# Talk:Leo Frank

I'm not going to rehash the same conversation about the "consensus of researchers," but is this an appropriate category for someone that is still considered guilty according to the law? The other entries in this category seem to all be people whose convictions were overturned during their lives or who were later exonerated, neither of which apply to Frank. Swinub★ 03:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why not. It's a fairly defining characteristic for the subject of the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
You don't see why not what? BeatrixGodard (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
The fact remains that he is still guilty as per the law. There has been no overturning of his conviction. That is not to say that this hasn't been tried, of course it has. Literally over a dozen times.
The point Swinub makes is a valid one. Why does the article claim he was wrongfully convicted as a fact? There should be a much more nuanced sentence in place of that one.
What is wrong with something like the following: "Many historians believe Leo Frank was wrongfully convicted, though his conviction has never been formally overturned or legally cleared."
That touches on the "consensus of researches" aspect, while acknowledging that he has not in fact been legally cleared of wrongdoing. Isn't this supposed to be a neutral point of view article as per the guidelines? WillyBig (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Feel free to read any of the dozens of other sections on this talk page to see why we won't do that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Mrs. Phagan-Kean has a good answer why the english Wikipedia is distorting the thruth. 2A00:20:D019:4022:7AE8:574D:F7F2:639B (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
She is entitled to her own opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that most modern researchers agree that he was wrongfully convicted.  Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, but is rather a summary of what reliable secondary sources say. - ZLEA TǀC 00:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

"The lynching of Leo Frank and its backlash may have contributed to the revival of the Ku Klux Klan, a group notorious for racial violence against Jewish people in particular. "
That's not really what they're notorious for.
This seems like partisan wording at best. 84.203.17.68 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

As explained in the first paragraph of Ku Klux Klan, Jewish people are one of the three primary groups targeted by the KKK, alongside African Americans and Catholics.  The context of the latter isn't as relevant when discussing the impact of Frank's lynching. - ZLEA T|C 20:52, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Even if that were true (which, prior to the Frank case, it definitely was not), it's not in the source. BeatrixGodard (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
What? Yes, it is. " Several members of Leo Frank’s lynching party were also charter members of the new Klan. The Klan’s white supremacist, anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, and anti-immigration platform secured political influence in Georgia and nationwide."[1] My bolding. Bishonen | tålk 08:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC).
That's not really what we're referring to, nor what I removed, which was "a group notorious for racial violence against Jewish people." It's not, and that's not really an honest paraphrase of what's in that source. BeatrixGodard (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I think it is an honest paraphrase. Did they just happen to be in Frank's lynching party? But I suppose the sentence could be changed to ""The lynching of Leo Frank and its backlash may have contributed to the revival of the Ku Klux Klan, a group notorious for antisemitism." Bishonen | tålk 09:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC).
The lynching of Leo Frank and its backlash may have contributed to the revival of the Ku Klux Klan, a group notorious for antisemitism."
Sure, I think that's reasonable.
The only thing that I would add is that the Klan's reputation as anti-Jewish organization is something that started in its second iteration in 1915, partially or even mostly because of Frank. The only source I have for this at the moment is:
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/ku-klux-klan/
I won't live and die by everything in it, but I believe it backs up what I'm saying. BeatrixGodard (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I concur. It was the entire Leo Frank saga which gave the KKK the push towards anti-Semitism. Before the Frank case, it was not at all known for being anti-Semitic. Overwhelmingly even after the Frank case, when people thought of the KKK the first and most overwhelmingly individual aspect that would come to mind is their anti-black crusade. The anti-catholic and anti-Semitic (particularly before Frank) was on the periphery at best.
I think the redone version is much better too.  WillyBig (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

As it seems unlikely it’s just a coincidence we have a surge of attention. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Parade began its national tour, not sure if that has anything to do with it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
The ADL made a post on X and I believe on other platforms about Leo Frank, so that brought attention to the article. Susiga0 (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
https://x.com/shitpostrock/status/1957490151753712037?s=46&t=k7MZQS-NUWDJlubJa7brRw i think its this post that has attracted all the antisemites 109.150.153.49 (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. That's almost certainly it. Doug Weller talk 06:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Candace Owens has been reviving "Frankist" and "blood libel" tropes, and that prompted the ADL to post on X.DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Although Frankism isn't related to Leo Frank. Andre🚐 18:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
True. But Owens thinks there is a connection. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
I come from a german crime discussion-board. In the german wiki he is described a convicted murderer. 2A00:20:D019:4022:7AE8:574D:F7F2:639B (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
dewiki’s problems are its to solve, not ours. Acroterion (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Can someone change the part about the KKK being especially known for antisemitism. Surely most people can agree that is disingenuous. We can keep the fact that they are known for antisemitism but saying it's what they are "especially" known for is just wrong. If you mention KKK to 100 people probably 100 people will think of anti black racism. Wikieditor1694327 (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

They are known for both antisemitism and anti-black racism Andre🚐 02:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
I know. I said that. I just think the use of the word "particularly" seems a little bit out of place because it is obviously not what they are mainly known for even if they are obviously known antisemites too. It's nit picky I know but I just wanted to give my opinion on the wording Wikieditor1694327 (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
I've removed the "in particular" part of the sentence.  Hopefully that clears things up. - ZLEA T|C 16:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Prior to the Frank case, they really weren't known at all for anti-semitism. They rose out of the confederacy, obviously, which was more philo-semitic than not. After killing a Jewish shopkeeper and his black employee, the first Klan issued a public statement that they were not anti-Jewish, and that it was solely his association with the black man that led them to kill him. The second Klan, which was anti-semitic, basically started as a result of Frank. A lack of clarity on this distinction would damage the article. BeatrixGodard (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I am sure you have lots of reliable sources that make this careful distinction, in the context of discussing Leo Frank; until you provide them, though, I don't see any reason anyone should take your comments seriously. --JBL (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Sure. This article may be wrong about several things, including its implication that the original iteration of the Klan was not anti-Catholic, only the second, but I think it backs up my claim that the anti-Jewish nature of the Klan was a later, post Frank/1915 development.
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/ku-klux-klan/
Or by, in the context of discussing Leo Frank do you mean that you will only accept articles where Frank is a subject as sources? BeatrixGodard (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
That source does not mention Frank nor does it support your claims above for example that the first Klan was philosemitic or that the Klan started as a result of Frank. Review WP:SYNTH, you may only use articles which mention Leo Frank or a connection to this topic. The closest this article comes to addressing any of that is In 1915, the Ku Klux Klan was revived by white Protestants near Atlanta, Georgia. In addition to the group’s anti-Black ideological core, this second iteration of the Klan also opposed Catholic and Jewish immigrants. While I can see how you thought that was relevant to the article, it doesn't support your claims or suggest any change to the current article text. Andre🚐 08:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the advice. I'll keep looking. BeatrixGodard (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello - there doesn't appear to be any material / reliable citation in the summary, which seems to imply non neutrality to the tone of the writing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.236.64 (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC) 

Hi, IP. I assume you're talking about the lead section of the article? Wikipedia's house style specifies that citations are typically not required in the lead, as the lead is simply a summary of the rest of the article, and so any material in the lead should also be in the body of the article, where it should be supported by a citation. See MOS:LEADCITE for more information on this. If you feel that something in the lead is unrepresentative of the rest of the article, or that something in the lead specifically requires a citation, please elaborate, and we can discuss what to do. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I'm still rather new to editing of Wikipedia itself, I'm mostly just a janitorial force myself, sticking to primarily grammatical edits. However, I've noticed there seems to be a lack of public (I am unsure of scientific consensus based on sources provided alone, with only two reliable sources being presented.) consensus on the appeal to authority and stating these experts' opinion as though it were fact prior within the summary (i.e. "wrongly convicted,") rather than stating it is professional opinion and leaving it at that. I have no particularly strong opinions regarding this, though it does feel somewhat distasteful when you compare it to other articles of the site whether this is truly neutral. Unless I am mistaken and a couple professional opinions is considered close enough to fact here, I simply haven't found other instances of this nature that have stood the test of time. If this falls under verifiable, do we have a reliable threshold to point towards for where expert opinions become fringe? Are two reliable sources good enough for the article, or should more be obtained before making such a confident statement? (See also, Mainstream.)
In response to "Wikipedia's house style specifies that citations are typically not required in the lead, as the lead is simply a summary of the rest of the article, and so any material in the lead should also be in the body of the article, where it should be supported by a citation. See MOS:LEADCITE for more information on this." Your own source disproves your statement, "The lead section must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy states that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it." I'd like to request additional info on if one or two sources is enough to contest any challenges relevant to such a claim.
I know this is not a forum, but may we use this particular section to state an actual reason based on Wikipedia's rules/guidelines for those who are still confused on the editing decision for this article to put this to rest for good? The closest I've seen used was Wikipedia:ORIGINALITY to explain why we, as editors, do not insert our own opinions into the article, though I have not seen any explain the actual reasoning why, in the context of this article, representing a couple experts' professional opinion as absolute truth passes muster.
If this is not the place for this, I apologize, but I would still like the explanation with rule/guideline links on my talk page if you're so inclined. Thank you, and I apologize again if I'm screwing up here.
Bolbrdefnendr (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia. You are correct in your reading that "must conform to verifiability ... and other policies" but this is achieved by the in-line citations being provided in the body of the article, of which the lead is a summary.
As this is your third ever edit to Wikipedia, it's not surprising that you still have some learning to do when it comes to how articles are structured and sourced. I'd encourage you to gain some experience in areas of Wikipedia which are not under constant attack by antisemitic propagandists, as this one is. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, this is an excellent explanation. I admit I missed the forest for the trees here a bit. I will leave these important articles to those who certainly know more than I. Bolbrdefnendr (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
There are a lot more than 2 reliable sources as has been established. Dinnerstein, Oney, Lindemann, Wilkes, and Woodward. Andre🚐 16:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)