Talk:Lizzie Borden

New Addition to Theater Section

- 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

- I'd like to request the addition of the new play 40 Whacks opening at the Annoyance Theater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annoyance_Theatre) on June 18th as part of the Just for Laughs Festival. Show info from the JFL page: http://www.justforlaughschicago.com/justforlaughschicago/stories/story/0,,218860,00.html

At this point it is a future production and the notability of the play has not been established. Per WP:CRYSTAL, sorry. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Although that clip would seem to indicate that Andrew Borden's skull was in the attic because it showed a cartoon skull coming out of the cartoon tub, the clip did not say that. In fact, Andrew Borden's skull, and Abby Borden's skull, were part of the prosecution evidence. Both skulls are were on display at the Fall River Historical Society at one time, but I believe those were obtained from the county. The hatchet head used in the trial was never proven to be used in the murders. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for changing your words. My bad. I was informed when I first visited the Borden house in 2005 that the skulls had been reburied in the graves of their possessors in boxes about two feet deep, if my information is correct. Kostaki mou (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. The skulls were buried 3-feet below surface in boxes. I believe this was around August of 1893, after a demand letter from the Borden lawyers. K5okc (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The correct answer to all of this is that the "skulls" displayed at the trial, and which could have remained in the possession of Lizzie's Lawyers and been displayed elsewhere afterward, were plaster casts, not the genuine articles. After the autopsies the heads of the 2 corpses were detatched, boiled, and the skin removed, then the casts were taken and the skulls buried in the appropriate graves, though above the original caskets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarkSavageJr (talk • contribs) 15:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Uncle John

Where can I find any information or Lizzy Borden Uncle John..... And did anyone investigated him whatsoever........... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.226.192 (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Deed of the Deft-Footed Dragon

Does anyone object to adding Avram Davidson's short story "The Deed of the Deft-Footed Dragon", which is entirely about Lizzie, and offers a novel (if unprovable) theory?

(The Chinese laundryman did it; he was a killer for a tong, relocated to get him away from rival tongs and the cops; Lizzie had helped his daughter in his charitable work, and he overheard her step-mother's plans to cheat her.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Not in theory, I don't object. It would be nice to have a source for such an addition. The problem was with the other short stories with the cite requested, was simply verifying the publication of the work. Too many things have been added over the years that turned out to be fabrication. Thanks for asking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

BBC “Second Verdict” series.

The 1976 BBC series “Second Verdict” looked at the case, with a dramatised reconstruction of some events. This series was unusual, in that it took the format of a discussion between two (fictional) detectives from the “Softly Softly” police series - Det. Chief Supt. Charlie Barlow, played by Stratford Johns, and Det. Chief Supt. John Watt, played by Frank Windsor - looking at the evidence of six cases where a verdict had either not been reached, or was controversial. Rosemary Leach played Lizzie. Sadly, Barlow and Watt reached a “verdict” in only one case (and not this one!) leading to Johns lamenting that they should have called the programme “Second Opinion”. The Wikipedia article on the series is here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Verdict. Jock123 (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comics

I think this whole section needs to be removed. It doesn't add any references, maybe one, not sure, but surely this section is trivia that isn't needed in an encyclopedia. Thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The new addition was removed. The first item is referenced and the second is a mention of The Lizzie Borden Quarterly, which is fairly relevant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks that makes more sense to me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Prussic Acid Evidence

During the inquest and the trial the accused was asked if she owns a seal skin sack. This word is not common today, and not many will wear any seal skin product. Minus the fact that there are no longer quality seal furs to be had. The reader here is told it was a cloak under "Motive and Methods." The proper word, regardless of the sites insistance on "cloak" is a "Seal Skin Sacque." The brutal Americanization of the word sacque to sack is what probably makes this wiki article incomplete. Miss Borden told the inquest that she would not put acid on any seal skin. These items were only bought by wealthy people and treated like diamonds. The inquisitor and the recorder wrote the word "sack" but she was cultered enough to know they were trying to say sacque. She went on to state that she didn't even know where the drug store was, and never went there in her life. Obviously this was not checked, as the evidence was not material to the crime, although it could show she was a liar. In any case, a sacque (sack) is more like a jacket. It has hooks on the front instead of buttons, and the garment is normally kept short to the waist to enhance a womans figure. The otherwise juvenile translation of a sacque to a cloak is like calling a diamond a rock. 99.202.144.103 (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the spelling "sack" is neither American nor brutal, the word "sacque" being simply a 19th century alteration of the far older word "sack" (attested before the 12th century). (Check any reputable dictionary.) I fail to see how the spelling used makes this article "incomplete." And an understandable (and trivial) error is "juvenile"? I find your tone highly offensive -- and juvenile. Kostaki mou (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's break this down. Initially, the IP changed the word "jacket" to "sack", not once [2] but twice [3], so that editor used the "brutal Americanization" form of the word. Whether there are quality seal skins around is beside the point, the use of the word "sacque" as we are so clearly told is a "cultered" word (whatever that means), is arcane. The editor referenced the 1893 New York Times article and the inquest. That will not help us modernize this term. This isn't 1893 and it falls on editors now to rendered the wording understandable to today's reader. However, observing that Borden was more "cultered" than the court reporter is effectively original research, as was the insertion of an explanatory note that said "sacque (a womans form fitting jacket, also called a sack in America)". So let's look at other sources. The Free Dictionary says "a woman's full loose hiplength jacket" or "a short coat". The Fall River tragedy: a history of the Borden murders says "a seal skin sacque or cape" and later "The only other thing I heard the woman use the words 'seal skin cape'." The Trial of Lizzie Andrew Borden, Book Three says "it is not used for cleaning capes, seal skin capes, or capes of any other sort". The Cases That Haunt Us says "saying she needed it to kill insects in a sealskin cape". So all that is needed here is to decide whether to describe it as a cloak, a cape, or a jacket, I'd say. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

First ballot: jacket! 173.149.192.224 (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Man Who Came to Dinner

I have added this play to the theater section as it is, by far, the most notable depiction of the Lizzy Borden character to date, and the section was lacking, given that it mentions numerous obscure productions, but was missing it's most notable.(75.69.241.91 (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

Actually, the play does not have a character named Lizzie Borden. It has a character named Harriet Stanley who obstensibly is a characterization of Borden, but it's entirely arguable that it is "the most notable depiction" of Lizzie Borden, since it wasn't her and many would argue that the most notable depiction was by Elizabeth Montgomery. This would require a reliable source for "the most notable" as well as for whether or not the character is actually Borden at all. I'd also argue against this play as the examples included are direct depictions of Borden and the inclusion of historical facts connected to the case. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the character is based on Lizzie Borden, and of course the character is not named 'Lizzie Borden'. Your argument is akin to stating that Charlie Chaplin's character in The Great Dictator is not Adolph Hitler, which is true technically. Hart and Kaufman both stated that the character was based on Borden. It remains the best known depiction, fictionalized or not,in a play (not a television movie from the 1970s, which has nothing to do with anything, and which you could also argue was fictionalized!) and that stands true to this very day. To not include 'The Man Who Came to Dinner' in the theater section is absolutely absurd. In the interest of fictionalizing the story somewhat, Fall River, Massachusetts was changed to Gloucester, Massachusetts and "Lizzie Borden took an axe" became "Harriet Sedley took an axe". I'd be willing to note that the character is a fictionalized character based on Borden, and not a direct depiction, but it still stands as factual that Lizzie Borden was the inspiration for Harriet Sedley.

If your argument was that it may not be the "most notable", that still would not justify your deletion of it. The proper protocol would have been to request a citation instead of unilaterally deleting an item. And while we are on that, I'm quite sure a play that was a Broadway success in 1939, has had numerous television adaptations, a major motion picture, and has had numerous revivals on Broadway, including one with Nathan Lane in 2000, and has been released on DVD, and shown repeatedly on cable television is easily more notable than the other, frankly obscure, plays mentioned in the section.

As for the reference to the Elizabeth Montgomery television movie, that TV movie has no relevance to what we are discussing.

Are you seriously arguing that those hardly known plays are more notable than a Hart/Kaufman classic that is performed to this day??

And are you really stating that Harriet Sedley is NOT based on Lizzie Borden, and merits no inclusion in the Theater section??

Biographical entries in Wikipedia regularly note when the biographical subjects have been used as clear inspiration for fictionalized characters. 75.69.241.91 (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

No. I'm seriously saying that the culture sections are reserved for portrayals directly based on Lizzie Borden in an historical context regarding the murder case, either regarding events before, during or after the trial. I challenged your statement that this is "the most notable depiction of the Lizzy Borden character to date". You didn't mention a play characterization, you said "of the character". And my comment is still that I don't buy that argument. The character named Harriet Stanley may be based on Lizzie Borden, but the play itself is not about Lizzie Borden, does not contain content related to her trial, either before or after, nor does it represent her in an historical sense. Even if the play met that criteria, the play review does not support the content you put in your addition. The addition was put in despite a note in the article which says: "DO NOT add trivia section or listings of instances where Borden is mentioned in songs, films or other media. This is covered sufficiently in the "Borden and culture" section and is not intended to be an exhaustive list. If you have items you think may be appropriate, bring it up on the talk page. Any additions not previously discussed WILL BE REMOVED and may be reported as vandalism. Thank you." Complaining after the fact doesn't meet that and including this play is akin to adding "Lizzie Borden was depicted in The Simpsons as part of the jury in the episode "Blah Blah"." It isn't about Lizzie Borden and whether or not Hart and Kaufmann cobbed the poem for inclusion does not make it apply here. As for your other comments, play, book, television and film portrayals are their own reference and don't require further citation, however a differently named characterization in an unrelated play would definitely require one if the portrayal was historically based. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible inclusion of The Simpsons episode?

Television & Film section

• In the Treehouse of Horror IV episode of The Simpsons animated television series, Lizzie Borden's character is used for one of the jurors in the "Jury of the Damned".

pebbens (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not hardly. Please see the imbedded note and the discussion above that says "including this play is akin to adding "Lizzie Borden was depicted in The Simpsons as part of the jury in the episode "Blah Blah"." It isn't about Lizzie Borden." The Simpsons is nowhere nearly about Borden and including her likeness in a fictional jury in a cartoon episode doesn't come near that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Mysterious stranger

What about that Simpsons episode where Lizzie was in some kind of jury? Should that be added? Seriously, I saw the 2004 Discovery Channel documentary on the Borden murders recently, and they mentioned a third theory, that was supposedly brought up in court. The theory was refuted by the forensics, but it held that an unknown man was allowed into the home by Abby Borden to meet with Andrew Borden. Killed Andrew, then went upstairs and killed Abby. The timing is apparently way off, and that's why it was refuted, but apparently it was what convinced jurors of Lizzie's innocence (according to the documentary). I don't know if any of this has any bearing in reality, as some of the documentary did seem a tad sensational, but does anyone have access to the court testimony/news of the time that refutes or explains this? At the very least, if not brought up under Other theories, it could be mentioned next to the documentary (it was not their conclusion, however).--Tim Thomason 20:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Simpsons episode is precisely what is being discussed above. It isn't relevant or even about Lizzie Borden. A theory that has been refuted wouldn't be relevant, either. The court testimony is obtainable online. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Simpson questions were a joke (as it's discussed so many times above), sorry if it wasn't clear, even with the "Seriously" and all. The real question, per the section header, was with regards to the mysterious stranger/unknown man theory and it's possible inclusion on this page.--Tim Thomason 09:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I sighed myself when I saw the question. It's very hard around here to know what is joking. There are people who would ask that in a serious manner, even after the discussion. As for the theory, if it was disputed in the documentary, it shouldn't be repeated. That would put us in the category of repeating false gossip, I'd think. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Borden's birth name

Per the inquest transcript on the University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law:

• Inquest Testimony of Lizzie Borden
• August 9-11, 1892, Fall River Court Building

• Questioning by District Attorney Hosea Knowlton:

• Q. Give me your full name.
• A. Lizzie Andrew Borden.
• Q. Is it Lizzie or Elizabeth?
• A. Lizzie.
• Q. You were so christened?
• A. I was so christened.

Borden was not born Lizbeth Andrew Borden or Elizabeth Andrew Borden. She may have put the name Lizbeth on her headstone, but it was not her birth name. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The name on the tombstone is Lizbeth Andrews (with an 's'). It might be interesting to know who ordered the engraving, and why they left it in error. She was however buried as Lizbeth Andrew in the state records. It's a minor point, but interesting that her heirs would be too cheap to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.240.136.70 (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to missing several points here. The article already mentions that the stone - a foot stone - was ordered by Borden herself. Also that her birth name was not what she had put on the stone. That's a sourced fact and you're not catching that. Also, take a look. There were no direct personal heirs. She left her money to charities. You're asserting state records. What state records would those be? States don't keep records on burials per se. It's clearly established in the article that Borden tried to change her name by assuming different spelling. It doesn't change her birth name, no matter how hard she tried. You're missing the big picture. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me, the person is talking about the middle name carved on the large tombstone. It's carved "Andrews". I seem to recall her cousins were heirs, and wouldn't they be the ones who ordered and had the monument plates installed? You're missing the little picture. 99.202.69.158 (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a death certificate from the state of Mass. that sells on eBay every once in awhile. The name on it is Lizbeth A. Borden. Not sure where the 's' in Andrews came from. Maybe it is a code word for "sorry, but they had to die, as I needed the money." K5okc (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Folks, this is about the birth name. Borden assumed the spelling of her first name as Lizbeth. It was not her birth name. Beyond that, the name generally given on death certificates at the time were not necessarily the person's legal name or their birth name. It doesn't much matter what name she assumed, her birth name was Lizzie Andrew Borden. All the rest of this is just trying to assume something that isn't fact. The important and factual issues at hand are covered in the inquest testimony noted above, which was sworn testimony. That she tried to become "Lizbeth" later in life doesn't change that fact. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you're still missing the point. The guy/person was no longer talking about "lizbeth" give it a break. He was talking about the mispelling of "Andrew" as "Andrews" on the Large tombstone. I've seen the picture myself. Go ahead and get the last word. K5okc (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Spinster

It seems rather obvious, by mentioning her marital state in the first sentence, that maybe her lack of a husband was part of the reason why she would terminate her parents, or that seems to be the motivation of this pedia. This sentence should probably remove the reference to her marital state from the first sentence, and introduce it in a later paragraph. I think the fact that she wasn't married had very little to do with the murders or who she wanted to be in life. As a rich woman, she could have any lover she wanted, so why settle for some conventional life. K5okc (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest removing "New England spinster who was the" K5okc (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Supposing that anyone was making a connection between her marital status and her being tried for murder is rather specious. That is mentioned because all of the literature describes her that way. All of the literature, and especially the publications of that time. It doesn't seem apparent that her wealth helped her acquire lovers either, that is supposition too. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, how about: Charles Milles Manson is a South Western bachelor who led what became known as the Manson Family :-) K5okc (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, in another question above, it was offered "...This isn't 1893 and it falls on editors now to rendered the wording understandable to today's reader." I don't think spinster (or even bachelor) would mean anything to a grade school aged student. 137.240.136.70 (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Spinster" and "bachelor" can still be found in any dictionary. (I hope grade school students are still taught to use them.) Must we dumb everything down to the lowest level of literacy? Kostaki mou (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "spinster" is a problem, I just thought it was a strange way to start a sentence. That is, take any name, add in some unrelated fact, and then describe what they did to become famous. "Dick, who had a friend named Jane, and a blue truck, watched Spot run." K5okc (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And still, it is how she was widely referred in publications from the period and now. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I guess that means something, to someone. I guess bad grammar is a permanent thing. Fine. K5okc (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really sure how referring to someone as a New England spinster qualifies as bad grammar. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You're ignoring what I posted before (either through ignorance, or on purpose). I didn't say her being a spinster was bad grammar, I said adding spinster to a sentence that didn't need it, or was an inappropriate place was bad grammar. I included two examples. K5okc (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You know, I really don't want to argue with you, and your assertion of it either being ignorance or on purpose is far from being civil. Please stop trying to stick in the last word here, you don't get any Wikipedia points for having the last word. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

---

In any case, during the 19th century "spinster" was a kind of a technical legal term, meaning woman who had never been married. All women were either spinsters, wives, widows, or (much more rarely) divorcées. AnonMoos (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, she definately was a spinster, and was called a spinster in her day, and the fact that she was a spinster probably played some role up until the day her father died and she inherited 1/2 his wealth. In forming a sentence though, you try to keep to the same subject. For example, there is no marital status for other known serial killers in the first sentence. I think the reason for that, is it is bad style, and bad grammar to combine two dissimilar thoughts in the same sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K5okc (talk • contribs) 21:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In case you missed it, Lizzie Borden is not a serial killer and in fact, she was acquitted of murder charges. This article is not listed in articles about killers. There is a crime and a trial discussed in the article, but it is listed as part of Project Crime, not under killers of any sort. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The wiki article is poorly written. Comparing it to OJ Simpson, it is basically a jumble of references, spending more time on television than the subject. Maybe I'll revisit it in a couple of years, ne mérite pas de perdre mon temps. K5okc (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Because you don't like (or maybe understand) the word spinster here does not mean the article needs your own special touch. I thought you were done posting, but apparently you have a thing about having the last word. Hoo-yah. Go for it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Lizzie Borden: Girl Detective

An editor added the book Lizzie Borden: Girl Detective and referenced it to an amazon sales page for the book, which spams the sales site by its inclusion. The description given is "a 2010 novel by Richard Behrens in which a young Lizzie Borden takes up a role as a consulting detective in Fall River in the 1870s and solves crimes. The novel is a fanciful mixture of fact and fiction but contains researched insights into Fall River history, the 1870s and the Borden's role in their community." Running a Google search yields all of 15 entries for this book, some of which are blogs, which in no way establishes notability for the book. This is clearly a book based on a plot of non-historical fiction a la Nancy Drew and does not given historical information regarding the real Lizzie Borden or her life as a young girl. Lizzie was not a junior G-man or girl detective. Now let's examine the hidden note on this page: "DO NOT add trivia section or listings of instances where Borden is mentioned in songs, films or other media. This is covered sufficiently in the "Borden and culture" section and is not intended to be an exhaustive list. If you have items you think may be appropriate, bring it up on the talk page. Any additions not previously discussed WILL BE REMOVED and may be reported as vandalism. Thank you." At no time was the subject of this addition brought to this page for discussion nor was a consensus garnered for the appropriateness of inclusion of this book. Despite the fact that the book is set in Fall River, Massachusetts, historically that is all it is. That is sort of like saying The Usual Suspects is partially set in or about Los Angeles and therefore it is historically accurate. The tagline for this book is "The Adventures of New England's Most Excellent Girl Detective". Nope, the only thing this book does is use the name of Lizzie Borden as a basis for the plot, which is not about Lizzie Borden's real life or existence. Of course, all of the Borden media section could be removed, but I would argue strenuously for the inclusion of the theater, film and television depictions of the actual historical murders. I removed all other media mentions besides books and the theater, film and television depictions of the actual murders or productions set in the area of the murders that use the actual murders and events surrounding them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Peartree Press seems to be one step removed from a vanity press. Dumb comment which didn't say what I meant. K5okc (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Which may well be why the book isn't widely listed and non-notable based on Google hits. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to eliminate fiction from the list, then you must also take down Spiering, Hunter, Brown and Radin. These are fictional suppositions, not historically accurate.

Hunter puts forth the fictional theory about a lesbian relationship between Lizzie and Bridget and has the murder of Abby occur with a candlestick. In an interview I did with Mr. McBain, he calls the book fiction. See http://www.edmcbain.com/Newsdesk.asp?id=451 which appears on McBain's website.

Spiering was just a master showman who made stuff up in his book. He started rumors about Lizzie which persist to this very day.

Brown has NO proof, or sources, for his illegitimate Billy Borden story and has admitted that he has no proof for his theory. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjPheZblQL4

In regards to PearTree Press being one step away from a vanity press, you are mistaken. I did not add the book to the Lizzie Borden page, but whoever did, did so in context with the other listings. Perhaps we can add a Fiction section to the literature.

I am not a vanity press. I am an indy publisher who has 8 years experience in publishing magazines, both historical and literary, plus several prominent books on the Borden case. I think that instead of slamming this new book, you might consider reading it. It is new, therefore not prominently appearing on Google as of yet. It is soon to be reviewed by major publications and will receive the endorsements of some rather renowned writers. You seem a bit shortsighted in your elimination of this title and your out of hand slamming of my business.

Skoorey (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

At what point did I say that fiction must be removed? The works that are based in historical fact remain. However, I see an entirely different issue here now. I'd suggest you go read WP:COI as it is quite clear from your post that you are connected to the publisher of the Girl Detective book and are trying to include it in this article. That is self-serving and a direct COI conflict. Enough said. Your book will not suffice. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The vanity press was my comment, and it wasn't mean't to slam the book or the company, it was just a poor way to say that the book probably would not appear in the normal places that book reviews are found. K5okc (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

May I ask you why Wikipedia has entire pages of self-serving information. The Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter for instance? That is to sell a book and later a film. How is that book allowed by Wikipedia standards to have a page, and other books as well, when this book is not deemed allowable.

I am the publisher, but I did not add the book to Wikipedia. It was added by someone else. I was not promoting it here. However, since you deem it "self-serving" then I thought I should respond.

I guess I do not understand why some things are deemed "self-serving" and removed, while others are not. Can you explain this please?

Skoorey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC).

You are missing the salient point here, which is your statement "I am the publisher". The problem is that it is a conflict of interest for you to make any edits regarding this book, including argue for its inclusion. That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid arguement. Your book doesn't meet notability requirements. 20:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Nance O'Neil Section

The Nance O'Neil section states: "The book Lizzie by Evan Hunter posed the theory that Lizzie Borden had an affair with the actress Nance O'Neil, whom she met in Boston in 1904." I have the book right in front of me and I don't see anywhere that Hunter claims that Lizzie and Nance had an affair. He mentions her only once in the non-fictional afterwards and refers to their relationship only as a "midnight entertainment." I believe it was Frank Spiering in his book Lizzie that speculates about a lesbian affair with Nance, not Hunter. Hunter's novel has a lot of accurate fact in regard to the inquest and the trial, but the rest of the book is more of an entertaining fiction than anything that can be called "theory." Should this section be modified to reflect this? Bookofthoth (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference 8 says he doesn't think there was an affair. The reference is used as if it tried to verify the affair. The Nance O'Neil paragraph should be turned into a sentence at best. Were I the caretaker I'd have axed it long ago. It is a rumour at best.K5okc (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The last edits are kind of sad. I know people can be passionate about gay pride, and labeling famous/infamous people as homosexuals, but the section means nothing to me. It is a single rumor surrounded by too many words. Those words say things like "Gage claimed," "While there has never been any significant evidence," "although there are few documented details," and "posed the theory." This is why the Wikipedia will always be a poor reference for students. I hope the kids learn to see the hidden agenda of the millions of words in the Wikipedia. The combination of child pornography photo's and homosexual pride, makes the whole thing a sordid waste of money. 173.149.149.134 (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been an unsolicited message from a Larry Sanger supporter. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well if it's too long, edit it down some. It doesn't need to be deleted wholesale though. It's got a good reference and belongs in the article. If ideas of how to change it is in the air, please let's hear it. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't hang out on this subject, but just looking through the history, it looks like any edits made on the page are reverted quickly. It would be a waste of time to participate in that atmosphere. 173.149.149.134 (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with your repeating crap that first sprang from Larry Sanger? If you "don't hang out on this subject", you are woefully uninformed on what is appropriate content and what is not. Save your pithy observations for somewhere else where one can parrot accusations of child pornography and gay pride. It isn't welcome here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

My comments should be seen as a vote against facts being surrounded by "Gage claimed," "While there has never been any significant evidence," "although there are few documented details," and "posed the theory." To me, that kind of English belongs in the pages of Paris-Match. 173.149.149.134 (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What are the facts? Was Lizzy Borden a homosexual? What is the proof? That's all that needs to be in there. If there is a historical rumour that Lizzy Borden was a homosexual, then that and her lover just needs to be in one sentence. I propose something on the order of "Lizzie Borden was thought to have a homosexual relationship from 1903 to 1906 with Nance O'Neill. They both took their secret to the grave. K5okc (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Im not sure why one should have to read between the lines after the comments you made about child pornography and gay pride to figure out what you're doing, IP. Did you spill iced tea in your keyboard, K5okc? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

My proposal was more for the contributors. I haven't seen you contribute anything here, besides hitting the undo hyperlink. K5okc (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I was actually attempting to be congenial with my question about your keyboard, but I'll advise you to stop being contentious and learn a little bit of civility. I have worked a lot on this article and I will not stand for your demeaning comments. Grow up a little, K5okc, or I'll take you to whatever noticeboard is most appropriate. Your attitude has become more than tiresome, it has crossed into tendentiousness and that will not be tolerated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well you don't have to be congenial for me. I'd like to see the junk get removed, but I realize that most people here would rather the whole article remain just a joke, rather than something substantial. The last word is yours...K5okc (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In all this talk, everyone is ignoring my original post. The Evan Hunter book does not give any theory of Lizzie being involved with Nance O'Neil. That theory was most prominent in a non-fiction book called Lizzie by Frank Spiering. The Evan Hunter novel is a work of fantasy, based on no historical evidence other than the author's imagination. It is a fiction novel about Lizzie being a lesbian. Again, not based on anything historical. The whole issue of whether Lizzie was actually homosexual or not was not in the scope of my comment. Thanks. Bookofthoth (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are afraid to make the changes, there's no amount of support people can give to you. Make the changes, make the references. Wait for the "undo." K5okc (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please desist from making this sort of snarky remark, K5okc. Your tendentiousness toward other editors will no longer be tolerated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is Sullivan?

Murders, the first section after the brief introduction, states: "That day, Andrew Borden had gone into town to do his usual rounds at the bank and post office. He returned home at about 10:45 a.m. About a half-hour later, Lizzie Borden found his body. According to Sullivan's testimony, she was lying down in her room on the third floor of the house shortly after 11:00 a.m...."

It is not until the Conjecture section that any identification as to who Sullivan might be is offered. ("One theory is that the maid, Bridget Sullivan") If that is indeed the Sullivan cited at the beginning of the article, then may I suggest writing:

According the the testimony of Bridget Sullivan, a maid employed by the Borden household, she was lying down...

or some other alteration that identifies who gave testimony.

Personally, I think it would be less confusing overall if a small squib was inserted right after the introduction identifying the principle people involved, but at the very least listing who was living in the house at the time of the murders, to wit:

Andrew Borden, a prosperous (merchant? businessman? farmer? entrepreneur? what was he?)

Mrs. ??? Borden, Andrew Borden's second wife

Lizzie Borden, Andrew Borden's elder daughter, a spinster

Emma Borden, Andrew Borden's younger daughter (was she also a spinster? how old was she?)

servant #1 (Bridget Sullivan?)

servant #2 (if any?)

and perhaps

Sarah Borden, deceased (what year?), Andrew Borden's first wife and mother to Lizzie and Emma

John Morse, Sarah Borden's brother

Would such additions be helpful to anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutzwerg (talk • contribs) 22:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

spinster

SPINSTER???? What is this, 1894? Are you still calling black people negroes? Please remove. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan.dicey.k (talk • contribs) 05:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This has already been covered. The votes are against the moniker, but the wikipedia regulars love the name. 173.130.18.120 (talk) 09:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

She has been Christened a Homosexual Spinster by the Wikipedia. Stefan 72.56.50.76 (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2010 (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

Cleanup

I was shocked at how bad this article is. This is not a B rated article. I cleaned-up some of the sentences, but this needs enough work for 10 people. Stefan 72.56.50.76 (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)