Talk:Scottsboro Boys/Archive 1

To Kill a Mockingbird
The book 'To Kill a Mockingbird' was not actually based on this trial nor was it the inspiration. There was another trial in Monroeville when Harper Lee (author) was a child living there. Could someone try to find a reputable source on this? 124.168.72.168 06:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct. The trial you are recalling is covered in depth in Charles Shields's biography of Harper Lee, first released in 2006.  —  Cinemaniac 19:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-NPOV statement?
Good article with one exception: "...are regarded as one of the many travesties of the United States justice system." I'm tempted to flag a non-NPOV for this one.

Regarded by whom?

I would contend that the U.S. legal system, on the whole, is no worse than any other system devised by man, and better than most. And having a legal system is better than not having one.

If this was changed to "... are regarded as one of the travesties of justice perpetrated against blacks in the post-Reconstruction South", or something to that effect, it would be okay.

I'm not going to just hack that in, out of respect to the otherwise good work of the author(s).


 * I think your idea is good. Don't mind if I take it in, do you?  bibliomaniac 1  5  20:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Category
Is there a reason this is listed under disputed convictions instead of wrongful convictions? Is there anyone that still doubts the innocence of these boys?

There's a rather good PBS documentary on this that I saw recently. While I'm no expert on this issue, several facts on this page differ from what was said in the documentary. For instance, the train stopped in Scottsboro, and not in Paint Rock. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

I have lived in Scottsboro most of my life and I don't think anyone here believes they were guilty. At least not anymore. This case was a huge black eye for our town and the state of Alabama and the south in general. From all the stories I've heard through out the years,the train was stopped in Paint Rock, a small town about 25 miles west of Scottsboro. Most people I heard talk about it wished the train had been stopped about ten miles farther west. Then they would have been the Huntsville Boys instead.As it turned out the young men had to be brought to Scottsboro because it was the county seat.Kgj 02:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

hey
hey I enjoyed this website it helped me alot......thanks for putting it on here! Taylor

hey
wait, why did this happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.130.79.12 (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

hey
I broke my arm and this website makes it easy to print info........Thanks, Sarah


 * when nine black teenagers, none older than twenty-one,'

What percentage of teenagers are older than twenty-one. Pretty few, in my experience.

yeah thanks so much.. casy

Unconstitutional?
The photo of the historical marker mentions that the defence claimed that the trial was unconstitutional. If so, why? matturn 13:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The defense claimed the trial was unconstitutional twice. The first time, the reasoning was that the nine boys did not receive counsel, thus violating their right to due process under the fourteenth amendment. The second time, the reasoning was that since no eligible were included in the jury roll, this denied the boys to equal protection under the fourteenth amendment. Does that answer your question? Corvus coronoides 00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The first U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case was Powell v. Alabama (1932). I've added a link to our article about this case, so you can read it there; the article also has a link to the court decision itself. We don't seem to have an article yet about the second case, Norris v. Alabama (1935), but perhaps someone can write one soon. :) In the meantime, a link to the Supreme Court decision in the latter case is here. Newyorkbrad 01:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr Alan K Chalmers
I've heard this man represented the boys at one stage. What was his part in the story? matturn 13:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Fixed
Removed 'poop' from the list of the boys Gwrtheyrn 17:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That apparently was a lingering vandalism in the version I reverted to in order to deal with a broad trolling that had altered a few paragraphs of text. The Dark 19:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

what?
guys this article is in need of some changes. in the 5th paragraph down last sentance there is no information, what happened to them? GuyDoe 20:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

also taylor,sarah, and casy this talk page is about the scottsboro trials butwikipedia is the best site ever... wiki powerGuyDoe 20:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Doctor's Testimony
As I happen to be doing a paper on this case, I found it interesting that the testimony of Dr. R. R. Bridges, considered to be a key component of the trial, was not mentioned. To enlighten anyone who may not know this, Dr. Bridges took the stand for the prosecution, but upon cross-examination was effectively turned into a witness for the defense, after admitting that the semen found in the two womens' bodies were immobile and that they showed no signs of assault. Since I'm new, I'm hesitant to add this. Any thoughts? Corvus coronoides 00:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

James Edwin Horton
Hello all. I've created a page for Judge James Edwin Horton, the presiding judge for the re-trials of the Scottsboro Boys. Please feal free to contribute (it needs it). Also, if anyone can work in a link, it would be great! Thanks, C0N6R355 17:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Leibowitz's death and Over-all Structure
Samuel Leibowitz became a justice on the New York Supreme Court before his death in 1962.

This statement is ambiguous. Did he become a justice in 1962 or did he die in 1962? The article on Leibowitz says that he died on January 11th 1978, so it would seem that he became a justice in 1962. However, I don't have any raw data on Leibowitz. Could someone who knows the facts please edit either this article or the Leibowitz article to better represent those facts.

Even if he did die in 1962, the sentence is poorly written and should be broken up. It is also a poor ending to a very important article, and the article's over-all stucture should be evaluated. A lot of information is presented twice and incoherently. Major work should have been done on this article before it appeared on the Main Page. Tdmg 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Screaming in their faces?
"The parents of the Boys as well as Bates would eventually make tours and speeches screaming in the faces of the southerners, to let the boys go. This however, backfired, which instead of softening the hearts of the southerners, turned their backs up and hardened them."

This needs to be re-written, proved, or dropped. Seems more like pulp fiction than anything else.

Found innocent or paroled?
The introduction seems to disagree with the "event" section's closing line. Were some of the defendants paroled or pardoned, or did the Supreme Court find all the men innocent and set them free?

From the introduction: All of the defendants were eventually acquitted, paroled, or pardoned (besides one who simply escaped), some after serving years in prison

From the event: All the men appealed their verdicts. The cases were sent to the Surpreme Court and there all the men were found innocent and set free.

--C paul butler 16:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Grammar check?
Could someone please edit this article's sentences? Many of them are run-on sentences. Here's a good example:

This time one of the accusers, Ruby Bates, after disappearing for a time to escape from the pressure and the media attention, returned to testify in court and recanted her earlier testimony, now stating that she and Price had lied about being raped because they were afraid that, since they were found on a train with other homeless men where one party of homeless men was violently removed, and since they were homeless themselves, they might be charged with some offense.

Thanks!


 * I fixed the sentence.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Charlie Weems
They were arrested in 1931, he was paroled in 1943, so how could have "served 20 years in some of the worst prisons in the nation"? Unless his time in the "worst prisons" was a result of this conviction, it should be deleted as irrelevant and the sentence should end with "...paroled in 1943." Esaons (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a couple of concerns about the overall coherency of this article. A confusing paragraph not already mentioned is the one below (with some parts removed). In bold are the contradictory statements

"The NAACP first characterized the defendants as guilty ... The NAACP never gave any support to any defendant in this trial. The International Labor Defense (the legal arm of the Communist Party USA handled the defense but struggled to gain and retain the support of the boys and their parents; the ILD eventually won the support of the defendants and the NAACP dropped out of the case, despite their having secured Clarence Darrow as the boys' lawyer. The ILD chose a different defense team, meaning Darrow was out of the case. With the backing of these large groups ...

So did the NAACP give the boys support or not? They went to the trouble of getting Clarence Darrow onside (apparently), and then provided "backing" - but apparently "never gave any support to any defendant". This needs clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.81.254 (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

ILD?
The article references the "ILD", but it doesn't explain what that is. What is it? LonelyPker (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked it up, and apparently it's the "International Labor Defense", which served as the legal arm of the US Communist Party. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? LonelyPker (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiple problems
There are virtually no citations in this mid-length article to verifiable sources. I am not saying anything in it's inaccurate, but specific related facts need to be cited to a verifiable source, and the text certainly shouldn't be expanded without citing any added text. In this regard, the opinions of the Supreme Court should constitute excellent sources, to the extent they reflect specific facts. Without wanting to step on the ongoing editing of others, I have added an example in the article, adding a note to source the date of the incident, and placed the citation in Blue Book form. The tone of the article, at places, is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia should not take an editorial stance, even on a matter condemned by 99% of the world. See WP:MORALIZE

I have removed the full text of the two U.S. Supreme Court opinions from the notes. see WP:NOTREPOSITORY I replaced the full text (about 71,000 characters) with links to the texts of the opinions at www.findlaw.com and conformed the legal citations to Blue Book form.

The article seems to be getting some editorial attention, so with these obersevations, I am going to let the willing keep at it for now. Audemus Defendere (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that replacing the text of the Supreme Court decisions with a link to the texts of the case was an improvement, if for no other reason than the linked text is a lot easier to read.


 * Your tolerance with the lack of footnoting is appreciated. This article suffers terribly from large gaps in the facts of these cases. It also fails to explain the importance of this case or explain why things happened the way they did. Relatives of mine personally participated in the first trial and I have been exchanging e-mails with my Scottsboro kin for years about this trial. Therefore, I think I can fill in some of the gaps with information that is hard to footnote, but I have every reason to think is entirely accurate.


 * Springfieldohio (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see you've put a lot of work into this article and the one on the city of Scottsboro. However, what you've just described sounds like it might not be consistent with one of Wikipedia's important policies, of "No Original Research," or NOR for short.  The policy is discussed on the policy page at WP:NOR.  It would probably be a good idea if you carefully reviewed that page before making more edits on this, or the Scottsboro, articles.  As the NOR page indicates, the policy requiring verifiable sources is closely related to this.  The most basic gudleline for what is a "verifiable source" is the section at WP:SOURCES, though any Wikipedia editor (myself included) will benefit from an occasional review of that whole page.  It's not necessary that every sentence have a noted reference, but my personal preferred rule of thumb is to at least cite one reference per paragraph, even if it's only an "ibid." from the previous paragraph's cite. (And make sure the cite backs up the whole paragraph.)  Now, specifically about this article: there is an excellent, detailed law review article about the history of the case: Douglas Linder, Without Fear or Favor: Judge James Edwin Horton and the Trial of the "Scottsboro Boys," 68 UMKC L. Rev. 549 (2000).  You should be able to find it at any law school library, or you can get a downloadable copy for a few bucks at westlaw.com.  It would clearly meet the source standard for anything related in it. Something else I often do for sources on something as well known as the Scottsboro Boys is do a site search at nytimes.com. Recent articles are free, and (I looked) there are free articles referring to the Scottsboro Boys.


 * As to the tone issue here and in the Scottsboro article, just a word. It's better not to use judgmental language like "blatant injustice" in the Wikipedia voice - even though I agree with the term.  Again, see WP:MORALIZE.  What fits Wikipedia guidelines better would be a verifiable, sourced statement something like "The treatment of the Scottsboro Boys was widely condemned as a blatant injustice," followed by a cite to a major newspaper editorial or other figure of gravitas calling it such.  Happy editing!  Audemus Defendere (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This comment pertains more to the Scottsboro article, than this one. I respond to it here, because this is where your response is as to both. I see your point. There has got to be some published source somewhere that talks about how the residents of Scottsboro feel about the case today. I will see if I can find some way to document it. However, it is fair to say in that regard, that the community feeling about this case is a mixture of pride for the notoriety the case brought this otherwise average small southern town and the embarassment of the association of their name with such a notorious case. My elderly cousin, who grew up in Scottsboro in that era, now lives with her husband in Massachusetts. She compares the way most residents of Scottsboro feel about this case with the way the residents of Salem feel about the witch trials. The witch trials put Salem on the map, but nobody in Salem today is proud of them or thinks justice was done. You could probably get a judge to take judicial notice of that sentiment in Salem as common knowlege and friviolus to dispute. It is an important aspect of mentioning that case in the Scottsboro article to also mention that few, if any, residents of Scottsboro today agree with what happened. The article will be at best incomplete and at worst highly misleading, if some way is not found to get that said. As to my cousin's attorney relative by marriage, whom this article calls a drunk, she insightfully observed in one of her e-mails to me that almost anybody would start drinking, if they had to defend those defendants and then walk by their friends and neighbors milling around outside the Court House. Of course, understandable or not, having an intoxicated counsel does not constitute "effective assistance of counsel". I'll also see if I can run down that law journal article. Thanks for that lead.

Springfieldohio (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

By George, I found a published, authoritative cite that confirms what I had heard time after time about how the people of present day Scottsboro feel about this case. I knew I could not be the only one to whom many Scottsboro natives had expressed that exact, same sentiment. So, it is no longer "original reseach" and I comfortably add that important fact to this article as well as leaving it, now properly cited, in the Scottsboro article.

Springfieldohio (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I pose these two questions to the "ayutolas" who watch over these articles:

1. There are many photos pertaining to this case on other web sites without copyright notices. Is there some acceptable way to use some of them in this article?

2. There are many reputable published quotations of participants in this case that use very strong and completely offensive racial slurs and are especially heavy on the use of the "N" word. It seems to me that this article cannot really describe the atmosphere in that time and place without using some of those quotations. My question is, if placed in quotation, and footnoted to a reputable, published source, is it permitted to use quotations like that in this article? It seems to me that a lot is lost if history is overly sterilized.

Springfieldohio (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

First Round of Trials
This section is heavy-laden with biased wording, such as "lame argument[ation]", but as I can see, the page suffers from vandalism to begin with. LeobenConoy (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand why you would think that. However, let me explain the reasons why I submit that adjective is acceptable in that particular sentence. There is no rational connection between how southerners at that time felt about white womanhood and whether a mob has a right to itimidate a jury -- for whatever purported good reason might be held out for it. Thus, I submit that characterizing that argument as "lame" is charitable. If a law student made that argument on a criminal law or constitutional law exam, the professor would likely call that argument something much more negative. There are some harsh characterizations that are objectively true. Adolf Hitler was objectively evil. That argument is objectively irrational and thereby "lame".

Springfieldohio (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You do have to be careful that the Wikipedia "voice" doesn't take a position, even if it's one that 99.99997% of the world agrees with. The following from WP:NPOV is pertinent:


 * The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.


 * Also, the following from WP:MORALIZE is helpful, especially in light of the Hitler reference:


 * Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:


 * You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.


 * Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide.


 * In light of these considerations, I don't think the Wikipedia "voice" should be speaking in value-judgment terms like "lame," and care should be used generally in describing these events.--Audemus Defendere (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Who are the Delvecios?
From the Third trial section:


 * 1) Judice Delvecio, Cameron Delvecio's brother, pleaded guilty to assaulting a sheriff (during a previous escape attempt) and was sentenced to 20 years. The state dropped the rape charges against him in return. After Powell had assaulted the deputy with a razor (and, according to him, had surrendered), he was shot in the head, suffering permanent brain damage. He was released in 1946.
 * 2) Cameron Delvecio,(d. 1959), age 12 at the time of the alleged crime had all charges against him dropped; the state said that they felt that given his age, and time served, he should now be released.

The first paragraph above dealing with Judice Delvecio switched to Powell in the third sentence.

The second paragraph appears to be talking about Roy Wright, who was the only defendant said to be 12 at the time of the crime. However, he and Ozzie Powell were never said to be brothers and the outcome for Roy's brother, Andy, was already mentioned just before the Judice Delvecio/Ozzie Powell section. Bfperez (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:HORTON.jpg
The image File:HORTON.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:CP logo.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --22:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This photo is from the article on Judge Horton and has been around a whil. You should notify the person who posted it there, rather than ask that question on this discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.147.60 (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Snodgrass
Why the random Snodgrass anecdote? It doesn't seem to me to be directly relevant to the article, and it takes up a fair amount of space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.25.226 (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I submit that Mayor Snodgrass's background is not random at all. As the footnote states, it gives insight as to why he would be outside the jail risking his neck trying to protect African Americans from a lynch mob in 1930s Alabama. It is my intention to run down more information on the background of the Sheriff as well and do a footnote on him.

Moreover, I am putting all the bios I can find in the footnotes of every person that this article mentions. The Snodgrass family was and probably still is very promient in Scottsboro. All are related directly or indirectly to Civil War Col. Snodgrass of the Jackson County Hornets. That is, they all descend from him or his siblings. There was a Snodgrass on the prosecution team in Scottsboro trial. Mayor Snodgrass's son was one of those called as a witness when the jury rolls were challenged in Decatur. That footnote tells something about all of them.

Springfieldohio (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

link
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/Ftrials/scottsboro/scottsb.htm 71.207.245.71 (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Bold
Numerous phrases in the article are bold. Some I can see why, as in names, but others I do not agree should be bolded. I also do not see why we need to bold the words at all. Chenhsi (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This case went on and on through trial after trial, appeal after appeal, so the report of it goes on and on. The bolding is only on words that are key to seeing at a glance what a particular paragraph is all about, which lets readers decide whether they want to read that particular paragraph or skip on down in the material to something that does interest them. For those skimming the article, it helps do that. For those seriously reading it from one end to the other, what does it hurt?

Springfieldohio (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Length
This article is way too long. Would it be preferable to split it up or edit it down to a more manageable size? &mdash; User:ACupOfCoffee@ 23:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, if I just remove the asides, replace definitions with links, and get rid of the random bold text I may reduce it by 20% so I'll start there. &mdash; User:ACupOfCoffee@ 00:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Your corrections to the grammar and spelling are very useful. The article is long, because the case went on for years and was full of events that must be mentioned to understand the case. This article hits only the highest of the high points. For instance, it skips almost entirely the details of the final round of trials. Because the article is necessarily long, the bolding helps readers follow it. The bolding is not random, but is only on a few key words in certain paragraphs to identify the topic of that paragraph. Please do not delete that bolding. It is very useful. Also, please let's discuss any text or footnotes you think should be deleted.

Springfieldohio (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Take, for example, footnote 66. It contains definitions of the terms "de facto" and "de jure". Now we already have articles about each of these legal phrases. Rather than including two lengthy definitions in a footnote which readers may or may not notice, the terms could simply be linked. If a reader doesn't know what either term means he can click the bright blue link for an explanation and most of that footnote is no longer necessary. The article as it currently stands is 219kb. Think of people on really crappy connections or perhaps mobile phones &mdash; that could take upwards of 30 seconds to load. I've heard a lot of numbers thrown around for how long most people will wait for a web page to load before giving up in frustration, but I seem to remember 10 seconds being rather common.


 * As far as the asides go, most of them sort of deviate into POV territory and I don't really see much in terms of substantive factual content being lost by their removal. If there's anything worth saving in any of them it should be within the rest of the text anyway.


 * For the boldface text, I defer to WP:MOS, specifically MOS:TEXT&mdash; User:ACupOfCoffee@ 16:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I'd like to mention WP:SIZE &mdash; User:ACupOfCoffee@ 16:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleaving
First, this article, as noted above, is far too long. About four times too long. Thought should be put into breaking out appropriate sub-articles, also copy-editing should continue to reduce redundancies (it is not necessary to use the full name of every witness, defendant, etc. every time, as one example) and to consolidate duplicate references into single named references.

Second, the article as I found it contained way too many images which had little or nothing to do with the article itself and which merely cluttered it without adding anything to our encyclopedic understanding of the subject. An image of a boxcar adds nothing to out understanding of the Scottsboro Boys case. The same image twice of a hobo camp adds nothing. A map of Alabama adds nothing (just say where one city is in relation to the other in the text). Images of how the courthouse appears today add nothing. Images of various mayors and governors who are mentioned in single lines of text add nothing; anyone interested in knowing what they look like can click on their link in the article. And seriously, starting off the article with an image of George Wallace? That's just odd, for one thing. Larding an article with images just because we have the images doesn't serve the project.

Mini-biographies should not be put into the footnotes. If the person is notable then they should be a blue-link in the article (or a redlink if their article has not yet been written, which may encourage another editor to write the article). It does not add anything to our encyclopedia understanding of the article to know where various attorneys general of Alabama are buried or who their grandparents are. Articles should remain focused on the subject and not wander off down tangents.

This article should be edited with an eye to its becoming a Featured Article, which guidelines I'm trying to follow in making these edits. It happens that there are large chunks of material that should come out, thus it looks like a hack job. It's not. Otto4711 (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SUMMARY, I suggest splitting out each trial section into a separate article and including a short overview of them here. Clearly the material exists to allow for standalone articles. Powell v. Alabama already exists and would benefit from having the information here placed into it. Norris v. Alabama does not currently exist and the project would benefit from it. Otto4711 (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This article used to explain how two of the most important cases in American history came about and their signficance. I respectfully suggest it was not necessary to delete so much from it. For instance, the first photo was of depression era hobos, which are discussed over and over and over again in the case. It is useful to see what they looked like. The second photo was of a hobo jungle, which is discussed over and over again in the case. It is useful to show readers what one looked like. It used to start with a photo of Governor Wallace because the article mentions him in the first paragraph had he was the very symbol of Jim Crow Alabama. The photo you now lead with was taken in Dectur and not Scottsboro, with which the important part of the article deals. What happened in Scottsboro shows what the Jim Crow south was really like. What happened in Decatur was tame by comparison. You even took out the photo of the court house in Scottsboro. This article used to explain how it all fit together for the benefit of people interested in the civil rights movement, lawyers, the history of alabama, etc. With all the cuts, it has lost much of its meaning. 22:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The location where the Scottsboro Boys picture was taken is irrelevant. The idea that the first image in the article should be of someone other that the Boys is bizarre. Wallace is certainly mentioned, but the article is about the Boys. The modern courthouse photo tells us nothing of significance about the case. The courthouse itself is unimportant; it's what happened there that's important. Otto4711 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the idea to split the cases into their own articles; there's certainly enough material on each case, and they are notable enough to hold up their own articles. To that end I have redlinked in the case names as new articles. IANAL, so I'm not sure if I was correct with the difference between v. State, or v. Alabama. Someone who knows the case names should correct them. I have not done this for the Decatur trials. Don't be despondent; this article is only the 41st longest on wikipedia (out of two million ;-). Gyro Copter (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Rape Shield Law
I am considering deleting the part about Alabama's rape shield law keeping out all of the questions that were not allowed in. The point is not clear cut and I think with some of the questions it is outright false to say that they would be inadmissible. The Rape Shield law does not automatically bar any and all questions that might pertain to an alleged victim's sexual history, it simply bars most of them. There are exceptions. You can ask questions about sexual history that might provide an alternative theory for how the source of the semen, injuries, or other physical injuries. You are also allowed to ask about the alleged victim's sexual history with the accused to prove consent. The questions about the STDs would be out, unless they were suggesting that their injuries were actually the result of those diseases. But the questions about prostitution as well as whether they had sexual intercourse with the boys or anyone else that day could come in. Any decent defense attorney could argue that these things are relevant to prove consent or to prove an alternative source for the physical evidence. I just think it's incorrect to say the current rape shield law would absolutely bar all of these questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.166.222.160 (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Manner of writing
The writing in this article is absolutely horrible, and that is a shame as this is a very important case in American history. Please, will someone rewrite this? I think it needs to be entirely rewritten. It is beyond repair right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.77.44.50 (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the entire article, shortening it, cutting legal jargon, and improving its style. Ynottry (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Ynottry

Length
As noted in the archives this article is much too long. Is there any chance to get some folks involved in cutting it in half to about 100k? This is an article that needs to be in Wikipedia, but it needs to be in a readable format. I earlier did a major cutting down job on Paul Wolfowitz and know that it's tough to keep content while removing surplus verbiage, but it can be done. Please join in. Smallbones (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur, this is not a readable length, despite this article's significance.Jayrossss (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

the overlength makes it meaningless to many. mainly due to the mtv nature of our society. well written though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.144.42 (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've given it a go, and think it is much improved. It may need more fine tuning and cleanup. I've added a summary just after the lead, kept most citations, cut all the verbal fat, rewritten large amounts of jargon, tried to use active voice, and kill all the dry "legalese." It is now about 25% of its original length. This is an important case, and with the recent off Broadway show, more people should be looking it up. Now maybe they'll read and understand more of what they find. This may not be Cockie Roberts quality, but I gave it a "good college try." Opinions welcome. Ynottry (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Ynottry

Hamlin Caldwell
During a rewrite, the reference to Hamlin Caldwell was removed, but his photograph still remains, confusing the reader. I suggest either reincorporating the text, or removing the picture. 67.2.54.127 (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Victoria Price

 * "I have not had intercourse with any other white man but my husband. I want you to know that.

Did the defence try to challenge this statement and were denied or didn't they challenge it? Also did Victoria Price ever withdraw the claim she was raped? (I know she sued over the documentary but so did Bates.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes Victoria, Price sued and - she won a settlement too. The NYT account  Overagainst (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Opening
The opening section is quite long for having only one source. While I'm sure that statements such as "All but the twelve-year-old Roy Wright were convicted of rape and sentenced to death, the common sentence in Alabama at the time for black men convicted of raping white women" are true, I would think that it would need some kind of source. Anyone else agree? Can we find some sources or pair down the opening? Vyselink (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Added a cite to the underlying fact in the article main text. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Serious misuse of non-free images
This article has far too many non-free images, several which fail basic metrics.

We do not simply include photos of people just because they are named in the article. I can appreciate the use of the lead image to show the group, but I believe every individual picture that is non-free in the rest of the article violates WP:NFCC as well as our restrictions on the use of historical photographs that are not the subject of commentary. Furthermore, if we actually have articles on the specific person pictured, there is no appropriate use of the picture on this page. I believe, checking what is free and non-free, that the only non-free that this article can support is the lead one of the group. If this is not resolved within a few days, I will be taking steps to resolve the NFC issue. --M ASEM (t) 00:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Which woman was older?
The Section "Arrests and accusations" states that "Initially the older woman was accused of violating the Mann Act," but the ages of the women, Bates and Price, are apparently never stated in the article, so this is a very confusing way of writing. From other sources it appears that Price was born in 1905 and Bates around 1913, but the writing needs to be more clear. Mateat (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Counsel for the Scottsboro Boys Samuel Liebowitz insisted Price was years older than she claimed (among other things).Overagainst (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"the older woman was accused of violating the Mann Act, which prohibited taking a minor across state lines for prostitution."

 * "Initially the older woman was accused of violating the Mann Act, which prohibited taking a minor across state lines for prostitution.[7]"

The actual source for that statement (ref 7) is not titled "^ "Historical Context of the Scottsboro Trials", as far as I can see it's  a net essay on the historical context of To Kill A Mockingbird which in turn references a  study guide for To Kill A Mockingbird. It can be mentioned as an assertion that the defence made, if a reliable source is given, but not as a fact. To be clear, no  reliable source is referenced for the statement.

The source document for Ref 7 asserts that Victoria price was a known prostitute hbowever this is mere assertion based on accustaions by the defense. While it is true that pamphlets were circulated asserting that attorney George W. Chamlee had affidavits from Chattanooga blacks stating that they had seen Victoria Price "embracing Negro men in dances in Negro houses," that (17 year old) Ruby Bates had bragged that she could "take five Negroes in one night," that a boarding-house operator had let Victoria use a room for prostitution, that she turned down a white man one night because it was "Negro night." These are again mere assertions by those sympathetic to the defence. It is an awkward fact that there is no evidence that Victoria Price was ever arrested let alone charged with prostitution at any time in her life. Nor had Ruby Bates.

In fact there is considerable evidence that Price was never a prostitute. In 1977 Victoria, Price sued NBC and - she won a settlement too. The NYT account. In 1977 NBC were free to bring forward any evidence to support the statement made made by a character in their program that Price and Bates had been proved to be prostitutes. That they settled the case shows they had no such evidence. Overagainst (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"A doctor examined the white women"
Two doctors examined the women. The first to examine the girls was Dr. RR Bridges. by the way he said there was "a great amount" of semen in Ruby Bates. That might be mentioned for balance as the article should mention that the medical evidence was in some ways supporting evidence for what they said. Overagainst (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Film and television

 * "In 1976, NBC aired a TV movie called Judge Horton and the Scottsboro Boys. Victoria Price emerged to file a defamation and invasion of privacy suit against the network; the case was dismissed. Price died in 1982.[131]"

Victoria Price sued NBC and - she won a settlement too. (The NYT account). So the article is wrong (or at least very misleading)) where it says the case was dismissed. Overagainst (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Public Effects of the Case
The Scottsboro case did not lead to "the end of all-white juries in the South". It may have contributed to a change in attitude, but Rabinowitz v. US, 1966, actually decided te issue in the 5th circuit US Court of Appeals.  24.3.115.127 (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Pat O'Malley

Questioned removal
This was removed from the edit

The word racism did not exist in 1931; check out MAGNUS HIRSCHFELD: THE MAN WHO INVENTED RACISM. It is also doubtful if a black man in the Deep South risked lynching simply for looking at a white woman. The name Jack Johnson springs to mind for one thing.

I think it or something akin to it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.87.181 (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Title
The article should definitely be renamed as the Scottsboro Nine, because three of the accused were aged 18 or over, and by today's definition, not boys but men. This phrase is good enough for the Library of Congress, there is nothing that forces the use of the phrase Scottsboro Boys. Further, such naming matches an unofficial convention on the title given to groups of people controversially accused of widely publicised crimes -the Guildford Four, the Chicago Seven, and since not all of the accused were boys, it is less inaccurate as it is not age-specific in a misleading way. Particularly in light of the modern understanding that men of colour have been the victim of incorrect references to them as boys, in a manner that is racist and derogatory, even if the phrase my once have been applied, it is no longer appropriate particularly in light of the sensitive subject matter. Finally, the fact that the title Scottsboro Nine is used by the Library of Congress shows that the phrase is not so contrived as to be unrecognisable in relation to the case, and can be commonly used with the same confidence of accurate recognition, as the outdated (and not wholly accurate)use of the word boys. A redirect would also avoid any likelihood of searchers not finding the article even if other contribs wish to argue that use of the word Nine in the title would be less recognisable. I would question the motive of anyone who is insistent upon the use of the phrase Scottsboro Nine, because it is not accurate, and because it can be offensive, but this constitutes an open invitation for anyone to give a good reason that it should not be changed. Just because some news services at the time of the case called a group of males of diffrent ages, with three adults among them, "boys" is not a good enough reason, we would not accept this now, and just because it was once used by a different culture of that time doesn't mean we have to keep doing it in the present day. If they were all boys, I would have no problem with the title, but this is a matter of the title simply being wrong, and if no good reason is given for a change to be prevented, I will change it in the next few weeks. Any contributor may freely refer to the fact that at the time and for many years afterwards some persisted in calling a group that included men 'boys', as this is a true history of how the case was named, but it would be encumbent upon those contributors to explain that such august bodies as the library of congress no longer do so. -Thomas
 * Oppose: Wikipedia article titles are based on the most common name, not the most politically correct one. In this case, "Scottsboro Boys" seems to be the name used by the preponderance of sources, with "Scottsboro Trials" being a somewhat distant, but gaining, second. "Scottsboro Nine" is still stuck in the starting gate. A Broadway play in 2010 was named The Scottsboro Boys Even the NAACP continues to use the term "Scottsboro Boys" on their web timeline. There is no reason to make a change at this time, or until the most common description associated with the events changes. Wikipedia is supposed to follow and report trends, not set them. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Partially agree: While the title used should be the one commonly in use ("Scottsboro Boys"), offensive though it is, the article itself should be revised to reflect the fact that some of the Nine were eighteen or older at the time that they were accused, and were therefore men. The body of the article should only use "boys" to refer to those of the accused who were under eighteen at the time of their arrest.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.158.54 (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment I am not unsympathetic to the request for a new title for the reasons given. But at Wikipedia, we have firm guidelines regarding naming conventions. As a rule, Wikipedia reflects general usage. Since this case is now in the news (thanks to the belated pardons), we have a confirmation that, as seen in the numerous press reports, this episode is overwhelmingly referred to under the rubric the Scottsboro Boys. When the Scottsboro Nine becomes canonical, then the title should change, but not before since at Wikipedia, we follow not lead. As a result this request is in contravention of our naming convention guidelines. Eusebeus (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Pardons
Pardons are generally issued by the executive. Is it correct that these pardons were issued by the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles? The board may have recommended pardons, but aren't they actually given by the Governor?Royalcourtier (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Irwin Craig
A new stub article Irwin Craig has been created regarding the juror from one of the trials. As a standalone article, I think it fails the principle of WP:1E, so I am proposing that it be merged into the Scottsboro Boys section of this article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As author of that stub article, I concur to a merger. I created it as a standalone only because of irreconcilable citations (see Talk:Irwin Craig). Narky Blert (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Bias
While I do not personally feel the 9 accused did the crime, the writing is horrible. It is not a "miscarridge of justice". Thats a opinion. The reference to the Jim Crow Laws "where a Black man can be lynched just for looking at a White woman" is way over exaggerated.

The phrase miscarriage of justice is widely accepted as a description of court cases that were unsafe or unsound. If the sources cited in the article covering juror selection, evidence and judicial process are correct, then the phrase miscarriage of justice is a perfectly reasonable phrase to apply to the case. -Thomas

Anyone who has studied American History knows that a black man could be lynched for just looking at a white woman. Please refer to the Emmett Till tragedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.189.251 (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "sentenced to death, the common sentence in Alabama at the time for black men convicted of raping white women" is both filled with racial bias and factually incorrect and neither is any citation given. In order to leave this statement in one would have to prove that black men were only executed for rape if the victim was a white woman. However a list of executions in Alabama between 1926-1965 lists two white men as having been executed for rape and there is no information as to the race of the victim in any case listed. The two white men are #663 and 663 on the list. The most one could factually say is that execution was a common sentence for "rape" and not "for black men convicted of raping white women." I have changed this accordingly 3 times and it has been reverted back each time. I hope this fuller explanation will help the editor to understand the reasons for the edit I have made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.207.184.73 (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The reference to "the case tried under a more biased judge" is not just POV, but a scurrilous and defamatory accusation. Such expressions have no place in Wikipedia.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia continues their pattern of bias regarding Black-on-White crimes, always taking the perspective of the "railroaded" black man(men) by racist white people e.g. Tulsa Riot 1921, the black man didn't do it and the white female was lying; the Rosewood riots 1921: the white female lied; George Stinney double murder 1944: George was innocent and "railroaded" by racist white police and criminal justice system. I will include a Link below which will give everyone a very clear picture as to the pattern of predatory crimes which Blacks committed against White people from 1900 to 1964(creation of forced integration law). It is a Blog but all the incidents are sourced with a newspaper account.

LINK:  https://theinjusticefile.blogspot.com/2015/02/negro-violence-colossal-american.html

"the end of all-white juries in the South"?
The last paragraph of the introduction says, "The case is now widely considered a miscarriage of justice that eventually produced the end of all-white juries in the South." This is an extraordinary claim that I can't see is true.

Here's a NY Times article from 2010, which notes "In North Carolina, at least 26 current death row defendants were sentenced by all-white juries": http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/us/02jury.html?pagewanted=all

Here's a Guardian article from 2011 about all-white juries in Alabama: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/21/race-discrimination-alabama-death-penalty

Here's a Duke University study from 2012 about all-white jury pools in Florida: http://today.duke.edu/2012/04/jurystudy

The sentence in the article should be changed to something like "The case is now widely considered a miscarriage of justice, particularly highlighted by the all-white jury", with a link to the Wikipedia page about them? Kilburn London (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've made this change now. Kilburn London (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems the original author was reading all-white juries as "all juries are all-white", instead of the more common lay meaning of the term. Gigs (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sentencing speculation
Is there any evidence for the unlikely claim that life imprisonment "was often an indication that the jurors believed the suspect was innocent but they were unwilling to go against community norms of conviction."?Royalcourtier (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It ties into the Irwin Craig claims. He claimed that he had advocated for life in prison rather than death because he truly believed the defendant was innocent but did not feel able to vote that way. Gigs (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sentencing speculation
Is there any evidence for the unlikely claim that life imprisonment "was often an indication that the jurors believed the suspect was innocent but they were unwilling to go against community norms of conviction."?Royalcourtier (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It ties into the Irwin Craig claims. He claimed that he had advocated for life in prison rather than death because he truly believed the defendant was innocent but did not feel able to vote that way. Gigs (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Charles Lee Watts or Clarence Lee Watts?
The Huntsville attorney who assisted in the defense is named Clarence in other sources (for example http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/scottsboro/timeline/timeline2.html ). The citation at the end of the paragraph leads to a page that lists only a C. L. Watts. I believe this man's name was Clarence, unless Charles was perhaps his nickname? --Humbabba (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Media
Suggest this cartoon is included in the section of support from the norther media and Left-wing groups http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/scottsboro.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.158.230.235 (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)