Talk:Lizzie Borden/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Motive and method - Who is Sarah?

The section Motive and methods, starts out as "Over a period of years after the death of Sarah Borden, life in the Borden home had grown unpleasant with affection between the older and younger family members had waning."

This is rather unfortunate as Sarah has not been introduced, obviously not in this paragraph as it is the first sentence, but neither earlier in the article.

One find out who she was by Ctr+F "Sarah" <Enter>, but that is rather idiotic.

Not to make the sentence to heavy one might have to simply state it as an opening phrase. ZBs birth-mother, SB, died in the (fall|winter|summer|autumn) of 1863. Over a period of years after her death....

Or heavy; Over a period of years after the death of Sarah Borden, Zs birth-mother, life in the Borden home had grown unpleasant with affection between the older and younger family members had waning.

I also find the end of the sentence, if not read twice, gibberish. The italic part -^ in conclusion with the rest of the sentence. (But that might be my 1.st language, which isn't English, kicking in :P ) Essexesd (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Essexesd (talk • contribs) 02:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Also excluded was testimony regarding her attempt to purchase prussic acid

Actually the ref says that the court concluded the testimony was competent and should be admitted William M. Connolley (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it if you haven't already, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverts instead of talking

I reverted twice with very clear edit summaries as to why I was reverting such as this 'Numbers are in use not writing it out, you are changing the meanings from the refs such as friendship to relationships sentence. don't need to use full names and the hidden noticices there are there for a very needed reas[on]. I thought the editor True Crime Writer would come to this talk page like the edit summary said twice during the three reverts done. I come here now when I have a moment to respond to comments about why the edits were returned without any reasoning for the edits and there is nothing here. Please come to the talk page and explain why the edits made are useful to the article please. Changing 30 to thirty which was done first by an IP is not good since that was drive by vandalism that I reverted. There is a difference between using the word friendship vs. relationship, the two words are not equal in the context of the article at all. The notices that were removed about trivia to the article needs to be returned. That is not seen by our readers and is only there for editors so that they know if trivia is added to the article the trivia will be removed. I look forward to hearing from you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I do understand that continually reverting and providing edit summaries is tiresome, and I do apologize, but I think it's probably more productive to talk about such big undos first instead of just reverting wholesale. I understand about the numbers thing and it should be a number rather than a word representation of the number. There is a difference between friendship and relationship, but it's been established by more than one author that the "friendship" between Borden and O'Neil was really more than just a friendship. Another editor a few weeks ago undid my change where I had said "lesbian". I think that "relationship" is a good compromise, because it was believed the two had a homosexual relationship. Using relationship is a stronger choice which represents the views of the authors who maintain the relationship was sexual without really saying it, you know? As far as the notices about trivia, according to WP:Trivia, trivia sections are not verboten and are in some instances acceptable. I don't see why something has to be included that really isn't in the spirit of the encyclopaedia's manual of style to begin with and think the notices should be removed. It's not a rule to have no trivia, so why were they even placed there? I find them limiting and off putting to see and others probably feel the same. If someone adds something that is trivia like, it can be discussed here on the talk page can't it? Like I said, I can see that this is a tiresome discussion and process, but I'd like to propose that we invite other WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography project members to add their opinions on this article and these changes. That's it for now. True Crime Reader (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a valid reference that says the person was a homosexual in fact, then you can add it to the article. If the reference says she is thought to be, or my cousins, brother heard it from a bartender who knows everything, then no, it probably is irrelevant. If the two were lovers, then they took it to the grave with them. The private staff and Emma would have been the only ones who would know, and they didn't write any books or advise the press. The simple fact that she was unmarried and had female friends does not equate to being homosexual. She could have been a hermaphrodite for all we know, and that would require references as well. K5okc (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

As the verbose paragraph above indicates and edits (changing all to last names) and remarks in edit summary are screaming 'I am SRQ" it is time to take action with her latest sockpuppet identity. There is no doubt. See her history and you will see the pattern. DocOfSoc (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are you saying I am a sockpuppet and harassing me? You did this on my talk page today too. All I did was read the manual of style regarding use of names and made appropriate changes to this page on Borden. Please stop harassing me. And I'm not that new because I've been here since July. True Crime Reader (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Truth will out. Merchant of Venice, 1596.DocOfSoc (talk) 07:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Borden cruft culture

The Borden and Culture section should perhaps be split out into a subarticle..it is getting too large and already detracts from this article. Reads like a lot of pop fancruft and is secondary to the core subject. It would suit me to completely can it - but the subarticle would probably satisfy as well. What do you think?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not keen on opening a new article that would essentially allow for any and all instances when even Family Guy or South Park uses her name. In the two years, the section hasn't actually grown at all. The current section is now very careful monitored to use just instances that are specific to Borden herself and has eliminated all passing references. The section right now has 28 items covering 7 areas. In June of 2008, 500 edits ago, there were 47 items in the same number of areas. 500 edits prior to that, in June 2007, there were 50 entries. The section really is getting pared and controlled quite well. I'm mostly opposed to pop culture types of articles and at least I have worked to limit this as much as possible. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My idea was along the lines of creating a sub-article like Jack the Ripper fiction. This allows the movement of the pop culture material to the sub-article and this article would be cleaner. The creation of the sub page for Jack the Ripper really helped to clean that article up. Ideas anyone?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 10:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the Jack the Ripper fiction article, which is itself unreferenced. The creation of the article started with the edit summary "New article created so people can expand with details about fictional references to their hearts' content without unbalancing the main article" and that fairly speaks to what has happened with it since its creation. It began at around 5 kb and has grown to over 30 kb. The article itself is wholly unreferenced, and while the controlled sections in this article aren't mostly referenced either, although there are some buried references in there that don't show up well, and that section doesn't grow because of the restrictions that have been placed on what is and isn't included. It can be converted to prose from the list format if that would make it appear cleaner. I am often the first to say cut out the trivia and move on, but there are some redeeming factors in having some selected and controlled items in articles about crimes this old. The drawbacks to removing the 28 items included here to a separate article include the lack of oversight to what is added, the messiness of it and the overall feel of just cutting it loose so one doesn't have to deal with it - "expand[ing] with details about fictional references to their hearts' content." I think it's better handled here in this way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A separate article could have been monitored just as closely...my notion wasn't so much about allowing them to run wild in there but it was, admittedly, to pare off the trivia and leave the good stuff. I think we are of similar dispositions concerning trivia in articles and you raise some good points so I will drop the notion, content that that you will continue to monitor diligently to keep Bart Simpson & Jerry Seinfield out. ;)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I endeavor diligently to keep Bart and Jerry out. :) I suppose it is just as fair to say that if the section had been split out, I wouldn't be interested in keeping an eye on it and likely wouldn't be volunteering. I'm no fan of trivia sections and have often cleaned them out or reduced them significantly when I've found them. Crime related articles like this one constantly fill up with trivia, no matter what the context and we (mostly meaning myself and two others) try very hard to keep that out of the WP:CRIME articles. We mostly decided to limit any mentions to historically accurate portrayals and very relevant other media mentions that are specifically about the article subject. I watch this article, Charles Manson, Billy the Kid, Jesse James, John Dillinger and Bonnie and Clyde, all of which have controlled lists, and sometimes they are huge tasks to monitor. Then again, the definitions for inclusion help that. I think the best of the bunch is how we treated the pop culture treatment of Charles Manson. Thanks for your interest in Lizzie and her article! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

How about the Flotsam and Jetsam song 'She Took An Axe', where might that fit? It is sung specifically about this charming woman. 194.75.129.200 (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really. It isn't notable; that is the case with most of the things that grow in pop culture sections. Merely making mention of someone or some thing isn't usually noteworthy and amounts to trivia which is discouraged under that guideline.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding crap

"There is a possibly apocryphal story about Lizzie having ordered something from a mail-order company and the delivery man was having trouble opening the crate. She supposedly offered to get the man a hatchet, causing him to run from the house and refuse to ever deliver to that address again."

This is known as crap. Why waste your time adding unreferrenced crap? 108.116.244.7 (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Strong possibility that Lizzie Borden had children

Let me begin this by stating my thesis right up front: I believe that there is a strong probability that Lizzie Borden had children, although the public-known supposed ‘fact’ is that she did not.

The hypothesis starts with a woman named Diane K. Schilke-legal birth name is Dianne Borden Kessler(Kesslar). She was born in Providence, Rhode Island on July 14, 1933. She was alive during a large portion of my life and I knew her personally on a periodic basis. She declared to her family and friends that her mother had died during childbirth and her father had already bolted and wanted nothing to do with her or the unknown mother. She also declared that she had two aunts that lived in Providence, RI and they were supposedly given custody of Dianne.

Her first husband will not play a role in this story, so I will leave his name out of it, to not cause confusion.

She married her 2nd husband in 1967 in California-his name was Richard Martin Schilke. All of her life, she went by Dianne Borden Schilke. Her husband, Richard, died in October 2000. In his will, which I have visibly obtained and read from one of my sources, were the words: “…to my wife, Dianne Borden Schilke…” Dianne occasionally leaked out details about her childhood when questioned, and it was very clear she had a fairly horrible upbringing and had been tortured on numerous occasions. And sadly, Dianne carried a lot of similar behavior with her into her own life. She even tried having her first husband killed by putting out a ‘dead or alive’ wanted bulletin at the police department during the time she was intimately involved with one or more police officers at the station and her husband had found out about it.

Another family member has clear memories of running away from her as she chased him with a hatchet and threw it at him during a fit of rage. And yet another family member witnessed and discovered that Dianne had covertly and intentionally broke up his engagement with his fiancée because Dianne was unable to control her.

This article has not been written to bring up her past deeds, but to reveal similar characteristics of an extremely painful childhood as should be assumed in the Borden household.

Here’s where it gets interesting…

Dianne died in September of 2010. The exact name on the obituary was ‘Diane K. Schilke.’ A couple members of the family got some ‘red flags’ on this because it wasn’t the name that they knew her as. That’s when they contacted me to research this. These people actually prayed about this, and the Lord told them to research the name ‘Borden.’ To their shock, the most common thing that came up was the Lizzie Borden case, and the family members had never heard about Lizzie Borden. The family began to strongly wonder if there was a relation, since there were several strong coincidences:

• 1) After this discovery, three people in the family that knew Dianne, were questioned if they had ever heard of ‘Lizzie Borden.’ None of the three people questioned had ever heard of Lizzie Borden. However, many, many, at least 20 random people outside of the family were asked if they had ever heard of Lizzie Borden, and every one of them so far has heard of her.

• 2) Dianne and her family were from the EXACT same area as Lizzie Borden

• 3) Dianne’s two ‘aunts’ were named Elizabeth and Emma, and were sisters.

• 4) This will be discussed later, but Dianne’s mom did not die during child birth, and it is assumed at some point Dianne found out, or Dianne was lying the whole time and was hiding it for some reason, or Dianne was lied to from birth.

• 5) Dianne was very well hidden from the public as a child and an adult in public records. It you didn’t know about her two marriages, there is no good public record of her after the 1935 census(2 years old).

• 6) THE STRANGEST COINCIDENCE: Nowhere in any of her family genealogy does anyone have the name Borden for a first, middle, or last name. Why would she be named this for her middle name? Everyone else has been named after someone related in their first or middle names.

Here’s where the evidence comes in.

This took about a hundred hours to figure out. There have been numerous name changes and cover-ups in this family line. The reason for the cover-ups is still unknown.

Those who were close to her during her life recall many of these types of cover-ups and name changes as Dianne attempted to manipulate the situations around her. She even created a will of her own about 8 days before her 2nd husband, Richard, died-with the name ‘Diane K Schilke.’ Those around her and Richard during this time knew that Richard would be going very soon.

Coincidentally, when Dianne died, this will was not discovered until about seven months after her death. There was another will in place (the main will) that was released to the family right after her death that ‘most’ people in the family knew would be coming. I have been told that the contents of the 2nd ‘mysterious will’ have not yet been fully revealed to the family other than there is a somewhat large sum of money that was found.

GENEAOLOGY: We’ll start with Dianne’s mother: Emma Almaretta Kessler(later became Emma Najac), born April 15, 1909 in Providence, RI and died October 1986 in Providence, RI. The birth records clearly show that she was the mother of ‘D Keslar’ on July 14, 1933. This is the only Keslar/Kesler/Kessler born on this day and this year(same birth date and place as Dianne), and has the same address as Dianne Borden Kesler on the 1935 census 2 years later. FACT: EMMA IS THE MOTHER OF DIANNE.

The father is unknown and probably will not ever be known.

Also, there are three different found spellings of Kessler, but they all seem to follow the same family line in that area of the country.

Emma’s sister was Elizabeth Irene Kessler. Both girls were born to Philip Valentine Kessler and Pearl Irene Colman.

Pearl is from Canada and her line leads in the other direction.

Philip’s line, however, leads down a much more interesting path. Philip changed his middle initial “V” to the letter “N” sometime between 1930 and 1935(it’s possible that the N and V could be mis-read on the census form, but unlikely). His birthdate, address, and family members remain the same. After this, I cannot trace him. Philip was born in February 3, 1881 to Harry/Fred Kessler (I’ll explain this later) and Elizabeth Kessler. Philip has two different birth locations from two different documents. On one document, the birth place is Germany and on the other, it’s Jersey City, NJ. Harry and Fred Kessler are one in the same person….. Unless Elizabeth just happened to marry two different people with the last name Kessler that happened to be born on the same day. On the 1910 census from Providence, RI, here’s the parents and children and their birth years listed:

FRED(FATHER)B-1857,
ELIZABETH(MOTHER)B-1860,
EMMA: B1884,
BESSIE: B1891,
FLORA: B1897.

Ok, so now, here’s the info from the previous 1900 census from Jersey City, NJ:

HARRY(FATHER) B1857,
ELIZABETH(MOTHER) B-1860,
EMMA B1884,
BESSIE B1891-1892,
FLORA B1897,
PHILIP B1881,
TILLIE B1882.

The only things that have changed between the two census’ is Harry became Fred, and the family has 'moved' from Jersey City to Providence. There is also a potential name change from Fred Kessler to Frederick Schneider between 1916-1920. This same ‘Fred’ lived with Albert H Schneider(Fred’s son in law) in 1927. Also, Bessie changed her name to Elizabeth at some point-why would parents and then children change their first names?

Bessie/Elizabeth was married to Albert Schneider and had a 1 year old daughter in 1920 in Providence, RI.

So, let’s go back to Elizabeth Kessler, the mother, married to Harry/Fred. She was born in July of 1860. This is the same month and year as Lizzie Borden. Her birth place was listed as Germany, and she was listed as dead in 1916. So it appears the story ends. Maybe. Maybe not.

• 1) Her parents in Germany cannot be confirmed-I have stumbled across about three different trails of potential parents and they don’t connect. I personally think the “Germany” trail is fake and misleading and I’ll go into that shortly. If Lizzie Borden and Elizabeth Kessler aren’t the same person, I still believe the Germany trail is a lie anyway-can't find anything concrete.

• 2)The death in 1916-I cannot get any actual document showing the death other than the transposed text death record text that anyone can get a hold of. Also, after 1916 is when most of the name changing started occurring, and it was harder to get a hold of the whereabouts of any of the remaining family members. But these aren’t the only things that are fishy. In one of the census documents that I ran across, Elizabeth Kessler is the only person on the whole census that did not fill in the month of her birth-only the year (1860).

Also, there are still two different documents that I have seen with my eyes that have two different birth places labeled for her son, Philip. One of them is a WWI document that I would assume Philip himself filled out showing him born in Jersey City. The other one is a census document I would assume the parents filled out showing Germany as the birth place of Philip. Another thing, there are two census documents that contradict each other on the year the Harry/Fred and Elizabeth came over to the states from ‘Germany.’ One document says 1880 and the other says 1882. I have observed the original handwritten documents, and they are clear contradictions.

CONCLUSION: Can I actually prove that Lizzie Borden had children? NO. I cannot.

However, with the coincidences in Dianne’s life, I would say there is a probable relation.

Also, if Elizabeth Kessler is not Lizzie Borden, there are still a heavy amount of lies going on. We’ve got numerous contradicting documents, numerous name changes, and we’ve got major cover-ups and lies in Dianne’s life and in her parents’ lives. We’ve got numerous attempted murders and covert sabotage. We’ve also got a random middle name of ‘Borden’ popping up for no known reason-this is the most puzzling fact for me-not only that she's randomly named BORDEN, but then she changes her name shortly before she dies to remove the word "BORDEN" from her record. Borden8046 (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No original research means that we, as editors, are not to conduct our own research and insert it into articles. The blog you keep adding as a reference is NOT a reliable source, but for some reason you keep adding it as if it were. I am going to remove it one more time, and if you add it again I will be forced to file a report at WP:3RRNB concerning your insistence on adding original research backed by a totally inadequate source. If you want your theory to be included you need to find it in a verifiable third-party source - not a blog. Please do not add this again with this source. Doc talk 22:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Somebody beat me to it as I was writing this. Again, multiple editors have explained to you why your theory is not going to be included as it is, so please refrain from re-inserting it. Thanks... Doc talk 22:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I didn't read the whole novel, however the date 1933 is a sticking point with me, if Lizzie's daughter were born on that date, as she had been dead for over five years, and if she was ever fertile, than that would have ended about 1905 when she would have reached menopause. K5okc (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

40 Whacks at Annoyance Theater in Chicago

- Request the addition of the play 40 Whacks currently running at the Annoyance Theater in Chicago, IL. The Annoyance is a well known in the fringe theater circuit, as well as having such well known shows as "Coed Prison Sluts" and "Splatter Theatre", the show is has recieved rave reviews from the Chicago press. Not allowing the addition of 40 Whacks is a great disservice to those interested in the fringe theater movement. - Request the addition of the play 40 Whacks currently running at the Annoyance Theater in Chicago, IL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.251.58 (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC) - Regarding 40 Whacks at the Annoyance theater, it is highly recommended by the Chicago Reader: http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/40-whacks/Event?oid=1888046 by New City: http://newcitystage.com/2010/06/21/review-40-whacksannoyance-theatre/ by the Chicago Theater Blog, Chicago Stage Review and an article on the creators was published here: http://chicago.metromix.com/theater/article/killer-comedy/1980507/content — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.123.217 (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done We do not allow promotion within Wikipedia articles.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"Andrew was known by family, friends, and business associates as tight-fisted and generally rejected modern conveniences. The family still threw their excrement buckets (slops) onto the backyard. The two daughters, well past marriage age, gladly entered the modern outside world whenever they visited friends."

This section needs fixing. Slops are not excrement, they are kitchen scraps and stuff like that--usually thrown out for the chickens. Early 20th century Americans did not throw their dung in the backyard, especially urban ones. Also, in Lizzie Borden's testimony she clearly states that she went to the water closet in the basement on the morning of the murders. This would suggest that there was some kind of plumbing in the home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brechbill123 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Random opinion just before table of contents

"Billy Borden killed them with the help of lizzie borden"

This is an unconfirmed opinion. It's obvious this slipped through because of the sentence errors and the fact that it just pops up out of nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilosopherSocrates (talk • contribs) 15:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

did anybody else notice the physical resemblance between Lizzie Borden and Zac Efron? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.69.177 (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible inclusion of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation Episode: Blood Moon (3) in Season 11

In Season: 11 Episode: Blood Moon (3) (232 in Series) Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Al Robbins and Assistant Medical Examiner David Philips are performing an autopsy on a decapitated victim. David Philips recites part of the poem about Lizzie Borden, "Lizzie Borden got an axe and gave her mother 40 whacks". To which Dr. Al Robbins replied, "Contrary to the poem, Lizzie Bordern gave her parents a total of 29 whacks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.112.116 (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Literary References

If Film and Theatre references are to be included, surely literary references should be included too? I am thinking specifically about "The Fall River Axe Murders" and "Lizzie's Tiger" by Angela Carter, two stories directly influenced by the murders by an incredibly important writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.183.47 (talk • contribs) 7:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

We really need to be going the other way and pruning out the long list to pare it down to the truly germane. We should avoid making lists that can creep and contain the exhaustive list of mentions.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible inclusion of "The Practice" episode?

Episode 26 of Season 2 of "The Practice" has a Lizzie Borden reference. The title of the episode is "Axe Murderer" and was actually a crossover episode with the show "Ally McBeal." A woman in the episode believes she is the reincarnation of Lizzie Borden and murders somebody with an axe. Could this episode be referenced under "Lizzie Borden in culture"? mcrachael, August 24, 2010

I agree with Bearean-Hunter's sentiments in the section just above. "In pop culture" or "literary/cinematic references" sections are just numbing lists of trivia unless either (1) some particular movie/song/play/whatever has played an important part in the popular understanding of the subject and/or (2) there's a secondary source which has made a serious study of pop references, plays, etc., tying such stuff to the subject itself in a coherent and illuminating way. EEng (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

TV and Literature

I suggest the following additions...

TV

• On June 8 2012, The Lizzie Borden Bed & Breakfast/Museum was featured on the Channel 4 series Three in a Bed USA.

Literature

• The Fall River Axe Murders, a short story from the 1985 collection Black Venus by English novelist and journalist Angela Carter, imagines the Borden Family’s past and present moments leading up to the historical murders. Carter revisited the tale in Lizzie's Tiger, another short story, but this time from the 1993 collection American Ghosts and Old World Wonders.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RPMcG (talk • contribs) 08:39, 8 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Notes

As stated above, we need to be pruning out the literary mentions and not adding them. There are already too many.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've also removed one of the links above which is blacklisted.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the blacklisted link. No reference is really necessary as the writer and the works have their own pages. I concede to your point regarding pruning, however, perhaps we should review the current inclusions rather than rejecting any new suggestions out of hand? Angela Carter is an incredibly important writer, yet several of the accepted inclusions in this section are rather obscure to say the least. Can this be discussed/reviewed?
 — RPMcG (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, everything on Wiki may be discussed. :) I'm not seeing the significance here. You have said here and further up the page that Carter is an "incredibly important writer". It seems that your focus is on Carter and not on Lizzie Borden. I'm all for adding academic treatises on a subject but fictional deviations from history have no real value relative to the article or its subject. I've now pruned quite a bit but wouldn't object to someone pruning more. Bear in mind that if someone were to begin improving this article through the GA process, one of the likely things that they would do is pull those sections right out and discard them anyway. This article is currently a C class and it won't be improving with more additions to the lists of trivia.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, but disagree. Providing they are rationalised, "fictional deviations from history" have real value. It's surely dependent on the intent of the reader? In any case, there are already works of fiction included here that I would argue are of less relevance or importance than the one I've proposed. I will take onboard your advice that "trivia" degrades an article through the GA process, but will state for the record that I fudamentally disagree with this position. It seems arbitrarily elitist and limiting to me. In any case, it appears that we've come to an impasse. I'm rather new to all this, so I will defer to your much greater knowledge and experience on the subject. You can't reason with the GA process or the Borg ;)
 — RPMcG (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest the following criterion -- not a WP policy or guideline but something I've been evolving over the course of discussions similar to this one. Time presses just now so I'm just gonna throw it out for discussion:

A fictional or semifictional portrayal of a article's subject is worth noting or discussing in the article on that subject to the extent that reliable secondary sources discuss that the portrayal adds to an understanding of the subject itself, or of the subject's place in history or popular perception.

Thoughts? EEng (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If we were on facebook I would like and thumbs up icon this criterion. A well expressed rationalisation. It does seem far too simplistic to reject all fictional/semi-fictional portrayals of the main article subject as "irrelevant". Clearly this is not the case. Improving the grade of an article should surely be about reviewing and assessing the merit of all current and suggested content on a case by case basis. It shouldn't be about stripping content away or rejecting new content based solely on the category this content falls into. If this isn't WP policy already, would it fly? I think it should.
 — RPMcG (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood EEng's quote particularly the part "...to the extent that reliable secondary sources discuss that the portrayal adds to an understanding of the subject itself". Which means that unless secondary sources have written that The Fall River Axe Murders add significantly to understanding the subject, it would be disqualified by that premise. I can understand EEng's sentiment and appreciate it but I go a little further because I think it is paradoxical. Fictional accounts by default are corruptions which may not serve to enlighten anyone about the actual subject. All you learn about is the fictional version. Indeed, they become the vehicles by which myths and fallacies are propagated.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

All accounts are fictional (corruptions). Journalism and history are just socially/academically acceptable to Wikipedians (apparently). Fiction sometimes transcends history in its scope. Fiction can be LESS associated with "folktale" than fact. Cf: War and Peace and many other "fictions." What a bias this post shows.69.235.22.185 (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You think wrongly. I understand the criterion. Who is to say no such secondary source can be cited? Do you have an axe to grind against Angela Carter or something? (pun intended) :) In any case, I was hypothetically liking the criterion irrespective of whether or not it supports my particular suggested inclusion. I can't agree with your assessment of fiction as merely "a vehicle by which myths and fallacies are propagated" which "may not serve to enlighten anyone about the actual subject". I think that you have failed to acknowledge the latter part of the criterion, namely that the portrayal adds to an understanding of "the subject's place in history or popular perception". This is what fiction offers us (as well as an interesting aside). For me, it isn't a paradox, it's simply a means by which we can offer a variety of information and treat the audience with the intelligence to use that information appropriately. This discussion is less about Lizzie and more about general policy/perception now. Perhaps this isn't the right forum?
 — RPMcG (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Children! Children! Do not quarrel! Let me give examples of artistic works which definitely do merit mention, or even substantial discussion, in articles on actual persons or events, because including such mention or discussion adds (according to the criterion I proposed above) "to an understanding of the subject itself, or of the subject's place in history or popular perception":

• The play Macbeth is what most people know about the historical Macbeth
• The film Lawrence of Arabia taught most people everything they know about T.E. Lawrence
• The Dylan song "Hurricane" probably was a strong reason that Ruben Carter's case was reopened
• War and Peace powerfully affected Russians' view of Napolean's invasion seventy years earlier, and did so with sufficient permanence that echoes of its thematic elements were incorporated into Russian propaganda of World War II
• Turgenev's Fathers and Sons was a catlyst, in late 19th-century Russia, for discussion of social and political conditions, and would certainly have a place in an article on events leading to the Russian Revolution
• The Protocols of the Elders of Zion would certainly be covered in a discussion of the history of popular perceptions of Judaism
• Any comprehensive history of slavery in the US would include a discussion of Uncle Tom's Cabin

So it's not true that discussion of fictional or artistic presentations don't belong in factual articles. But the standard is high, and a minimum requirement is that secondary sources must discuss the work's effect on popular perception etc. -- lacking such sources, even such "obvious" statements about how a given work related to (returning to the topic at hand) Lizzie Borden, drawn from direct reading of the work itself, is WP:OR, which is a no-no.

Therefore if you have any favorite works you think should be included, get cracking to find such sources. EEng (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This was my understanding. For my particular proposed inclusion I would cite the article Taking an Axe to History: The Historical Lizzie Borden and the Postmodern Historiography of Angela Carter (Christine Berni; CLIO, Vol. 27, 1997). In this article Berni explains:

" "The Fall River Axe Murders" offers a fundamental challenge to the kind of seamless narrative that has characterized both fictional and historical writing.(2) Her story is not so much a re-telling of the Borden murders as a commentary on past re-tellings. Carter refuses to create a sealed-off fictional world; instead, she repeatedly reminds us of her role as producer of the past. She lampoons the need for single, uncomplicated historical causality as she demonstrates the ways that class and gender influence historical production. In short, through a host of narrative strategies often labeled "postmodern," Carter challenges history and fiction writing that disguises ideology through representational fidelity to the real."

I would therefore suggest that the work qualifies. Certainly more so than most of the current inclusions.

 — RPMcG (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like commentary on Carter's work might be useful in an article on modern developments in narrative structure (or whatever -- I have no idea about that stuff). But a reader comes to this article wanting to learn about L.B., and above says nothing about what light Carter shines on L.B., nor about (trotting out again my personal criterion, which is not any kind of WP guideline) L.B.'s "place in history or popular perception." Did Carter's work shape what any identifiable group of people think about the L.B. case? So far the answer seems to be No. And as stated before, I think few or none of the current lit/pop culture items belong either. EEng (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

In Lizzie Borden Took an Axe: History, Feminism and American Culture, Ann Schofield references the work of Carter (amongst others), putting forward a compelling argument for their signficance:

"As the story of Lizzie Borden has been created and re-created through rhyme and fiction it has taken on the qualities of a popular American myth or legend that effectively links the present to the past. Its social meaning is like that of all myths in that it performs a "symbolizing function that is central to the cultural functioning of the society that produces them." Like all myths, the Borden story is told and retold, which means, as Richard Slotkin has noted, "the range of reference of these stories is being expanded. Each new context in which the story is told adds meaning to it because the telling implies a metaphoric connection between the storied past and the present."

From this position this particular re-telling and others like it are vital to understanding L.B's place in history/popular perception.

 — RPMcG (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this kind of hifalutin talk has much to do with popular perceptions, but at least now we're starting to get somewhere. Schofield's paper might be the basis for a short (two or three sentences, maybe a bit more) discussion of what Schofield (and maybe others whose views she discusses -- in which case a bit longer discussion might be justified) has to say about LB as a theme, or background, or meme, or collective infinitude of the Jungian view of the Electra conflict, or whatever, in literature and culture. But I want to emphasize that this is an article on LB, not a coatrack on which to hang mentions of favorite authors or works. Carter would have to absolutely central to Schofield's discussion to justify even mentioning her.

In the meantime, I'm proposing deletion of both of the lit/popcult sections because everything in them (a) has no cite or only a primary cite, (b) IMO has low probability of some appropriate cite existing out there, and (c) is easily added back if such a cite is found. Others' thoughts?

EEng (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that noting the article (and key references) could be useful here, however, on reflection, although hung on LB, the points Schofield makes about "re-tellings" do not exclusively relate to LB or her story. Rather it is a subject in itself and therefore may be better placed elsewhere (a section of folklore or fiction perhaps?). In terms of the lit/popcult sections, I also agree. Although they can be a "nice to have" and amusing aside for the casual reader, they do detract from the main subject and should therefore be removed to preserve integrity (unless of course they can be validated along the lines of EEng's criterion - not official, but pretty darn sensible). A link to a separate lit/popcult page might be a nice idea for those interested (not just here, but across the board). Just saying.

 — RPMcG (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My God! Discussion leading to consensus! It actually worked for once! Should we notify the press? EEng (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the Pop culture and Lit sections. If they prove of later value they can be had from the article history. I'm not for the idea of creating a page to house it, though. I am still listening and interested in whether the aspect of how fiction may have shaped later public perception may be given proper academic (and sourced) treatment in prose. The two of you may be onto something there...:)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A separate article on "LB in literature" etc. would require that that subject be notable, which in turn would mean that topic be have to be covered as a coherent subject in reliable sources -- more than one, most likely. That's an even higher standard than the one I've proposed for inclusion of a creative work in the main LB article. EEng (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing "in culture" section

Per the discussion in the previous section, I've removed all this material. The diff is here [1] for those who think something should be salvaged. The criterion applied, which I am just tickled pink to say I suggested, was

A fictional or semifictional portrayal of a article's subject is worth noting or discussing in the article on that subject to the extent that reliable secondary sources discuss that the portrayal adds to an understanding of the subject itself, or of the subject's place in history or popular perception.

Before writing any angry protests, please read the previous section in full. Attitudes toward pop culture etc. material has moved around a great deal over WP's life, and there's no clear universal guideline that I know of. However, there can be no question that no work can be listed whose relationship to LB isn't described in a reliable secondary source; to write here that "Play X imagines LB's inner thoughts during her trial", citing only the play itself, is WP:OR plain and simple, and has no place anywhere on WP. But having a secondary source is only a minimum, gateway requirement -- beyond that the question is, Why would someone wanting to know about LB want to know about this work? Anyway, none of the stuff I'm removing now meets even the secondary-source requirement, at least based on the sources in the article. EEng (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ax or Axe

I don't know if this has been addressed, but it seems like this article exclusively uses the British spelling axe. Lizzie Borden was an American, and the murders took place in the United States. Therefore, shouldn't we us the American spelling ax, without the e? 98.221.128.109 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The spelling "axe" is by no means exclusively British. It is in fact quite common in American usage. Kostaki mou (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but "ax" is exclusively American. The American TV show Ax Men uses the proper American spelling, and when aired in the UK is retitled "Axe Men." Don't you think this article should use proper American English spelling? 98.221.141.21 (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As I was trying to point out, American spelling of this word varies. There is nothing "improper" about an American using the spelling "axe," as many of us do. Kostaki mou (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You can spell color with a "u" if you'd like, it still doesn't make it standard in American English, just as axe is not standard, regardless of how you spell it. Moreover, in looking up old newspaper reports from the time period, most of them refer to the murder weapon as a hatchet. Did a poem determine the use of ax instead of hatchet? 98.221.141.21 (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Axe" is a great deal more common in American usage than "colour." It is certainly not "non-standard." The murder weapon was indeed a hatchet. It may or may not have been the well-known rhyme that started people referring to it as an ax(e). In any event, it started quite early. Kostaki mou (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, I do not think the issue of English versus American spelling is at all important as so many Wiki articles use either, sometimes interchangeably--even for subjects of American origin. I have seen contemporary publications use the spelling with an 'e' as that was still customary in the United States in the 1890s, not to mention even in modern American work. For other word spellings, like "color" versus "colour", the latter was still being used sometimes in the 1890s, though less so than pre-Civil War. I myself would still spell it "axe" and I am wholly American :)

WP:CONSISTENCY calls for consistent use of just one national variety of English in any given article, and this being a decidedly American topic WP:TIES suggests that variety should be American English -- within which both ax and axe are equally acceptable (possibly one or the other is either preferred or shunned in British English -- I don't know -- but that's neither here nor there). So either ax or axe should be used consistently. Which one? One thought might be to sample the primary sources (which I suspect should be at least, and likely more, consistent than secondary sources) and see if their usage favors one or the other. (The has the advantage of making article text as consistent as possible with any quotations it incorporates.) Then we can stop wasting time on this excruciatingly tiny question -- the article overall remains a controlled mess and that's where the brainpower should be expended. EEng (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is all a wash, as they were clearly murdered with a hatchet. An ax/axe would have left their brains all over the room. K5okc (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That's neither here nor there. The article contains the word ax(e) several times e.g. "There was an axe murder nearby just before the trial", "Lizzie Borden took an axe", etc., so the issue remains. 05:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge from Emma Borden

Sisterhood may be powerful, but it's not notable. Any objections? EEng (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No objections. The two articles should be merged. Lizzie is central to the case and most others immediately associated with the case are not notable themselves other than the association. Even Lizzie would not be if it were not for the murder case and trial surrounding her, so all should be rolled into one like so many other famous murder cases of otherwise non-notable individuals. Perhaps if someone later expands on this story (which I think is needed), a short sub-article could be included detailing Emma, Morse, etc. and their association. Austin023 (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, uh... hi there. I must have fallen asleep. <rubs eyes> OK, then. Welcome to the least controversial merge discussion ever. What is the special significance of Morse? I just looked over the Emma article, and as far as I can see there's exactly one thing that needs transferring to the Lizzie article before replacing the Emma article with a redirect, and that is the statement that Emma raised Lizzie for a time. Anything else you think should be transferred? Feel free to go ahead and move any material you think belongs in Lizzie. EEng (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! Very true :) I was a little surprised a separate article was even made for Emma. As for Morse, he was just another figure of this case who was also kin to the Bordens and testified at the trial. Some theories have him (or Emma) as either assisting or knowing the truth behind the murders. That is about it regarding either of them in terms of notoriety. There used to be a subsection of the Lizzie article that listed a few of the prevailing theories, including the highly improbable one of Emma actually commissioning the murders herself. More probable ones are she have foreknowledge of the killings and that is why she left for on an extended trip to see friends shorty before the murders happened.Austin023 (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

So it should be made into one article centered and titled about the murder not Lizzie? 91.135.10.170 (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point actually. A redirect could be made for Lizzie, etc. to this article, it being re-named "Borden murder case" or something similar as found in published works. The only real notoriety of Lizzie is the murder case and trial, so renaming it and having a redirect is certainly something to consider, especially as many other famous cases on Wiki have the same type of setup.Austin023 (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Merge material from Emma Borden here and leave titled as is. She is the one far more notable for the murders than the murders themselves. When discussing moves, you need to consider the evidence to see if it makes sense...and in this case it doesn't.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Berean Hunter. A casual reference to "the Borden murder case" would get you a puzzled look from most people. "Lizzie Borden" is the conceptual center of all this material, and that should be the article's title, the article covering both Lizzie and the murders, because they're inextricably linked in most people's minds -- guilty or not -- and of course including such additional material (family background etc.) as enhances the reader's understanding of Lizzie and the murders -- not just stuff that's fun and interesting.

If there's no dissent to my statement above that there's only one salvagable datum from the Emma article that needs bringing over here, can someone carry out the merge? I never understood that stuff and probably never will. Remember, the Emma article text will remain indefinitely available in that article's edit history, so anyone who wants to scour for additional stuff to bring over still can. EEng (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be a dullard, but I just noticed that there's a separate article on maid Sullivan as well. I submit that the same reasoning applies to her as to Emma, and I'm templating for merge on her as well. Comments? EEng (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope not prematurelyt I've gone ahead and done Bridget -- what a pain in the Wiki merging is -- there's like 852,000 templates to add and stuff! EEng (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A picture is worth a thousand words

As the person who wrote most of the Emma Borden stuff (mostly to list the ancestry), let it be known I don't really give a shit if it all is merged/deleted (other than I feel the ancestry is important in any massacre). K5okc (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Redirect completed. K5okc (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason I put final probate wasn't to get into an argument with a lawyer, and the reason I said emma's was shorter, was to merely highlight the fact that her Will took from 1927 to 1933 to process. Whatever the legal terminolgy, it was merely to show that she wasn't obsessed about money, and probably refused to be bothered by good legal advice, which emma seems to have followed. K5okc (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why you're so exercised about this. The old wording was estate's final distribution in 1933, which communicates the year the estate wound up just as well as your new text estate's final probate in 1933. But as already explained final probate makes no sense. As for time it took to probate Lizzie's estate: long probates were common in those days, especially for large estates with unusual bequests, and say nothing about the "quality" of the will.

This is just an observation, and the reason I don't participate with this subject any longer, is that it seems like every couple of years, some new shithead comes along as the new resident expert. They delete everything, add a bunch of citations needed, etc, etc. The new pissing matches and snippyness begins. Anyway, I see that time has arrived again. I wish the new HNIC the best of luck. K5okc (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Since I am presumably the shithead you're addressing, let me say that I don't claim to be an expert -- I simply copyedited the text, removing trivia and repetition which, I thought, didn't add to the reader's understanding of the subject. If there's something you think should go back in by all mean add it back, or discuss it here if you think that would be better. Emma is clearly non-notable (unless there's something not in her article) and all that detail about her life really has no place on WP,

The pissing and snippyness are all on your side, as far as I can see -- this Talk and your own Talk are full of message from people offended by your hairtrigger hostility. If you don't participate anymore, it's not because of what others have done, rather that you have a hard time accepting that things can't always go your way.

(signed) The new HNIC (Helpful and Nice, if Intermittent, Contributor) EEng (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I know emma was taking a lot of disk space, so thank God we nipped that in the bud. Heaven forbid someone should pollute their brain with that trivia. It's been awhile since I've looked at the Lizzie page, and I guess I was just shocked that it was still all tore-up and punctured with editors notes. This for a woman who's been dead longer than anyone here's been alive. Even her picture has been edited to an ugly mess, and I would suggest maybe just deleting that as well, as it is not very pleasant to look at. At least no one has added "spinster" back into her opening paragraph... My suggestion, would be to move the page to a private area, get it past the copyedit stage, and then maybe re-introduce it in a few years when the research is done.K5okc (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Lizzie Borden

The photo of Lizzie hasn't changed since 2008 (two years before your first edit to the article) and the prior photo was the one seen here, so your complaint that "her picture has been edited to an ugly mess" is puzzling at best, though a less charitable interpretation would be that you're just kvetching. [pic was indeed changed "umder the hood" -- see below] My suggestion would be for you to improve the article by adding, for example, badly-needed detail on the trial, household tensions, etc., and supplying references where needed. By the way, contrary to your edit summary a secondary source is needed for the burial place -- a photo is primary and not reliable on its own (there are plenty of gravestones with incorrect names and dates, and stones for people who aren't actually there).

EEng (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The photo was changed in August of 2012 it looks like. The sepia version changed to an ugly black and white by user 'hohum'. K5okc (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. The name of the file didn't change but as you noticed Mr. Hohum substituted a modified version. I agree the original is superior. I tried to restore the original but the technical details elude me. I'm gonna sask a friend to help.

But you still need to cut out the kvetching.
EEng (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
A helpful pal switched back to the prior version of the pic.
EEng (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sullivan as "Maggie"

I don't see a need for "for unclear reasons" here:

At least some of the family referred to Sullivan as "Maggie"— the name of an earlier maid— for unclear reasons

It was common for families to change the names of servants. This might be to save the bother of learning a new name, or because they just didn't like the real name; but the reason doesn't matter in this article. jnestorius^(talk) 08:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Tags

I came by to read about Lizzie and was rather put off by all the tags throughout the article. Excessive tags within the text make things hard to read which defeats the purpose of articles. Aren't these things supposed to be used when content is questionable/dubious? Do we really need them after each sentence when there's a citation that clearly sources the text at the end of a paragraph? I took some time and added some sources. Some of what was tagged was already sourced - the citation just wasn't directly following a sentence. It took me all of three seconds to figure that out. Also, some of the '[when?]' and '[clarification needed]' tags were just silly. The word "tension" needs to be clarified? The text right after the sentence that includes the word tension explains why there was tension between the girls and their parents. And we really need to clarify the word "lawsuit" and "claims"? I don't think we have to dumb things down that much. I also removed a lot of the silly hidden notes in the article. Suggestions or questions should be put on the talk page, not hidden within text all jammed up by references. How is a hidden note that says "cue creepy foreshadowing music" helpful to people who actually edit articles and try to improve them? If you have time to leave little funny notes like that, you have time to source and/or clarify some content. 24.224.43.225 (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Some good points, but you obviously haven't spent much time on Wikipedia. We constantly have editors (mostly anonymous one's like yourself, but admittedly all too often more veteran editors too) adding conjecture, original research, and/or unreferenced content and not every editor has the time to pull up the listed references and check through them to ensure the new content is substantiated. Often times, veteran editors will happen on a page, read through the content, note that several important pieces of information are not referenced or appear dubious, and tag them. These tags are put there to point out to future readers/editors that this piece of information MAY BE open to interpretation or it needs a citation to ensure that it is valid.

As far as the in-line comments go, as I said alot of editors are out there and some of them "major" in adding nonsense to articles (I watch over 1000 pages and spend most of the time reverting Kilroy Was Here crap). It is what it is and those of us who watch pages can't always catch every insertion. So my suggestion is if you care as much as you obviously do, become a "named" editor (rather than your current anon state) and help us keep the wolves at bay. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Updates Dec 2014

I added a few sourced items I felt were interesting about the trial.

I also removed these citations from the sections on Abby and Andrew Borden: name=crime>"Abby Durfee Gray Borden". The Lizzie Borden Collection. Retrieved January 30, 2014. name=crime>"The Lizzie Borden Collection". The Crime. Retrieved January 30, 2014. "Andrew Jackson Borden". The Lizzie Borden Collection. Retrieved January 30, 2014.

They link to advertising pages and not source material. I tried typing them into my browser manually and still landed on the same advertising business blog. I also removed one sentence that used these citations as a source because it said Lizzie changed her story to 10 minutes during the inquest. I recently read the inquest transcript and am pretty certain she stood by her story of 20 - 30 minutes. However, what she did during that time changed throughout. If someone else can properly cite the page where she changed her story to 10 minutes, I would gladly accept it, but without a reference, I don't think it belongs. 2601:D:2C00:8D00:89B5:E32A:A866:ED4F (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

User 71.46.248.22 seems to find it hilarious to keep adding a bit about the step mother farting in her sleep. Yep a real thigh slapper that one. Done it twice now... Tigerman2005 (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Trial

"The victims' heads were removed during autopsy." In fact I believe there was two autopsies: a mini-autopsy in the home, where the stomachs were removed, and a full autopsy at the cemetery. It is my understanding the heads were removed during the full autopsy. It was said that the funeral was stopped before burial, and the autopsy performed, and heads removed. I believe the bodies were then buried later without their heads. The heads being buried in boxes above the caskets after the trial.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/LizzieBorden/bordenautopsies.html

MonsieurET (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, it came out in the trial that the evidence against her was mostly manufactured. Two officers were punished, one for selling sensational stories to a Boston newspaper about the evidence, another for perjury during the trial. I will look for the evidence on this. I am remembering evidence from a book I read 5 years ago, so I need to verify what I have stated above. (entered 2016-07-16) ScienceExplains (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Article

I saw this article from Rolling Sone today and wanted to put it in the External Link section. I noticed it was mentioned in there that "no additional links should be added" and, if you wanted to add one, you should ask on the talk page first. Well here I am!

While the RS article does not provide a whole lot of additional information about Lizzie Borden, it does give a nice reflection of how Lizzie Borden has impacted (and continues to impact) popular culture in the United States. Let me know if you think it would be OK to add this to the external link section, or maybe it merits a new section relating to pop culture? Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I would say, no it's not a proper EL. I just removed two EL's that shouldn't be here. As it's an article, you can use it to add material, citing it as a source. Doc talk 07:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

MOS:POPCULT

Lists are not encouraged on Wikipedia, but many of the main mentions in the popular culture section do at least engage with and are supported by the facts covered in the article. However, not every chance mention of Lizzie Borden is significant and I have removed all those that do not deal directly with her life, which is the subject of the article. Some came with a reference which did not support what was claimed. Ideally, someone should combine all of the items in these lists into a coherently written section so as to remove the risk of it becoming a dumping ground for trivia. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lizzie Borden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150411224754/http://40whacksexperience.com/prime-suspect-john-morse/ to http://40whacksexperience.com/prime-suspect-john-morse/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Background - "Vacations"

The word "vacations" is in quotes in the article, implying something other than a rest break or family outing, and suggesting a stay at a sanitorium or similar institution or medical specialist. No proof or explanation is given for the alleged vacation, much less the reason for it being in quotes. As such, it is suspect and should be removed or changed. Skaizun (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Abby's death

"... delivering 17 direct hits to the back of her head, until she was dead." Was this 'expert' testimony? It is likely she was dead before the last several blows. Better phrasing would help. Also, the 'Folk rhyme' section says it was 18 or 19 blows; which number is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.247.220 (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lizzie Borden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304030827/http://www.genealogymagazine.com/elmo.html to http://www.genealogymagazine.com/elmo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The Simpsons

She appeared in the simpsons episode "Treehouse of Horror IV". She was part of a "Jury of the Damned". Is this something worth mentioning ? Past edits by me were reverted. Philippe97 (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Trivia should be left out especially when it is uncited. That doesn't improve the article at all and additions should be quite a bit more academic.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Philippe97 (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lizzie Borden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402145937/http://lizzieandrewborden.com/crimelibrary/chronologies/chronology1789-1892.htm to http://lizzieandrewborden.com/crimelibrary/chronologies/chronology1789-1892.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lizzie Borden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080531091844/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/LizzieBorden/bordenaccount.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/LizzieBorden/bordenaccount.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Why she did it

It was said that Lizzie had just gotten a illness. This illnesses was said to be what drove her to kill her parents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.33.44.13 (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2018‎ (UTC)

Please provide citations to reliable sources for any material you wish to add to the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Axe or Hatchet

Weren't the victims killed with a hatchet and not an axe? L. Thomas W. (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That's right. Kostaki mou (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup

Cornstalks (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The murder weapon was never identified. It's likely that it was a hatchet, because hatchets or parts of them were found in the cellar. Hatchets were at one time commonly found inside houses; they were used for splitting firewood next to the fireplace, especially when splintering it into narrow strips for starting the fire. I believe no axe (or US: ax) was ever found at the residence, not even in the barn. Akld guy (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)