Talk:Ruby McCollum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
|
I believe the information about Arthur Keith Black is included only to damage his reputation and to sell books written by C. Ellis, the first author listed in the suggested reading biography. Mr. Black was the prosecutor of this case and was doing his job in an era fraught with prejudice and injustice. There was a conspiracy to silence Ruby McCollum, and her story is an important one to keep alive as we study civil rights and discourse, but for the author to include (and keep adding back) information about Mr. Black being indicted for racketeering and to imply Mr. Black forged a will and was part of an effort to swindle assets are proof of my assertion that the entry lacks neutrality. Mr. Black was indicted, but he had a massive heart attack and the charges were never brought up again, even after he returned to private practice. His enemies did succeed in getting him indicted a second time on another matter, and on that indictment he was acquitted. Mr. Ellis apparently doesn't understand that indictments do not equal guilt in the United States of America, where his libelous books are allowed to be published without redress.
Mr. Ellis won't tell you Mr. Black had Mrs. McCollum moved to another county for her own safety and that instead of the electric chair or jail, he helped get her committed to an institution. Not ideal, but it was an effort. I also would like to point out a Time magazine article from 1954 does not mention the evil Mr. Black, nor does a play about this case feature an evil state prosecutor a a central figure. Mr. Ellis is trying to capitalize on the case for his own profit and is sensationalizing it rather than letting the facts stand on their own merit. He's even got a web site named not for himself as a compilation of his "doctoral" work, but after Ms. McCollum.
The first book he wrote was so inflammatory it was not considered for publication by university presses. In his promotional material, Mr. Ellis claims to have known all the parties in the case, when he could not have been more than 10 years old at the time. Additionally, the author paid to have a news release disseminated, trying to capitalize on the cancellation of a booksigning scheduled in the area where the McCollum trial occurred. He claimed the booksigning was cancelled becasue of continued fear 50 years after the trial. This is a good example of how the author gathers his facts. Had he not jumped to conclusions and made erroneous assumptions, he would have discovered Mr. Black's wife was a recently-deceased, long-term resident at Dowling Park, the retirement home where the booksigning was scheduled. It was cancelled because 1) they personally knew Mr. Black and knew that the cussing, drinking, loud-mouthed baffoon Mr. Ellis painted him to be in the book was contrived and highly inaccurate, 2) they did not want to help promote a libelous book and 3) at $10,000 per month, the Black family's involvement with Dowling Park was more significat that the Ellis family's.
Mr. Ellis again gets his facts wrong when he tells people Dr. Bill Cosby owns the rights to William Bradford Huie's book, based on Zora Neale Hurston's notes, about the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beencurious (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. There are other problems with the article, including the fact that it cites no references and that it contains original research. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
