Revision as of 20:16, 11 January 2016 view source64.134.43.18 (talk) Undid vandalism by Doug Weller (talk) Please explain how this supposedly "insults Jews"← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:42, 11 January 2016 view source 64.134.43.18 (talk) →Opening ParagraphNext edit → | ||
Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
So yeah, I agree... "Stay classy, Misplaced Pages". ] (]) 19:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC) | So yeah, I agree... "Stay classy, Misplaced Pages". ] (]) 19:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC) | ||
:Relevant to the above comment: The fact that this comment was almost immediately deleted as an "attack" on jews only serves to prove the point. ] (]) 20:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:42, 11 January 2016
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Leo Frank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Leo Frank has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Miscellaneous comments
The article doesn't mention the Pinkertons or Burns. I think this might be worth adding to the Police investigation section. I don't see this mention in the latest GA review, so I'm not sure why it isn't there. It seems worthy enough of at least a sentence or two.
We don't say that Frank initially claimed he didn't know Phagan, but tried to implicate Gantt based on accusations of a prior relationship. The article does mention "a late Monday meeting called by Frank in which he tried to implicate Gantt”. But perhaps we can expand on this.
The blood stains found on Conley's shirt turned out to be rust. We mention that the police looked for blood and found none, but we could mention this as well.
Minola McKnight also isn't mentioned in the article. Supposedly, she claimed to be "tortured" at the police station, claimed Frank said he wanted to kill himself, and admitted the murder to Lucille.
There were also a few things that were originally brought up by a GBH sock, but still merit attention.
The lead says about Conley: He gave statements to the police that he was an accomplice after the fact, for which he would be found guilty and sentenced in 1914, and was the prosecution's main witness against Frank in the murder trial. Conley wasn't found guilty, but plead guilty. Perhaps this could just say he was sentenced, and leave out "found guilty ".
Another quote from the lead on the murder notes: There were two notes next to Phagan, which appeared to be written by her, implicating the night watchman Newt Lee. If "at first" is added to make it "which at first appeared...", it might be a bit clearer that they appeared to be written by her at first, but then it became apparent that they were instead written by Conley. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Removed images
There were several images removed from the article during the GA, mainly due to copyright reasons. These images are probably not actually copyright, but we didn't have time to confirm whether they met the criteria of being in the public domain (i.e., published before 1923). The three main ones deleted from Commons were Luther Rosser, Hugh Dorsey, and William Smith. There were others removed, including Frank sitting at trial, Tom Watson, Adolph Ochs, and Fiddlin' John Carson. It might have been that some in this latter group were removed simply for not being notable enough to include a picture, not for copyright reasons, but I want to make sure for each so we add them back in if we can ascertain their copyright status. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Opening Paragraph
Last sentence: "The consensus of researchers on the subject is that Frank was wrongly convicted." Check upper right, yup it's locked. Stay classy, wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.251.7.21 (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Look at the third paragraph of "After the trial". Also, it is locked due to persistent vandalism in the past. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
It's what is commonly referred to as a "False Consensus", User 73.251.7.21. Note the rationale: Claims of vandalism. Apparently, one man's vandalism is another man's NPOV, but one would never know that without delving into the archives here.
If you review the talk page archives, you will find that the actual vandalizing of this article has been done by Frank's proponents, in order to keep most of the evidence of Frank's guilt out of the article so he may continue to be falsely presented as a victim of "antisemitism". Also, many editors who have sought a neutral point of view for the article have had their contributions reverted, their arguments hidden or deleted from the talk page, and even been blocked or banned over trumped up charges of sockpuppetry or other supposed offenses in order to maintain the false consensus that Frank's proponents fought so hard to achieve.
Take note that those who push the idea that Frank was "innocent" are primarily jewish. This is why most of the source references given in the article are works of jewish authors. Any source that does not promote the "innocence" of Frank, especially those of non-jewish authors or historians which promote the idea that he was guilty are routinely removed and dismissed with the "antisemitic" smear. Tom Watson, the famous, well respected lawyer, author, and statesman, who was a contemporary of Frank, and wrote and published the most definitive series of articles on Mary Phagan's murder and the trial of Leo Frank is the most notable example.
So yeah, I agree... "Stay classy, Misplaced Pages". 64.134.43.18 (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Relevant to the above comment: The fact that this comment was almost immediately deleted as an "attack" on jews only serves to prove the point. 64.134.43.18 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- History good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class Georgia (U.S. state) articles
- Low-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles
- GA-Class Atlanta articles
- Low-importance Atlanta articles
- Atlanta task force articles
- WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) articles
- GA-Class Crime-related articles
- High-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- GA-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Unknown-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles