Talk:Leo Frank/FAQ
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Below are answers to frequently asked questions about the corresponding page Leo Frank. They address concerns, questions, and misconceptions which have repeatedly arisen on the talk page. Please update this material when needed. |
Q1: Frank is still recognized as a criminal by the Fulton County Superior Court. Why does the article describe Frank as wrongly convicted if his conviction has never been overturned?
A1: Wikipedia has no policy or guideline dictating that articles must describe convicted individuals as criminals. Likewise, there is no policy or guideline stating that we must wait for a conviction to be overturned before we can describe it as wrongful. Instead, we present the consensus of modern researchers and historians from a neutral point of view.
Q2: There are people who believe Frank was guilty. How can the article be neutral if it does not present both sides of the debate?
A2: Articles must indeed be written from a neutral point of view, but that does not mean that all views and opinions are given equal validity. Views must be represented in articles with due weight to their prominence within their particular field. Therefore, fringe theories must not be presented to appear more widely accepted than they actually are.
Q3: Why does the article primarily present the consensus of modern historians when opinions might be more evenly split among the general public?
A3: All information on Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources. Researchers and historians who study the evidence and historical context of the case are the most qualified to draw conclusions about it. The general public, including researchers and historians in other fields, are free to draw their own conclusions, but cannot be considered reliable because they lack the qualifications to interpret the information.
Q4: What if I still disagree?
A4: Read the discussions found in this page's archives before proposing that Frank be described as "guilty", that his conviction was not wrongful, or the like. Proposals rehashing old arguments will go nowhere.