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

Asking to be able to include the United Kingdom as part of the person's birth place and death place in the infobox, for the following reasons. Firstly, the person is specifically defined as British in both the infobox and the main text. The corresponding sovereign state to British nationality is the UK. Secondly, under Template:Infobox person, for birth place and death place it is stated we include under each "city, administrative region, sovereign state." The sovereign state in this instance is the United Kingdom (not England or Wales). Thirdly the prominence of this article is largely due to the person being known for being the last woman executed in the UK. Therefore contextually the article has far more relevance to the UK as a whole than England or Wales (the law being applied was UK law also, not relevant to specifically England or Wales). Adding the UK only helps greater inform 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) 03:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

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 United Kingdom, as it's the sovereign state. Note - We should also use United States for American bios & Canada 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)

Can we please address the points I've made as to why it is useful for this article? Also, to the point made by Snowded there really doesn't seem to be a "long established consensus", as I have seen this vary on many UK related pages. If we look at it in the light of this page it clearly makes sense to add the UK and only benefits the reader to include it. The person is defined as British and has far more relevance to the UK than either England or Wales. Helper201 (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It has been debated many many times on many BLP articles -----Snowded ^TALK 04:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

In which case there clearly is not a consensus. Please try and address the points made and look at this on this case alone. Wikipedia has no firm rules and I'm not trying to change the whole system, just making an addition to this one article. Of which I see no disadvantage to the reader to include this; it would only greater inform them and would be a suitable addition for the reasons I have made in this particular case. Helper201 (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Why do we need to say Wales, UK? That assumes that Wales around the world is not well known. The point of the guideline is to use the highest level of region practically available. (Saying Wales, Europe, Northern Hemisphere is excessive so it is not used - except by kids having fun) A sovereign state is deemed the top level necessary, hence the template guidelines. But even this is not totally without exceptions. Look at Nuuk, or Monaco. In the UK case the common usage rule is that the top level is ESWNI or just UK. Perhaps the problem then is the guidelines, for not making this exception clear. ESWNI are all well known enough to be where the address stops. In fact they are all much better known than many smaller Pacific Island sovereign states. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

In this particular case because she was born in Wales but died in England. Without stating Wales and England and just Rhyl, Flintshire, UK and Holloway Prison, London, UK, many non British readers will likely be unaware that this is covering two different countries within the UK. If she had been born and died within the same country in the UK, then I don't think it would be necessary. But to include this as well only helps aid the reader. Helper201 (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what your concern is. Stating her birth and death locations using words that are linked with multiple explanations is surely not going to cause confusion. I'm with Ghmyrtle here and I can't see why there is so much fuss, unless its yet another example of trying to only allow nations to be sovereign states whcih is a matter resolved but some people keep harping on about it -----Snowded ^TALK 14:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

(Helper201) for us non-British readers, it would be best to either add UK with or in place of Wales & England. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

To me the fuss is coming from the people denying this simple small addition simply because it’s not consistent with other pages that they know of. It really would not harm the infobox or the page to add a simple, small piece of information. Yet it seems the reasons for this case are being ignored just for the sake of "this is not how it’s done elsewhere". Let’s try and keep to logical reasoning centred around the matter at hand, rather than being so focused on consistency with other pages for the sake of consistency. I also don't see the problem with including England and Wales as well as the UK. Lots of pages do this. Helper201 (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The presence of Wales and England is quite sufficient. Otherwise, where would it end? England, United Kingdom, Europe, Earth, the Solar System, the Milky Way perhaps. Just stop at the first unambiguous location. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The addition of the UK, will suffice. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Another reason to omit UK is that this article is written in common usage UK English. That usage rarely uses ESWNi plus UK. And...this is an encyclopedia, so a level of intelligence of the reader should, and can, be assumed when inserting written detail. We dumb-down at our peril. And...there are plenty of people reading this discussion who are further from the UK than Canada, and who do not have trouble in grasping that Wales is a country within the UK. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

That would be alright, if English-language Wikipedia were for only British readers. But it's for all english readers, which include non-British folks. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The argument by Redrose64 is a straw man. No article proposes the use of those identifiers or uses extensions beyond sovereign states for birth place and death place such as "Europe, Earth, the Solar System, the Milky Way", and no one is proposing this. Helper201 (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If people think that Wales isn't sufficient to identify, then it should be replaced IMO with UK. Yes Eng-Sc-NIr-Wales is confusing to some non-UK people, but so is the term 'UK' itself, which isn't after all an obvious extension of 'British', which is the common name world-wide for UK people and Britain for the island. I agree with those who say that adding 'UK' to one of the four constituent nations is 'clunky' and rarely done in other contexts. Pincrete (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

What she was ?

She was a British escort and nightclub hostess. - In other words: a british female prostitute (see: categories). --129.187.244.19 (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Prostitute would reffer specifically to "full service" sex work when it's a crime. Since Ellis worked in several ways, some of which were crimes and some of which weren't, prostitute is not an acceptable term DParkinson1 (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This book uses the word "prostitute" quite a lot (12 instances). But what does the current source, Blackhall (2009), p. 95, actually say? Unable to find a copy online. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Type of gun

In the Endeavour episode "Scherzo", the pathologist mentions that "Ruth Ellis used a .38"; not sure if that's relevant enough for Wikipedia. Belltower (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)