein's work on the Leo Frank trial, which in turn claims Frank's innocence almost exclusively from the affidavit produced by a mildly demented 83-year-old Alonzo Mann whom supposedly witnessed Conely with Phagan's body in his arms a whopping 69 years ago and only then decided to come out with the information. The fact that Conely had died 20 years prior in 1962 was almost certainly known to Mann, yet he still did not disclose this for a further 2 decades.

Lastly, at the time of his conviction, there had never been a criminal trial which lasted as long as Leo Frank's in the State of Georgia. It was a thorough, complete, and utterly detailed trial which gave Mr. Frank and his extensive legal team every chance to exercise any and all possible legal defenses available in order to substantiate his innocence and thereby provide the jury every chance possible to have a reasonable doubt as to who else possibly committed the rape and murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan. Frank's wife, upon her passing, adamantly refused to have her burial next to that of Frank's. I wonder why she insisted upon this…

I hope an administrator or someone who has some decency and integrity makes the right decision and reverts this article to a truly neutral standing, as it is anything but that at this time. SpicyHabaneros ( talk) 12:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

That is nearly a thousand words, and not a single citation to a reliable source among them. The assertion of consensus comes from the reliable sources cited in the article: The modern historical consensus, as exemplified in the Dinnerstein book, is that ... Leo Frank was an innocent man convicted at an unfair trial(cite 1), the consensus of historians is that the Frank case was a miscarriage of justice(cite 2), Frank, a Jew living in Georgia, was a factory superintendent who was convicted―by almost all modern accounts wrongly―of sexually assaulting and murdering Mary Phagan (cite 4, emphasis mine), all the way to But the [white-supremacist-run] sites, of course, dispute the historical consensus of Frank’s innocence (cite 245). Various others simply assert the wrongful conviction as fact, without feeling the need to cite a historical consensus for it, such as Frank, a Jewish man wrongfully accused of murder, was lynched(cite 257). This is just me quickly breezing over the sources readily at hand, and yet I find plenty of sources supporting the assertion that "the consensus of modern historians is that Leo Frank was wrongly convicted". When you've found and presented an equivalent number of reliable (so, not the aforementioned white-supremacist-run websites, just to head that off at the pass) sources contradicting that fact, we can talk. Until then, this is nearly a thousand words of hot air. Writ Keeper  ⚇ ♔ 14:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

No, that is your opinion. You know exactly what you are doing. It seems to me that a pattern has emerged clear as day. If the source doesn't boldly claim that Frank was wrongly convicted, then it is a "white-supremacist" site as you say. Tell me, being anti-Semitic synonymous with being white-supremacist? Those are two different things and the careless way you conflate the two illustrates your one-sided judgement on this sensitive topic.

Dinnerstein is in no way a reliable source for reasons already stated. If you have actually read Dinnerstein's 1987 article you will notice the obfscation if you are of sound mind. Moreover, he openly admits to his bias in the prolougu. (cite 1) So whilst Dinnerstein's article makes up a huge percentage of the citations on this page, including the supposed consensus of Frank being wrongfully convicted, the author himself mentions his views are influenced by his shared ethnicity. Alas, this is somehow a reliable source? How twisted must your logic be?

The second citation given (CNN article, laughable to consider this a reliable article) contains a juicy paragraph which unequivocally contradicts this supposed consensus. According to Mary Kean, author of "The Murder of Little Mary Phagan," directly contradicts the idea of a consensus. Kean emphatically declares "Leo Frank was guilty as sin. He was a sexual pervert." (cite 2)

It appears that we have deliberately manipulation from some malicious actors. When sources contradict the erroneous and partisan notion that there exists a presumptive consensus regarding Frank's innocence among contemporary researchers, they are not only anti-Semitic but also governed by white supremacists. When sources like CNN say there is a consensus that Frank is innocent, even though they contradict that idea in a mere 2 paragraphs later, or when an author who says that Frank is innocent admits to having bias, these sources are considered "reliable."

According to The American Chronicle, "Leo Frank, convicted murderer of 13 year old Mary Phagan, got what he deserved when he was lynched" ( https://theamericanchronicle.blogspot.com/2014/02/leo-frank-got-what-he-deserved.html)

Moreover, Phillip Raymond illustrates that at no point was the prosecutor, the police, nor even the people themselves unduly focused on Frank from the outset due to his ethnicity. The headline and lead article in the Atlanta Georgian of April 29th, 1913 was as follows:

“LEE’S GUILT PROVED, Detectives Assert” — “SUSPICION LIFTS FROM FRANK” — “We Have Sufficient Evidence Now to Convict Negro Nightwatchman of Killing Mary Phagan” — “Additional clews furnished by the head of the pencil factory [Leo Frank] were responsible for the closing net around the negro watchman” — “what suspicion had rested on Frank was being rapidly swept away by the damaging evidence against the black man.”

Nobody today is claiming that Newt Lee had anything to do with the murder of Mary Phagan, and indeed, shortly thereafter the suspicion would be focused on the very person who "furnished clews" against the innocent Newt Lee. This is important because it shows that there was never a conspiracy to frame Frank from the start. Only slowly over time did the pieces fall where they might, and they all showed the same thing: Frank was the guilty man. /

I would very much love to upload a photo of this headline, but the page is under an admin protective order. I have requested this to be removed so that this picture may be added to weight against this travesty. SpicyHabaneros ( talk) 09:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply