Talk:Leo Frank/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Mary Phagan Kean copyright violation?

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)

Thanks GBH. For the IP user, I don't see an IA link to Phagan-Kean's book, although I removed another link to Golden as was discussed here. Also, your second line above ("I think having...") copied my statement from my link in the previous sentence. Please don't just copy and paste other people's writing. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The IA link to Mary Phagan-Kean's book was quite obvious to anyone who looked for it. I am suprised you didn't see it. I have removed it for you. 64.134.98.211 (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

In response to 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)

Most people will not respond to you or take you seriously because you are an IP. Wikipedians generally associate I-Pees with people who are anarchists who like vandalize articles for fun (but they get quickly reverted). IPees are usually not seen as no-nonsense contributors here. Like your OPPOSE vote here doesnt actually count because you are an IP. Please create a real username account so your Oppose vote counts. I am asking you as a favor to take this matter seriously and not copy-paste wiki-text why you should remain an IP. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Conley prosecution

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)

Thanks. I presume you're referring to the book A Little Girl is Dead. Could you give the page number? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:32, 7 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)

Thanks. I found a reliable source for that.[1] --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lead

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)

Tom, POV warrior activism is frowned upon here at Wikipedia. 1. Leo Frank was convicted of murdering Mary Phagan. The GSC and SCOTUS upheld Frank's conviction. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles refused to absolve Leo Frank of murdering Mary Phagan. Just because POV warrior "social-historians" and anti-Scholars make it their mission to convince us Leo Frank is innocent, providing evidence the GBOPAP already ruled insufficient in 1986, does change the legal status of Frank's guilt. 2. Drew attention to accusations of anti-Semitism is correct. The people making racist and Antigentile accusations against Georgians of Antisemitism are not asking questions, they are making Al Sharpton / Tawana Brawley style accusations that are hatecrime hoaxes (The Antisemitism Canard). Does Leonard Dinnerstein promulgating his Antisemitic hoax that people were chanting "hang the Jew" at the trial jury, for 49 years, earn the status of Tawana Brawely / Al Sharpton level academic dishonesty-misconduct-fraud? Yes, since he admitted (thanks to TonySteward44) that his fabrication is insufficient (66' to 2014'). Do you know the difference between a question and an accusation? Check Wikipedia. 3. Frank's guilt is the status of the law. The GBOPAP did not officially absolve Leo Frank. 4. Governor-Elect John M. Slaton in May of 1913 with his partner Benjamin Z. Phillips (Slaton and Phillips), joined the law-firm (Rosser and Brandon) "Luther Zeigler Rosser and Morris Brandon, creating the law-firm "Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips". Oney educates us of this early on in his book. We also learn of this in Kean's book. To confirm verifiability of Oney and Kean, I checked the Atlanta directory and they were correct, Slaton merged his law-firm with Luther Rosser, Frank's lead trial attorney. 5. Conley didnt change his testimony in the sense of re-writing it completely. Change suggests he completely altered it. He simply modified it, each time. Conley admitted he was concealing the truth from the police, because he was trying to protect himself and Frank. Remember? Frank promised Conley $200 if he kept his mouth shut. Conley's affidavits are modifications of his original story, they are not each completely unique stories. Nuance and subtleties are important. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

We follow the reliable sources -- as opposed to your anonymous sources. The sources use "change" not "modify" and speak of antisemitic "issues" rather than "accusations". As shown by ample sources, we can't say in wikipedia's voice that Frank committed a murder -- the sources say otherwise. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Jim Conley did not totally change his story, he modified it each time. There is a difference between changing a story and modifying it. 2. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles did not officially absolve Frank of murdering Phagan. There is no legal decision that exonerated Frank of murdering Phagan. Leo Frank is still officially and legally guilty, regardless of how many Social Justice Warriors and POV warriors claim he is innocent and convicted without evidence. The law is the final word on the matter. The consensus of the American legalsystem is that Frank is guilty of murdering Mary Phagan. 3. About this "His legal case and lynching in Georgia brought attention to the issue of antisemitism in the United States." No one is saying, hey everyone lets talk about anti-Semitism in the United States, they simply made accusations that his case was based on anti-semitism. Can you show me examples of people saying lets have a townhall meeting about anti-Semitism in the united states involving the Leo Frank case? There was no bringing attention to issue of antisemitism, they are accusing the case of being based on antisemitism. Let's look at the ADL website http://archive.adl.org/adl_opinions/anti_semitism_domestic/leo_frank.html where they state "Lessons of the Leo Frank Case Still Relevant By Abraham H. Foxman. Abraham H. Foxman is National Director of the Anti-Defamation League and Author of Never Again?: The Threat of The New Anti-Semitism (HarperSanFrancisco). Posted: August 18, 2005. August 17, 2005 marked the 90th anniversary of the lynching of Leo Frank by an anti-Semitic mob in Marietta, Georgia. In 1913 Frank was arrested, tried and convicted of murder, but the results of the trial, and subsequent lynching remain tangible reminders of what America was like in the not too long ago. A New York native, Leo Frank was a manager for the National Pencil Company of Atlanta, Georgia when he was falsely accused of murdering a 14-year-old employee, Mary Phagan. The murder of Mary Phagan was the catalyst for one of the most virulent anti-Semitic episodes in American history. Frank, a northern Jew, was arrested, indicted and tried for Phagan's murder without evidence. His trial was a spectacle; threats, intimidation, and a boisterous crowd outside chanting "kill the Jew" and "hang the Jew" could easily be heard through the courtroom's open windows. When all was said and done, Leo Frank was condemned to death by hanging. After the Georgia appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court rejected numerous appeals, the Governor of Georgia commuted Frank's sentence to life imprisonment, sparking riots in Atlanta. The "Jeffersonian", a racist weekly newspaper, urged that Frank not be allowed to escape "justice". That same month, Frank's throat was slashed by a fellow inmate. Less then a month after he survived the assassination attempt, Leo Frank was abducted from prison by a group of 30 men, calling themselves the Knights of Mary Phagan. The mob drove Frank to Marietta, Georgia, Mary Phagan's hometown, and lynched him from an oak tree. Leo Frank remains the only Jewish person ever to be lynched in the United States. The lessons of the Frank case are as clear today as they were 90 years ago; the diversity that makes America unique is too often used as a scapegoat in difficult times. The violence and intimidation against minorities that was responsible for Frank's murder is still a modern concern.." Says nothing about bringing attention to the issue of antiSemitism, they are saying it was antisemitism. There is no discussion by the ADL with Georgians, just blantant accusations of racism, anti-Semitic mobs. Read the quote. Moreover, the mountcarmelcemetery has a big monument at its entrance put there by the ADL in 2003. QUOTE "In 2003, on the 90th anniversary of the Anti-Defamation League's founding, a monument dedicated by the ADL was placed near the inside entrance of the Mount Carmel Cemetery in Queens, NY. It reads: Leo Frank: The trial of Leo Frank in 1913 was motivated by the rampant antisemitism of the time. The founding of the Anti-Defamation League that same year was motivated by a passion to eradicate such injustice and bigotry. Despite his innocence, Frank was abducted from jail in 1915 and lynched. ADL remembers the victim Leo Frank and rededicates itself to ensuring there will be no more victims of injustice and intolerance." Do you see anything about bringing attention to the subject, or accusing antisemitism? The historical marker at lynching site. QUOTE "In 2008, a state historical marker was erected by the Georgia Historical Society, the Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation, and Temple Kol Emeth, near the building at 1200 Roswell Road, Marietta. The marker reads: Near this location on August 17, 1915, Leo M. Frank, the Jewish superintendent of the National Pencil Company in Atlanta, was lynched for the murder of thirteen-year-old Mary Phagan, a factory employee. A highly controversial trial fueled by societal tensions and anti-Semitism resulted in a guilty verdict in 1913. After Governor John M. Slaton commuted his sentence from death to life in prison, Frank was kidnapped from the state prison in Milledgeville and taken to Phagan's hometown of Marietta where he was hanged before a local crowd. Without addressing guilt or innocence, and in recognition of the state's failure to either protect Frank or bring his killers to justice, he was granted a posthumous pardon in 1986." Looks like an accusation of antisemitism, not bringing attention to the issue of anti-Semitism in America. No one is bringing attention to the issue, they are blaming it as the reason for his conviction. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot of rambling forum-like discussion in your last message, so it's difficult to follow or find rational thought in it. You started out with a strawman argument re "totally changed" when the article said "changed". So I don't care to spend much time on sorting out your somewhat incoherent message. Sorry. I'll watch to see if you can get consensus for your changes. So far it doesn't look like you have it. It would help if you listed what changes you wanted (1., 2., etc.) along with your arguments for each of them. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

On Conley Moving from "I wasn't there" to "I helped move the body" is more than a modification. On murder conviction The language that you keep changing fully acknowledges the outcome of the legal process -- he was judged guilty. The legal system however is not perfect and people are wrongfully convicted all the time. The reliable sources say the system was wrong in this case. On antisemitism It is strictly your interpretation of the significance of a few unrelated events. We follow the reliable sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bob Tom, 1. The lede, quote "Leo Max Frank (April 17, 1884 – August 17, 1915) was a Jewish-American factory superintendent who was convicted of the murder of one of his factory employees, 13-year-old Mary Phagan." He wasn't convicted of the murder of Mary Phagan, he was convicted for murdering Mary Phagan. The jury decided that he was guilty of murdering her. The other way it's stated is weasel language. 2. Bob Tom, 2. Quote "His legal case and lynching in Georgia brought attention to the issue of antisemitism in the United States." is there an issue with antisemitism in America? The word issue suggests a prevailing problem of antisemitism in America. And did his case bring attention to a issue (prevailing problem) of antisemitism in America? Or are people claiming he was convicted because of antisemitism. Seems there is the accusation or claim (claim to use weasel term) that his conviction is because of antisemitism. I showed 3 items which all claim that antisemitism was behind it all, as one user put it. Tom, our system of justice ruled in 1986 that his guilt was left intact. Frank was not officially absolved of the crime. On Conley his first and second affidavits indicated change, but his last 2 affidavits were modifications. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Re item 1 – "convicted for murdering" doesn't indicate what he was convicted of. For example, this type of sentence construction could mean he was convicted of something else for murdering Phagan. See e.g. this web page [2] that defines "convict" and note how only "of" is used, not "for".

Re item 2 – Actually, what was previously there, "questions", may be more to your liking than "issue". I thought "issue" seemed to flow better. Would you accept "topic" instead of "issue", so that the meaning "problem" isn't injected?

Re third item, "not officially absolved" – That's already indicated by the previous sentence.

Re fourth item, Conley affidavits — This reliable source [3] used "changed". What reliable source are you using for modified?

--Bob K31416 (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem with "Question" is that Leofrankites (people who side with Frank and seem to be willing to use fallacious evidence in their mission to convince us of his innocence) aren't questioning anti-Semitism, they are accusing antisemitism as causing his conviction (plenty of sources for this). And "Topic" does work for me. "Question" or "accusation" who is questioning it? Sounds like racist accusation and anti-Semitic hatecrime hoaxes (when we remove the weasel words). Have you read Conley's 4 affidavits? Verifiability = They seem to change during 1 and 2, then 2, 3, 4 seem to simply expand in detail, but not change completely. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks re "topic".

Re Conley's affidavits and "change" vs "modify", we have to go by reliable sources per WP:NOR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Quote "His legal case and lynching in Georgia brought attention to the issue of antisemitism in the United States." to become "His legal case and lynching in Georgia brought attention to the topic of antisemitism in the United States." (question becomes topic?) GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of the trial and the verdict

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)

You are placing undue weight upon your agenda to absolve Frank of guilt. Balance must be given to the facts and evidence in the case. The official record can not be completely ignored in order to tailor this article to your particular personal, as well as erroneous, point of view. 64.134.241.190 (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

We obtained consensus to add the material I suggested. You need to do the same with your material and so far there has been little support for your actions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy, consensus is NOT required to make good faith edits to add information in order to improve an article, but is obtained through a specified process of editing and discussion. Are you trying to make up the rules as you go along?

Each time I have contributed to this article with properly referenced, good faith edits, either you, or one of your fellow travelers immediately and maliciously revert my contributions in their entirety, repeatedly demonstrating your own bad faith in the process. This type of editing behavior is tantamount to bullying and is unacceptable according to Wikipedia policy. 64.134.70.25 (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

PS Your edit provides excessive detail and in most, if not all, the instances you cite there is another side to the story. You are certainly welcome to balance the section "Criticism of the trial and the verdict" with reliable sources of your own stating in general terms why the trial verdict was accurate, but so far all you've presented is an extremely questionable website where you can't, or won't, even provide the real names of the authors. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, your last sentence here strongly implies that you believe I am actually User GingerbreadHarlot, editing as an IP. If you think that is the case, then I suggest you go ahead and lodge your complaint to the administrators and see where it gets you, because your insinuation here borders upon a fraudulent and unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry against two separate and distinct Wikipedia editors, which in itself borders upon a case of intentional libel of each of our reputations and standing in the Wikipedia community.

The sources you and your fellow travelers rely upon to sell the idea that Frank was innocent consist of opinion only, based upon dubious speculation and unsupported fabrications of highly questionable sources. In all actuality, they are works of fiction, and works of fiction are not "reliable sources" in terms of Wikipedia policy.

As the only sources you accept as "reliable" are those sources which tend to support your own POV agenda, you and your fellow travelers are attempting to skew this article to reflect a grossly unbalanced, and fictional POV.

There is no "other side to the story" in regard to demonstrable fact. When you purposely remove those facts from the article, you are purposely attempting to cover up those facts, which in effect is an attempt to lie by ommission in Wikipedia's voice. Your arguments are flawed, and your sources are flawed. Neither your arguments, nor your sources pass the test of fact-checking and reliability. This has been exhaustively explained to you and your fellow travelers at length on this very page. As you have consistently chosen to ignore or obfuscate those explanations, I am not obliged to attempt to explain it to you again. The facts speak for themselves. You and your fellow Frank proponents here are engaged in an ongoing act of public deception by repeatedly attempting to preserve and present a fraudulent narrative to the public, and should by all rights be censured for your blatant abuse of Wikipedia in that respect.

And this is not a personal attack. This is merely an honest, objective observation and examination of your editing behavior over the past few years as regards this article, and a call for your censure for disruptive, and inappropriate editing. 64.134.70.25 (talk) 19:42, 25 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)

We have presented the consensus version. It would be inappropriate to offer "balance" by presenting the fringe views of the American Mercury which is not a reliable source. You have repeatedly refused to explain why you consider it a reliable source or explain what the qualifications of the writers you quote are. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The view that Leo Frank is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is not a fringe view. All the appellate courts upheld his conviction. The Georgia Supreme Court ruled the evidence of Frank's guilt had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles refused to exonerate Leo Frank of his guilt. Frank was never officially absolved of his guilt. No court between 1913 to April of 1915 overturned the decision of the jury. Governor Slaton in his clemency decision said he was upholding the judge, jury and appellate courts decision. The reliable sources I've presented are Tom Watson Brown, Mary Phagan Kean, Jasper Dorsey, and other scholars who have written about the case taking the position Frank's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Also the well written articles published on the American Mercury are done so in a scholarly manner, with citations and bibliography of sources which back up the statements in the articles. Their qualifications are that they are obviously journalist scholars who had done original research and backed everything up with primary and secondary sources. The research articles about the Leo Frank case written on the American Mercury are what real scholarship is about. Believing that Leo Frank's guilt has been established is not anti-Semitic or fringe. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The Governor John Slaton's lawfirm of Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips formed in May 1913, before Leo Frank's trial

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)

It's already in the article and has been for some time. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I will go ahead and add mention of it to the lede. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add it to the lede. Absent any indication by reliable sources that this actually influenced his decision, this is a minor point that doesn't belong in the lede. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a relevant fact mentioned in the body of the article. The consensus of scholars and researchers is that Governor elect Slaton did merge his law firm 'Slaton and Phillips' with Luther Rosser's law firm 'Rosser and Brandon' to create the law firm 'Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips'. This law firm represented Leo Frank at his trial. It is a relevant fact that deserves mention in the lede. His recent historical marker indicates that his commutation lead to the lynching of Leo Frank, Quote “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 changed the lede to reflect that it was the commutation of Leo Frank that resulted in the backlash (protest). The lede says nothing about Slaton commuting his law-firm-client's death sentence caused the lynching, it merely mentions that he was law partner of Luther Rosser. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The mere mention of his association with Rosser, w/o any context, tells the reader nothing while implying a great deal and does not belong in the lead. The full context, since no reliable sources claim that the association affected his decision, also does not belong in the lead. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Several notable and reliable sources mention the conflict of interest Notes on the Case of Leo Frank and its aftermath by Tom Watson Brown page 33, Quote "Slaton had been a name partner of the Rosser law firm since May of 1913 and is so listed in the newspaper announcements of the day an in the Atlanta City Directories of 1914, 1915, 1916, even though he was then serving as Governor of the State." and in the conclusion of his research paper published by Emory University he states, Quote "Ample evidence was brought forth at his [Frank's] trial, including the three-day sworn testimony of his accomplice, to constitute more than enough evidence to convince a reasonable jury beyond a reasonable doubt of Frank's guilt. Frank was defended in his four-week long trial by the two finest trial lawyers in the Atlanta of that day, Reuben Arnold and Luther Z. Rosser. Rosser's former partner presided over the trial as judge, and his ten current law partner was the Governor of Georgia [John M. Slaton] who ultimately commuted Frank's sentence to life." And from The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean page 168 we learn about this significant conflict of interest, Quote "Judge Morris, through the Cobb Democratic Executive Committee, alleged that Slaton was a member of the law firm defending Frank. Slaton had ben a name partner of the 'Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips' law firm since May of 1913 and is so listed in the newspaper announcements of the day. This law partnership name was also listed in the Atlanta City Directories of 1914, 1915, and 1916, even thought Slaton was then serving as Governor. This conflict was seized upon by Tom Watson who said: "You must keep in your mind the astounding fact that he [Slaton] joined Rosser's [law] firm after that firm had been employed to defend Frank, and had publicly taken part in the case. A Governor cannot practice law openly and in June, 1913, John M. Slaton was to be inaugurated for a term of two years. Why, then did he, in May [1913] take a partner whom he could not openly use, during the next two years?" The Cobb Democratic Executive Committee publicly called on Slaton to resign as governor or assure Georgians he would not commute Frank's sentence." and The Marietta Daily Journal, Friday, January 20, 1984 by Jasper Dorsey (Journal Columnist) Quote "Frank was vigorously defended by eminent counsel, one [Luther Rosser] of whom was a former law partner of the veteran trial judge [Roan]. Gov. John Slaton who ultimately commuted Frank's sentence to life, was a law partner of one defense attorney [Luther Rosser]." It is clear that this was an obvious conflict of interest that the then Governor John M. Slaton committed the death sentence of his law firm's client Leo Frank. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop quote

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)

You say "conviction/death sentence are nearly inseparable." In fact "conviction, appeals, death sentence, commutation, and subsequent extrajudicial hanging" are all inseparable. Lurid newspaper accounts started even before there was even an arrest -- to try to single out one newspaper as the culprit is unbalanced and illogical. You earlier quoted Lindemann when you brought this up -- you ignore that Lindemann (a source that YOU brought up earlier) wrote (p. 266) when discussing Ochs that he first said, "The Hearst papers were, of course, already on his [Frank's] side ... ." Interesting concept about the NY Times provoking antisemitism -- especially in light of everything Tom Watson was doing. Nothing would do more to make this "a two-dimensional story" than alleging that people reacted to only one messenger while failing to do any analysis of the facts. As Lindemann wrote, "'"Throughout the United States, large numbers of Americans, by no means only or even primarily Jews, responded as if this was another Dreyfus or Beilis affair, a horrible miscarriage of justice, unthinkable in the United States -- or perhaps possible only in the 'bigoted South'." The sentence in question is totally accurate and totally supported by the reliable sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman), a bigot is someone who can not tolerate people who hold different opinions. "Bigoted South" is a dog whistle, a stereotype of millions of people holding a vast range of views inside a large geographic area, and turn them all into a single easily hated caricature that now can be easily attacked and smeared ( think Emmanuel Goldstein and 2 minutes of hate in 1984, and substitute it with Billy Bob - a big goofy guy with a missing front tooth and a stupid look on his face in a wife beater t-shirt next to a broken truck). The very point that a southern Governor commuted the death sentence underlines that statements like the 'bigoted south' are created by political opperatives as a dog whistle that instantly elicits an emotion response from partisan supporters to begin the 2-minutes of hate. (The fact that the governor has already signed the intent document leading to a very lucrative and extremely generous contract with the prestigious NY law firm that for years has been handling Frank's death sentence appeals demonstrates that Frank sentence was commuted out of the deep belief in fairness held by the Governor without even a hint of quid-pro-quo, and this is according to many academics over the years who never fail to lay accolades while gushing about this Governor's 'selfless act', while always failing to mention that other inconvenient bit.) Cheers! Meishern (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Context is important. You miss the fact that "bigoted South" is in quotes. Are you unaware that in this context Lindemann (not a "political operative" as far as I know) was using the phrase ironically? The entire quote was provided to demonstrate that, contrary to claims made by Gulbenk, the non-Georgia response was shaped by much more than simply Jews. As far as the governor, there is a difference between an the appearance of a conflict of interest and actually acting on it. Contrary to your claim, most sources discussing the commutation do mention the potential conflict. If you have reliable information that he was actually bribed, produce it.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman), sorry about the delay. I wasn't planning to add bribery or speculate, but only add the fact that when he commuted the death sentence to life in prison, he did so after joining Mr. Frank's lead defense council's prestigious NY law firm as a partner. The readers can make up their own minds if that may/may not have influenced the governor's decision. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 22:23, 29 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)

This discussion seems a bit complex, so I'll just try to offer for consideration the following change from the sentence "His conviction, appeals, death sentence,..." to

His legal case and lynching in Marietta, Georgia in 1915 drew attention to questions of antisemitism in the United States.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The sentence in question had contained substantially the same information since at least the December 2014 peer review. At that time it read " whose murder conviction and 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." It didn't become controversial until Gulbenk and another editor insisted that it wasn't enough to simply say Frank was convicted of murder -- they wanted to call him, in wikipedia's voice, an actual murderer. Your proposed change is consistent with the facts and is fine with me. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I just now made the edit that changed to the proposed sentence in my previous message.[4] --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Slaton's law partnership with Frank's criminal defense lawyers

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)

You need a reliable source that connects the people's reaction to the alleged conflict of interest. In fact, reliable sources do not link the two and it was Watson's later harping on the alleged conflict (after Frank's lynching) that brought out the issue. Watson's Magazine is not a reliable source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I corrected the date of Watson's Magazine, which is a contemporaneous source. In fact, it makes the allegation of a conflict of interest ("bribery") in an effort to create a public reaction. In addition, Oney discusses the conflict of interest in the context of the immediate press reaction to the commutation and subsequent rioting on pages 307-9 of his book. DocWiley (talk — Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

DocWiley, there is no need to draw the obvious conclusion. Most people of median intelligence or higher can see that Governor John M. Slaton, commuting the death sentence of his own law firm's client, Leo M. Frank, was a grotesque conflict of interest and that he should have recused himself from such a odious decision. I think the best way to change this "Days before leaving office, lame duck Governor John M. Slaton - a law partner of Frank's criminal defense lawyer Luther Z. Rosser - overruled a recommendation of the Georgia Prison Commission and commuted Frank's death sentence to life imprisonment, provoking outrage over alleged conflict of interest[1][dubious – discuss]." and frame it would be like this: Days before completing his term as Governor or Georgia, John M. Slaton commuted the criminal sentencing of his law firm's client -- Leo M. Frank -- from the death penalty to life in prison. There are numerous sources for this.

Several notable and reliable sources mention the conflict of interest, for instance

1. 'Notes on the Case of Leo Frank and its aftermath' by Tom Watson Brown page 33, Quote "Slaton had been a name partner of the Rosser law firm since May of 1913 and is so listed in the newspaper announcements of the day and in the Atlanta City Directories of 1914, 1915, 1916, even though he was then serving as Governor of the State." and in the conclusion of his research paper (published by Emory University) he states, Quote "Ample evidence was brought forth at his [Frank's] trial, including the three-day sworn testimony of his accomplice, to constitute more than enough evidence to convince a reasonable jury beyond a reasonable doubt of Frank's guilt. Frank was defended in his four-week long trial by the two finest trial lawyers in the Atlanta of that day, Reuben Arnold and Luther Z. Rosser. Rosser's former partner presided over the trial as judge [Leonard Strickland Roan], and his then current law partner was the Governor of Georgia [John M. Slaton] who ultimately commuted Frank's sentence to life."

2. And from The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean page 168 we learn about this significant conflict of interest, Quote "Judge Morris, through the Cobb Democratic Executive Committee, alleged that Slaton was a member of the law firm defending Frank. Slaton had ben a name partner of the 'Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips' law firm since May of 1913 and is so listed in the newspaper announcements of the day. This law partnership name was also listed in the Atlanta City Directories of 1914, 1915, and 1916, even thought Slaton was then serving as Governor. This conflict was seized upon by Tom Watson who said: "You must keep in your mind the astounding fact that he [Georgia Governor-Elect John M. Slaton] joined Rosser's [law] firm after that [law] firm had been employed to defend Frank, and had publicly taken part in the case. A Governor cannot practice law openly and in June, 1913, John M. Slaton was to be inaugurated for a term of two years. Why, then did he, in May [1913] take a partner whom he could not openly use, during the next two years?" The Cobb Democratic Executive Committee publicly called on [Governor John] Slaton to resign as governor or assure Georgians he would not commute Frank's sentence." and

3. The Marietta Daily Journal, Friday, January 20, 1984 by Jasper Dorsey (Journal Columnist) Quote "Frank was vigorously defended by eminent counsel, one [Luther Rosser] of whom was a former law partner of the veteran trial judge [Leonard Strickland Roan]. Governor John Slaton who ultimately commuted Frank's sentence to life, was a law partner of one [Leo M. Frank's] defense attorney [Luther Rosser]."

4. However in argument for the conflict of interest: Steve Oney has said: "I think Slaton made a decision of conscience ... That said, there was a clear and troubling appearance of a conflict of interest". Governor Slaton was a law partner of Rosser, Frank's lead defense counsel.

5. Leonard Dinnerstein, has stated in his book 'The Frank Case' pp. 124 that quote, "Some viewed the commutation by Slaton a conflict of interest as Slaton was a law partner of Frank's lead defense counsel [Luther Rosser]."

6. Any other sources mentioning the conflict of Interest about Governor John M. Slaton commuting the sentence of his own law client, Leo M. Frank? Dig into the primary sources boys!

It is clear that this was an obvious conflict of interest that the then Governor John M. Slaton commuted the death sentence of his law firm's client Leo Frank. This is something very notable about the case and should be highlighted. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Using "Antisemitism" As a Smear Word

"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)

I haven’t noticed that any editor here has been called antisemitic, either explicitly or by implication. If you think that is currently happening, could you give the diff? Please note that personal attacks are a violation of Wikipedia policy WP:NPA.

Regarding the reliability of sources, I wrote the following previously to you.[5]

The Wikipedia policy on what counts as a reliable source can be found at WP:SOURCE. If you think that any reference is being wrongly challenged as not being a reliable source, please show that it is a reliable source according to that section of Wikipedia policy.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:53, 1 June 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)

And just to elaborate, I would again point out to everyone here that the pro-Frank editors on this page as well as elsewhere have repeatedly invoked this unwarranted smear in their repeated attempts to vilify any source that affirms Frank's conviction by simply labeling it "antisemitic". They collectively promote the idea that a bare accusation of "anitsemitism", without more, is all it takes to disqualify a source as "unreliable". They appear to think everyone should disregard any source they brand with this smear in favor of their own sources, which are highly suspect themselves.

The article User Tom (North Shoreman) has repeatedly cited here, "Neo-Nazis Use Leo Frank Case for Anti-Semitic Propaganda Push', from Forward.com, relies solely upon a number of unsupported accusations of "antisemitism" in order to make its point. Although the author of this article admits that, "It is impossible to say who is behind most of the neo-Nazi websites", he nonetheless characterizes them as "neo-Nazi websites", as if his bare accusation is enough. That is not journalism, it is mere ad hominem, and false propaganda.

The attempts to exonerate, and promote the apotheosis of Leo Frank have been purely jewish efforts from the very start. In regard to the true nature of the "antisemetic" smear described above, this in itself is reason enough to bring these efforts into question as being unduly biased and suspect on their face. 64.134.241.190 (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think your point is that a source can't be eliminated from use as a reliable source just because it's biased, e.g. anti-semitic. You seem to be correct on that point per Wikipedia policy.

However, just like any other source, a biased source has to be shown to be a reliable source according to WP:SOURCE before it can be used in an article. So far you haven't shown that for any of your sources.

Regarding your request that I show that Dinnerstein is a reliable source per WP:SOURCE, I'll try to do that here.

Here's an excerpt from WP:SOURCE.

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.

Regarding Dinnerstein's reputation for fact checking and accuracy, that was supported in a previous section Reviews of Dinnerstein from JSTOR. I understand that you have said that Dinnerstein admitted to making an error on one particular fact. Assuming that to be true, I don't think that being wrong on one fact would affect his reputation significantly when it comes to using other facts that he has presented. That's because he has a good reputation per the previously mentioned section Reviews of Dinnerstein from JSTOR.

Now could you similarly show that any of your sources satisfy the above requirement of WP:SOURCE for being a reliable source? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

Re your comment "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..." – See WP:BURDEN 1st paragraph (including footnote 2) and 1st sentence of paragraph 3. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That section of Wikipedia policy, "WP:BURDEN 1st paragraph (including footnote 2) and 1st sentence of paragraph 3", is titled, "Responsibility for providing citations", and addresses the responsibility of an editor to provide sufficient inline citations to reliable sources for the material he adds to the article. It says nothing at all about an editor having to show, PRIOR TO USING THEM, that the reliable sources he provides are indeed reliable. The portions of policy you cite here support everything I've said above in my statement that you here abbreviate, especially "footnote 2":

"Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia."

As I said, this places the burden upon editors who wish to remove said information to justifiably challenge the sources used by the previous editor before removing such sourced material from the article. It has nothing to do with proving the reliability of a source to other editors prior to using it. That is covered in the very next section, which I have already discussed at length above. 64.134.70.25 (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN does not require you to prove that a source is a reliable source before you add material, but it does require you to prove that the source is a reliable source before restoring material that has been removed for not having a reliable source.

Footnote 2 says,

"Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back."

According to the above footnote 2, the editor who removes the material has an obligation to articulate problems that would justify its removal. In this case, the editor says that the problem is that the source is not a reliable source, which is a problem that would justify the removal of the material. The removing editor has satisfied the obligation of articulating a specific problem that would justify the material's exclusion. (The excerpt doesn't say that the removing editor has to prove that the source is not a reliable source before removing the material.) At this point the material has been removed and all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus before the material is added back. In other words, there has to be a consensus that the source is a reliable source before the material can be restored. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

IP, Tom-No is using this smear tactic at Reliable Sources Noticeboard American Mercury. He is accusing the articles about the Leo Frank case at The American Mercury of neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism, so clearly this is a scare tactic, because nothing in these Frank articles are anti-Jewish.

Quote: "At the article Leo Frank several editors are pushing questionable sources (see Talk:Leo Frank#Reliable secondary sources arguing Frank's guilt). This is the list provided: 1. Mary Phagan Kean The Murder of Little Mary Phagan, 1989. 2. Bradford L. Huie (Leo Frank Trial Analysis Introduction, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank Trial Week Three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four, Closing Arguments of Frank Arthur Hooper, Luther Zeigler Rosser, and Reuben Rose Arnold, Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey, One Hundred Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty) 3. Elliot Dashfield (Leonard Dinnerstein's Book "The Leo Frank Case", A Pseudo-History) 4. Mark Cohen (Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case? and Did Leo Frank Confess?) 5. Scott Aaron (Atlanta, Southern Jewry and Leo Frank) 6. Jasper Dorsey (Marietta Daily Journal, Friday January 20, 1984 "If Trial Were Today, Frank Would Still Be Found Guilty"). 7. Tom Watson Brown Notes on the Case of Leo Frank and its Aftermath Emory University, Georgia. Numbers 2, 3, and 4 are from the website for The American Mercury. At American Mercury#Revival this is identified as an antisemitic site with sourcing to the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League. These designations notwithstanding, the three authors listed have no apparent academic credentials and are likely pseudonyms. Number 5 is from a site operated by Kevin Strom who the SPLC identifies as " a bookish neo-Nazi with a fondness for child pornography". Numbers 1, 6, and 7 are written by non-academics who are blood relations of principles in the original Frank case. Of the three, Kean's is the closest to a legitimate source and is probably reliable for most factual matters, but her work has not been reviewed by any academic journals that I could find on JSTOR. Comments from others on these sources would be welcome. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)"

I've read the articles by Bradford L. Huie, Mark Cohen, & Elliot Dashfield. None of these articles are even remotely promoting racism, neo-Nazism, Hitler, national socialism or anti-Jewish themes. You can read on the Leo Frank talk page here about how he tried to equate Tom W. Brown's 1982 Emory university research paper on the case of Leo Frank and its aftermath with the anti-Semitism of Tom Watson from 1915. These kind of racist and anti-Gentile tactics are hideous and pure evil. If Tom has a problem with the Frank case articles on the american mercury ezine he can very easily fact check them, but obviously that approach wont work because these scholarly articles back up their research with primary sources in bibliography. The racist and anti-Gentile canards of fallaciously accusing anti-Semitism should have no place at wikipedia when there is no evidence to back it up. I ask you Bob and Tom, to show me specific examples of statements in the articles written by Elliot Dashfield, Bradford L. Huie and Mark Cohen that are anti-Semitic. Can't be done can it? So Tom then smears them with anti-Semitism. Bob and Tom, here you go, show me anti-Semitism in these articles.

Bradford L. Huie (Leo Frank Trial Analysis Introduction, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank Trial Week Three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four, Closing Arguments of Frank Arthur Hooper, Luther Zeigler Rosser, and Reuben Rose Arnold, Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey, One Hundred Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty) Elliot Dashfield (Leonard Dinnerstein's Book "The Leo Frank Case", A Pseudo-History) Mark Cohen (Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case? and Did Leo Frank Confess?). Provide specific examples of anti-Semitism in these arguments. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

GBH is now indefinitely blocked. I'll copy what I wrote at RSN about the post directly above: "We have no idea who "Bradford L. Huie" actually is, so we have an anonymous writer on a website. Nope, not an RS. And Mark Cohen's article "Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case?" also published in the racist National Vanguard.[6]. Absolutely not reliable sources." We should not be using the American Mercury. Another point is that GBH keeps talking about smears, while using the term "anti-Gentile". For more on that concept, see [7] and [8]. Also Kevin Quinn (neo-Nazi). Doug Weller (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's archive most of this page please

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)

All discussion is pertinent. There is a hyperlinked "Contents" section at the top of the page where editors may quickly choose and easily navigate to the topic to which they wish to read or reply, so there is no reason to archive discussions out of turn, although I see a new editor has already done so for you. Friend of yours, perhaps? 64.134.70.25 (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Your boy Ginger, who routinely repeats himself in making 3,000+ byte posts, would quickly recreate the situation as it currently exists. Other editors are disregarding the consensus that was reached and are editing contrary to that consensus so it is important to keep all the Rfc material visible. Having said that, I have no problem with archiving sections 1 through 12 and 14, 15, 16, and 19 but the others are still related to active debates. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ginger has their own priorities as the rest of us here, making them as much 'your boy' as mine. I hope nobody will take offense if I merge repetitive page long posts, and instead label the first instance, and for each subsequent identical copy of the same exact text, I will place *See Post-(Date) Above*. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 18:41, 30 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)

Tom Northshoreman, try to learn how to control yourself as another editor put it, and Meishern, I say archive nothing, just yet. The RFC is currently mistaken and needs some correcting. Consensus of numerous modern researchers of the Frank case is that he was guilty and therefore the U.S. legal system that reviewed the case from 1913-1915 and 1982-1986 was correct in leaving intact the verdict of the jury. Those authors who claim Leo Frank was innocent have no evidence worthy of backing up those claims, statements or suggestions of wrongful conviction. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles judgment of 1982-1986 invalidates their position. Thus the arguments for Frank's innocence are legally insufficient and fallacious, many of which are based on academic dishonesty, academic misconduct, academic fraud and plagiarism (I will present proof if needed). I have brought forth nine sources arguing for Frank's guilt being sustained. As of right now, the consensus of Frank's innocence or guilt is divided based on new references (nine of them).

1. Mary Phagan Kean The Murder of Little Mary Phagan, 1989.

2. Bradford L. Huie (Leo Frank Trial Analysis Introduction, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank Trial Week Three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four, Closing Arguments of Frank Arthur Hooper, Luther Zeigler Rosser, and Reuben Rose Arnold, Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey, One Hundred Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty)

3. Elliot Dashfield (Leonard Dinnerstein's Book "The Leo Frank Case", A Pseudo-History)

4. Mark Cohen (Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case? and Did Leo Frank Confess?)

5. Scott Aaron (Atlanta, Southern Jewry and Leo Frank)

6. Jasper Dorsey (Marietta Daily Journal, Friday January 20, 1984 "If Trial Were Today, Frank Would Still Be Found Guilty"). Quote "The evidence there also shows Frank's religion had nothing to do with his conviction. He would have been convicted had he been a Presbyterian minister. He would also be convicted today."

7. Tom Watson Brown Notes on the Case of Leo Frank and its Aftermath Emory University, Georgia.

8. Augusta Chronicle-Herald, May 15, 1983, statement by Justice Randall Evans Jr. (see The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 297-290)

9. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles ruled there was no evidence to prove Leo Frank was innocent, 1982-1986.

Tom Northshoreman has failed to provide any sentences in these said Leo Frank case treatments that promote Antisemitism, Neo-Nazism, Hitler or romanticize National Socialism. These are all well researched and scholarly treatments of the Case of Leo Frank, based on the official records and facts, unlike the so-called "scholars", really anti-Historians and anti-Scholars that Tom Northshoreman cites as "reliable sources" (who are really monomaniacal POV warriors activists who use academic dishonesty and plagiarism in their mission to convince us Leo Frank is innocent). Shall I present evidence that the authors Tom Northshoreman presents as scholars used fabrication and fallacious claims to support their positions? The evidence is overwhelming. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Update, of the 9 items, everything but items 2, 3, 4, 5 are still in dispute. The other 5 items (1, 6, 7, 8, 9) are confirmed as reliable. So now I'm asking for proof items 2, 3, and 4 are not reliable. These items have been accused of Neo-Nazism / anti-Semitism, so now I'm asking for proof of their promotion of Hitler and National Socialism or any anti-Jewish conspiracies. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

GBH is, as I've said above, now blocked. The question is, or at least should be, which sources meet or fail are criteria at WP:RS. Proving that they promote something is not part of our criteria. Source 2 is by an anonymous author, Bradford L. Huie, on a website that doesn't meet those criteria. An attempt was made at WP:RSN to get it through but failed. 3 is from the same source. 4 is also but Mark Cohen also published his article in the racist National Vanguard.[9], as is Elliot Dashfield's article. The name Mark Cohen is described as a "nom de guerre" on National Vanguard.[10] None of these names can be traced to real people, and of course could all be the same person. Anonymous writers on an anonymously run website fail WP:RS. Doug Weller (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it is clear that 2,3, and 4 are not reliable sources and nobody but GBH and an IP suggest otherwise. The issue with the others, which have not been "confirmed" as reliable but did garner some unexplained support, involves the weight that they should be given in the article. Number 6 is a 30 year old newspaper column written at the time when the pardon was in the news and was written by the son of one of Frank's lynchers. Number 7 is simply a disjointed listing of some sources with some original comments (including the advocacy of the accuracy of Tom Watson's reporting on the subject). Number 8 is another 30 year old opinion piece written at the time of the pardon. The author (see [11]), as far as I can tell, has no academic qualifications as an historian. The article itself reads like a rant (it was reprinted by the KKK according to Kean) rather than a serious analysis. Number 9 is a primary source and is taken entirely out of context by GBH. This leaves us Number 1, the Kean book -- hardly enough in itself to argue in our article, as GBH had suggested, that this calls into doubt the well documented consensus of historians. She states at the very end her motivations in writing the book:

"As the publicity surrounding the announcement of the pardon died down, my struggle for inner peace became more difficult. I continued to have nightmares. It was as if someone was trying to warn me, to prod me into action. I felt compelled to tell my family's side of little Mary's story, to let the next generation of Phagans know their heritage, to let everyone know the true legacy of little Mary Phagan."

Not the language of an objective historian. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

July 11 Edits

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)

Sounds good. I'll see how it goes over the next few days. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Notes and References

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 trimmed the Further Reading section slightly at one point, but agree that this section and the Sources subsection above it could be reduced significantly. We should probably just leave the most important sources and remove the rest. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources and Further Reading

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)

GA renomination

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)

I went ahead and made the changes to the Sources and Further Reading, and made a comment in the section below. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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 box GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Is it reasonably well written? A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: Is it factually accurate and verifiable? A. Has an appropriate reference section: B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: C. No original research: Is it broad in its coverage? A. Major aspects: B. Focused: Is it neutral? Fair representation without bias: Is it stable? 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: Overall: Pass or Fail: Comments on GA criteria Pass Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC) There have been editorial disagreements, and while there are some reverts on the article, most discussion has taken place, appropriately, on the talkpage, so edit wars have not broken out. It would be fair to say that this is a lively and active article rather than an unstable one. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Statements in the article appear to be based on sources. No indication of original research. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Article is richly cited to a wide range of reliable sources. My concern regarding neutrality is more to do with selection and presentation of details from sources rather than the sources themselves. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Query Image captions range from nothing at all to nine lines long. Captions are a matter of editorial judgement, though it's worth looking at the guidance in WP:Captions to ensure the captions are more consistent and helpful, and not too distracting. A rough guide would be to use the caption to identify the image, and to use the main body of the article to carry essential information. For example - the Tom Watson quote only appears in the caption; if the quote is considered important, it should be in the main body. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC) I removed the quote from the Watson caption, as the point of it was to show that he was inflammatory in regards to his rhetoric relating to the case, which is covered in the article well without the quote. I also added a caption to the Slaton and wife image, as it lacked one previously. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Images are mostly 1915 and declared to be public domain in the USA, which is acceptable as that is where Wikipedia's servers are based. However, File:Fiddlin'JohnCarson.jpg is not shown as PD in the USA, File:Ex-Gov. John Slaton and wife.jpg does not have a standard format summary (it's probably OK, but it wouldn't harm to do a standard form0 - now uploaded to Commons as File:John Slaton and wife.jpg, File:Tom E Watson.jpg doesn't have a standard summary form, and is missing essential information, such as date, File:Hugh-dorsey.jpg - missing details, File:Luther-rosser.jpg - missing details, File:Leo-frank-at-trial.jpg - missing details, and not PD in the USA, File:Leo-frank-trial.jpg - missing details, File:William-smith-lawyer-for-jim-conley.jpg - missing details; has a claim of PD in the USA, but without details it is uncertain if the claim is accurate, File:Mary Phagan.jpg - says source is "scan", but nothing more informative than that. These images are probably fine, though I would prefer that either the source information is improved, or someone with more knowledge of copyright of old photos than me would give them a look over and say they are acceptable as they are, with missing information. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC) I noticed that the infobox image was replaced with another one that has some imperfections, and a different file name without his birth and death years. Was this for copyright reasons? Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Same image, with noise reduced and some clarity brought in which reveals the imperfections (and as we are an encyclopedia we wouldn't normally remove imperfections from an original image). The file name is different because it's the one stored on Commons rather than the one stored locally on the English Wikipedia, which can't be used on other projects. We should use Commons files unless there are legal restrictions, such as it being fair use only. The file name is merely for filing purposes - if we have a file named Leo Frank the next one could be Leo Frank 2, then Leo Frank 3, etc. Adding a date would serve merely to disambiguate one file from another - information about the subject of the image, such as birth dates, would normally be given on the media page itself in the Description field, which is the case here: File:Leo Frank.jpg SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC) That sounds good. I'll work on adding details to images and moving other images to Commons that are eligible, which should be just about all of them. Tonystewart14 (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC) 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) A template was created a few years ago which may be placed on certain images to ensure that a copy remains on the English Wikipedia regardless of what happens to the image on Commons. This was created because it was felt (and is still felt by some users) that Commons can sometimes apply copyright laws too strictly and remove images unnecessarily. If you find an image on the English Wikipedia that has such a template, it would not be appropriate to move the image from the English Wikipedia to Commons - you would need to upload the image to Commons separately. If you have found a new image that is not already on Commons that you wish to upload, then - unless you have an objection to Commons - please upload it directly to Commons. Once on Commons it may be used across all projects. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC) The article is 43kB of readable prose, so is not considered too long; however, I'm finding information that is not strictly essential or encyclopaedic or relevant to the topic, such as "Leo traveled to Atlanta for two weeks in late October 1907 to meet a delegation of investors for a position with the National Pencil Company", "and laughed at the idea of speaking Yiddish", "to use the toilet. After leaving the toilet and checking the back door and basement as part of routine inspections". I think this falls more under 1a "Prose is clear and concise" than 3b "Focused". Prose is mostly clear and readable, though there's five short paragraphs in a row in Immediate aftermath, and this could be rephrased in the opening sentence: "the murder of one of his factory employees", as it sounds like he owns the factory. These are minor points. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC) For the delegation of investors quote, it tells of how Frank started working at the National Pencil Company. I think it should stay since it gives context to the rest of the paragraph and explains the relation to his uncle in the industry. For the Yiddish quote, that could be removed, although it is complementary to the preceding phrase about her being different from Frank. It makes it a lot more apparent that the reason she was "different" was because she was not as strict in her Jewish faith. For the inspections quote, I added this recently due to the fact that the old text was uncited. It says why Newt Lee was in the basement area and was thus able to discover the body. For the Immediate aftermath paragraphs, they are in fact short, but they do appear to be separate paragraphs for a reason, and I don't believe they should be condensed simply to be a more consistent length as the rest of the article. For the lead sentence, I rephrased this to make it clear that Frank was the manager of the factory, but not the owner. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC) There aren't details of the autopsy in the article. In my background reading I am picking up conflicting messages regarding if she was raped, and that seems to stem from the autopsy by Dr Harris, which states that her vagina had experienced violence such that her hymen was broken, but that there was no sperm, while another doctor says that her hymen was not broken. Also in my background reading I'm picking up that Frank revealed in court that he was away from his office at the time of the murder, but this is not mentioned in the article. I'm also reading about a bite hoax. Are there reasons why these things are not mentioned in the article? SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Regarding Frank and the time of the murder, please see this version [12] of the article which I referenced in the abortive review. The section "April 26 time line" incorporates both the prosecution and defense time lines. The decision at the time was made to eliminate most of this material because it would confuse rather than enlighten a reader. Adding back small bits (such as the testimony you reference) w/o full context would tend to bias the article in one direction or the other. I'm not sure what reference you are talking about that claims Frank admitted being away from the office. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:10, 27 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) The word "unconsciously" rang a bell for me. This is part of the claims by leofrank.org et al that Frank actually confessed to the crime -- the word "unconsciously" is given without context because it sounds ridiculous. What he actually said can be found at Lawson (see footnote 108) on page 227. In part he says, "... to the best of my recollection from the time the whistle blew for 12 o'clock until after a quarter to 1 ... I did not stir out of the inner office; but it is possible that in order to answer a call of nature or to urinate I may have gone to the toilet. Those are things that a man does unconsciously and cannot tell how many times nor when he does it." This info was in the section "Frank's testimony" in the article version I referred you to. This all relates to Stover's testimony and the assumption by the prosecution that she arrived before after Phagan did. However there is testimony that strongly disputes this and have Phagan arriving after Stover said she left. Slaton found the contrary evidence convincing and lists this as one of the reasons that he doubted Frank was guilty. It also relates to the actual place of the murder. The "confession theory" is that since the Metal Room, where the prosecution claimed the murder took place, was near the restroom, this was Frank's unwitting confession. However key to this is blood and hair evidence alleged to prove this was the murder scene was called into question by witnesses, including Dr. Harris, a prosecution witness. Slaton pointed this discrepancy out in his commutation order. The only mention of Stover in the current article is a single sentence, "One eyewitness, Monteen Stover, stated Frank was not in his office when she came to collect her paycheck at 12:05 pm." This sentence implies significance to her claim without explaining that the timing may be irrelevant based on Phagan likely arriving after Stover left. There is no context to explain why 12:05 is deemed to be significant. The bottom line question is whether or not to restore some of the detail of the old version. It should be noted that contrary to my alleged ownership of the article, I had been in favor of retaining the details. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC) I will take a closer look at the older version you have linked to. It's starting to feel to me that the current version is missing some essential details. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Regarding the alleged hoax, see footnote 118. None of the reliable sources that I am aware of refer to it as a hoax -- I assume you picked it up from the Rfc discussion. According to Oney, the material was not written about at the time by Van Paassen because of pressure and threats from the Jewish community of Atlanta who didn't want the Frank case brought up again because they feared reprisals. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Regarding the alleged rape, Harris implied rape but Hurt, also a prosecution witness, disagreed. A third doctor (Childs) testified for the prosecution that what Dr. Harris saw could have been caused by Dr. Hurt's initial examination in which he determined no rape. The article as it exists only says that at the crime scene "There was the appearance of rape." At the least, it seems that this should be clarified with the conflicting autopsy reports. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Fail I have been looking at a previous version of the article that was linked above. I'm noticing a number of things, including that the older version is more detailed in the areas that seem to matter, such as witness statements, and less detailed in areas that might be seen as non-essential colouring, such as that Frank's widow went to work on a glove counter in a store; however, what I am particularly noticing is the difference in approach - the earlier version in the lead says: "Frank had been one of the few people in the factory that day...", and presents facts in a manner that could be interpreted as suggesting he was guilty; while the current version says: "The basis for Frank's conviction largely centered around the testimony of another suspect, James "Jim" Conley, an admitted accomplice after the fact", which could be interpreted as suggesting he was innocent. Neither version appears to me to be completely neutral. What is needed is a version that presents all the facts, rather than being selective. I think this is a difficult task, as what I am picking up is that people have definitive views on Frank's guilt or innocence. There are websites devoted to presenting Frank's guilt. People seem to want to voice their opinion. I have no opinion on his guilt myself, except to say that we will probably never know for certain one way or another. What matters for this article is that people coming to Wikipedia to learn about the case should be given the main reliably sourced details, presented in as neutral and balanced way as possible, without any attempt concious or unconscious to sway the opinion or sympathy of the reader. Some work needs to be done by the significant editors to make the article more encyclopaedic, more factual, and more neutral. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Two prominent anti-Leo Frank sources are not used (theamericanmercury.org and leofrank.org), and this is understandable as they are single purpose sources - however it is permitted to use details from such sites as appropriate per WP:BIASED in order to give a balanced account. I don't feel that the omission of those sites impacts on this GA criteria; I am mentioning them here to indicate that when looking to balance the article, it should not be felt that details from those sites (facts or opinion) should be suppressed. It is acceptable to attribute opinions to them as examples of differences of opinion - this can help strengthen an article: when readers are presented openly with both sides of an argument, including extreme views, they can see the points of both sides, and reasonable readers will discount inappropriate views. Unreasonable readers will form their opinions anyway, so suppressing extreme views will not sway them, but will create doubts in the minds of reasonable readers (why have these views been withheld from us?). SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC) I included a paragraph at the end of the Leo_Frank#Criticism_of_the_trial_and_the_verdict section that mentions these sites in the first reference and a statement from the ADL. It might be worth noting that the second site criticizes the Wikipedia article on Frank. Tonystewart14 (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Would you look again at your edit, as I think it is a good example of unintended biased editing. If you are able to see why the edit is biased, I think we can be optimistic that it wouldn't take too long to get this article into a neutral state. If you don't see the bias in the edit, then I think we might struggle. If you also spot the unintended OR, that would be a bonus. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC) While I agree that there are language problems (i.e. "Despite the consensus of researchers"), it is absolutely appropriate to note the criticisms of these websites. Tony chose to attribute it to the ADL but he could also add (and probably should) include the SPLC and Forward. On another note, I think when you referred to WP:BIASED above you should explain how the websites meet "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." The criticisms suggest that the use of anonymous authors and either hidden or questionable control of the websites would disqualify the sites. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC) I'm not urging use of or reference to those websites; I am saying that they should not be considered unusable. We do allow fringe or alternative views as long as they are presented proportionally, and it is clear that dubious assertion are attributed to the source rather than to Wikipedia, and the sources are put into context. In my brief research into this topic, those sources do come up as being mentioned by other sources, and there is a concern for what they are saying. We do have to be careful how we use and refer to such sites, but for a complete picture, we sometimes need to mention the alternative views. Tony had a good stab at it above, though the "Despite" intro was inappropriate - it may even be because of the consensus, but either way, we cannot lead readers into a conclusion, nor construct one. A more neutral statement along the same lines would be something like this: "Anonymous websites which have emerged since the centenary of Frank's trial, such as leofrank.org and theamericanmercury, which promote a view that Leo Frank was guilty, have been condemned by the ADL and civil rights groups such as SPLC as being anti-Semitic and misleading.[13], [14], [15]" That allows the facts to stand for themselves. Someone doing a search for Leo Frank on the internet may come upon those sites (as I did), so putting them into some form of neutral but factual context helps folks to understand their perspective when they do find them. But, again, I am not advocating their use or mention - what I am saying is that we need not shy away from mentioning them, as long as any mention or use is done appropriately, and that the use or mention is discussed by the main contributors to the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:19, 31 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) By the way, I see SilkTork also mentioned original research, and while I'm reticent to guess what he was referring to as it might lead to doubts on other portions of the text, I do want to ask about the first reference I made that mention the two anti-Frank websites. I'm not sure if the format is proper for one, but I also am not sure if I went too far in saying that the History section was mostly Frank articles. It is quite apparent that it is the case, but I want to make sure that's okay to put there. If something else was the OR issue, please let me know as well. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC) MoS issues. Layout: images are placed on the article both in alternating style and in column style - one or the other is preferred; some images break into following sections or sub-sections; some images are of different sizes - see WP:LAYIM; due to the high number of images of various people, consideration could be given to the relevance of some of those images - see WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. The lead doesn't fully summarise the complex details of the article - as a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. See: WP:Lead. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC) General comments A review was started and not completed - that has been moved to: Talk:Leo Frank/GA2/Aborted review What is the focus of this article? It is called Leo Frank, yet the bulk of it is about the murder of Mary Phagan. In my background reading I am seeing articles and books which have titles that are a version of "The Trial of Leo Frank" or a variation on "The Murder of Mary Phagan". The title being just Leo Frank is problematic for several reasons - we tend not to give notability to someone for one event, though we do sometimes have sub-articles on individuals when the parent article is too big. What is notable here is not Leo Frank, but the murder, trial and subsequent lynching - so it's the incident that is notable. Also by naming an article which is essentially about the trial and its aftermath after one person, the focus goes onto that individual rather than the true subject matter, which is the incident, and there is the possibility that sympathy goes to the named person - we try to remain as neutral as possible, and to try to be aware of presentation that may bias a reader. I have checked archives and there doesn't appear to have been any discussion of the title since the article was created as Leo Frank in 2003. I think it would be worthwhile if the significant contributors to the article discussed the title. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Much of the reason that the case, and not just Frank himself, is notable is because of the implications of anti-Semitism that carried on after the lynching of Frank. The effort to pardon Frank posthumously 70 years later on new evidence was spearheaded by Jewish groups, and the ADL (a Jewish civil rights organization) posted on its Facebook on the centennial earlier this month about the case. Indeed, it would be difficult to identify another murder trial 100 years after the fact that continues to be as controversial, as evidenced by the semi-protection of this article and the indefinite blocking of another user. Thus, the reason the title is Leo Frank and not "Murder of Mary Phagan" or something similar is because the case itself, and not just Frank, derives significant notability from Frank's Jewish faith and the fact that most scholarship on the case is done because of it. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC) So you feel the title should be something like "The trial of Leo Frank"? I would agree with that. Be good to hear some other views, given the nature of the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 05:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC) I would just keep it as Leo Frank. In addition to a brief introduction of his life before the murder, the article also discusses the implications following the trial and lynching, including the posthumous pardon, memorials, films based on the case, etc. that came after. I do think it's a good question you raised, and the input of others is certainly important, but that's my take. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC) The discussion would benefit from being opened up so I'll initiate a move discussion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC) ::::::There will be great opposition to renaming the article "The Trial of Leo Frank" because of the dangerous risk that it might attract references, citations and inclusions that delve into the incriminating details and testimony of the trial. Thus there is no chance of it happening. Keeping it as "Leo Frank" means that we can keep the article broadly vague and viscerally veneered, maintaining the status quo of a centenary narrative war, while at the same time keeping out inclusions in the article that tend to uncover that he was likely guilty. The article as it is tends to be biased on Frank's behalf, and keeping it that will be fought for tooth and claw. Thus as "Leo Frank" we can remove any such inconvenient details by saying "it goes against consensus", "that's not the consensus of historians" or other such stonewalls, even if backed with secondary sources. Keeping the article as "Leo Frank" keeps it safe from alternative view points on the case that go against the persecution narrative or even making it read neutral. Calling the article "Trial of Leo Frank" would set a dangerous precedent of potentially opening up a flood gate of all the evidence that has been neatly suppressed and censored for 102 years. It's for this very reason why the article name should be changed, and why the name absolutely won't be changed, ever. People would be called out of the woodwork by the gate keeper if a vote ever were to show signs of "tipping the balance". AviBoteach (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC) 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) Deleted on post by sock of GingerBreadHarlot as there was no reply, struck the other one. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GingerBreadHarlot/Archive. Doug Weller (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Here are some other comments I have: Suggestion to change "Suspicion falls on Frank" to "Police investigation": Ironically, the section above it (Newspaper coverage) was called "Police investigation" until the peer review in November 2014. Nonetheless, it could be changed if others agree. Aftermath section: Could be changed to different title, such as "Following the lynching" or "Impact of the Frank case". Images in both alternating and column style: This was pointed out and suggested it be one or the other, but I'm not quite sure what this refers to. If another user is aware of the difference and believes it should be one or the other consistently, feel free to change this. I believe Tom could make most of the changes related to the suggestion that we incorporate more of the content from the 2010 version, as he was an active editor then and would know why it changed. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC) In the following section, SilkTork suggests adding some content from a 2008 version of the article that had more general background, not just subsections on Frank and Phagan. It included a line on Frank's economic class and another on Frank's father, although I don't know if this would be relevant enough to add back. There was one on Judaism in Atlanta that might be useful to add, which follows with some editing and a source added: In the early 1900s, Atlanta had a large Jewish population that became highly assimilated under the leadership of Reform Rabbi David Marx. If this is added, it might be prudent to add more to make a paragraph out of it, not just one line above the two subsections. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC) On hold I 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) I'm thinking of the best way forward for this article. The more I read around the subject, and the more I look into the history of the article, the more aware I am becoming just how complex and difficult the subject is. Much detail has been added and removed over the years - this version for example, contains a lot of information on Mary Phagan (too much). However, through the changes, the basic format of the article has remained fairly constant: Background, Murder/Investigation, Trial/Appeals, Lynching, Aftermath. It might be worth considering if the structure is the most appropriate, and if so, what information should be included in each section. The "class, regional, and political interests" as well as racial, are mentioned in the lead, but in the current version of the article, not further explored in the Background section. In early versions of the article, the Background section gave more details on the background situation, [16], this over time developed into just two sub-sections on Frank and Phagan, which may be too narrow a focus. Consideration could be given to having a general background introduction to the case at the start. The campaign by the New York Times is placed in the Appeals section - I understand this, though wonder if that is the best place - should that not be part of the impact the trial had. Should the section detailing the trial's impact and influence simply be called Aftermath? It also appears that while there has been some differences of opinion here and there over the years, it is really only since the centenary of the trial with a refocus of attention and the creation of what have been identified as anti-Semitic sites that there has been a notable tension in the article regarding Frank's guilt or innocence. There is perhaps present in the article an unconscious (and understandable) attempt to argue for Frank's innocence by the use of slightly biased wording in the lead, and selection of details in the main body. Sources, such as newspapers reporting on the centenary or on books and films about the case, establish early on in their reports that the consensus of historians is that Frank was not given a fair trial and that the likely murderer was Conley. It would be appropriate to have that information early on in the lead (rather than right at the end), and that may help ease the unconscious desire to prove Frank's innocence in the presentation of details about the murder and the trial. The details of the police investigation and arrests are probably best not presented with details of the trial. Currently we have prosecution claims mixed in with police procedure. The "Suspicion falls on Frank" title would probably work better as "Police investigation" - more neutral and encyclopaedic. Essentially, I feel it would be appropriate for a discussion to take place to look into the best structure and organisation of the article. Or perhaps, just for people to jump in and start reorganising. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC) The discussions on the talkpage regarding the lead are very encouraging. Unless it is preferred than this review is closed I will keep it open while such discussions are taking place. I will check back in seven days. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Yes please. I will try to work on it vigorously, and the work from Tom and feedback from many others has indeed been encouraging. On your previous comment, it is in fact a quite complex case, much more so than it may seem at first glance to someone who is unfamiliar with the case, but I believe we can make a lot of progress in the next week. Thanks SilkTork for your help and patience in the matter. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC) The more I learn about this case, and the more familiar I am becoming with the article, and how it has developed over the years, the more I appreciate the work that has been done. Some articles are fairly easy to get listed as a Good Article because they are are on small, easily defined, and uncontroversial topics, such as a local church. The bigger, more complex, more sensitive, and more controversial a topic, the harder it is to meet the GA requirements. Though this article is not quite ready to be listed yet, it's actually not in bad shape, and I can see that with consistent work it can be brought to meet GA criteria in a reasonable space of time. If you guys are willing to keep working at it, and progress is being made, I'm willing to keep the GAN open. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC) I've gone through the article and have roughed out a proposed reorganization of the article. At present you can find it at User:North Shoreman/Sandbox#Reorganization of the article -- I'll add it to the article's discussion page when I get it in better shape and have tried reshuffling the existing language to see if the plan actually works. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Thanks Tom, that looks great! I appreciate all the time you put into it. I agree that changing around the basic structure of the article will help. Once you get a rough draft, I'll read through it and we can get it up before the seven-day mark (Wednesday). Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC) That outline looks promising. In my brief background reading I did pick up that there were three arrests: Newt, Conley, and Frank. My understanding is that Newt was released without charge; Frank was charged with murder, tried and found guilty; and that Conley was later tried and found guilty of being an accomplice. But at the time of Frank's trial what was Conley's legal position? He was a witness at Frank's trial for murder. But was he still under arrest at the time? Had he been released without charge? Or had he been charged with being an accomplice - if so, why wasn't he tried at the same time? The more information that can be provided on these issues the more useful the article is. I am wondering, as this article is remaining at the title of Leo Frank, and that there appears to be a lot of information on the trial, as well as a lot of information on the aftermath of the trial including the various books, plays, films and TV programs, if it would he helpful to have break off sub-articles - one on the trial, and one on the aftermath, including the various media, perhaps even a more detailed one on the commutation and subsequent lynching. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC) As regards the deadline, as there is some discussion regarding development I am willing to keep the review open, but I would like to start seeing some progress on the article itself. I'll pop back in seven days to see if there has been progress on the article itself, and if there hasn't, then I think we need to be thinking of closing this GAN down to allow matters to develop at a more considered pace. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:51, 9 September 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) The last statement in the separate section on Conley says, "On February 24, 1914, Conley was sentenced to a year in jail for being an accomplice after the fact to the murder of Mary Phagan." His trial was contested and went to a jury, although there were agreements reached between Dorsey and Conley's attorney before the trial in which only one witness would be called by the defense (a witness Dorsey wanted on record in regard to the Frank appeals and having nothing to do with Conley). So even though the conviction was based on Conley's admissions, he did technically contest the charge at trial (see Oney p. 285). Perhaps we should use your proposed sentence in the lead with a change from "charged" to "convicted? And then specifically mention that many considered him the actual killer? Something like, "Conley, who had been convicted as an accomplice after the fact and is believed by many to be the actual killer ..."? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Yes, that sounds reasonable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC) I will add that the next time I edit the article page if someone else doesn't do so. I spent time yesterday and today going through Oney in order to complete the sections of the trial on "Character" and "Physical evidence." This took longer than I thought it would due to the amount of detail involved (i.e. combining original witness direct, original witness cross, rebuttal witnesses direct and cross) I expect to rewrite these sections either later today or tomorrow. The rest of the new sections are much less detailed and should go faster. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Review after rewrite

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   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: [17]. I did a search for the file, and found a copy on Flickr, but it is coprighted: [18]. I have done a search on Flickr and found this file: [19], 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. [20]. 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 [21] 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)

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". 4. Is it neutral? 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) 5. Is it stable? 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) Response I think all concerns are worth addressing, regardless of origin, so I will respond to this. This concern appears to be mainly based on a feeling that Leo Frank was guilty, and that the article is biased toward asserting that Frank was innocent. Firstly, it is not the business of Wikipedia to be considering or opining on Frank's innocence or otherwise. What the article should be doing is reflecting neutrally the essential facts regarding the incident, and mainstream views on the incident's impact as well as mainstream opinions on the case, including those regarding Frank's possible guilt or otherwise. I agree that occasionally the article has presented material selectively and/or awkwardly in a manner suggestive of attempting to assert Frank's innocence. And at times the language used has not been as neutral as it could be - for example Atlanta's working class saw Frank as "a defiler of young girls" while the German-Jewish community recognized him as "an exemplary man and loyal husband." The word "recognized" for the positive view compared to the neutral "saw" for the negative view, implies that Wikipedia agrees with the positive view. This has been amended so that both statements now say "saw". It is fairly common on Wikipedia that editors to articles take a personal view point, and that some of their views will creep into an article unintended, which is why it is important that as much as possible we allow all users to edit articles, and that disagreements are aired and discussed. Secondly, it is important that, for something like a GA review, an impartial reviewer is used. I had no knowledge of this case before taking on this review, and I have no opinions either way. I welcome other views, though I have experience enough in doing GA and FA reviews that I am reasonably able to detect bias, and am sometimes approached by other editors to look into potential bias in articles. Not to say that I will spot it all, but I do look for it. The views put forward by the IP editor do indicate a bias in favour of finding Frank guilty, so such views need to be read with that in mind when considering the IP's opinion on how much the article meets GA criteria. Not to say that the IP's view should be dismissed, but that they have to be balanced against reality. Thirdly, I have read around the subject - not just the sources provided in the article. The article does reasonably reflect mainstream views. The views I have found to assert Frank's guilt are almost exclusively those from anonymous fringe sources. Though the sources are fringe, and are anonymous, I did feel it appropriate per Wikipedia policy to include mention of these views in context. This has been done: Several websites supporting the view that Frank was guilty of murdering Phagan emerged around the centennial of the Phagan murder in 2013.[237] The Anti-Defamation League issued a press release comdemning what it called "misleading websites" from "anti-Semites...to promote anti-Jewish views".[238] I am satisfied that the article is moving in the right direction, and that it will be fit to be listed as a Good Article once the final round of editing has been done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:54, 12 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)

Addition on Trial section

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)

Oney covers this pretty well -- both at trial and during the appeals. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Conley was cross and direct examined August 4 - 6, 1913, for what was about 16 hours in total over these 3 days. On August 4, 1913, Dorsey had used something Frank allegedly told Conley, as a segway, to delve more deeply into Leo's alleged immoral life with prostitutes and child laborers he employed, "I'm not built like other men". It was a low blow by Dorsey (no pun intended), the suggestion was that Frank allegedly admitted to Jim about the diminutive size of his penis and thus had to pleasure women with oral sex. At the time, oral sex, like anal sex, was considered "sodomy", which was actually a crime punishable by death in 1913 Georgia, though seldom ever enforced. Some sources have written that the "I'm not built like other men" was Conley's crude understanding of Frank's circumcision. Later The defense brought in a parade of doctors to testify that Leo Frank had normal sized genitalia. Much after Rosser and Arnold completed their cross examination of Conley and failing to impeach him, they asked judge Roan to strike the testimony from the record. Dorsey objected. Roan stated he would think about it for a couple of days. He eventually overruled the removal in open court on the grounds that they had waited to long and some people in the audience clapped loudly in a visceral scene. Roan threatened to clear the courtroom if there were any more outbursts and emotions were running high. The incident became part of Frank's 107 grounds on why he should get a new trial post August 27, 1913. You might want to mention how this whole event escalated into a ground for appealing a new trial. SmittyLiver (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)