Talk:Leo Frank
Leo Frank is currently a World history good article nominee. Nominated by Tonystewart14 (talk) at 16:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC) An editor has reviewed the article, and left comments on the review page. However, this editor has requested a second opinion either from a more experienced reviewer, or someone with more expertise on this subject, to gain further consensus that this article meets the good article criteria. In the meantime, editors are encouraged to revise the article based on the first reviewer's comments.
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Leo Frank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Leo Frank was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Citation needed in Murder of Mary Phagan section, paragraph 1
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)
- Here's a diff of the edit I made. Let me know if this could be improved. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Leo Frank/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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)
|
Review after rewrite
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused (see summary style):
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Comments on GA criteria
- Pass
- Article is stable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Images are OK. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Prose is clear and readable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- All MoS issues apart from WP:lead are OK. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Article is well cited to reliable sources. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is no evidence of original research, all statements checked in the article are based on factual sources. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- The language is neutral and factual, and the facts are presented in sufficient detail to indicate balance and openness. (Though some of the information can be trimmed, and I am prepared to help out with that). SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- The article topic covers a lot of territory, and the article does well in bringing in the main points. Editors could continue to discuss what points should be mentioned, and what could be left out, and consideration could be given, as I will discuss in the focus section, on sub articles to deal in greater detail with some aspects of the topic; however, I am satisfied that for GA criteria, the article does meet broad coverage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- While there is still room for improvement on the lead, I am satisfied that it does cover or at least touch on the main points of the article, and it now provides a comfortable overview of the topic such that a general reader could get an idea of what is going on. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- The article goes into close detail in places, and editorial judgements need to be made. I have trimmed down the article such that I feel that no section is so overly detailed that it will prevent this article from being listed as a GA. However, for ongoing development editors need to pay attention to the overall length of the article, and the amount of detail contained here. The general reader cannot always be expected to deal easily with a lot of detail in a single article. While there are a number of areas where detailed and nuanced explanation is helpful, consideration could be given to creating sub articles to provide the extra nuanced detail with balanced discussion on points raised, leaving behind just a summary in order to allow the general reader to get a quicker and better understanding of the bigger issues - see WP:summary style. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Query
*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)
- Where I can I am going back to original sources and uploading the files to Commons with appropriate file information and copyright tags. Where I can't find the original source, or there is some other problem, I am removing the image from the article so the matter can be resolved later. As noted above, File:Tom E Watson.jpg doesn't have a standard summary form, and is missing essential information, such as date, so I went to the source given, but the file there does not hold relevant copyright information: [6]. I did a search for the file, and found a copy on Flickr, but it is coprighted: [7]. I have done a search on Flickr and found this file: [8], which has no copyright restrictions so can be uploaded to Commons and used. But I don't know if it is appropriate. In the meantime, I am removing the current file image of Tom E Watson from the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- The trial photo appears to be copyrighted so cannot be used, and should be removed from Wikipedia. [9]. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'll look into the copyright status of these images. They should be public domain as they were published before 1923, although I'll have to verify this. It might be worth noting that the user on Flickr can simply check "copyright" without it actually being copyright, and I believe this is the case here. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I found that the trial photo was taken by Walter Frank Winn of the Atlanta Journal, and a black and white version of it was published in the July 29, 1913 issue. I also confirmed my suspicion through private correspondence with the Flickr user that the image might not actually be copyright, but that person just left it tagged as copyright by default. I'm sure that other Watson image is also published before 1923, although our Tom (North Shoreman) might be able to confirm that. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I found it. I'll update the image page, and return it to the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I have been unable to track down the original sources of three images so I have removed them from the article and tagged them as needing source information: File:Luther-rosser.jpg; File:Hugh-dorsey.jpg; File:William-smith-lawyer-for-jim-conley.jpg. When source information has been traced the images can be updated, loaded onto Commons, and returned to the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:31, 8 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)
I'm also a little concerned that the article has grown so much. While I did want an expansion of detail, it seems to have grown rather larger than I expected. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think the article could benefit from a tighter focus, but I am comfortable that no section is so inordinately over-detailed to prevent a GA listing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:48, 14 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)
- This is a small matter, and is editorial judgement. I'm not going to hold up a listing because of it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Fail
*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)
I wanted to be able to finish this today, but things keep landing on my desk in real life. I am in Oxford for the weekend, but hopefully I may have time tomorrow or at least when I get back on Monday to help out with the lead. I really want this GAR to be finished! SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
General comments
- After looking into the images a bit I can see that some of them are copyright violations. I appreciate you guys have worked well on this article, but I flagged those images for concern a month ago and they are still there. I have to stop now as I have a few other things to deal with. Please check the remaining images in the article. If they don't have appropriate sources which reveal their true copyright status they need to be removed from the article. If images with uncertain copyright status remain in the article after seven days I will close this GAN as a fail. This is now a priority issue. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm working on the article today with the hope and intention of closing the GAN as a pass, so I'll be dealing with any remaining issues. While looking into the image I came across this newspaper headline: File:Leo-frank-police-have-the-strangler-headline.jpg which mentions an Arhur Mullinax. Mullinax is not in the article, though a search for Mullinax and Leo Frank throws up over 500 responses. While the GA criteria does not require the comprehensiveness of the FA criteria, it does require broad coverage of the main aspects of the topic. What a general reader would expect to find explained in the article. Mullinax does not appear to be significant, and provided all else is generally covered I wouldn't fail for not mentioning him, though it would seem appropriate to mention him in the Police investigation section - I assume he is the unnamed "friend of Phagan". I also note that a Gordon Bailey was arrested but is not mentioned. Again, it seems this is not a significant omission, though I feel the article would benefit from being a little more complete with some of these facts. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Good work. The article has progressed, and we are very close to listing. The areas that need attention are a) Building the lead to give an appropriately detailed summary of the article, sufficient to provide the general reader with a satisfactory overview - this is the priority; b) Trimming some unnecessary detail; c) Including some detail on the other men arrested - this is minor, and I wouldn't quibble if it wasn't done. I think all this is quite achievable in a few days, and I'm willing to help out on the work. I would hope that the article can be listed before the end of next week. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- How helpful for the lead would reverting this edit [10] be? The deleted material directly relates to the type of evidence presented at the trial.
- I did make it a point to not include the names of characters with limited impact on the overall case. For example, if you mention Mullinax, the natural questions are why was he arrested and why was he released. According to Oney he had an alibi established by his "sweetheart" and his original arrest was based on a report by "a myopic meddler [Edgar Sentell]." Mullinax admitted to knowing Phagan and having had a bit of a crush on her. There are lawyers on both sides that were added to the legal teams after the trial who I have chosen not to name. Close followers of the Frank case will notice that George Epps is not mentioned -- he was given publicity at the time but he had little impact on the actual evidence because his testimony was largely discredited. To put him in proper context would probably require a paragraph. I see right now that you're involved in trimming the details and so far every change you've made seems to me to be an improvement. Perhaps a way to add details that some readers might be looking for is to add the info to footnotes as we've done in other cases. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, adding to footnotes is a method that is used when there is additional, interesting or explanatory information that would otherwise bog down an article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- I did make it a point to not include the names of characters with limited impact on the overall case. For example, if you mention Mullinax, the natural questions are why was he arrested and why was he released. According to Oney he had an alibi established by his "sweetheart" and his original arrest was based on a report by "a myopic meddler [Edgar Sentell]." Mullinax admitted to knowing Phagan and having had a bit of a crush on her. There are lawyers on both sides that were added to the legal teams after the trial who I have chosen not to name. Close followers of the Frank case will notice that George Epps is not mentioned -- he was given publicity at the time but he had little impact on the actual evidence because his testimony was largely discredited. To put him in proper context would probably require a paragraph. I see right now that you're involved in trimming the details and so far every change you've made seems to me to be an improvement. Perhaps a way to add details that some readers might be looking for is to add the info to footnotes as we've done in other cases. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:58, 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)
|
- Mary Phagan's childhood home and place of birth. Phagan's date of birth was cited to findagrave, which is not regarded as a reliable source - Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Find-a-Grave, so I changed it to the first book source I could find. I noticed that the place of birth in the book is given as Marietta, Georgia, though in the article we have Florence, Alabama. Researching some more I find that, yes, Florence is the true birth place, though sources give Marietta as that was her childhood home, and that is where Frank was lynched because it was Phagan's childhood home. But in the article we have the childhood home as East Point, Georgia. I'm having trouble getting a reliable source on the family moving from Florence to Marietta, but have now come upon the poorly written Murder of Little Mary Phagan which on page 14 says the family moved from Florence to Marietta. Where do we get East Point from? In our article the only time that Marietta is mentioned is for the lynching, when we say that it was Phagan's home town. But in the Mary Phagan section we say her home town was East Point. I'd like to get this cleared up please. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- OK. I've now got the details. Mary Phagan Kean and Steve Oney slightly disagree on the date (Oney says 1907, Kean says after 1910) the family moved to East Point, so I say in or after 1907. SilkTork ✔Tea time 02:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Pass
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)
- Thanks again to you, Tom, and everyone else here for your exhaustive work. I'm sure the article will continue to develop and the new content will mature a little in the coming months, but I think we can all take a deep breath now that the review is finally over. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 29 August 2015
It has been proposed in this section that Leo Frank be renamed and moved to Trial of Leo Frank. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
Leo Frank → Trial of Leo Frank – The article is not about Leo Frank but an incident in which he was a central figure. Sources vary on which title they use, some use "Murder of Mary Phagan", which is the title of a two part TV docudrama: The Murder of Mary Phagan, others use Leo Frank's name in variety of titles: The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank, The Leo Frank Case, The Lynching of Leo Frank, The Leo Frank Trial, The Trial of Leo Frank, The Celebrated Case of Leo Frank, etc, some use both names: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank. A Google search throws up a variety of titles, only one of which appears to use just the Leo Frank name - and that is our Wikipedia article. While the article gives some background info on Leo Frank, the main focus is on the murder, trial, and the aftermath - it is the event that is notable, not the person. Per WP:CRIME and WP:ONEEVENT we write about the event not the person, unless there is sufficient material to have a standalone article on an individual involved in the event, or if it is the person rather than the event that is notable. In this article it is clear that it is the event that is notable. WP:NCEVENTS gives some guidance on how to name an event article where there isn't an existing agreed name. As the main historical focus is on Frank Leo it would be inappropriate to name it just after Mary Phagan, though some consideration could be given to "Murder of Mary Phagan and trial of Leo Frank"; other possible titles include: "Trial of Leo Frank", "Leo Frank case", "Lynching of Leo Frank". I wanted to set up this discussion without a suggested name; however, experience has shown that without a suggested name folks may not end up agreeing on a name, and the default close would then be to the current title, so I have suggested what I feel is a neutral and factual title, and one which is used by a good number of sources. Other suggestions are welcome. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I'd like it to stay as "Leo Frank" because Frank is the reason this is not just another 100-year-old murder case, but one with implications of religious (Jewish vs Christian), regional (North vs South), and class (wealthy vs working class) prejudice. If Frank had not been Jewish, most of the works in the above argument would not have been published. Furthermore, the article covers more than just the case, including Frank's early life and recent scholarship and media based on the case. I have more discussion with the initiator of this move proposal in the GAN page here. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Other articles use the format of "Lynching of XXXX" (see Category:Lynching deaths in Maryland for examples). However, in this case the trial is also of importance. The Trial and lynching of Leo Frank seems a little long-winded, though, and the Murder of Mary Phagan and the trial and lynching of Leo Frank definitely is. I also recommend reading this discussion. — AjaxSmack 15:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I did a quick look at individual cases starting with this Category:Lynching deaths in the United States -- there is no consistency that I could find. Of the cites provided by the originator of this proposal, WP:CRIME seems to be the most directly on point. It states:
- Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:
- For victims, and those wrongly convicted of crime
- The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.[1]
- ^ Example: Matthew Shepard.
- The condition does apply. Clearly Matthew Shepard is much more a one event person than Frank, yet the guideline uses him as an example of the case where an article on the individual is called for. I think Tony's argument makes the case of why Frank as an individual is significant. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support When Leo Frank is invoked in books, articles, tv, radio, conferences, memorials and Film it is most often in context of him having been, to paraphrase "falsely accused", "wrongfully convicted" and "wantonly murdered" and these things all happened primarily because of "Antisemitism" and other "sectarian divisions" of bias. His trial and lynching are the central pillars of his notability, the sex murder of Mary Phagan is an afterthought, the inconveniencing event that led to the "judicial persecution" of Frank. Other than Frank's trial for the murder of Phagan and his lynching caused by the outgoing Georgia Governor John Slaton (law partner of Luther Rosser) commuting his death sentence, he is not notable as a person. Frank's appeals to the Georgia Supreme Court are notable because they uncover the fact that Governor Slaton's law office was used in the subornation of perjury, but little mention of this exists in secondary sources. The Trial and Lynching of Leo Frank would be the most apropos name for the article. AviBoteach (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: His lynching seems just as notable as his trial. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Good article nominees
- Good article nominees seeking second opinion
- Good article nominees on review
- Former good article nominees
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Georgia (U.S. state) articles
- Low-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles
- B-Class Atlanta articles
- Low-importance Atlanta articles
- Atlanta task force articles
- WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) articles
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- High-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Unknown-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- Requested moves