Talk:Lizzie Borden

New Addition to Theater Section

Would anyone object to the addition of Word for Word's 2003 production of Angela Carter's "The Fall River Axe Murders"? Information can be found on-line here: http://www.zspace.org/press.htm --JLSQ (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What would reviews for a play add to the article?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If there are broadly published reliable sources, then please bring them here and it can be further discussed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. My intention was to ask if the addition of Word for Word's performance be added, not the article whose link I included. The link was to provide information that might help with the decision making process. --JLSQ (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Lizzie Borden Living Dead Doll

I was just wondering whether a reference to the Series 2 Living Dead Doll of Lizzie Borden should be included in the cultural references section. (Mezco Toyz also made a headknocker figure and later, in 2004, a miniaturised version of the Lizzie Borden doll). The doll's hairstyle and costume were clearly based on photographs of Lizzie Borden, and came with a death certificate bearing Borden's real life death date and the traditional "Lizzie Borden took an axe" rhyme.

If it would be appropriate to be included, it seems to require a new header under the references section for "Other" as it doesn't fit under the other media sub-headings. Thanks for your thoughts.

Mabalu (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Best not to add it. It fits the category of cruft and won't improve the article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion

The concern is whether the line removed [1] here should be included or not. It has been removed and readded more than once. 130.101.100.107 (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a discussion here regarding the edit in question or that an effort has been made to discuss it. Discussion doesn't take place in one note in an edit summary. Having said that, I'm not sure I see what is helpful in that particular sentence. The sentence as it appears in the article says:

• Adding to the doubt was another axe murder in the area, perpetrated by José Correira, which took place shortly before the trial. While many details were similar, Correira was not in the country when the Borden murder took place.

It establishes that Correira couldn't have committed the murder. It establishes that Correira's murder helped establish doubt. The article doesn't contend that this is the reason, or the sole reason, that Borden was acquitted. What do you propose that the addition that the jury didn't know this adds to that? The article actually outlines that reasonable doubt already existed for the acquittal:

• The fact that no murder weapon was found and no blood evidence was noted just a few minutes after the second murder pointed to reasonable doubt.

If the contention is that the reason Borden was acquitted was due to the Correira murder, the phrase you want to add would be more relevant. The article only states that the existence of another murderer helped solidify reasonable doubt. It doesn't need additional reinforcement to prove Correira did not do it, it already establishes that. I can't see that the phrase adds anything. LaVidaLoca (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hatchet/fathers skull

Does anyone have a credible reference for the fact that the hatch and Lizzie Borden's fathers skull was found in the attic of Lizzie Borden's attorney's house (by his daughter) around the 1960s - it was on history's lost and found http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwXAIKMLPvI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.104.221 (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2009 (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)

Lizzie Borden as Jury Member on "The Simpsons"

In the "Television and Film" of the "Borden and Culture" section; Borden should be mentioned for her appearance on the jury of a mock trial of Homer Simpson in The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror IV, episode 1F04. This is of note as The Simpsons are arguably one of the greatest pop culture icons of the late 20th / early 21st century. Gabe0463 (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Simpsons status in pop culture notwithstanding, care has been taken to try and limit the mentions of Borden to those that are about specificly about her and this case and direct depictions thereof. Using her as a character on The Simpsons doesn't fall under that definition. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not Lizzie!

Someone replaced an authentic photo of Lizzie with a picture of someone else. (Even if this were Lizzie, the date (c. 1889) would certainly be wrong. Lizzie was 29 that year. This woman is obviously far too young.) Kostaki mou (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So I see. And because of that, the image I had uploaded was deleted as a duplicate. This will take a rename, because there is an identical image on commons but it has the same name as the one currently showing. I'll fix this. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much! Kostaki mou (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it was an honest mistake, someone had copied the image I had originally uploaded onto the Wiki commons and set the image name here to match it. Unfortunately, there was another image floating around on this site that used the same name. I'm glad to do it and I'm actually a bit shame-faced for not checking to make sure everything was okay. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)