Talk:Leo Frank
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Leo Frank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | Leo Frank 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 ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2024
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first sentence in the last paragraph in the section "Abduction and lynching of Frank" is not accurately sourced. The source that discusses Frank's body in Atlanta being forced to be on view to the public after threats of violence is from The Sun newspaper based in New York, printed on August 18, 1915. Here is a link to the correct source: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030272/1915-08-18/ed-1/seq-2/#words=%5Bu’Frank’,%20u’FRANK’,%20u’l.eo’,%20u’LEO’,%20u’Leo’%5D&date1=1915&date2=1915&sequence=&lccn=&state=&rows=20&ortext=&proxtext=Leo+Frank&year=&phrasetext=&andtext=&proxValue=&dateFilterType=yearRange&index=17
If you check the current source you will see there is no mention of Frank's body in Atlanta on view both on the sourced page, page 1, but also not mentioned on page 3 of the source which is the continuation of the front page story.
The source also does not mention bricks specifically, only crashed in windows so the section "after they began throwing bricks, they were allowed to file past the corpse." should be changed to "after the mob began breaking glass panes, they were allowed to file past the corpse." A sentence directly following this can also be added stating, "Around 15,000 people were estimated to have looked upon Frank's body. Policemen guarded Frank's casket for fear of further violence." 2603:3003:1B05:D100:940B:AD89:CCC6:42B (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
First sentence
Is it just me or does it read weirdly? It follows a certain WP pattern but the juxtaposition of the mundane (factory superintendent) and the horrific (lynching victim) in summarising in such a short sentence why a person has an article about them is jarring and slightly surreal. Obviously it's relevant to the fact pattern of the story that he was the factory superintendent but is it really the first thing the reader should be told about him? It seems to me to make more sense to combine the first two sentences as "...was an American lynching victim convicted in 1913 of the murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan, an employee in a factory in Atlanta, Georgia where he was the superintendent." DeCausa (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP first sentences are prone to bloat but this seems like a sensible proposal. JBL (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
The claim that he, Mr. Leo Frank, was "wrongfully convicted" and that there is a consensus regarding his innocence is highly dubious
Resolved via administrative action |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Greetings. I recently encountered this article and was astonished to find such a claim included within its content. There are indeed sources, some of which are credible and thus acceptable, asserting that he was wrongfully convicted; however, it is crucial to note that this does not imply Mr. Frank's innocence. Nonetheless, the implications are evident. Moreover, there exist other credible sources that present an opposing viewpoint, which certainly challenges the idea of a "consensus." It is unacceptable to dismiss every article and book as being produced by Neo-Nazis who harbor strong resentment and are inclined to act on that resentment in a covert manner. It seems that the editors who have suggested there are no credible sources contradicting the assertion of Mr. Frank's innocence may either be unwilling to seek them out or, more likely, have not conducted a thorough enough search, as such sources are indeed available and numerous. I will identify two credible sources that strongly contest the notion of Frank's innocence. However, the more significant issue at hand is the potential harm caused by the inclusion of such bold claims regarding a contentious subject on Wikipedia. Our objective is to create an encyclopedia that provides a fair and balanced perspective on these issues. A cursory inquiry into public opinion regarding the Leo Frank case would reveal that the majority of individuals familiar with the case believe him to be guilty. While there are certainly those who firmly believe in his innocence, this very dichotomy underscores the troubling nature of the article. Readers may come away with the impression that he is, in fact, innocent, which is misleading. Furthermore, what greater authority exists to determine an individual's guilt or innocence than a jury trial by peers? There are none. Additionally, the numerous appeals and legal motions that have been undertaken further complicate the matter. As of now, including developments from just a few years ago, every legal attempt to vindicate Frank in relation to this crime has been met with rejection. This cycle of denial has occurred repeatedly. If this article implies that there is a genuine consensus regarding his wrongful conviction, it raises the question of why the legal system consistently disagrees. In straightforward terms, a consensus is lacking. There are credible sources that ought to be cited here, and the article needs considerable modification. I acknowledge the controversial aspects of this issue, which further emphasizes the importance of presenting a truly unbiased and logical text that does not mislead readers. ChillingPepper (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Roger Schlafly has been indefinetly blocked.[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 08:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC) |
- Wikipedia good articles
- History good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- GA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in People
- GA-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in People
- GA-Class vital articles in People
- 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
- Low-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- GA-Class Judaism articles
- Low-importance Judaism articles
- Wikipedia articles that use American English