State of article

[edit]

This article is a mess and needs a thorough cleanup; it also appears not to adhere to WP:NPOV and one of the editors may have a conflict of interest. This is being discussed at WP:Editor assistance/Requests#dispute about Ruby McCollum listing. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a request for an objective review of this article by a person who has not contributed to it, nor who is related to any of the characters in the story. I have researched the story for years, written 3 books on it, and have numerous National Public Radio and TV reviews to my credit. My contributions have been assailed by the prosecutor's granddaughter, who offers no support for her criticism. In response to her attacks, I have added numerous citations and links to professional articles, etc. This is why we need some impartial person to review this article for the good of Wikipedia readers.

Your time is appreciated. Artellis1000 (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Signed, C. Arthur Ellis, Jr., Ph.D.[reply]

Updates and editing

[edit]

I don't have a stake in this, except improving the article. I had many questions and believed that basic facts needed to be included. Also, new works are being both published and released as documentary films about McCollum and the case - and the many silences which society of the time tried to impose on the facts. So I'm adding some of those and trying to consult more of the sources.Parkwells (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forced Child

[edit]

The article does not make it clear how this was done. Racist custom, blackmail over subjects criminality, drug influence? Information should be properly sourced and put in the article. 2A00:23C5:E097:5D00:5539:1A63:598F:D24F (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby McCollum Murderess of Live Oak, Florida - THE UNTOLD TRUTH

[edit]

Contradiction

[edit]

I have added a "Contradict" tag, as the article claims at the beginning that Blacks could vote in America, but not serve on juries, yet claims in the "Background" section, and again in the "First Trial" section, that Blacks could not serve on juries because they couldn't vote. There are also no sources for any of these claims: That Blacks could vote, could not vote, or that they couldn't serve on juries. Harry Sibelius (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C. Arthur Ellis, Jr. here. Black people could vote at the time of the trial as well as serve on the jury. There were two black alternate jurors. This is not to say that there was not voter intimidation as well as fear of the KKK at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.253.255.249 (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article, "Florida's History of Suppressing Blacks' Votes" (https://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/floridas-history-of-suppressing-blacks-votes/2146546/) is a summary of the Black voting in the postwar period when this trial took place. Yes, Black men were nominally legally able to vote, but the many discriminatory barriers meant that only a small percentage of Blacks did succeed in voting. Jurors are drawn from voter lists. Therefore, if someone can't vote, they can't serve on juries. It is still the case that attorneys try to choose juries that they believe will be favorable to their clients through the use of challenges in voir dire. Often in the segregated South, attorneys used multiple challenges to keep blacks off juries. There are numerous sources on these issues and I will look for more. Parkwells (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is accurate to describe the differences less as contradictions than as the need to clarify there were legal rights for blacks on paper in terms of voting that were severely limited by discriminatory practices of the time. Parkwells (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C. Arthur Ellis, Jr., Ph.D., Artellis1000, 72.187.21.116, 69.85.122.230, and Ellis' book

[edit]

I noticed that some of the edits to this page were made by 72.187.21.116. This user seems to have also identified himself as C. Arthur Ellis, Jr., Ph.D., who has previously identified himself on this talk-page as 69.85.122.230, as well as Artellis1000. Writing about an edit of the Ruby McCollum article on 00:10, 07 February 2008, that: "I have removed portions of this page that were contributed by me since I am not allowed to list my book as a reference. You may not repost my contribution without giving credit to my work," referring to the works by Ellis cited in this article.

Though I may be mistaken, It seems that Mr. Ellis removed sources that he previously had added that used his own books. This is commendable, at least in that I believe it accords Wikipedia's rules. I was hoping, however, that since Mr. Ellis is active on Wikipedia, and his book is still used as a source in the Ruby McCollum article, that he would have some additional sources to back up certain claims in this article. Harry Sibelius (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe there need to be sources other than Ellis's, and commentary, if we can find any, other than his about his own writing. So I moved listing of Ellis's two non-fiction books and his historical novel to a category of "Further reading". According to Wiki MOS, a self-published book is not supposed to be considered a Reliable Source unless that can be established. There are no reviews cited for any of the Ellis books (I will look further for some.) I will also look at reviews of documentaries, and articles that might give us some basis for proceeding. I deleted an Ellis reference to crediting Zora Neale Hurston for noting "paramour rights" because the citation was to Ellis's historical novel. Novels are definitely not sources for factual material such as this content. I have tried to reduce the editorial comments that Ellis made in describing his own books. Now I'll search for more facts.Parkwells (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]