![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Someone added an IA link to "Leo Frank and the Murder of Little Mary Phagan", by Mary Phagan-Kean. Isn't it copyrighted?
I think having an online version to refer to is nice, but the article has to respect copyright law.
The link should be removed. 64.134.98.211 ( talk) 05:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Mr. IP, I have been accused of being you by Tonystewart, because I asked you to create a user account in the past. I asked you more than once to create a real Wikipedia user account. People are less likely to respond if you don't have a real wiki user name. What is preventing you from creating a user account on Wikipedia? GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 13:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I see you are now coming to understand, by first hand experience, some of the tactics employed by the pro Frank editors here regarding anyone who they believe is "rocking their boat". Welcome to my world. I applaud you for the fact that you have obviously taken the time and effort to review the vast amount of materials available in regard to Leo Frank, and come to understand the case more clearly than you did before. I hope our future interactions on this page will be more pleasant.
In regard to your repeated requests that I register, please consider the following:
According to Wikipedia:Why create an account?:
This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It is free to read, and free to edit.
You don't need to be registered to contribute.
According to Wikipedia:IP edits are not anonymous:
Some registered Wikipedia editors and administrators treat IP editors as (at best) unwelcome party-crashers or as potential vandals. Some ignore the opinions or revert the edits of IP editors simply because they are "anonymous". There is no Wikipedia policy which supports this treatment, and there are several long-term and constructive Wikipedia editors who edit solely under a fixed IP.
The treatment of IP editors as second-class editors is unacceptable.
According to Wikipedia:IPs are human too:
You are an IP too. See here if you don't think so. The only difference between you and an IP contributor is that your IP address is hidden. When you registered for Wikipedia, you hid your IP address behind a user name. Unregistered users are often called anonymous editors. In fact, because your IP address is hidden, it is you who are more anonymous. (Your IP address is still recorded by the software. It is simply not visible to most users.)
Remember this when dealing with unregistered users. They are not a lower category of users. They are not a special subset that we tolerate. They are not locust swarms intent on destroying your article. They are individuals, the same as you. Why does it matter that they have not registered for an account? Just as you deserve to be treated with civility and good faith, the edits of unregistered users deserve civility and good faith from you. As your contributions to talk pages deserve to be heard and counted when forming consensus, so too do the contributions of unregistered users.
Our readers are IPs too. Virtually none of our readers are registered users. When an unregistered user makes an edit to an article or posts a comment on a talk page, these are the views of one of our readers. That doesn't necessarily mean that their view should be given greater weight. It means that we should not discriminate against their view just because they don't have an account. 64.134.98.211 ( talk) 23:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any info in the article about whether or not Conley was prosecuted as an accessory to murder. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 12:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything about it googling either. Does anyone have any info on this? -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
He was, and was sentenced to 12 months on the chain gang, according to Golden. PatGallacher ( talk) 23:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Conley was sentenced to a year in jail as an accessory to the murder in Feb. 1914, but was released after 10 months on "good behavior". The reason he was given a short sentence, is on account that he helped the police solve the Mary Phagan murder. Though police could have easily solved the murder without him, Monteen Stover is the one who placed Frank's alibi in a quandary. Conley was arrested again in 1919, for trying to steal beer from a Negro owned Pharmacy. During the six-pack theft attempt, Conley was shot in the chest by the Negro Pharmacist. He miraculously survived and was convicted and sentenced to 20 years. Conley was released after 15 for "good behavior". In the 1940s Conley was arrested twice, once for being caught playing craps with 2 other Negroes and another for disorderly conduct ("intoxication"). Conley disappeared in 1952 or passed away according to former Governor Slaton in a 1955 memorandum (re: JStore). GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 04:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted the most recent edits to the lead by GingerBreadHarlot. There are lots of problems but these are the ones that immediately caught my eye:
1. Changed "convicted of the murder of" to"convicted of murdering." We can't say in wikipedia's voice that he was a murderer, especially since the consensus of reliable sources is that he didn't commit a murder.
2. Changed "drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States" to "drew attention to accusations of antisemitism in the United States". "Questions" is more neutral and more reflective of the attention given the subject throughout the country.
3. Changed the language the the Rfc was all about -- added a redundant "Frank was not officially absolved of the crime for which he was convicted" -- this is also misleading since it also didn't affirm his guilt which is exactly what the quote already there ("Without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence") says.
4. Changes the language about the Governor, eliminates verifiable language, and makes allusions to a potential, rather that actual, conflict of interest that does not belong in the lead.
5. Tried to sugar coat Conley's testimony by changing "changed his testimony" to "modified his participation in the coverup of the murder." He did much more than modify -- he started out denying he was even at the factory on the day of the murder and lied about his ability to read and write.
Discuss the changes before adding them back. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 02:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I've added a two paragraph summary of the criticism of the trial and verdict to the body of the article. While it was always my intention to do so, this was also suggested by several people opposing the actions proposed in the Rfc. All of the sources noted in this new section have been listed in the Rfc. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 19:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Since we have a section for criticism of the trial and verdict, wouldn't it make sense to balance it out with a section for those who support the conviction and why? GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 22:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Outgoing Governor John M. Slaton (June 21, 1915), commuted the death sentence of his lawfirm's client, Leo M. Frank, to life in prison. Leo Frank's lead trial attorney Luther Rosser, was the law partner of Governor John M. Slaton (fact). There should be an inclusion in the article about Governor-elect John M. Slaton and his fellow law partner Benjamin Z. Phillips who were together the law firm 'Slaton and Phillips', merging with the lawfirm of Luther Rosser and Morris Brandon, who were together the law firm of 'Rosser and Brandon'. The combined law firm in May of 1913 -- just after Leo Frank's arrest -- was 'Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips'. There are numerous sources for these two law firms joining, 'Rosser and Brandon' combining with 'Slaton and Phillips'. Some of the reliable sources confirming this are, Steve Oney, Mary Phagan Kean, Tom Watson Brown, and others. If we check verifiability, the Atlanta Directory of 1914, shows that this law firm 'Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips' did in fact exist. We now learn from Slaton's new historical marker (June 17, 1915), that his commuting Leo Frank's death sentence played a roll in Leo Frank's lynching, but the plaque fails to mention the gross conflict of interest because 'Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips' was the law firm representing Leo Frank at his trial. QUOTE "The marker text reads: "John Marshall Slaton was born in Meriwether County and graduated from the University of Georgia before practicing law in Atlanta. Slaton served in both houses of the Georgia legislature and two terms as governor (1911-12 and 1913-15). While in office, he modernized Georgia's tax system and roads. Concerned by the sensationalized atmosphere and circumstantial evidence that led to the notorious 1913 conviction of Jewish businessman Leo Frank in the murder of teenager Mary Phagan, Slaton granted Frank clemency in June 1915. Slaton's commutation of Frank's death sentence drew national attention but hostile local backlash resulted in Frank's lynching in August 1915 and the end of Slaton's political career. Slaton lived on property adjacent to today's Atlanta History Center and Slaton Drive (named in his honor). He is buried in Oakland Cemetery." I would like to open this topic for discussion. Sources include Notes on the Case of Leo Max Frank and it's Aftermath by Tom Watson Brown, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean and And the Dead Shall Rise: The Murder of Mary Phagan and Lynching of Leo Frank by Steve Oney. For verifiability of these facts about Governor-elect John Slaton's law firm merging with Luther Rosser's law firm, the 1,818 page Leo Frank Georgia Supreme documents provides sustaining evidence. At the very least there should be some mention of Slaton being part owner of the law firm that represented Leo Frank at trial. Let us discuss how this can be written properly. GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 18:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Tom and I have been going back and forth, regarding the sentence "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." Unless I understood him incorrectly, Tom is willing to concede that the "conviction" part is not appropriate. But he holds fast to the statement that "His 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." First off, conviction/death sentence are nearly inseparable, unless Tom is saying that Judge Roan was an anti-Semite. It is the other parts that I have a problem with. The factor that "drew attention" to (and eventually provoked) anti-Semitism was the Ochs/Lasker propaganda campaign. We have that great October 12, 1913 article from the (New York) Sun (at reference #71) as a contemporary (Northern!) source for that. Both that article, and the reporting of subsequent events, make it clear that anti-Semitism did eventually spring up during the appeals process. But it would be a gross misrepresentation to label it as the natural upwelling of latent Southern bigotry. Like so much in this case, the facts are startling and often counter-intuitive. Why make this a two-dimensional story, to fit the 1960's concept, rather than the 2015 known facts? (also... that quote is a terrible run-on sentence) Gulbenk ( talk) 03:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The subject is anti-Semitism, not sensationalism. Tom Watson covered the trial, but did not express any overt anti-Semitic opinions during that period. To quote Lindemann (p.262), "Until March 1914... Watson's growing taste for sensationalism and bigotry rarely and only in inconsequential ways touched upon Jews." The Ochs and Lasker campaign was in full swing by March 2014 (as evidenced by the October 12, 1913 secondary source I quoted) yet you fail in your "analysis" by trying to say that Watson had provoked the issue. The Sun article is very clear in describing the genesis of the anti-Semitism issue... and it is not Watson, nor Dorsey, nor the "howling mob". You also attempt in a misuse of a Lindemann quote to promote the idea of a South bigoted against Jews, when Lindemann offers the sentence only as an observation on the perception created by the Ochs/Lasker PR campaign, not as a fact. If you care to read the entirety of Lindemann's comments, you will see that he goes on for several pages describing a South lacking any significant anti-Semitism. Furthermore, to state that "conviction, appeals, death sentence, commutation, and subsequent extrajudicial hanging are all inseparable" is a ludicrous statement, unworthy of even Tom (North Shoreman). If this were true, we could do away with many of our headers, and simply lump this story into one "inseparable" pile of Tom (North Shoreman) propaganda. Gulbenk ( talk) 16:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
North Shoreman keeps vandalizing the lead paragraph, deleting reference to the fact that Governor Slaton was law partners with Frank's criminal defense lawyer, Luther Rosser. This is critical context, explaining the rioting that followed the commutation order, Slaton's decision to flee the state and Tom Watson's intervention in the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocWiley ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
"Antisemitism", or any of its derivatives, when used in the context of a smear word, is an ad hominem solely intended to squelch any and all criticism of the behavior of any jew or jews. It matters not how despicable the behavior criticised or complained of may actually be, or how much the behavior actually deserves criticism, the only fact that matters, according to the person using this smear word, is that the criticism of the critic is directed toward a jew or jews. It is a kind of a weasel word; a non sequitur whose sole purpose is to plant the idea in the mind of the reader that they should disregard the substance of the criticism, no matter how valid, and brand the critic as some kind of mindless, drooling, blood thirsty bigot who wants to kill six million jews, all in order to render any jew or organization of jews immune to criticism.
For example, see the following YouTube video: "It's a Trick, We Always Use It (calling people anti-Semitic)"
It is the ADL's bread and butter, and it is being used on the talk page of this very article as yet another tool the pro-Frank editors use here to push their POV agenda.
Any person using this word in this context is really no different than Luther Rosser, calling Jim Conley "a dirty, filthy, lying nigger". 64.134.98.211 ( talk) 19:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Well that's a pretty flimsy strawman argument there, Bob.
Where did I ever say that any "editor" here was called an "antisemite"? Nowhere.
As I am referring to the use of this smear in a general sense, I am nonetheless more specifically calling attention to the use of it in the attempt by User Tom (North Shoreman) and others to disqualify certain reliable sources which are critical of the very questionable pro Frank sources upon which the present Leo Frank article relies.
You say you responded to me in the section above where these pro Frank sources were being questioned as to their reliability in terms of anti-scholarship, academic dishonesty, and fraudulent historiography. In my comments to which you say you responded to me, I've even quoted the Wikipedia policy to which you here refer in order to refute User Tom (North Shoreman), as well as other pro-Frank editors here to show why sources cited by User GingerBreadHarlot which dispute Frank's alleged "innocence" are indeed reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
Now it is your turn. Please offer some valid justification to show why the works of Dinnerstein, et al - as they have now been shown, through Dinnerstein's own admission, to be unsupported - should not be disqualified as being unreliable, questionable sources per that same Wikipedia policy. 64.134.241.190 ( talk) 18:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
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.
Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
I can't help but think that you are being deliberately obtuse here, especially where you are re-quoting portions of Wikipedia policy and guidelines for me that I have already clearly quoted above, because you appear to be much more intelligent than that.
What could be more reliable, in terms of a court case, than the primary source documents themselves? When any editor cites secondary sources which so glaringly conflict with the FACTS found in the primary sources, as they do here, then those sources are, by definition, highly questionable.
The reviews of Dinnerstein from JSTOR do nothing whatsoever to prove the reliability of his dissertation, as none of them do anything at all but offer him praise and uncritical validation. There is not a single review on that list which indicates that they have scrutinized his work in any way at all as to the matter of fact checking or accuracy, because if they did, they would have certainly found the obvious fault in it, as I did, years ago.
Where Dinnerstein fails the test of fact-checking and accuracy is in the very lynchpin of his treatise. This is not a minor error by any stretch, but is the single, greatest, underlying theme upon which his entire dissertation is based. If Dinnerstein cannot show where he got his information, then the information he provides in his dissertation is unsupported, and therefore, unreliable.
I don't need to prove to other editors here that any of my sources satisfy the requirement of Wikipedia:Verifiability for being a reliable source before using them, even though this is something I have already done, and I challenge you to specify exactly where in Wikipedia policy it requires me to do so, and not just by citing the general policy itself, but by pointing with specificity and exactness to the particular portion of the policy to which you refer that specifically places this burden upon an editor as a prerequisite to employ any such source.
If you wish to challenge my sources, once they are used, then that, according to my reading of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, is something YOU must must do in order to disqualify the sources I provide ("YOU" being a euphemism for "anyone who challenges the reliability of a source"). This has not been done, and it is something that cannot be done, because every source I have cited is without a doubt reliable by Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines, as I have already explained above, even though I was not then, and am not now, required to do so.
According to Wikipedia:Verifiability the test of reliability requires, at the bare minimum, "a reputation for FACT-CHECKING and ACCURACY" (Emphasis mine). If you wish to challenge my sources, then you must provide a reasonable and justifiable argument as to where my sources fail in that respect. In other words, YOU must make the challenge, and YOU must show the proof.
On the other hand, all anyone needs to do to challenge Dinnerstein is to show that he, by his own admission, has shown his work to be unsupported, and that has already been done.
We already have the proof, most recently by Dinnerstein's own admission, that his dissertation is unsupported and unreliable, and should be disqualified as a reliable source, and removed from this article. Furthermore, any source which praises his work, or bases its own credibility upon his work is also unreliable, as their uncritical reliance upon the unsupported statements of Dinnerstein demonstrates a serious lack of sufficient fact-checking on their part, and should be removed as well. This includes most every review of Dinnerstein contained in the JSTOR list you cite above, and it also includes every subsequent work on the Leo Frank case by authors who relied upon Dinnerstein as one of their own sources without sufficient question or examination. You simply can't get around that, but you must get your mind around it.
No matter what the heavily biased, and factually inaccurate reviews you cite above may say, Dinnerstein is certainly NOT a reliable source. 64.134.70.25 ( talk) 19:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Would anyone else support reducing this page to something more manageable since its currently over 100 pages long and has 54,000 words. At least lets cut it down to 20 pages and give anyone new an incentive to read, instead of running away elsewhere. Tom, Ginger, Bob, and all the rest, how about it? Support trimming talk page a bit? Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 23:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Not a good idea, in my opinion. And I for one would strongly object to any editor tampering with other people's talk page entries. It is not good form, would send inaccurate versions of talk page discussions to the archives, and would set an unpleasant precedent for future tampering.
I think you need to step back and consider how you would feel if other editors decided to capriciously rearrange, and/or remove sections of your comments to suit their own particular tastes. It is an overt act of disrespect.
What you are asking for would soon turn into a real shitstorm. So yes, I would take offense if you should do something like that, and I'm sure many others would too. 64.134.70.25 ( talk) 00:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
With GBH gone, I have restored older language in the lead. The first two paragraphs were restored to language written by Tony a while back and the 4th paragraph was restored to the consensus language from the Rfc. The latter language was most recently changed by a newly registered user who wants to claim that there is a consensus that Conley was the killer. While I agree with his logic ("Either Conley or Frank killed Phagan. Most researchers believe it was more likely Conley.") that claiming Frank was innocent is the same as saying Conley was guilty, I haven't seen any sources that claim an historical consensus for Conley's guilt exists. At the same time I haven't seen an argument in reliable sources for Conley's innocence while there are numerous arguments made of his guilt.
In any event, Tony wants to get on with the GA evaluation and I would hope that folks will propose changes to the lead here (or at least respect BRD and not add back material after it is reverted) and obtain consensus so that some sort of stability will be achieved. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 15:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone else find the number of sources listed under "Notes and References" and "Further Reading" excessive? It seems like these sections could use a serious trim (note: I'm not referring to the in-line references here). Fyddlestix ( talk) 04:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I've updated the Sources section to only include text from the References section above it, and removed the Further Reading section completely as it was overly long and with sources not cited in this article. I've also done a bit of citation cleanup, although I still believe reference numbers 127-138 still need minor formatting improvements for correct page numbers, punctuation, etc. Feel free to improve that part or give feedback here if any of the removed content needs to be replaced. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 07:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm planning on renominating this article for GA now that the NPOV dispute is settled and the article is semi-protected. If there is any objection, please let me know.
In regards to the previous two posts, if there's any material that needs to be added back or other changes, feel free to do so and let me know to hold off on the nomination if necessary. For the Sources and Further Reading sections, I'll leave this for now as it's at the end of the article and one could simply just not scroll down that far if they're not interested in the material. However, we don't want high-quality material obfuscated by a large amount of trivial material, so perhaps this could be trimmed before the nomination or changed during it according to the feedback we get from the reviewer.
Thanks for the help and let's hope for the best in the nomination! Tonystewart14 ( talk) 06:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The following sentence has a citation needed tag: "Lee said he discovered the body of a dead girl, tried to call Leo Frank and failing to reach him, called the police, meeting them at the front door and leading them to the body." According to Lee's statement at the coroner's inquest, he indicated that he called the police after seeing the body, but he didn't say that he called Frank first. The previous sentence cites Dinnerstein, so perhaps his book said that. Also, that previous sentence said Lee went to the toilet around 3:15 a.m., although Lee said it was "almost three o'clock", so it would have been a bit earlier.
Does anyone know if Lee did in fact call Frank before the police? If not, I'll change these two lines to what Oney says. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 05:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SilkTork ( talk · contribs) 19:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Review before rewrite
|
---|
Tick boxGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Comments on GA criteria
I want to ask you, SilkTork, about how to link to a Commons image when a Wikipedia image of the same name already exists, and how to properly format it with the proof of public domain status. For example, I uploaded a copy of the murder notes onto Commons and under the summary form I added links to the original source and proof that it was published before 1923. I don't know if this is proper, but I felt like it was worthy of being added and would make it easier for a formal image review once the article goes to FAC. Also, I'm not sure how to get the image linked to in the article to go to Commons and not the Wikipedia one. Perhaps the Wiki one should simply be deleted, but the note on that page said that sometimes authors prefer to have it in both places. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 05:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
From my background reading I picked up mentions of the speech he gave to the court during which he explained his absence from the office at the time Stover went there to get her pay, that he "unconsciously" went to the bathroom at that time. I'll go through my internet history to see where those mentions are. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe Tom spoiled it in the next comment after yours, but I do see how that could be seen as minimizing their views. I took out this phrase and made some other small changes, such as removing the words "in fact" before "guilty" as this could also have the same problem. There could probably be some more content added to this paragraph, but hopefully this will serve as a good foundation. I didn't expect the first version of my text to be seen as not being improvable, but my intention was just what happened above: to get the ball rolling and receive constructive feedback. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 02:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
General comments
While there is a potential for skewed focus in the article being called just Leo Frank, which is why I feel it appropriate to have a discussion on the name, and for views to be aired, I would like to think that the views aired and the rationales put forward would be in the best interests of the article and the reading public, and would be helpful for the ongoing development of the article. I think the views put forward so far, including those to keep it at Leo Frank, have been based on policy and good sense and have been well argued. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Here are some other comments I have:
On holdI was not aware of this case before doing this review, and I have found it fascinating. Because of the subject matter, this is an article that generates strong opinions, and in such cases in can be difficult to write a dispassionate, neutral and balanced account of what happened. I think that those who have been working on this article are to be commended that while there has been lively debate, it has been largely calm and respectful, and the article, while experiencing changes, has not fluctuated wildly. There is an attempt to be neutral and factual, while paying respect to different opinions; however, I don't think the article is quite there yet, and some more work is required to achieve suitable neutrality. The other stumbling block to listing is the lead section, which requires development in order to be an accurate summary of the complex article. Other aspects of concern are fairly minor - a little bit of tidying up of images, etc. I'm not sure how long it will take to achieve a suitably balanced article. Experience has shown it can take a long time as there needs to be a lot of analysis and discussion, and it's the sort of thing that is best done slowly and carefully, not while there's a GA review open. However, I will keep this review open for a while longer to see what happens, and also to engage in discussion on points I have raised. I am not adverse to keeping reviews open while progress is being made - indeed I would rather list an article than fail one - so if main contributors are calmly and collaboratively working together, and significant progress is being made on the article, I will keep the review open. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks SilkTork for your additional input and patience. You do bring up some good questions about Conley in particular that are fundamental to the case and worth a mention, so we'll take that into consideration. As far as sub-articles, I'm not sure if there would be enough high-quality content to do so, but it's also worth considering, even if it's not implemented (as was the name change proposal). Tonystewart14 ( talk) 12:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC) There's been some promising changes to the article. I've not read through them all yet, but will do over the next few days and give some feedback. As I was running through the lead I was struck by this statement: "James "Jim" Conley, an admitted accomplice after the fact" - that's presented as a fact. Conley was convicted of being an accomplice, however we also have statements, particularly in the Criticism of the trial and the verdict section, that Conley was the murderer. We need to be careful throughout the article that statements are not being made that appear to be factual and authoritative yet have been disputed. I asked earlier about Conley's legal position, and it would be helpful to get that. If he had been charged for being an accomplice it would be acceptable to say "Conley, who had been charged as an accomplice after the fact". That way Wikipedia is not saying he was an accomplice, merely that he was charged with being an accomplice. There is a significant difference. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
|
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
*It appears my concerns regarding the images have been overlooked during the rewriting. I will resolve them now.
SilkTork
✔Tea time
08:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
*Focus. I have a memory of asking you guys to provide a bit of context for the trial, and I can see you've worked on that. My concern now is that the Social and economic conditions section goes into a little too much detail, and also perhaps a little off topic. I will see what I can do to help focus and trim that section.
SilkTork
✔Tea time
16:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
*Broad coverage. The article is much more detailed now, though as I plan to roll up my sleeves and do some content work, I think it's worth bringing in those who were arrested but not tried. Though by itself, I wouldn't fail the article for not including them.
SilkTork
✔Tea time
16:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
*The lead section still does not give an appropriate summary of the article. Some people will not have the time or inclination to read the whole article (which would take the average reader over an hour, which is beyond the average concentration span), so it is very important to provide the reader with a decent summary of the important facts.
SilkTork
✔Tea time
15:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Concerns by IP
|
---|
This article should not receive GA status before the following issues, among others raised here are properly addressed and rectified in re GA criteria: 2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable? A. Has an appropriate reference section: No. References appearing in the article are heavily weighted toward sources which promote the idea that Frank was "wrongfully convicted", and which themselves have been repeatedly shown to fail the test of fact-checking and accuracy. B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary No. The inclusion of reliable sources, especially primary sources, which support Frank's conviction have been consistently attacked, branded "unreliable", and removed from the article by pro-Frank editors in order to promote the fringe idea that he was "wrongfully convicted". C. No original research No. At least one editor has involved himself in OR by personally contacting one or more author(s) of secondary source material in order to aquire advice and information to support or bolster the fringe POV that Frank was "innocent".
Fair representation without bias No. The article continues to be heavily biased in favor of Frank. The evidence, reasoning, and sources which support the official determination of Frank's guilt by every level of the judicial system is repeatedly and relentlessly removed, obscured, mischaracterized, or otherwise attacked throughout the article by pro-Frank editors lobbying for exclusive reliance upon pro-Frank sources who all employ a shameful obfuscation of relevant facts, as well as fabricated nonsense in order to push their common, and all too obvious agenda, which is to promote the idea of Frank's "innocence". Although a very cleverly worded article, it is full of weasel words, and still pushes an obvious pro-Frank POV. See [ THIS] discussion, and [ THIS] discussion as examples of the type of chicanery that has been present in this article for years. See also [ THIS] discussion, as well as this entry from the recent [ Aborted Review] as only 2 of many relevant examples of disruptive editing and ownership behavior by one of the most fervently pro-Frank editors of this article: Tom, you are not allowing any constructive edits. I think you are classic WP:OOA showing all the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR symptoms. The way the article currently looks is straight WP:POV due to your WP:DRNC, and I am not alone in this thinking. I took a break after your last attack. But as this article is basically being held hostage by you, I can only fail the GA nomination. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 13:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
No edit wars, etc No. A false "consensus" has only ever been temporarily maintained as a result of the selective, and highly questionable reverting, harassment, or blocking of individual editors who attempt to include factual information and sources which tend to demonstrate the guilt of Frank, a most notable example of which appears [ HERE]. This article remains "stable" only when it is "protected" by those who share an interest in preserving it merely as a vehicle to exonerate Frank. No doubt a number of editors seeking a neutral POV have become reluctant to even participate in the building of this article because the concerted efforts of various pro-Frank editors and administrators to push a pro-Frank POV have evolved to the point of lodging accusations of sockpuppetry against editors who attempt to bring the article into a state of neutrality. Given the huge amount of properly resourced facts and evidence concerning this case that over time have been capriciously and unjustifiably removed from this article, a prime example of which may be found [ HERE], and [ HERE],has merely served to preserve this article as a POV whitewashing of Leo Frank. To ignore these issues renders any promotion to GA status as nothing less than ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.98.223 ( talk) 18:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
|
This is a complex and difficult subject, and all those involved in bringing the article so far, including those who have criticised the article at various stages, are to be commended for their input and their work. I have paid particular attention to concerns of bias, and have attempted in giving advice to editors, and in working through the article myself, to make it as balanced and neutral as possible. Though we must all be aware that bias can be quite subtle, and we are all human and will sway our views and sympathies one way or another. What I feel this article should not do is try to argue one way or another that Frank was guilty or innocent. It should reflect the important facts about the case, and the discussions and differences of views afterwards. That I feel the article does quite well. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I got an email from Leonard Dinnerstein a while back when I started the first GA nomination, and implemented some of his suggestions. One point he made that we don't have that I think will be good to consider deals with the interrogation of Conley. He said:
I think your essay would be stronger if you included one more point. During the trial Rosser and Arnold quizzed Conley about Frank's alleged lasciviousness. They thought that they would be able to break him. But they were unsuccessful and after keeping him on the stand for almost two days they moved that the entire testimony be stricken from the record. Dorsey objected. While Dorsey agreed that the entire line of interrogation should not have occurred, he noted that the jurors had already heard it and it could not be stricken from their minds. I believe Dorsey was correct in this observation and that it certainly could have been a factor affecting the jurors' conclusions.
I think this might in fact make the article stronger, so as long as it is sourced, this could be a valuable addition that shows what the jury considered in deciding whether to convict Frank. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 10:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Someone added an IA link to "Leo Frank and the Murder of Little Mary Phagan", by Mary Phagan-Kean. Isn't it copyrighted?
I think having an online version to refer to is nice, but the article has to respect copyright law.
The link should be removed. 64.134.98.211 ( talk) 05:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Mr. IP, I have been accused of being you by Tonystewart, because I asked you to create a user account in the past. I asked you more than once to create a real Wikipedia user account. People are less likely to respond if you don't have a real wiki user name. What is preventing you from creating a user account on Wikipedia? GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 13:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I see you are now coming to understand, by first hand experience, some of the tactics employed by the pro Frank editors here regarding anyone who they believe is "rocking their boat". Welcome to my world. I applaud you for the fact that you have obviously taken the time and effort to review the vast amount of materials available in regard to Leo Frank, and come to understand the case more clearly than you did before. I hope our future interactions on this page will be more pleasant.
In regard to your repeated requests that I register, please consider the following:
According to Wikipedia:Why create an account?:
This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It is free to read, and free to edit.
You don't need to be registered to contribute.
According to Wikipedia:IP edits are not anonymous:
Some registered Wikipedia editors and administrators treat IP editors as (at best) unwelcome party-crashers or as potential vandals. Some ignore the opinions or revert the edits of IP editors simply because they are "anonymous". There is no Wikipedia policy which supports this treatment, and there are several long-term and constructive Wikipedia editors who edit solely under a fixed IP.
The treatment of IP editors as second-class editors is unacceptable.
According to Wikipedia:IPs are human too:
You are an IP too. See here if you don't think so. The only difference between you and an IP contributor is that your IP address is hidden. When you registered for Wikipedia, you hid your IP address behind a user name. Unregistered users are often called anonymous editors. In fact, because your IP address is hidden, it is you who are more anonymous. (Your IP address is still recorded by the software. It is simply not visible to most users.)
Remember this when dealing with unregistered users. They are not a lower category of users. They are not a special subset that we tolerate. They are not locust swarms intent on destroying your article. They are individuals, the same as you. Why does it matter that they have not registered for an account? Just as you deserve to be treated with civility and good faith, the edits of unregistered users deserve civility and good faith from you. As your contributions to talk pages deserve to be heard and counted when forming consensus, so too do the contributions of unregistered users.
Our readers are IPs too. Virtually none of our readers are registered users. When an unregistered user makes an edit to an article or posts a comment on a talk page, these are the views of one of our readers. That doesn't necessarily mean that their view should be given greater weight. It means that we should not discriminate against their view just because they don't have an account. 64.134.98.211 ( talk) 23:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any info in the article about whether or not Conley was prosecuted as an accessory to murder. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 12:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything about it googling either. Does anyone have any info on this? -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
He was, and was sentenced to 12 months on the chain gang, according to Golden. PatGallacher ( talk) 23:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Conley was sentenced to a year in jail as an accessory to the murder in Feb. 1914, but was released after 10 months on "good behavior". The reason he was given a short sentence, is on account that he helped the police solve the Mary Phagan murder. Though police could have easily solved the murder without him, Monteen Stover is the one who placed Frank's alibi in a quandary. Conley was arrested again in 1919, for trying to steal beer from a Negro owned Pharmacy. During the six-pack theft attempt, Conley was shot in the chest by the Negro Pharmacist. He miraculously survived and was convicted and sentenced to 20 years. Conley was released after 15 for "good behavior". In the 1940s Conley was arrested twice, once for being caught playing craps with 2 other Negroes and another for disorderly conduct ("intoxication"). Conley disappeared in 1952 or passed away according to former Governor Slaton in a 1955 memorandum (re: JStore). GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 04:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted the most recent edits to the lead by GingerBreadHarlot. There are lots of problems but these are the ones that immediately caught my eye:
1. Changed "convicted of the murder of" to"convicted of murdering." We can't say in wikipedia's voice that he was a murderer, especially since the consensus of reliable sources is that he didn't commit a murder.
2. Changed "drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States" to "drew attention to accusations of antisemitism in the United States". "Questions" is more neutral and more reflective of the attention given the subject throughout the country.
3. Changed the language the the Rfc was all about -- added a redundant "Frank was not officially absolved of the crime for which he was convicted" -- this is also misleading since it also didn't affirm his guilt which is exactly what the quote already there ("Without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence") says.
4. Changes the language about the Governor, eliminates verifiable language, and makes allusions to a potential, rather that actual, conflict of interest that does not belong in the lead.
5. Tried to sugar coat Conley's testimony by changing "changed his testimony" to "modified his participation in the coverup of the murder." He did much more than modify -- he started out denying he was even at the factory on the day of the murder and lied about his ability to read and write.
Discuss the changes before adding them back. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 02:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I've added a two paragraph summary of the criticism of the trial and verdict to the body of the article. While it was always my intention to do so, this was also suggested by several people opposing the actions proposed in the Rfc. All of the sources noted in this new section have been listed in the Rfc. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 19:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Since we have a section for criticism of the trial and verdict, wouldn't it make sense to balance it out with a section for those who support the conviction and why? GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 22:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Outgoing Governor John M. Slaton (June 21, 1915), commuted the death sentence of his lawfirm's client, Leo M. Frank, to life in prison. Leo Frank's lead trial attorney Luther Rosser, was the law partner of Governor John M. Slaton (fact). There should be an inclusion in the article about Governor-elect John M. Slaton and his fellow law partner Benjamin Z. Phillips who were together the law firm 'Slaton and Phillips', merging with the lawfirm of Luther Rosser and Morris Brandon, who were together the law firm of 'Rosser and Brandon'. The combined law firm in May of 1913 -- just after Leo Frank's arrest -- was 'Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips'. There are numerous sources for these two law firms joining, 'Rosser and Brandon' combining with 'Slaton and Phillips'. Some of the reliable sources confirming this are, Steve Oney, Mary Phagan Kean, Tom Watson Brown, and others. If we check verifiability, the Atlanta Directory of 1914, shows that this law firm 'Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips' did in fact exist. We now learn from Slaton's new historical marker (June 17, 1915), that his commuting Leo Frank's death sentence played a roll in Leo Frank's lynching, but the plaque fails to mention the gross conflict of interest because 'Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips' was the law firm representing Leo Frank at his trial. QUOTE "The marker text reads: "John Marshall Slaton was born in Meriwether County and graduated from the University of Georgia before practicing law in Atlanta. Slaton served in both houses of the Georgia legislature and two terms as governor (1911-12 and 1913-15). While in office, he modernized Georgia's tax system and roads. Concerned by the sensationalized atmosphere and circumstantial evidence that led to the notorious 1913 conviction of Jewish businessman Leo Frank in the murder of teenager Mary Phagan, Slaton granted Frank clemency in June 1915. Slaton's commutation of Frank's death sentence drew national attention but hostile local backlash resulted in Frank's lynching in August 1915 and the end of Slaton's political career. Slaton lived on property adjacent to today's Atlanta History Center and Slaton Drive (named in his honor). He is buried in Oakland Cemetery." I would like to open this topic for discussion. Sources include Notes on the Case of Leo Max Frank and it's Aftermath by Tom Watson Brown, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean and And the Dead Shall Rise: The Murder of Mary Phagan and Lynching of Leo Frank by Steve Oney. For verifiability of these facts about Governor-elect John Slaton's law firm merging with Luther Rosser's law firm, the 1,818 page Leo Frank Georgia Supreme documents provides sustaining evidence. At the very least there should be some mention of Slaton being part owner of the law firm that represented Leo Frank at trial. Let us discuss how this can be written properly. GingerBreadHarlot ( talk) 18:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Tom and I have been going back and forth, regarding the sentence "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." Unless I understood him incorrectly, Tom is willing to concede that the "conviction" part is not appropriate. But he holds fast to the statement that "His 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." First off, conviction/death sentence are nearly inseparable, unless Tom is saying that Judge Roan was an anti-Semite. It is the other parts that I have a problem with. The factor that "drew attention" to (and eventually provoked) anti-Semitism was the Ochs/Lasker propaganda campaign. We have that great October 12, 1913 article from the (New York) Sun (at reference #71) as a contemporary (Northern!) source for that. Both that article, and the reporting of subsequent events, make it clear that anti-Semitism did eventually spring up during the appeals process. But it would be a gross misrepresentation to label it as the natural upwelling of latent Southern bigotry. Like so much in this case, the facts are startling and often counter-intuitive. Why make this a two-dimensional story, to fit the 1960's concept, rather than the 2015 known facts? (also... that quote is a terrible run-on sentence) Gulbenk ( talk) 03:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The subject is anti-Semitism, not sensationalism. Tom Watson covered the trial, but did not express any overt anti-Semitic opinions during that period. To quote Lindemann (p.262), "Until March 1914... Watson's growing taste for sensationalism and bigotry rarely and only in inconsequential ways touched upon Jews." The Ochs and Lasker campaign was in full swing by March 2014 (as evidenced by the October 12, 1913 secondary source I quoted) yet you fail in your "analysis" by trying to say that Watson had provoked the issue. The Sun article is very clear in describing the genesis of the anti-Semitism issue... and it is not Watson, nor Dorsey, nor the "howling mob". You also attempt in a misuse of a Lindemann quote to promote the idea of a South bigoted against Jews, when Lindemann offers the sentence only as an observation on the perception created by the Ochs/Lasker PR campaign, not as a fact. If you care to read the entirety of Lindemann's comments, you will see that he goes on for several pages describing a South lacking any significant anti-Semitism. Furthermore, to state that "conviction, appeals, death sentence, commutation, and subsequent extrajudicial hanging are all inseparable" is a ludicrous statement, unworthy of even Tom (North Shoreman). If this were true, we could do away with many of our headers, and simply lump this story into one "inseparable" pile of Tom (North Shoreman) propaganda. Gulbenk ( talk) 16:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
North Shoreman keeps vandalizing the lead paragraph, deleting reference to the fact that Governor Slaton was law partners with Frank's criminal defense lawyer, Luther Rosser. This is critical context, explaining the rioting that followed the commutation order, Slaton's decision to flee the state and Tom Watson's intervention in the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocWiley ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
"Antisemitism", or any of its derivatives, when used in the context of a smear word, is an ad hominem solely intended to squelch any and all criticism of the behavior of any jew or jews. It matters not how despicable the behavior criticised or complained of may actually be, or how much the behavior actually deserves criticism, the only fact that matters, according to the person using this smear word, is that the criticism of the critic is directed toward a jew or jews. It is a kind of a weasel word; a non sequitur whose sole purpose is to plant the idea in the mind of the reader that they should disregard the substance of the criticism, no matter how valid, and brand the critic as some kind of mindless, drooling, blood thirsty bigot who wants to kill six million jews, all in order to render any jew or organization of jews immune to criticism.
For example, see the following YouTube video: "It's a Trick, We Always Use It (calling people anti-Semitic)"
It is the ADL's bread and butter, and it is being used on the talk page of this very article as yet another tool the pro-Frank editors use here to push their POV agenda.
Any person using this word in this context is really no different than Luther Rosser, calling Jim Conley "a dirty, filthy, lying nigger". 64.134.98.211 ( talk) 19:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Well that's a pretty flimsy strawman argument there, Bob.
Where did I ever say that any "editor" here was called an "antisemite"? Nowhere.
As I am referring to the use of this smear in a general sense, I am nonetheless more specifically calling attention to the use of it in the attempt by User Tom (North Shoreman) and others to disqualify certain reliable sources which are critical of the very questionable pro Frank sources upon which the present Leo Frank article relies.
You say you responded to me in the section above where these pro Frank sources were being questioned as to their reliability in terms of anti-scholarship, academic dishonesty, and fraudulent historiography. In my comments to which you say you responded to me, I've even quoted the Wikipedia policy to which you here refer in order to refute User Tom (North Shoreman), as well as other pro-Frank editors here to show why sources cited by User GingerBreadHarlot which dispute Frank's alleged "innocence" are indeed reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
Now it is your turn. Please offer some valid justification to show why the works of Dinnerstein, et al - as they have now been shown, through Dinnerstein's own admission, to be unsupported - should not be disqualified as being unreliable, questionable sources per that same Wikipedia policy. 64.134.241.190 ( talk) 18:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
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.
Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
I can't help but think that you are being deliberately obtuse here, especially where you are re-quoting portions of Wikipedia policy and guidelines for me that I have already clearly quoted above, because you appear to be much more intelligent than that.
What could be more reliable, in terms of a court case, than the primary source documents themselves? When any editor cites secondary sources which so glaringly conflict with the FACTS found in the primary sources, as they do here, then those sources are, by definition, highly questionable.
The reviews of Dinnerstein from JSTOR do nothing whatsoever to prove the reliability of his dissertation, as none of them do anything at all but offer him praise and uncritical validation. There is not a single review on that list which indicates that they have scrutinized his work in any way at all as to the matter of fact checking or accuracy, because if they did, they would have certainly found the obvious fault in it, as I did, years ago.
Where Dinnerstein fails the test of fact-checking and accuracy is in the very lynchpin of his treatise. This is not a minor error by any stretch, but is the single, greatest, underlying theme upon which his entire dissertation is based. If Dinnerstein cannot show where he got his information, then the information he provides in his dissertation is unsupported, and therefore, unreliable.
I don't need to prove to other editors here that any of my sources satisfy the requirement of Wikipedia:Verifiability for being a reliable source before using them, even though this is something I have already done, and I challenge you to specify exactly where in Wikipedia policy it requires me to do so, and not just by citing the general policy itself, but by pointing with specificity and exactness to the particular portion of the policy to which you refer that specifically places this burden upon an editor as a prerequisite to employ any such source.
If you wish to challenge my sources, once they are used, then that, according to my reading of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, is something YOU must must do in order to disqualify the sources I provide ("YOU" being a euphemism for "anyone who challenges the reliability of a source"). This has not been done, and it is something that cannot be done, because every source I have cited is without a doubt reliable by Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines, as I have already explained above, even though I was not then, and am not now, required to do so.
According to Wikipedia:Verifiability the test of reliability requires, at the bare minimum, "a reputation for FACT-CHECKING and ACCURACY" (Emphasis mine). If you wish to challenge my sources, then you must provide a reasonable and justifiable argument as to where my sources fail in that respect. In other words, YOU must make the challenge, and YOU must show the proof.
On the other hand, all anyone needs to do to challenge Dinnerstein is to show that he, by his own admission, has shown his work to be unsupported, and that has already been done.
We already have the proof, most recently by Dinnerstein's own admission, that his dissertation is unsupported and unreliable, and should be disqualified as a reliable source, and removed from this article. Furthermore, any source which praises his work, or bases its own credibility upon his work is also unreliable, as their uncritical reliance upon the unsupported statements of Dinnerstein demonstrates a serious lack of sufficient fact-checking on their part, and should be removed as well. This includes most every review of Dinnerstein contained in the JSTOR list you cite above, and it also includes every subsequent work on the Leo Frank case by authors who relied upon Dinnerstein as one of their own sources without sufficient question or examination. You simply can't get around that, but you must get your mind around it.
No matter what the heavily biased, and factually inaccurate reviews you cite above may say, Dinnerstein is certainly NOT a reliable source. 64.134.70.25 ( talk) 19:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Would anyone else support reducing this page to something more manageable since its currently over 100 pages long and has 54,000 words. At least lets cut it down to 20 pages and give anyone new an incentive to read, instead of running away elsewhere. Tom, Ginger, Bob, and all the rest, how about it? Support trimming talk page a bit? Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 23:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Not a good idea, in my opinion. And I for one would strongly object to any editor tampering with other people's talk page entries. It is not good form, would send inaccurate versions of talk page discussions to the archives, and would set an unpleasant precedent for future tampering.
I think you need to step back and consider how you would feel if other editors decided to capriciously rearrange, and/or remove sections of your comments to suit their own particular tastes. It is an overt act of disrespect.
What you are asking for would soon turn into a real shitstorm. So yes, I would take offense if you should do something like that, and I'm sure many others would too. 64.134.70.25 ( talk) 00:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
With GBH gone, I have restored older language in the lead. The first two paragraphs were restored to language written by Tony a while back and the 4th paragraph was restored to the consensus language from the Rfc. The latter language was most recently changed by a newly registered user who wants to claim that there is a consensus that Conley was the killer. While I agree with his logic ("Either Conley or Frank killed Phagan. Most researchers believe it was more likely Conley.") that claiming Frank was innocent is the same as saying Conley was guilty, I haven't seen any sources that claim an historical consensus for Conley's guilt exists. At the same time I haven't seen an argument in reliable sources for Conley's innocence while there are numerous arguments made of his guilt.
In any event, Tony wants to get on with the GA evaluation and I would hope that folks will propose changes to the lead here (or at least respect BRD and not add back material after it is reverted) and obtain consensus so that some sort of stability will be achieved. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 15:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone else find the number of sources listed under "Notes and References" and "Further Reading" excessive? It seems like these sections could use a serious trim (note: I'm not referring to the in-line references here). Fyddlestix ( talk) 04:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I've updated the Sources section to only include text from the References section above it, and removed the Further Reading section completely as it was overly long and with sources not cited in this article. I've also done a bit of citation cleanup, although I still believe reference numbers 127-138 still need minor formatting improvements for correct page numbers, punctuation, etc. Feel free to improve that part or give feedback here if any of the removed content needs to be replaced. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 07:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm planning on renominating this article for GA now that the NPOV dispute is settled and the article is semi-protected. If there is any objection, please let me know.
In regards to the previous two posts, if there's any material that needs to be added back or other changes, feel free to do so and let me know to hold off on the nomination if necessary. For the Sources and Further Reading sections, I'll leave this for now as it's at the end of the article and one could simply just not scroll down that far if they're not interested in the material. However, we don't want high-quality material obfuscated by a large amount of trivial material, so perhaps this could be trimmed before the nomination or changed during it according to the feedback we get from the reviewer.
Thanks for the help and let's hope for the best in the nomination! Tonystewart14 ( talk) 06:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The following sentence has a citation needed tag: "Lee said he discovered the body of a dead girl, tried to call Leo Frank and failing to reach him, called the police, meeting them at the front door and leading them to the body." According to Lee's statement at the coroner's inquest, he indicated that he called the police after seeing the body, but he didn't say that he called Frank first. The previous sentence cites Dinnerstein, so perhaps his book said that. Also, that previous sentence said Lee went to the toilet around 3:15 a.m., although Lee said it was "almost three o'clock", so it would have been a bit earlier.
Does anyone know if Lee did in fact call Frank before the police? If not, I'll change these two lines to what Oney says. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 05:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SilkTork ( talk · contribs) 19:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Review before rewrite
|
---|
Tick boxGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Comments on GA criteria
I want to ask you, SilkTork, about how to link to a Commons image when a Wikipedia image of the same name already exists, and how to properly format it with the proof of public domain status. For example, I uploaded a copy of the murder notes onto Commons and under the summary form I added links to the original source and proof that it was published before 1923. I don't know if this is proper, but I felt like it was worthy of being added and would make it easier for a formal image review once the article goes to FAC. Also, I'm not sure how to get the image linked to in the article to go to Commons and not the Wikipedia one. Perhaps the Wiki one should simply be deleted, but the note on that page said that sometimes authors prefer to have it in both places. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 05:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
From my background reading I picked up mentions of the speech he gave to the court during which he explained his absence from the office at the time Stover went there to get her pay, that he "unconsciously" went to the bathroom at that time. I'll go through my internet history to see where those mentions are. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe Tom spoiled it in the next comment after yours, but I do see how that could be seen as minimizing their views. I took out this phrase and made some other small changes, such as removing the words "in fact" before "guilty" as this could also have the same problem. There could probably be some more content added to this paragraph, but hopefully this will serve as a good foundation. I didn't expect the first version of my text to be seen as not being improvable, but my intention was just what happened above: to get the ball rolling and receive constructive feedback. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 02:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
General comments
While there is a potential for skewed focus in the article being called just Leo Frank, which is why I feel it appropriate to have a discussion on the name, and for views to be aired, I would like to think that the views aired and the rationales put forward would be in the best interests of the article and the reading public, and would be helpful for the ongoing development of the article. I think the views put forward so far, including those to keep it at Leo Frank, have been based on policy and good sense and have been well argued. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Here are some other comments I have:
On holdI was not aware of this case before doing this review, and I have found it fascinating. Because of the subject matter, this is an article that generates strong opinions, and in such cases in can be difficult to write a dispassionate, neutral and balanced account of what happened. I think that those who have been working on this article are to be commended that while there has been lively debate, it has been largely calm and respectful, and the article, while experiencing changes, has not fluctuated wildly. There is an attempt to be neutral and factual, while paying respect to different opinions; however, I don't think the article is quite there yet, and some more work is required to achieve suitable neutrality. The other stumbling block to listing is the lead section, which requires development in order to be an accurate summary of the complex article. Other aspects of concern are fairly minor - a little bit of tidying up of images, etc. I'm not sure how long it will take to achieve a suitably balanced article. Experience has shown it can take a long time as there needs to be a lot of analysis and discussion, and it's the sort of thing that is best done slowly and carefully, not while there's a GA review open. However, I will keep this review open for a while longer to see what happens, and also to engage in discussion on points I have raised. I am not adverse to keeping reviews open while progress is being made - indeed I would rather list an article than fail one - so if main contributors are calmly and collaboratively working together, and significant progress is being made on the article, I will keep the review open. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks SilkTork for your additional input and patience. You do bring up some good questions about Conley in particular that are fundamental to the case and worth a mention, so we'll take that into consideration. As far as sub-articles, I'm not sure if there would be enough high-quality content to do so, but it's also worth considering, even if it's not implemented (as was the name change proposal). Tonystewart14 ( talk) 12:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC) There's been some promising changes to the article. I've not read through them all yet, but will do over the next few days and give some feedback. As I was running through the lead I was struck by this statement: "James "Jim" Conley, an admitted accomplice after the fact" - that's presented as a fact. Conley was convicted of being an accomplice, however we also have statements, particularly in the Criticism of the trial and the verdict section, that Conley was the murderer. We need to be careful throughout the article that statements are not being made that appear to be factual and authoritative yet have been disputed. I asked earlier about Conley's legal position, and it would be helpful to get that. If he had been charged for being an accomplice it would be acceptable to say "Conley, who had been charged as an accomplice after the fact". That way Wikipedia is not saying he was an accomplice, merely that he was charged with being an accomplice. There is a significant difference. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
|
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
*It appears my concerns regarding the images have been overlooked during the rewriting. I will resolve them now.
SilkTork
✔Tea time
08:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
*Focus. I have a memory of asking you guys to provide a bit of context for the trial, and I can see you've worked on that. My concern now is that the Social and economic conditions section goes into a little too much detail, and also perhaps a little off topic. I will see what I can do to help focus and trim that section.
SilkTork
✔Tea time
16:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
*Broad coverage. The article is much more detailed now, though as I plan to roll up my sleeves and do some content work, I think it's worth bringing in those who were arrested but not tried. Though by itself, I wouldn't fail the article for not including them.
SilkTork
✔Tea time
16:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
*The lead section still does not give an appropriate summary of the article. Some people will not have the time or inclination to read the whole article (which would take the average reader over an hour, which is beyond the average concentration span), so it is very important to provide the reader with a decent summary of the important facts.
SilkTork
✔Tea time
15:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Concerns by IP
|
---|
This article should not receive GA status before the following issues, among others raised here are properly addressed and rectified in re GA criteria: 2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable? A. Has an appropriate reference section: No. References appearing in the article are heavily weighted toward sources which promote the idea that Frank was "wrongfully convicted", and which themselves have been repeatedly shown to fail the test of fact-checking and accuracy. B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary No. The inclusion of reliable sources, especially primary sources, which support Frank's conviction have been consistently attacked, branded "unreliable", and removed from the article by pro-Frank editors in order to promote the fringe idea that he was "wrongfully convicted". C. No original research No. At least one editor has involved himself in OR by personally contacting one or more author(s) of secondary source material in order to aquire advice and information to support or bolster the fringe POV that Frank was "innocent".
Fair representation without bias No. The article continues to be heavily biased in favor of Frank. The evidence, reasoning, and sources which support the official determination of Frank's guilt by every level of the judicial system is repeatedly and relentlessly removed, obscured, mischaracterized, or otherwise attacked throughout the article by pro-Frank editors lobbying for exclusive reliance upon pro-Frank sources who all employ a shameful obfuscation of relevant facts, as well as fabricated nonsense in order to push their common, and all too obvious agenda, which is to promote the idea of Frank's "innocence". Although a very cleverly worded article, it is full of weasel words, and still pushes an obvious pro-Frank POV. See [ THIS] discussion, and [ THIS] discussion as examples of the type of chicanery that has been present in this article for years. See also [ THIS] discussion, as well as this entry from the recent [ Aborted Review] as only 2 of many relevant examples of disruptive editing and ownership behavior by one of the most fervently pro-Frank editors of this article: Tom, you are not allowing any constructive edits. I think you are classic WP:OOA showing all the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR symptoms. The way the article currently looks is straight WP:POV due to your WP:DRNC, and I am not alone in this thinking. I took a break after your last attack. But as this article is basically being held hostage by you, I can only fail the GA nomination. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 13:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
No edit wars, etc No. A false "consensus" has only ever been temporarily maintained as a result of the selective, and highly questionable reverting, harassment, or blocking of individual editors who attempt to include factual information and sources which tend to demonstrate the guilt of Frank, a most notable example of which appears [ HERE]. This article remains "stable" only when it is "protected" by those who share an interest in preserving it merely as a vehicle to exonerate Frank. No doubt a number of editors seeking a neutral POV have become reluctant to even participate in the building of this article because the concerted efforts of various pro-Frank editors and administrators to push a pro-Frank POV have evolved to the point of lodging accusations of sockpuppetry against editors who attempt to bring the article into a state of neutrality. Given the huge amount of properly resourced facts and evidence concerning this case that over time have been capriciously and unjustifiably removed from this article, a prime example of which may be found [ HERE], and [ HERE],has merely served to preserve this article as a POV whitewashing of Leo Frank. To ignore these issues renders any promotion to GA status as nothing less than ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.98.223 ( talk) 18:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
|
This is a complex and difficult subject, and all those involved in bringing the article so far, including those who have criticised the article at various stages, are to be commended for their input and their work. I have paid particular attention to concerns of bias, and have attempted in giving advice to editors, and in working through the article myself, to make it as balanced and neutral as possible. Though we must all be aware that bias can be quite subtle, and we are all human and will sway our views and sympathies one way or another. What I feel this article should not do is try to argue one way or another that Frank was guilty or innocent. It should reflect the important facts about the case, and the discussions and differences of views afterwards. That I feel the article does quite well. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I got an email from Leonard Dinnerstein a while back when I started the first GA nomination, and implemented some of his suggestions. One point he made that we don't have that I think will be good to consider deals with the interrogation of Conley. He said:
I think your essay would be stronger if you included one more point. During the trial Rosser and Arnold quizzed Conley about Frank's alleged lasciviousness. They thought that they would be able to break him. But they were unsuccessful and after keeping him on the stand for almost two days they moved that the entire testimony be stricken from the record. Dorsey objected. While Dorsey agreed that the entire line of interrogation should not have occurred, he noted that the jurors had already heard it and it could not be stricken from their minds. I believe Dorsey was correct in this observation and that it certainly could have been a factor affecting the jurors' conclusions.
I think this might in fact make the article stronger, so as long as it is sourced, this could be a valuable addition that shows what the jury considered in deciding whether to convict Frank. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 10:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)