Talk:Ruth Ellis

different stories

According to the memoirs of Albert Pierrepoint, Ruth Ellis thought that as a woman she wouldn't be hanged. When she realised that she was going to be hanged she changed her story three times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The above point, allegedly made about Pierrepoint, is hearsay. Ruth Ellis had no conversation with Pierrepoint. There is also no evidence to show that Ruth Ellis changed her story three times when she knew she was to be hanged.Charlton1 (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Charlton, you miss the point. The above comment about Ruth Ellis changing her story three times doesn’t even imply that these conversations were ever with Pierrepoint.

I also remember the hanging of Ruth Ellis and seem to have a firm memory of the changing stories. I don't think that the bleached hair in court made much difference. She'd been seen and admitted firing several shots into Blakely. As the law stood, an open and shut hanging offence.AT Kunene (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Procuring the weapon

I think there should be some reference to the supplier of the gun. I thought it was accepted that she was given the gun by Cussen for her protection, and I added this in to the Lede, where someone else deleted it as unconfirmed rumour. Are there any other theories? And did the court have anything to say? Valetude (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree there should, as this is a pivotal point, the trouble is there is a mixture of Fact, Fiction & Fantasy about the whole case it's difficult to separate it all. Sorry for deleting your lede comment, I would love it to be true but I have never found anything of value, to coobertae this but happy to be proven wrongSteve Bowen 11:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Me again, Steve. With respect, I have re-inserted in the lede a mention of the weapon, corresponding directly with her own statement to her solicitor, as quoted in the main article. Valetude (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry & with respect back there is no corroborating evidence at all that this is the case, it's highly probabale & I will leave it in but this is Wikki not a cheap detective dime book & I hope that someone else deletes it instead of me.

At that rate, it would need to be deleted in the main article as well. I'm simply editing the lede to summarise the article. Valetude (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Birth place and death place

Addressing reverts by Roger 8 Roger. I added the United Kingdom for her birth place and death place as per Template:Infobox person we should include under place of birth and place of death "city, administrative region, sovereign state." The sovereign state she was born and died in was the United Kingdom, not England or Wales. Her nationality is also explicitly defined as British, not Welsh or English. The corresponding sovereign state to British nationality is the United Kingdom. She also has specific relevance to the UK being the last woman to be executed there. Helper201 (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I was more concerned about the repeated use of 1955. The year was mentioned at the start of the paragraph and that year applies for the dates that immediately followed. Repeating the year is not necessary. If she had been hanged later in another year then that would of course be mentioned. Repeating the year twice without good reason is not natural style. I am more neutral about the nationality issue. The UK is unique in having countries within a country and this has created rules and guidelines that apply just to it. There are countless articles that do not take it further than one of the UK countries. Also, it is questionable whether Wales can be described as an administrative 'region', as intended by the template, which is only a guideline anyway, not a policy. But, I can see the alternative view too. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand your points about the use of 1955. I only included it in that sentence because it is a significant event that a lot of the article's prominence is based around and for the sake of people skim reading the introduction, I thought it would be beneficial to clarify the year. I am willing to compromise on this if you agree to reinstating the United Kingdom to the infobox. The laws being applied to her execution are relevant to the UK as a whole, nothing to do with English or Welsh law and she has no specific significance to either England or Wales individually. Her life was also long before Wales had much in the way of devolution, being long before the establishment of the Welsh Parliament in 1999. I'm not trying to say Wales is or is not a region, just that the sovereign state she was born and died in, the state her nationality corresponds to and the state that is relevant to her execution is all the United Kingdom, not England or Wales. I'm fine with keeping England and Wales in the infobox as well. Helper201 (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The template documentation does not really fit in with the UK where there is a country within a country. Personally I remove UK when I find it as it is not needed, just the first country is necessary, in this case is Wales. Probably the documentation on the template should be place, county, country for UK people, especially as editors keep removing the county which helps to clarify where the place is. Keith D (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The point is she and this article have much more relevance to the UK as a whole than either England or Wales (as outlined in the points I made above). I see no disadvantage with at the very least just including UK as part of the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It is unusual for a Brit to use one of the four countries plus UK in there address or where they live. That is the sort of thing children or foreigners do. That is why the template does not properly fit with UK related articles. I would prefer to use either Wales or UK, not both. A better fit with the template is to have Flintshire as the 'region' and UK as the sovereign state. But that approach can not be standardised for every UK related article due to the huge number of exceptions that would apply and the far from ideal wikipedia guidelines on how to handle UK counties. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it is either Wales or UK - the convention on nationality (Welsh or British) is self-identification but for place of birth I am not sure if that applies. I have no strong opinion -----Snowded ^TALK 04:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Usual practice is to include one of the four countries as place of birth/death - so, in this case, Rhyl, Flintshire, Wales - rather than mentioning UK. But that does not mean she should be described as "Welsh" as she was only there for a short time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger, it varies among Brits but this is supposed to be looked at from an international/global perspective. I disagree that it is "the sort of thing children or foreigners do". I would prefer we include Wales and the UK. There are actually a lot of articles that do this. I don't see any negative drawback to including the UK in the infobox. It is also beneficial to keep Wales to show she was born and died in two different countries within the union. I have outlined multiple reasons why the UK is largely appropriate here (such as the emphasis in both the infobox and the main text that her nationality is/was British). I think we should remember that Wikipedia has no firm rules and look at this from a perspective of what most benefits global readers of the article with little or no knowledge of the subject. See WP:DRDR and WP:RF. Providing more correct factual information that also adds as clarification only aids the informativeness of the page, it does not take it away. This should take president over grips around looks or how an article lines up with others. Helper201 (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it should be Vereinigtes Königreich, as it's the sovereign state. Note - We should also use Vereinigte Staaten for American bios & Kanada for Canadian bios, too. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

As you know full well GoodDay your view on sovereign states and nations in the British and Irish articles does not represent long establised consensus and its is disruptive at best to keep raising points long resolved. Ghmyrtle has it right -----Snowded ^TALK 20:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)