Talk:Morgan London Latta

Scammer narrative

@Dr pangloss: This whole narrative of Latta being a scanner appears to come from a single source, which itself appears to be self-published. Is there any indication in reliable sources that this narrative is true? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the scam section has 10 or more citations, including warrants for arrest of people and actual agents of the university arrested and sent to jail. I have more citations coming. Dr pangloss (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Those are all from old newspapers. Do you have secondary sources that analyze the history of this? Clearly there's historical disagreement about whether this guy was actually a scammer given that the city still honors him. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

There's not a lot of new info, but I did cite the most recent North Carolina Raleigh history book which calls him 'a real crook'. I am in contact with someone writing a biography, I am helping that author. I am unfortunately one of the few people who know the subject in depth enough to write a wikipedia article. None of us know of any independent sources that say he was a real educator that ran a real school. There are large investigations by the US government and state governments cited in the article that found that he was not only a fraud, but one of the most flagrant cases they have seen. There are many citations showing that the money given to the school was invested in his wife's name and other things, there's also a wealth of primary, first-hand sources in the article, for almost every part. Dr pangloss (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your work on this. Note that personal expertise is not required to write a Wikipedia article because we don't create articles using personal knowledge. Instead, Wikipedia articles come from sources—but your knowledge will help you find the best sources. Just be careful that your text discusses the content of those sources, rather than your interpretation of the source. Rublamb (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Tone and neutrality

I made some edits but gave up and added notices to this article. While generally well-written and inclusive of sources, adjectives used throughout do not represent a neutral, encyclopedic tone. For example, calling the school "fictional". It appears he defrauded people of money to build a large house and did not use donations for the school, but there are numerous sources cited that indicate there was a school (even if it was a bad or short-lived school). Especially toward the end, there is judgemental language and tone regarding Raleigh and the National Register; I noted some of these as they lack sources. Also, the discussion of the NRHP nomination and archaeological survey includes interpretations or original research, rather than facts from the sources. For example, indicating that the only reason the house was placed on the National Register was due to Latta's autobiography; the nomination form indicates that the house was eligible for the NRHP for its architecture, it location in a historical freedman's community, and its association with Latta. Thus, it actually met 3 criteria for eligibility; two of which have nothing to do with the biography. In addition, the text says the nomination only had one source. It has various sources in its history section, as well as the extensive expert description of the house's architecture provided by the author of the nomination form. I do not doubt that the author of this article has extensive knowledge, but Wikipedia is not a place for original research or opinions. Rublamb (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that a significant number of edits were recently made to this article. While we appreciate the effort to improve it, our community would have preferred a discussion on the talk page before making so many substantial changes to the content and structure. That said, we are thrilled that an experienced Wikipedia editor has taken an interest in this article!

The edits were made in such a short time that it’s a bit overwhelming. I’d like to discuss them to ensure that the information remains accurate. What do you propose?

The article reflected the modern consensus of multiple historians and the local community group that researched the historic designation. As the only community member actively using Wikipedia, I could facilitate some kind of collaboration. Would you be interested in discussing Latta with the historian writing his biography and/or the head of the local preservation society over a call or in person if you live nearby?

Is your intent to maintain this article in the future? The community could use someone with your experience to update the page as more research is published in the next year.

I am not experienced with Wikipedia, but I have tried my best. I would be happy to connect you with the group and pass on the mantle. Dr pangloss (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I really appreciate your efforts here, which is why I did not make any significant changes to the article. (I mostly removed adjectives, moved or combined sections, and replaced images of newspaper articles with photos). The problem you face as someone knowledgeable on this topic is knowing more information than the sources reveal. As a historian, I often have to set aside my personal knowledge. No original research is a core principle of Wikipedia. That is because encyclopedic writing summarizes sources but does not interpret sources. I would stick to the facts and let the court findings and sources make your case for his fraud. Once that is established, the issues with the city's recognition of Latta are self-evident and will not need your interpretive narrative.

Here are some example of ways to work with known facts, while avoiding the inclusion of interpretation or personal knowledge.

• Latta said he attended Shaw and became a teacher. There is one source that says he only attends school through the fifth grade. Simply by stating those two facts, the reader will see the potential inconsistencies and the possibility that Latta was a fraud from the start.
• Latta notes that he often waived the tuition of students, resulting in personal debt and the need for fundraising. At the same time, he built an unusually large house for the community he lived in. You can state those facts, but cannot conclude that he embezzled funds to build the house. You might be able to say that a modern historian has speculated that Latta converted funds designated for the school for personal use if such a source exists. But unless there are court records to prove this specific crime, it would be incorrect to state that conclusion in the article. However, just by stating the facts--his claim of personal debt while building a house with a slate roof--the reader will reach a conclusion.
• You can discuss that the property was listed on the NRHP and use the information provided in the nomination as a source. It is also fair to say that the nominator used Latta's book as a source (as does your own article). However, you cannot speculate on the intention of the nominators or the decisions of the NRHP program. Instead, you would have to find a credible source that comes to those conclusions; preferably an expert in historic preservation who is familiar with the NRHP process.
• One issue I attempted to address here and in Latta University was calling the school "fictitious". In this case "fictitious" falls under what Wikipedians call "weasel words", creating an impression of fact and expertise. However, period sources document that the school opened, was incorporated, and had buildings. The local newspaper notes performances of the school's orphan band, so something was taking place. However, Latta exaggerated the size and aspects of the school, defrauding donors along the way. One source states that he continued to fundraise for the school after it had apparently ceased operation. Including this in the article documents his criminal behavior, not that the school was "fictitious". I know one person called the school "fictitious"; we don't know if they meant that Latta's descriptions of the school were fabricated or the school was not operating at the time. However, that person's opinion does not discount the evidence that something took place at Latta University at one time. The known facts do a good job of showing that it was never a "university" and did not match Latta's descriptions to donors. Simply by stating what is known, it is possible to demonstrate the fraud. You don't need to double down by calling the school "fictitious" in the lede.

I know my response is long but I am hoping to guide you toward your own resolution of the issues with the article. Despite the shock of my intervention, you have a wonderful start to a very interesting topic. Wikipedia needs new editors, especially ones who are interested in creating articles about underrepresented topics. You have done so much better than most new editors; I only commented here because I know you can take this article to the next level.

I enjoy working on articles covering higher education, architecture, and related biographies from the 19th and early 20th centuries, so this is in my pocket. I don't mind keeping an eye on this article but do not plan on taking it on as a project, mostly because it is easily fixable by other editors, given your strong start. However, feel free to contact me as needed. FYI, the copy edit tags means that someone from the Guild of Copy Editors will eventually take a look; they are really good a neutralizing tone while leaving the fact in place. Rublamb (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your detailed and thoughtful feedback! I truly appreciate the time you’ve taken to guide me on how to improve this article and ensure it adheres to Wikipedia's principles.

Tone and Weasel Words

I understand and agree with the emphasis on neutrality, verifiability, and avoiding original research. However, I believe the example you provided does not fully account for the facts documented by credible sources. The U.S. Department of Education explicitly stated that Latta University did not exist as a functioning institution and was merely a vehicle to enrich Latta and his family. Their investigation described it as the most flagrant case of larceny by false pretense they had encountered. While they noted the school was incorporated, they emphasized that for almost all of its existence, it was not functioning.

The most renowned and respected historian of our county characterized Latta as "a real crook" in the county's official history book. Since multiple contemporaneous sources and prominent historians have used terms like "bogus," "fraud," "fake," "myth," "scam,"—what you referred to as "weasel words"— Urging to adjust the tone and avoid calling the school "fictitious" feels like editorializing rather than neutralization. It seems to bend the narrative in a way that paints an inaccurate picture by giving Latta's words equal weight to the conclusions of historians, newspapers, the Department of Education, the Philadelphia Charities Bureau, and the local community. This approach risks creating a false balance that misrepresents the overwhelming evidence against Latta's claims.

Discussing/Reviewing Your Changes

I previously asked if you would be open to getting on a call with the sole biographer of Morgan Latta and/or the head of the local historical society to go over your edits. Is this something you would be interested in doing? Additionally, how would you like us to manage the edits you’ve made? There’s quite a lot to review, and I’d like to ensure we address everything in a way that aligns with Wikipedia's standards while also reflecting the historical record accurately.

Thank you again for your guidance and the time you’ve invested in this article. I look forward to hearing your thoughts! Dr pangloss (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

A conversation with an expert on Latta would be interesting but not helpful for Wikipedia, as that would be original research. However, you can always ask for a Third Opinion if you want someone neutral to review my edits.

You stated above that the DOE said that the school was in existence at one point. Therefore, it was not fictitious. With your source, it would be correct and beneficial to say: "However, in its xxxxx report, the Department of Education noted that Latta University was not functioning for most of its purported existence. Latta continued to raise money for the school through 19xx." ... Rublamb (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewing the edits with a subject matter expert would be original research

"A conversation with an expert on Latta would be interesting but not helpful for Wikipedia, as that would be original research."

I think I was lousy at conveying my intent 😳. Our shared goal is for the content in this article to be verifiable and supported by reliable, published sources. That actually means a lot to our community as there is a lot of misinformation out there. I’ve been trying to determine the best way to discuss the changes made on New Year's day. My suggestion was to have a phone call with subject matter experts to provide you with a deeper understanding of the published sources and how they are represented in the article. In this case SMEs also add valuable perspective to what is essentially a complex 100-year-old fraud case, ensuring the article reflects the historical record accurately.

There was no intent to pressure you into including unpublished research, personal knowledge, or editorializing in the article. I’m a part-time community volunteer, not a local historian, and felt a bit caught in the middle.

Next Steps

As you suggested, I will work on "taking this article to the next level" by incorporating your feedback to adjust the tone while ensuring the narrative is supported by verifiable, reliable sources. I took my first stab at the section you titled "Raleigh and the false narrative", I will create a talk thread with some questions I encountered while working on that. I can also create a talk thread to discuss any changes you’ve made that warrant further discussion, just to keep you in the loop. Dr pangloss (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Properly Conveying Information following NPOV

I have taken a pass at adjusting tone in one of the 'Legacy" sections @Rublamb, but could use some feedback.

Threshold for Adjectives and Repetition in Addressing Discredited Sources
What is the threshold for using adjectives like "widely discredited," particularly in light of the discussion about avoiding weasel words? I'm having difficulty interpreting the NPOV guidelines in this context and aligning them with your feedback. For example, when readers encounter a statement that something is based on Latta's autobiography, they need to understand that this source is not credible. The available evidence overwhelmingly contradicts its claims. Given how Wikipedia presents content, where subsections can be read independently, users might not see previous mentions of the autobiography's credibility issues.

Originally, I wrote something like this, linking to the subsection:

"In his widely discredited autobiography [see: autobiography and fundraising].."

However, taking your feedback, I revised it to include this after every mention of the autobiography:

<Preceding sentence that mentions item only relies on his autobiography> "Historians have highlighted that his autobiography, which served as a key tool in his fraudulent activities, contains numerous discrepancies and has been found to include many false or exaggerated claims about his achievements.[27][26] Multiple contemporary investigations pronounced Latta and his university a fraud[11][12][15], and he, along with at least one co-conspirator, were jailed for fraud, further casting doubt on the credibility of this narrative.[21][3]"

This approach ensures accuracy, but it feels repetitive. Is there a way to concisely and neutrally convey this context without pasting a large paragraph repeatedly? What is the threshold for using an adjective like "widely discredited," paired with a link to the relevant subsection, in cases like this? In this instance, there seems to be substantial verifiable evidence supporting the characterization of the autobiography as discredited:

• Multiple investigations found the enterprise described in the autobiography to be false.
• Historians have identified major claims in the autobiography as false.
• Firsthand accounts from the local community contradict claims in the autobiography.
• Under oath, Latta admitted to committing fraud and fabricating elements, including photos of a supposed trip to London.
• Statements about meeting Queen Victoria and the London trip were proven false under oath.
• A co-conspirator testified under oath that Latta directed fraudulent activities.
• A public letter from the local community, published on the front page of a major paper, discredited Latta as an educator.
• Latta was jailed for forging documents required to teach.
• Latta's own published class numbers contradict claims in his autobiography.
• Third-party documentation, such as insurance maps, shows substantial inaccuracies in his claims about the school’s size.

Given the abundance of evidence, how can this context be presented succinctly without losing neutrality or readability?

Accuracy in Section Titles for Controversial Topics
Building on the discussion above, if an entire section focuses exclusively on the controversy surrounding a topic, shouldn't that be reflected in the title? I noticed that you retained the title "Investigations Pronounce University a Fraud," which aligns with its content. However, you changed the subsection title "Fraudulent Autobiography and Fundraising" to "Autobiography and Fundraising," despite the section primarily citing historians and documentation showing that the autobiography was a fraudulent tool used in a scheme to swindle donors. Given the evidence presented, wouldn't a title that reflects this specific context be more accurate?

Evaluating Accurate Labels for Latta's Legacy
More broadly, how can we ensure that striving for neutrality does not unintentionally lead to editorializing or misrepresenting the facts to readers? For instance, I noticed that you have referred to Latta as an "educator" or "teacher," yet the documented evidence suggests otherwise. He was caught forging the credentials required to be a teacher, and his own community published an open letter on the front page of the largest newspaper denouncing him as an illegitimate educator --before the founding of Latta university. Even his obituary does not claim he was an educator. There is far more verifiable evidence that he was a conman than an educator. Do you feel that describing him as an "educator" and elsewhere noting he is "known for fraud involving Latta University" adequately conveys the broader context of his life and actions?

I’m just trying to better understand the guidelines and practices as I’m still new to this, and I truly appreciate your time and insights—thank you! Dr pangloss (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

"Conman" above sounds harsh, but this is the problem I am having. Considering investigations like the Department of Education describing it as a "so-called" university, with a "crude frame school building, which was never completed," and noting that "In 1903, long after all school work had been abandoned," Latta used his autobiography to deceive potential donors, it raises questions about how to accurately portray him and the institution.

Given the lack of evidence about the institution beyond Latta's own claims, and with investigations pointing out that for nearly its entire existence, the school was a fraudulent operation—how should we convey the story of both the institution and its founder? This is even before considering the fact that the founder was previously jailed for forging education credentials required to teach. Dr pangloss (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Analysis and personal knowledge are your biggest issues. I went through and tried to remove most content that was a personal opinion, analysis, and undocumented. I will take another pass, but I am close to removing the notices and removed one already. As suggested before, stick to the facts. Once you describe the book and its issues, you do not need to state that again and again, especially with an adjective. When you get to the section on the park, it is enough to say that the interpretive signage used the autobiography as a source, as you have previously covered the book. If you really feel the need, you can add a sentence saying that some content of the autobiography has been discredited. It would be important to qualify this statement with "some of the content" or something similar because, so far, there is no source that says the entire book is fabricated, rather than the content related to the school is an exaggeration or misrepresentation, useful in his fundraising scheme. If the entire book is false, it should not be a source for this article. In addition, there is no secondary source detailing how the interpretive signage continues a false narrative or that the content it pulled was the autobiography is particularly fraudulent. All you can really state is that the book was a source and that the book (not the exhibits) has questionable aspects.

You have to be very careful about selectively using sources to support a specific thesis.

• For example, I corrected a statement that the Sanborn map only included two buildings. This is clearly incorrect, even if interpret the map yourself. I added a source that describes the map as showing two large educational buildings. The source then goes on to describe several smaller buildings on the map, consistent with those photographed in the autobiography as the elementary department. That means the school had five buildings in 1914; it is still possible that it had more buildings if any of his fire and storm claims were correct. One credible modern source counted up to seventeen buildings from the photographs, even taking into consideration the duplicate labeling. Furthermore, the Education Department's report of an incompleted building in 1916 would be consistent with news reports that Latta was rebuilding the storm-damaged building; this was around the time that the school seems to have closed, with Latta himself telling the press that the school would be closed while the new building was constructed. Thus, we cannot assume that the only building the school ever had was not finished. Simply that this was the state of things in 1916.
• As another example, it would be incorrect to say that the photos in his autobiography were all fabrications. We have his court testimony that several photos were recreations of him making speeches, hardly a crime. The NRHP nomination form notes that one building is used in two photos with different names; however, both labels could be correct as the building could have had many uses. There is another source that says his only students and faculty were his own family. If so, who are the people in the photos? The only criticism I found was that these photos show fewer students than detailed in his book. However, no source suggests that the people in the photos were not associated with the school, as either students or faculty. And there is proof that he hired qualified faculty. I added content to the Latta University article about a college graduate and experienced educator who was moving to Raleigh to be a professor at Latta University.
• As another example, there was a statement saying that the archaeologist only found a few artifacts, hardly evidence of school. Although the source, a newspaper article, emphasized just a few findings, another article notes that they found more than 3,000 items. In addition, I found the archaeological report online. Their report states that they found evidence of blacksmithing, not just a horseshoe but of industrial waste from the manufacturing process. Yet, but overstating the newspaper sources, you had discredited the archaeological research and supported your position that the trade school never existed.
• There was a statement that the Latta House Foundation consisted of Latta's descendants. I found this very compelling but did not find evidence within the source. I found that one board member was a descendant of Latta. We don't know if this individual is very active or a figurehead. Thus, it would be an overstatement to say that the Latta House Foundation is run by descendants. (See the updates I made as an example of how you can include this type of content without bias).
• In addition, you state, "For instance, I noticed that you have referred to Latta as an "educator" or "teacher," yet the documented evidence suggests otherwise. He was caught forging the credentials required to be a teacher, and his own community published an open letter on the front page of the largest newspaper denouncing him as an illegitimate educator --before the founding of Latta University." We can say that Latta was an educator because he founded a school and was its president. The curious statement published by residents of the Oberlin community before the founding of Latta University does not discredit Latta's background as a teacher, per se. Nor does it prove that his school was a fraud. Rather, it states that these individuals do not support the establishment of Latta's school in their community and that they have no involvement in the project. Any other interpretation is speculation and does not belong in the article unless you have a secondary source that analyzes it. Nor was he caught forging his educational credentials; he forged a signature needed to get a job. This, certainly, is criminal activity. However, the source does not say that he lacked college education or experience as a teacher. In fact, this source supports his early interest in education, in a really weird way. Saying that he was jailed is overstating the content of the source; rather, he was arrested for forging a signature required for a job, not for falsifying his educational background or credentials. Note that I added this incident to the article, as it provides context for Latta's later activities.

Either Latta was truly raising money for the school but was incompetent at running it or he was committing fraud. I suspect it started at the former and turned into the latter, but we will never know for sure since there was not a trial. If the latter is true and was committed with forethought, Latta was a confidence man or conman, albeit one who was never tried or convicted. That is the correct terminology for someone who cons people into parting with their money under false pretenses. At this point, I see no source that describes any convictions. However, you do note that there was pattern of the scam with his brother-in-law, suggesting forethought. Thus, Latta could be described as an educator, school administrator, and conman. Rublamb (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I will try to reply in line as concisely as possible out of respect for your time, I am not really sure the best way to navigate these discussions, but I will try to paste your text and a brief reply. The following is not crucial and doesn't require a response, but I wanted to address your comments to show my appreciation for the time you've invested and to provide you with additional context.

"If you really feel the need, you can add a sentence saying that some content of the autobiography has been discredited. It would be important to qualify this statement with "some of the content" or something similar because, so far, there is no source that says the entire book is fabricated, rather than the content related to the school is an exaggeration or misrepresentation, useful in his fundraising scheme. If the entire book is false, it should not be a source for this article."
— User:Rublamb

This statement is accurate, but does it provide value to the reader? When commemorated today, there is a focus on key elements from the autobiography, yet these core claims have been proven inaccurate.

Certainly, there is value in mentioning a park and interpretive exhibit related to Latta. Mentioning the use of the autobiography can have value as it would help the reader to reach their own conclusions. Unfortunately, the point you want to make--that the memorial park and exhibit are baseless and inaccurate--needs to be made in a reliable secondary source. Rublamb (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe it's all baseless, just the important takeaways as discussed.

When public signage uses materials that historians and investigations have proven false, that documentation isn't enough for wikipedia, another historian or journalist must come along and write a paper stating that the signage uses information proven false? (even though the signage itself says it's referenced from the discredited materials)

I am asking because as you've seen/cited, modern journalists like those at WRAL/WUNC print things that come from the city or the Latta House Foundation, their research is often interviewing people and printing what they say. Dr pangloss (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

It is important to remember that this article is about a person, not about interpretive park signage. If the facts of the article discredit the person, the irony of a park exhibits is self evident. And, yes, a source is needed to discuss any issues with the exhibit. (Stating that the exhibit used the autobiography is fine because that is on the exhibit photo.) Think of it as discussing a movie; you can talk about other people's reviews but not your own. Rublamb (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback on the number of buildings

"For example, I corrected a statement that the Sanborn map only included two buildings. This is clearly incorrect, even if interpret the map yourself. I added a source that describes the map as showing two large educational buildings. The source then goes on to describe several smaller buildings on the map, consistent with those photographed in the autobiography as the elementary department. That means the school had five buildings in 1914; it is still possible that it had more buildings if any of his fire and storm claims were correct. One credible modern source counted up to seventeen buildings from the photographs, even taking into consideration the duplicate labeling. Furthermore, the Education Department's report of an incompleted building in 1916 would be consistent with news reports that Latta was rebuilding the storm-damaged building; this was around the time that the school seems to have closed, with Latta himself telling the press that the school would be closed while the new building was constructed. Thus, we cannot assume that the only building the school ever had was not finished. Simply that this was the state of things in 1916."
— User:Rublamb

Your source states that the Sanborn map shows two educational buildings and some smaller structures. The Department of Education reports one unfinished building, one historian (Morgan) describes only a shack, another historian (Dr. Carter) refers to two wooden buildings in disrepair, and an eyewitness (Tulia H. Turner) mentions only one small structure.

The key point here is that no source supports Latta's autobiography, which claims there were 23 buildings accommodating 1,400 students—an assertion that is false. While the exact details among these accounts may vary, what matters is that the reader understands the autobiography's claims of being "one of the largest schools in the South in every respect", still cited today, are nowhere near aligned with the documented evidence.

In trying to make your point, you inaccurately report on what the source says. That is the issue, not the point you are trying to make. Rublamb (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree, I surely made a mistake, which you corrected. Your correction still shows one of the core pillars to be false. Not trying to argue, just want you to know my line thinking. Dr pangloss (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The autobiography's doctored photos

"As another example, it would be incorrect to say that the photos in his autobiography were all fabrications. We have his court testimony that several photos were recreations of him making speeches, hardly a crime. The NRHP nomination form notes that one building is used in two photos with different names; however, both labels could be correct as the building could have had many uses. There is another source that says his only students and faculty were his own family. If so, who are the people in the photos? The only criticism I found was that these photos show fewer students than detailed in his book. However, no source suggests that the people in the photos were not associated with the school, as either students or faculty. And there is proof that he hired qualified faculty. I added content to the Latta University article about a college graduate and experienced educator who was moving to Raleigh to be a professor at Latta University."
— User:Rublamb

The text did not say "the photos in his autobiography were all fabrications" it said:

"The autobiography featured doctored photos, placing Latta in fictional environments, such as the "photo" above of him speaking "in the Auditorium at London." During a trial in 1908, under oath, Rev. Latta admitted that these images were faked in Philadelphia photography studios. [CITATION]"

This statement is accurate and is confirmed by the source cited, where Latta was questioned under oath in court:

"His book contains photographs of himself in dashing position addressing great audiences In the North and in London. He explained that they were all made in Philadelphia studios.."

— Originally cited News & Observer article, 1908

If you interpret the word "feature" as meaning "all," you may want to suggest an alternative term, though that was not the intended meaning. I agree with you that it is "not a crime," but he does present photos as genuine, which he later admitted under oath were faked. In the same citation, he also fails to recall any details about his meeting with Queen Victoria, including what her throne looked like, and so on.

I do think there is an implication in this phrasing that all of the photos in the book were fake. Also, there is some pretty strong/non-neutral language here, such as "doctored" and "fictional". There does not appear to be a source that says the photos are "doctored"; I think you will agree this term is negative. In court, Latta stated that the photos of him lecturing were taken at a studio. Studio recreations were a common practice in this era when it took several minutes to set a photo. Is a studio a "fictional environment"? That seems to be overstating things. The image you refer to as "doctored" is a composite of a photograph and an illustration; no reasonable person would think those sketches are part of the photograph. The quote you mention does a better job of communicating your point, without using the non-neutral language of "doctored" or "fictional" because it sticks to the facts. Rublamb (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The archeological study

"As another example, there was a statement saying that the archaeologist only found a few artifacts, hardly evidence of school. Although the source, a newspaper article, emphasized just a few findings, another article notes that they found more than 3,000 items. In addition, I found the archaeological report online. Their report states that they found evidence of blacksmithing, not just a horseshoe but of industrial waste from the manufacturing process. Yet, but overstating the newspaper sources, you had discredited the archaeological research and supported your position that the trade school never existed."
— User:Rublamb

I don't believe the article ever stated or implied the archeology 'hardly evidence of a school', it stated that nothing was found that came close to supporting Latta's narrative, which the city is supporting.

If your point was that the field study was a waste of funding, that would be your opinion that is unsupported by a source at this time. Suggesting that "nothing was found that came close to supporting Latta's narrative" is inaccurate and also not backed by sources. Rather, the archaeologists detail findings supporting that the school existed, quite different from a "fictional school". Failure to accurately report on the findings of this study would be an example of a lack of neutrality, especially since there is not a source that says "nothing was found that came close to supporting Latta's narrative" or the like. Rublamb (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"you had discredited the archaeological research and supported your position that the trade school never existed."
— User:Rublamb

I don’t hold that position at all. This comment makes me feel like my perspective isn’t being conveyed clearly. I think it might have been more productive to have a phone call or face-to-face discussion with subject matter experts who could help interpret a document like this.

The document you're referring to states in its introduction/summary that Latta is significant because of the National Register designation, which we know is based solely on his autobiography. It concludes by stating that they found items that support Latta’s "historically significant occupation of the property":

"Based on the results of this investigation, the project area does contain intact archaeological deposits that date to the historically significant occupation of the property by the Reverend M.L. Latta and Latta University and thus make the site eligible for redesignation as a Raleigh Historic Landmark (see Chapter 6).

The key point in the article is that the false narrative was used to justify a "costly archaeological excavation," not that the school didn’t exist. If it came across differently, I take responsibility for that.

Latta House Foundation 'run' by descendants

"There was a statement that the Latta House Foundation consisted of Latta's descendants. I found this very compelling but did not find evidence within the source. I found that one board member was a descendant of Latta. We don't know if this individual is very active or a figurehead. Thus, it would be an overstatement to say that the Latta House Foundation is run by descendants. (See the updates I made as an example of how you can include this type of content without bias).
— User:Rublamb

The article text did not say it only consisted of Latta descendants:

"Complicating matters, The Latta House Foundation, a nonprofit organization run by modern descendants of Rev. Latta[CITATION] has the mission of "promoting the history of Latta and his university"[CITATION]. Despite the proven inaccuracies in Latta's autobiography, the foundation continues to advance the discredited version of events presented in it."

The cited documents indicate that a descendant of Latta is on the board of directors, and other news articles confirm that the same descendant is the chair of the organization. Even when you edited the content and moved it, the language used could still be interpreted as suggesting there are multiple descendants.

"The Latta House Foundation, a nonprofit organization which includes modern descendants of Latta as board members,"

I don’t see anything nefarious here. I do believe the Latta House Foundation should be part of the discussion about why Raleigh commemorates Latta, rather than being placed in a subsection about a single project they've worked on with the city during their 15 years of advocating his narrative. That’s my only concern with your edit. :D

Latta's teaching credentials

"In addition, you state, "For instance, I noticed that you have referred to Latta as an "educator" or "teacher," yet the documented evidence suggests otherwise. He was caught forging the credentials required to be a teacher, and his own community published an open letter on the front page of the largest newspaper denouncing him as an illegitimate educator --before the founding of Latta University." We can say that Latta was an educator because he founded a school and was its president. The curious statement published by residents of the Oberlin community before the founding of Latta University does not discredit Latta's background as a teacher, per se. Nor does it prove that his school was a fraud. Rather, it states that these individuals do not support the establishment of Latta's school in their community and that they have no involvement in the project. Any other interpretation is speculation and does not belong in the article unless you have a secondary source that analyzes it. Nor was he caught forging his educational credentials; he forged a signature needed to get a job. This, certainly, is criminal activity. However, the source does not say that he lacked college education or experience as a teacher. In fact, this source supports his early interest in education, in a really weird way. Saying that he was jailed is overstating the content of the source; rather, he was arrested for forging a signature required for a job, not for falsifying his educational background or credentials. Note that I added this incident to the article, as it provides context for Latta's later activities."
— User:Rublamb

The community does, in fact, "discredit Latta's background as a teacher" in their public letter, referring to him as a so-called professor, which implies he falsely or improperly claimed that title. It was a common term at the time, and the Department of Education also used it years later when referring to Latta University. This is why the public letter is so significant and was shown in the article, as well as the community distancing themselves from his "asking aid from the liberal public". Latta actually replied to this a few days later refuting everything except them attacking his credentials. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-evening-visitor-latta-university-2/58047334/

There is a difference between being a teacher and a professor, both in the type of institution and educational training. The community letter says something like "Professor Latte (?) so called". It may well have been accurate at that time to say he was a "so-called professor" or "would-be professor", given his education and prior work experience. However, this does not mean or state that Latta never taught school. I have not seen anywhere that Latta claimed to have experience as a professor. They may simply have felt like he was unqualified to run a university or they may have been questioning his name. Without more context, it is difficult to say. It is fine to mention this curious letter, but you need a source that discusses its importance and meaning to avoid original research. Rublamb (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"Either Latta was truly raising money for the school but was incompetent at running it or he was committing fraud. I suspect it started at the former and turned into the latter, but we will never know for sure since there was not a trial. If the latter is true and was committed with forethought, Latta was a confidence man or conman, albeit one who was never tried or convicted. That is the correct terminology for someone who cons people into parting with their money under false pretenses. At this point, I see no source that describes any convictions. However, you do note that there was pattern of the scam with his brother-in-law, suggesting forethought. Thus, Latta could be described as an educator, school administrator, and conman."
— User:Rublamb

I completely agree with the last sentence. However, the "maybe he was just incompetent" seems to overlook the research conducted by historians and investigations that have labeled Latta University as a fraud. It’s strange that there are so many sources describing the university as a scheme, along with notices issued to arrest anyone soliciting on its behalf, yet there are no records of any trial. He simply disappears, and even the Latta House Foundation didn’t know his whereabouts until his obituary and remains were discovered last year.

Thanks again for this discussion and taking an interest <3 Dr pangloss (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on the Removal of Content Regarding the Latta House National Register Nomination

@Rublamb, I’d like to discuss your recent edits regarding the nomination of the Latta House for the National Register of Historic Places, particularly in relation to the concerns you raised about editorializing, misinterpreting documents, and original research. You mentioned in a previous comment:

"...the [Latta wikipedia article] text says the nomination only had one source. It has various sources in its history section, as well as the extensive expert description of the house's architecture provided by the author of the nomination form. I do not doubt that the author of this article has extensive knowledge, but Wikipedia is not a place for original research or opinions."
— User:Rublamb

The nomination form, which was cited, is available here: National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: Latta, Rev. M. L., House.

After reviewing the history section of the nomination form, I see that Rev. Latta is cited 25 times, with an additional reference to an "unpublished student report" by Jennifer Hallman titled Why is Oberlin Valuable?. This aligns with the removed text stating that Latta’s autobiography is heavily relied upon as the primary source in the form:

"The state's historical support relied almost entirely on Latta’s autobiography, citing it over 25 times in a ten-page submission, with the only other source being an "unpublished student report [citation]"

Other citations in the form are related to county records, such as the marriage index, deed/tax office, and city directory. While these confirm Latta’s residence in Raleigh, they do not substantiate the claims made in the autobiography regarding his achievements or contributions.

The National Register of Historic Places nomination claims to meet the following criteria (they checked these on the form):

• Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
• Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

However, the only sources used to support these claims in the nomination materials are from the discredited autobiography, which I believe is a crucial point that should be highlighted.

The edit summary of the removal stated: "removed unsourced editorial content".

Making a case for inclusion in the article and narrative
My concern is that critical context has now been removed. Latta's widely discredited autobiography being the only source of the narrative bolstering this nomination and ignoring all information is important. The nomination, and the subsequent inclusion of the Latta House on the National Register, lends credibility to the false narrative surrounding Latta’s life.

When a reader sees that a house is on the National Register, they naturally make certain assumptions about its historical significance. In this case, however, those assumptions would be wrong, and I believe we owe it to the reader to provide the full context.

Given these points, do you still feel that documents were misread, unsourced, or that the text contained original research or editorializing? The section may have benefited from a review for tone, but I do not believe its total removal was justified based on the reasons you provided.

I appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into this—it’s clearly contributing to improving the article. Walking through some of the edits may take a bit of time, and I can see that you’re genuinely interested in the topic. I hope discussing these changes with you doesn’t feel like a drain. Dr pangloss (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay. I have professional and personal experience with National Register Nomination Forms and will try to explain my thought process.

NRHP nomination forms are usually completed by an expert in historic preservation, often by someone from the SHPO (State Historic Preservation Offices). The main part of the nomination is the architectural evaluation, created from scratch by the expert. In addition to a thorough study and description of the building, this section includes known information on builders and architects. This architectural overview is supported by attached photographs (always black and white), a drawing of the building's floor plan, related maps, and architectural drawings, if any. Next, the expert details how the building fits into the National Register's criteria for nomination, usually based on architectural significance. The building may also have community or cultural significance, serving as a landmark or connection to a historic event, or it may be a scarce survivor of a community of significance, such as an early freedman community like Oberlin. The least likely criterion for nomination is a connection to a significant person; for example, one of MLK's childhood homes might not be architecturally significant or significant in the community but would be associated with a nationally important person.

Finally, the nomination form includes a history section that provides context and demonstrates that the expert's dating of the building is correct. This section summarizes the community or region, such as a discussion of Oberlin. An important part of preparing the history section is searching county, city, or state deeds and property records, as well as any known maps. Once the past owners are confirmed in this way, a summary is added about those individuals and what is known about the use of the property. This can include oral history collected from owners and descendants of former owners, published books, and other records. This is a general overview, not intended to be a thorough or exacting study. That is why oral histories or unpublished research can be cited.

Thus, it would be incorrect to say that only two sources were used and that the majority of Latta House's national register nomination relied on Latta's autobiography. Doing so ignores the professional's architectural narrative and research conducted with archival records. It also selectively uses the sources to support a biased narrative and the findings of your original research.

The NRHP nomination summary notes, "The significance of the Reverend M. L. Latta House relates to the Multiple Property Documentation Form "Historic and Architectural Resources of Oberlin, Wake County, North Carolina, 1865 - 1952" under the following contexts: "The Cultural and Social Life of Oberlin" (pages E 10 - 22) and "The Jim Crow Years: Modest Prosperity and Sense of Community, 1880 - 1950" (pages E 22 - 28) and under the following property type: "Residential Buildings" (pages F 31 - 36). The Latta House satisfies the registration requirements for its type as outlined in the MPDFNFS Form 10-900-aOMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (pages F 35 - 36) in that it possesses the required level of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, and feeling to be an important representation of the historical development of Oberlin; illustrates its direct association with an individual important in Oberlin's history; and is an intact example of an architectural style important in Oberlin's development. The Latta House is eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A for African American ethnic heritage and for education as the only remaining properly associated with Latta University; under Criterion B for its association with Reverend Latta; and under Criterion C for architecture as an important large and very well-articulated Queen Anne house in Oberlin. The period of significance of the property extends from c.1905, the construction date of the house, until 1922, the year Latta University closed its doors."

Not only does this summary mention several other sources used, but it also shows that the prime eligibility for the NRHP was its connection to Oberlin and its architecture. The Latta House was found to meet three criteria for the NRHP; only one is needed to be accepted. Let's break down the mentioned criteria.

• Criteria A: African American heritage (check; the house was located in a culturally significant Black community). The only remaining building associated with Latta University (check); even if the school was a scam, this is still factual.
• Criteria B: Associated with Rev. Latta (check). This was his home. Whether he was an educator or a conman or both, this house is still associated with him. Note that a person can be notable or notorious and still be significant for the purposes of NRHP.
• Criteria C: Architectural importance as a fine house in Oberlin (check). Demonstrated in the architectural narrative of the application.

Again, only item C would be needed for Latta House to be placed on the National Register. As neutral editors we can only state the criteria used and that it was placed on the national register. We don't have a summary of the discussions that took place at the SHPO (involved in the nomination process) or at the NRHP office to know how much the connection to Latta University informed the committee's decision. We cannot say that the autobiography caused the property to receive this status because 1) the evidence is strong that the building was architecturally significant and 2) there is no credible secondary source that comes to that conclusion for you. However, we can say that the autobiography was used in the history section of the nomination, for what it is worth. Again, let the facts speak for themselves. Latta was a crook and he built a big house that was architecturally significant. Rublamb (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

"Thus, it would be incorrect to say that only two sources were used and that the majority of Latta House's national register nomination relied on Latta's autobiography. Doing so ignores the professional's architectural narrative and research conducted with archival records. It also selectively uses the sources to support a biased narrative and the findings of your original research."

This is the thing though, the text only stated that the historical support relied primarily on the autobiography. In the original text, I even included a photo of the form, showing that Criterion B was checked. The person submitting the form is saying Latta is a significant person, and then the support for this is citing the autobiography 25 times. I was not talking about other criterion, or the architecture.

I am in no way saying that the Latta House didn't deserve the nomination for various other reasons. I defer to your expertise, but I was under the impression that criteria B meant you were making the case it was assoc with a significant person and you then supported that in the historical support. Dr pangloss (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The text said that the autobiography was one of two sources used, which obviously needed to be corrected. The history section is completed even if the nomination is just for architecture, so that is not specific to Criterion B. You are correct that Criterion B was selected for the Latte House nomination, specifying an association with Latta. However, as stated above this was not the only reason the property was nominated. Therefore, to only discuss this one aspect of the NRHP nomination form and this one source (the autobiography) is an overstatement of the case, which reads as biased. Again, you cannot interpret the source or assume to know how much influence was placed on its connection to Latta when the property was approved for the NRHP. I checked with a friend who works in the field; they said that a large late 19th or early 20th-century house built and owned by an African American in the South is all that is really needed for a building like this to get on the NRHP. It doesn't matter which African American owned the house because this type of structure was rare within the Southern Black community of the era. These contrasting opinions show why we don't interpret sources, instead leaving that to the authors of secondary articles.

It would be reasonable to say something like: "Latta House was placed on the NRHP in part for its association with Latta, along with its architectural and community significance. One of the references used for the NRHP nomination form was Latta's autobiography."

Since there is another article on the house, you really don't need to say more about the NRHP. If you wanted to, you could discuss Latta's various homes in this article. We know of three houses he lived in on the university property, with photographs of the other two being included in his autobiography. The first house would be the one that was burned in a house fire (according to the newspaper). Rublamb (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment regarding who was defrauded, images of citations

In-line comment: Which demographics were defrauded?
@RublambI have removed the following comment, I felt best to move it here and reply here rather than adding another comment in the article:

"One source states that he raised funds from Black Northerners. Which is correct?"

Both perspectives are accurate. The extensive evidence presented confirms that his primary appeals were directed toward white Northerners. However, the more surprising aspect is that he also exploited Northern Black benefactors who were motivated by a desire to assist their Southern counterparts. This is supported by citations from the Altoona Times and the newspaper headline that was subsequently removed, but also the Philadelphia charities bureau investigation.

Images of documents like the above
I believe images like this are far more important for illustrating the man's life and legacy than photos of his children. While I understand your statement that Wikipedia has concerns about using images of citations, these images tell a compelling story that resonates more directly with readers. The average person is unlikely to follow all citations and sift through newspapers, so including such images helps make the narrative more engaging and accessible to a broader audience. For these reasons, I would like to advocate for its reinstatement of some images in the article and less of himself and his family. Dr pangloss (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dr pangloss: Please take a look at MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. I think this explains why we don't use these types of images on Wikipedia. Also, I would caution you against duplicating the images from an off-Wikipedia article as you are going to start running into plagiarism issues, even if you have a connection to that article. Rublamb (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, thank you so much! So the issue is visually impaired, it's more about not putting important text only in an image, but making sure the caption or alt text metadata accurately describes the image, which I hadn't done. Dr pangloss (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

That gets into why text images are not used but is overlooking the MOS directive: "Textual information should always be transmitted as text, rather than in an image." MOS rarely uses the term "always", so this should be taken pretty seriously. Note that there are times when a photo or illustration has a caption that needs transcription but that is different situation from using an image that just consists of text. Rublamb (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

With regards to defrauding, I know both are correct. My note was there to encourage you to expand this section and to include sources for all facts. Rublamb (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)