Talk:Lizzie Borden/Archive 1

More Information

There is not nearly enough information here on the actual murders, the motive, her life before the murders, etc. This article assumes that you already know the basics of the murders rather than explaining the murders themselves or even why people believe that Lizzy Borden killed her parents. --Kleio08 23:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ya, this article makes no sense. It's like doing an article on Coke that consists soley of the drink's taste. Where's the rest of it?

Agree. At least a couple sentences about family background and Borden before the murders is needed. -- Infrogmation 01:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo

As in, can we get one of her here? Maxxo 01:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As at this date there is no photo of her ? Pray, tell why not or I'm libel to start swinging something ! --Free4It 23:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a photo of Lizzie Borden. See http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Galleries/LizziePhotographs.htm, where it is given as a photo of a lookalike. (The same page has genuine photos of Lizzie.)

Kostaki mou 03:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you referring to when you say "this is not a photo of Lizzie Borden"? The current photo on the page? Please ref the image you are referring to. — Frecklefoot | Talk 11:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The photo on the page is not of Lizzie Borden. Kostaki mou 23:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Nursery Rhyme

In popular memory Lizzie Borden is widely recalled as being a teenager or even younger at the time of the murder, but, in fact, she was a grown woman in her late thirties.

How did this change in popular perception become established? Does anyone know of a song, play, movie, TV show, or other widely viewed work that might have given rise to this misconception?

I suspect it's because the chief method of transmission of her fame has been a nursery rhyme. -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The rhyme probably helped in the past- the mention of her parents especially contributes to the idea of her being younger; people just don't think of spinsters automatically in a playground context.CFLeon 22:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've also heard the nursery rhyme with the words "mother" and "father" switched -- indeed, the song at the end of this article uses that order. Was forensics advanced enough at the time for people to determine who was actually murdered first? Or, do we just not know? If not, perhaps a little note should be added and the words in the nursery rhyme switched in order to be aligned with the song.

It was established that Mrs Borden was killed first, then Mr. Borden, but that may have been more a reflection of the time element (Mr B getting home at a particular time, witnesses being around, etc.) rather than actual scientific analysis. They were able to piece together the skulls and establish the number of separate blows (the skulls were exhibits at Lizzie's trial) and blood tests were done on the axe handle and dress. CFLeon 22:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would seriously question this article's assertion that the Borden case is remembered chiefly because of the nursery rhyme. There's a whole cottage industry devoted to studying the case and speculating about what happened, and this has been going on practically since the day Lizzie was acquitted. I think the case would be famous with or without the rhyme. In fact, if anything I would say that books and programmes about the case are responsible for keeping the rhyme in modern memory (I sure never heard it on the playground). Perodicticus 16:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Does the author have an obsession for the rhyme? It's mentioned in 3 separate places. Since it's a blaitant declaration of Lizzy's guilt, without excuse, it's pretty much the same thing as O. J. Simpson's entry saying "but every one Knows he did it" every paragraph. This is hardly NPOV. I never heard it as a kid, just from reading books saying it's famous. It seems to me like it's become a situation like "Brontosaurus", which would hardly survive if people didn't keep on mentioning it's obsolete. CFLeon 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and rewrite the lead to assign less importance to the rhyme. I moved discussion of the rhyme to a new section on public reaction to the trial (which could be a lot more detailed). Perodicticus 14:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Spinster?

Is a loaded word like "spinster" the best we can do? According to Wikipedia's own definition, the word is value-laden pejorative - at least to some extent.

What's wrong with "unmarried?"

Seriously ... spinster?

172.130.14.32 18:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That was the term used at the time, so that's what they're called in contemporary sources. The 19th Century hadn't invented the concept of 'Politically Correctiveness' yet. CFLeon 23:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Colbert vandalism

More Stephen Colbert inspired vandalism likely; see Talk:Latchkey kid. NawlinWiki 04:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Page Semi-Protection UPDATE

I got denied protection as "nothing has happened recently". USADude 22:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Update: USADude 12:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest Update

I added info about the book Lizzie written by Evan Hunter where he gives his own unique theory on who killed the Bordens. He also hosts (as Ed McBain) a video where the various historians give their own reasons who they suspect who the killer(s) were.I happened to see the video on TV (Mystery channel) recently and rather enjoyed it. Have not read Hunter's book Lizzie. L.J. Brooks 16:30 04 Sep 2006 (UTC)

What's the point...

...of wikilinking the standalone publication years in ISBN book references? Or the standalone years under "Artistic depictions"? Nobody's going to be clicking on 1991 to see if anything else happened that year. It's just visual clutter. It wouldn't hurt any of us to (re)read Edward Tufte, that sworn enemy of "useless, non-informative, or information-obscuring elements of information displays". --CliffC 16:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a {{Fact}} tag to the section "Alleged lesbian affair with actress Nance O'Neil". Borden's sexuality gets more wiki-ink than the murders, and all I see is conjecture. The corresponding section in the Nance O'Neil article says "O'Neil's actual sexuality remains unclear." Google tells me that Borden is the only person in Wikipedia to have had an "alleged lesbian affair"; this seems like a poor choice of words without a WP:RS. --CliffC 06:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I simply removed the L-word. This article needs more information about the murders and less about the media spin-offs. --CliffC 16:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Tualha

I have to complain about Tualha's recent edits to the Lizzie Borden page. The photos are incorrect, and not Emma or Lizzie. I have changed the page back to its correct factual and photographic settings. I am a Lizzie Borden scholar, editor of The Hatchet: Journal of LIzzie Borden Studies, moderator of The Lizzie Borden Society Forum, webmaster of LizzieAndrewBorden.com, and blogger of MondoLizzie.com. I know of which I speak. Please do not continue to post false facts and images on this page. Dr. Stefani Koorey

Well, Dr. Koorey. I will assume, for purposes of these comments, that you are in fact the same Dr. Stefani Koorey who is easily found on the web, though for all we know you could just as easily be some 14-year-old imposter; see Essjay controversy for an example of what I mean. Given that you have earned a doctorate, I'm sure I don't need to explain to you the importance of supporting your claims, in any sort of serious work, with specific, easily-verified references. I rather doubt that any of your professors would have let you get away with this sort of hand-waving.

I will grant you that Lizzie Borden, as it stands now, sets a poor example. Red Barn Murder is a much better example of the kind of quality we strive for. Observe the frequent use of footnotes - 33 in total - and how each one references a specific page in a specific work, and thus can be verified. In other words, they're the same kind of citations you have to use in an academic paper. Citing "LizzieAndrewBorden.com", and the entirety of Rebello without page numbers or specific citations, doesn't cut it here any more than it would in academe.

Contrary to some opinions, experts are very welcome here. But we do insist that, like everyone else, they support the claims they make in articles instead of simply waving their credentials and saying "shut up, I'm an expert". It's considered polite to learn a little about how we do things here before making wholesale changes and complaining when people revert them, too. I've placed some links to further reading on your talk page; please do take a look, and feel free to ask me any questions. Cheers, Tualha (Talk) 02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand why you keep reverting some of Stefani Kooreys edits (such as the pictures) and claiming he lacks refrences, when you dont seem to be providing any of your own. 210.49.174.197 07:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Adrian_au

I simply reverted wholesale edits that seemed possibly biased. If version A has two citations and has been developed by many people over the course of years, and version B has no citations and is mostly the product of one editor, absent other data I tend to assume that the one editor has an axe to grind and is putting up her own interpretation. Please note that this is not "my" version; the only edits I've ever made to this article were these reverts.

I don't know enough about Lizzie Borden to improve the article myself, and I'm not interested enough to take the time, so I won't spend any more time on this battle. Other editors who do know something about her can decide how the article should be. It isn't the first time, anyway; Skoorey edited back in April, and someone called "DrStef" did a lot of edits two years ago. Skoorey says she'll provide footnotes next time. The result will likely be better than the current version with two footnotes, or her earlier edits with none. The community can take it from there. Tualha (Talk) 12:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

the way it is done around here

How can you say what you do and still put up factually INACCURATE information on Lizzie Borden. You continue to revert to your version with photos that are not Lizzie, are not Emma, and with false information on the murders, the woman's life, and her social world. You are saying to me that you have SOURCES for these false statements and these photos? You have proof that what you put up is more accurate than what I have crafted?

I appreciate the lesson in references, but your continued reversion from my edit back to yours is not acceptable when your edit is incorrect.

Wikipedia is fast losing its reputation because of bouncers like you who guard the gates of an historical person such as Lizzie Borden. You know not of which you write, even though you talk a very big game about sources.

I suggest you rethink your position and check your own sources to confirm what I have been saying.

My next edit will conform to your requirements, with footnotes. If you dare to change it back to your mistake-ridden version, I will be forced to abandon all hope that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and forced to publicize it as a place for amateur historians to rule the pages of a once well-conceived web resource.

Too much pop culture trivia

I accept that she's a pop culture icon but that doesnt' mean we need to list every unsourced passing reference. Exhibit A:

• Garfield often makes references that Aunt Gussie used to double-date with her.

So what if the cat does? and can you prove it? I suggest interested editors cut all the loosely-associated trivia from those lists and post it here to the Talk page in case there's a nugget of notable use that someone can save. Canuckle 15:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"new england spinster"

That seems like an odd way to describe someone in their lead. Do we identify Isaac Newton as an "English physicist and bachelor?" --Aquillion 08:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Lesbian Section

The lesbian section doesn't supply references. The single reference in the paragraph (straight dope) is a reference source for the sexuality of Nance O'Neil. The reference also states that Lizzie Borden being a lesbian is a matter of pure conjecture.

The reference states that 'The belief that Lizzie Borden was a lesbian basically comes down to the assumption that any woman not married by thirty must be gay.' The article was quite interesting, especially after I read the references, but was misleading on the lesbian issue (with respect to the quoted source.)

Rhodescus 01:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Full Name

"Lizzie" is short for "Elizabeth". Is her full, proper name "Elizabeth Andrew Borden"? Well, according to this website, it is. --MosheA 21:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I added it, but I'm not sure how reliable a site is that specializes in Tarot cards and runes. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a common piece of misinformation. She was christened "Lizzie Andrew Borden" (as she herself says in her inquest testimony). Kostaki mou 02:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC) (As this "correction" has been made again (and corrected again), I think some emphasis is called for. Kostaki mou (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my change. My bad. :-S — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Understandable mistake. (The Chad Mitchell Trio made it too.) Kostaki mou 21:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I've started working through the article and looking at some of the references that are in it. I hope I don't step on anyone's toes as I'm working on it. I've just got some problems with the text from where most of the citations come - Straight Dope Staff Report. Part of my problem is that at the bottom of the reference page, it says "Staff Reports are researched and written by members of the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board, Cecil's online auxiliary. Although the SDSAB does its best, these articles are edited by Ed Zotti, not Cecil, so accuracywise you'd better keep your fingers crossed." Then in the first few paragraphs, there is a major error in fact. It says that John Morse was Abby's brother, when all the actual documents from the time - inquest and trial transcripts - are clear that he was the first Mrs. Borden's brother. The other problem is that the page reads more like an essay and isn't hard on sources. In any event, I'm working on it and hope what I do meets with everyone's approval. Wildhartlivie 02:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In Popular Culture > Music

The band The Dresden Dolls has a song from their demo album A is for Accident about Lizzie entitled Thirty Whacks. I know a long, long list of references in music is not wanted in this article, however this song seems to be more relevant because, unlike other songs on the list, it does not merely reference Lizzie, but it supposed to be told from her POV.

Add or no?

Matt (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not unless a source is available to cite that clearly verifies that the song is about Borden, not just confirms the rumor. Reading the lyrics doesn't it make it that clear. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Errors in removed contribution:

"The house is an exact replica of the Borden's house and guests actually sleep in the room Mrs. Borden was murdered in. According to local legend, not one person has made it through the night in that room. The house also has a huge attraction not only because of the Bed and Breakfast but it is believed that the house may be haunted by the ghosts of the Borden family for odd things have been known to happen in that house when whenever anyone insults the family."

1. The house is not a replica. It is the actual house.

2. I have personally slept in the murder room and lived to tell the tale, as has anyone else who has done so.

3. There are indeed stories of odd things happening in the house, though insulting the family has nothing to do with it. If anyone chooses to believe them, that's okay with me.

Kostaki mou (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing quote

Earlier today, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) added a quote to an already existing citation from the New York Times archives regarding the purchase of prussic acid. This quote only functioned to echo what was being cited. There is nothing controversial about the inclusion of Lizzie Borden's effort to buy prussic acid. This fact is present in each and every book that has been published about this case and in all the ones listed in "Further reading", it is present on the website at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, which has Borden's inquest testimony available online, it is present at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, which has copies of all the original source documents, it is present at the LizzieAndrewBorden.com website, which is a research site investigating the case, it is present at the Crime Library, it is present on LizzieBorden.org, which is a Fall River Historical Society site. There is little, if any, chance that this piece of information will be lost if it isn't copied and pasted here. Because of this presence in every other source for this case, there is no necessity to "preserve in situ" (although copy and pasting it in a quote function on Wikipedia is not in situ preservation) the New York Times headline and/or opening paragraph, which is all that is allowable per WP guidelines due to the necessity of purchasing the article to read it further. No one has challenged the veracity of the inclusion of prussic acid, and it was already cited. I have removed this useless copy and paste quote for the reasons of redundancy, lack of necessity and that it added nothing new to the article. We thank User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for the birthdate of Andrew Borden, but we do not need the useless quote for this prussic acid purchase attempt fact. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

For clarification: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) returned the material that he originally added as a quote to the article, inserting it into the title part of the citation template, with the edit summary of "restore full title to NYT article." This is an inaccurate representation of what was added originally and the follow-up return of the material in a different portion of the template. In the full article, the headline is "PRUSSIC ACID IN THE CASE; EFFORT TO SHOW THAT LIZZIE BORDEN TRIED TO BUY SOME." The rest of the material that was added as a quote, then returned as the "restore[d] full title" is in fact a series of subtitles over the main article in the newspaper. I am clarifying this so that there is no question as to the edits that have been done on my part and why they were done. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Instead of citing your personal preference, perhaps it would be better to point out Wikipedia policy that requires truncating article titles. There is really no need for the sarcastic "We thank ...", when it is you speaking. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not an issue of personal preference and the title is not truncated. You are insisting on adding extensive subtitles from the article's abstract, which is the style of newspaper articles from that period. They are not, however, titles of the articles. As for the remainder of your comment, please take a moment to review assume good faith, civility guidelines and etiquette guidelines. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• You haven't pointed to any Wikipedia rule about titles. I think you are arguing over personal aesthetics. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, Richard, you are adding subtitles, not titles. Please don't try to throw a red herring. Aesthetics have nothing to do with it. Read it slowly. You. are. adding. subtitles. along. with. the. title. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just point me to the relevant Wikipedia rule, so I can read it. And for the second time, sarcasm isn't needed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Richard, please try to understand. We are not discussing whether an article title was truncated. That is not what occurred. We are discussing your return of subtitles of the article to the citation, after you asserted that you had to return the full title of the article to the citation, when in fact, you initially added it as a quote. Your edit summary here was deceptive, and asserted that I removed the full title from the citation. Again, what you have added to the citation is a series of subtitles from the article, after the main title. They are not the title of the article. Every section of WP:CITE says specifically title, not title and subtitles. I'm very sure you know the difference between a title and a subtitle. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe you should petition for a change in the wording of WP:CITE to distinguish reference titles from reference subtitles. Perhaps it should limit the title of an article to just a single sentence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it just takes common sense to know the difference. Perhaps you could explain why it is so overwhelmingly important to you that this one citation you changed contain the subtitles, but two of the three for Borden's death did not include the subtitles that were on the abstract page. Also, the link you give for the will bequest is not acceptable as it requires membership or payment to access the actual material that the citation sources. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Common sense" doesn't exist for a reference work, we just have the MoS and a few other guides. If all this was somehow "common sense" or somehow part of the collective unconscience, we wouldn't need a style guide at all. And if it was common sense, we wouldn't have to have Category:Style guides just to track the styles used by each major publication. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Common sense does exist for distinguishing between a title and a subtitle, the WP:MoS should not have to make that distinction. In so much as you opted to omit the subtitles for the death citations, it tells me you can tell the difference, thus the collective unconscious is irrelevant. I have to wonder why you would rather digress about such things and not answer the question about the omitted subtitles, or address the very real and practical problem of the unacceptable citation you provided for the will bequest. And as long as policies and guidelines are on point here, Wikipedia:Talk#Layout says: "Thread your post: Use indentation as shown in WP:TP. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we each stated our positions multiple times already. I don't think cutting and pasting them again will convince each other. We can each just reread the already stated cogent positions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In as much as I take this to say that further discussion won't be forthcoming, I've opened a request for comment on the issues above. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem sources

The New York Times citation for the will is not acceptable. It still leads to a full page requiring membership or payment. The second source for the will is a self-published blog, which is in violation of WP:SPS. As for Borden's name, please note the discussion above at Full Name. Borden may have adapted the name Lizbeth as an affectation, but that is not her name, as she swore at her inquest. The blog citation isn't acceptable as a source for the name. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times is a reliable source last time I looked, and there is no need to read the article, the title and date say it all. As for "Lizbeth" it is the name she wrote her will under and the name she was buried under. A self identified name is still a name. Just look at the article title for any musician. Bono, Prince, Sting, and Bo Diddley were not the birth names either --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please adhere to Wikipedia:Talk#Layout, which says: "Thread your post: Use indentation as shown in WP:TP." While the Times is a reliable source, a link to a blank page is inappropriate, and you know that. When it being used to source a bequest, reading it becomes necessary. Since it is accomplishing nothing, it needs to come out, as does the blog citation.

As for the name, since it was an affectation she adapted later in life, and was not, in fact, a legal name; since signing the will by her legal name was necessary, and since two of your own references clarify that it was nothing more than her fantasy; and since she was not an author, actor, or other performer, and is not commonly known by that name, then it doesn't belong in the opening of the article. At best, it may garner mention later in the article, after the discussion about her split with her sister. To put it in the lead places undue weight on the use of the name.

Borden (who should not be referred to as Lizzie in the article), did not leave money to the Fall River Animal Shelter. That is not what the will says.

Finally, I see no benefit in posting a link to an uploaded fixed image of the article that came from the California Call, and was adequately available on the Library of Congress website, in a format that one could manipulate to make more legible. The image you uploaded to arbitrarily replace essentially the same source is fuzzy and barely legible. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Using a name from 1906 to 1927 (21 years), using that name in your will in the text and the signature, and being buried under that name and having it engraved on your tombstone, I believe, is not giving "undue weight" to the name. Thats just under 1/3 of her life. And it is her self identified name. It is also very well sourced. Also note the discussion above concerns the use of the name "Elizabeth Andrew Borden" not "Lizbeth A. Borden". For example: "James Earl Carter", his birth name, went by "Jimmy Carter." She should be referred to as "Lizzie" if a previous section discusses other Bordens such as her sister, so it is not ambiguous. If your prefer using "Lizzie Borden" where "Lizzie" appears I will change it. The text reads "Emma Leonora Borden, her sister, died just nine days later in Newmarket, New Hampshire. Lizzie's will was probated on June 25, 1927 and she left $30,000 to the Fall River Animal Rescue League." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge that you changed the recipient of the bequest to the Fall River Animal League. The last part was easily remedied by moving the sentence about Emma Borden's death to the last of the paragraph, since anyone can make that change. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comments

My position

I am opening this request for comments because attempts at discussion with the other editor, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), as noted in the above sections, has not been productive. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead sentence of the article

The lead sentence now states: "Lizzie Andrew Borden[2] or Lizbeth A. Borden[1][3][4][5] (19 July 1860 – 1 June 1927) was a New England spinster who was the central figure in the hatchet murders of her father and stepmother on 4 August 1892 in Fall River, Massachusetts in the United States."

The name "Lizbeth A. Borden" was not included in the article until yesterday. This name was an affectation Borden assumed after a split with her sister, some 11 years after the trial for which Lizzie Borden is known. At the inquest for the trial, Borden attested to her given name [1] with no qualifications as to an assumed name. She assumed the name with no noted legality to the change [2], noted in her will that her name was Lizzie A. Borden (otherwise known as Lizbeth) and had to sign the will with her given name and the Lizbeth name as a secondary signature [3]. This affectation was referred to in a New York Times article as a figment of her imagination. I don't think this belongs in the lead. It was never a legal name change, it was not a name that was used at the period of time when Borden's name became notable. Sources, such as the will, attest to the fact that while she signed with that name, she also signed with her legal name. Any name can be put on a grave's headstone. I think this would properly be mentioned in later sections wherein she began using the name, described in some sources as essentially a fantasy of Lizzie's, not something official. Including this affectation in the lead implies it is a legal name.

Using a name from 1906 to 1927 (21 years), using that name in your will in the text and the signature, and being buried under that name and having it engraved on your tombstone, I believe, makes it her name. Thats just under 1/3 of her life. And it is her self identified name. It is also very well sourced. For example: "James Earl Carter", went by "Jimmy Carter", not his legal name, or baptismal name. We include "made up" names for musicians, Bono, Sting, Slash, The Edge, Bo Didley routinely. A self identified name, especially the one chosen to be buried under, is as important as a birth name. The New York Times also refers to her as "Lisbeth Borden". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As you stated, copy and pasting your previous comment does nothing to further the discussion. That is why the request was opened. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I see a fairly distinct difference between Borden's "self identified" name and the pseudonyms of Jimmy Carter, Slash, Bono, The Edge, Sting and Bo Diddley in that they became famous under those pseudonyms, the names were chosen for that purpose, and it is that name that they are notably known for. Borden's self identified name is not a pseudonym that she is known by, but rather a variation of her given name. It's a completely different thing to any of the examples given. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Pseudonyms, stage names and common names says, in part, "For people who are best known (my italics) by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym." Borden is "best known" as "Lizzie Borden". Her self identified name is not a legal name in the true sense (and her using that name on legal documents does not make it so), and there is no evidence offered that she legally changed it during the 21 years that she is said to have used it, therefore the MoS does not support the inclusion of the secondary name in the lead sentence. Rossrs (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• When I read "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym." I see exactly what I did to the article, legal name first, followed by her post 1905 self identified name. Its the name used by the New York Times and by herself on her tombstone. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see something completely different to what you see. She was not "best known" by her pseudonym. That is the most important point in my opinion. She is barely known by her pseudonym. I see no problem in discussing it in the article where it can be placed in some kind of context (although at the moment there is minimal context given). It does not belong in the lead sentence. The MoS uses the term "best known" not "other self identified names". As for the New York Times, here's what their Mary Cantwell says of the name in relation to the gravestone "In truth, it isn't Lizbeth Andrews Borden who's buried here, because there never was such a person. Lizbeth Andrews was a figment of Lizzie Andrews's imagination: a woman with a lovely name and, if names confer magic upon their possessors, a lovely life." They then go on to refer to her as "Lizzie Borden". So much for the New York Times, unimpressed that she used this name on her gravestone, and dismissing it as a "figment of her imagination". Rossrs (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Any name can be put on a tombstone, there is no burden of proof of name for that, and the New York Times article regarding her will was echoing one of the two names she used on the will. All earlier NYT articles used Lizzie Borden. The key wording in that sentence is "who are best known by a pseudonym." Lizzie Borden was not best known, ie, did not achieve notability in terms of inclusion on Wikipedia, under a variation of her name she adapted as an affectation years after the incident for which she is known. Therefore, there is no precedent for it per Wikipedia policy, even as a later assumed name. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding "after 1905" and calling it a compromise doesn't negate the issue raised in the request for comments. It was a unilateral decision made without discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as an outside observation/suggestion, I think a way to move forward would be to focus on the validity of the edits rather than the behavior, i.e. not to seem accusatory. The main thing is to keep these discussions about the content and not so much on those with whom we disagree. In any event, I would agree that she is best known as Lizzie Borden; however, it is important to clarify what her real name was and how she was known by family and at death, just as we do at Joseph Stalin and Napoleon I of the French. Surely there's a way to do that, which would make for a mutually acceptable and honest compromise? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As with the other examples given above, Stalin and Napolean are pseudonyms by which the subjects are "best known" in the English speaking world. That gives the pseudonym legitimacy in line with our biographical Manual of Style. "Lizbeth Borden" is a different situation. Nobody is, so far, objecting to it being discussed in the article. I agree with you that how she was known by her family at death, is an important point to raise, but it should be in the article itself. Rossrs (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rossrs. Having the name she adopted later in life or what the family knew her by is completely acceptable in the body of the article. Since the name change and why she adopted a new name is in the article itself, I really see no reason why it should be in the lead too. The way it is presented now looks messy and jumbled to say the very least. Pinkadelica 01:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the name should not be included in the lead. In addition to Pinkadelica's well-taken points, the lead in its present form misleadingly implies that the change was official, which it was not. Kostaki mou (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In consulting WP:MOSBIO#Names, a couple of points are germane to this question. "[T]he article should start with the complete version" of the person's name. "In some cases, subjects have legally changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well." Borden's full birth name, as she "was so christened", is Lizzie A. Borden. There is no indication anywhere that she undertook to legally change her name to Lizbeth A. Borden, and in fact, had she done so, it would not have been necessary to sign the will by both "Lizzie" and "Lizbeth." Therefore, inclusion of the second name in the lead is nullified under that portion of the MoS. As to the argument that it was her pseudonym, such as stage actors and performers sometimes do, she was not a performer, nor was she involved in activities where a pen name might be used. In those cases, the name is included with the birth name in the lead to further identify the subject. Since Lizzie was her birth name, and was commonly and widely known under that name, inclusion of the name for that purpose is nullified. The most germane point of all is that a biographical article should be presented in terms of the reason the person is notable. Lizzie Borden is notable because she was arrested and tried for the murder of her father and stepmother, and was acquitted. Lizzie Borden was later arrested for shoplifting. For whatever reason, later in life, when her activities were no longer noteworthy, she presented herself -- somewhere -- as Lizbeth. It may have been, as the one source says, because she had created a fantasy of who Lizbeth Borden was, or she was attempting to repress the very notability for which she is known, still, it isn't the name by which the world knows her. It's an interesting sidenote on Borden, deserving of a sentence or two at the end of the article, but it isn't appropriate to include it in the lead, which tends to give the difference in name undue weight. It appears to me that everyone who has offered comment on this particular point, except one, is in complete agreement on the inappropriateness of it appearing in the lead. As a side note, that affectation does not require more than one citation to support it's veracity. Four is was over the top. AndToToToo (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a clear consensus here that there are no grounds for keeping the name "Lizbeth A. Borden" in the article lede. Only RAN seems to be in favor, and he hasn't presented any valid argument in support of his preference. Does anyone have a reason why it shouldn't be removed from the lede immediately? RedSpruce (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I was waiting until a week had passed to close the RfC. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary

To summarize the opinions offered for this issue, six individuals, myself (Wildhartlivie), RedSpruce, AndToToToo, Kostaki mou, Pinkadelica, and Rossrs all agree that while it is valid and proper to mention the adapted name in the article, it does not belong in the lead as an assertion that it is a legal name. One individual, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) believes it belongs in the lead, and one individual, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles said it belonged in the article somewhere, but did not designate an opinion as to where. Consensus regarding this issue supports removing the mention from the lead, but leaving it later in the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Using the entire abstract as a quote

Including the entire abstract provided at the New York Times archive in the citation as a quote is redundant, unnecessary and adds nothing beyond what is being referenced with the citation. For example, in the first reference, the quote given is " "The will of Miss Lisbeth (Lizzie) A. Borden of Fall River, disposing of an estate valued at nearly $1,000,000, was filed for probate here today. In it she leaves $500 in perpetual trust for the care of the grave of her father, Andrew J. Borden, for whose murder and that of her stepmother, Mrs. Abby Borden, she was tried and acquitted nearly thirty-five years ago." The link to the archive abstract is here. Every item in the quote is covered in the article. Including the entire abstract adds nothing to the content of the article, nor does it enhance it in anyway.

This pattern of including unnecessary, extensive quotations is a violation of consensus, previously established, against such practice. Continuing to add such quotations - against consensus - is thus disruptive editing. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he is trying to reach a consensus in these discussions, so I'm not sure I would go quite so far as to call him "disruptive." He is after all participating in this discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Arbcom made no such ruling. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with ArbCom. It was a consensus reached last November regarding this for a different article when I raised the issue. That evidence was presented at ArbCom. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If this was a matter that has been dealt with previously and a consensus was reached, that consensus should still stand. Pinkadelica 01:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A cabal of people do not set global Wikipedia policy. If five people decide that New Jersey is to be referred to New Jerky, it would not override established Wikipedia policy. Arbcom made no such ruling. If you want the quote parameter removed from the citation template, then it should be argued there and made into a rule, and removed from the template. It takes more than 5 people to change a global Wikipedia policy. The quote parameter still appears in the all the citation templates. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Determination of use and content are specifically issues that Wikipedia policy declares to be determined through consensus. The issue is not now, nor has it ever been, whether the quote parameter should be in a template, but how it is used. A consensus at the appropriate WP policy talk page here did conclude that how you use it wasn't the way in which it was intended to be used. Meanwhile, please point me to the Wikipedia policy that anyone is trying to override and that is applicable in this situation, ie, copying a complete abstract into a citation quote parameter that only serves to parrot the identical information which it references without adding scope or understanding to that which was written in the article. The issue is now, and always has been, the manner in which you use the quote parameter, not whether or not it should exist in the template. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A cabal of people do not set global Wikipedia policy. If you have any evidence that the nine or so editors (not "five") who objected to your added quotations is a "cabal", you need to present that now. Otherwise, I suggest your read WP:NPA regarding making unsupported insinuations, and stop using that word.

Second, we're not talking about "policy", we're taking about "usage", and there is no such thing as "established policy" that your extensive use of quotations is acceptable.

Arbcom made no such ruling. Which proves absolutely nothing; the issue is whether Arbcom has made a ruling supporting such a practice. Or are you're saying that you will not stop this practice unless ArbComm tells you to?

The quote parameter still appears in the all the citation templates. I find it hard to understand why you have so completely misread the opposition to your practice. Neither I, nor anyone else that I know of, has argued that the quotation parameter should be removed. If you have evidence of that, please present it. If you do not, I think an apology is in order for having implied that anyone has in fact said such a thing. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm a lot puzzled by changes Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) made today. When a request for comments has been opened due to a given issue, and consensus is beginning to form against the position a person takes, it would seem to me that if a compromise was reached, by definition of the word, it would first have to be reached. Instead, the editor actually trimmed the small portion of the complete abstract insertion that wasn't already covered by material in the article for which the citation was being given (ie, "for whose murder and that of her stepmother, Mrs. Abby Borden, she was tried and acquitted nearly thirty-five years ago.") and used the summary "trim quote for compromise." Since compromise means a mutual acceptance of terms, there was no compromise on this. If you want to offer a compromise, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), then offer one for discussion. Changing it slightly doesn't abate the issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Since this dispute is in regard to use of the {{cite news}} template, it is instructive to see what guidelines for usage say about its use. WP:CITET says usage of the template is "subject to agreement with the other editors on the article." It is obvious that usage of the template as it is currently being employed is not in agreement with other editors who have offered commentary on this point. Instructions say to use the template's "common usage" format. The quote parameter is not offered in the common usage format, either on WP:CITET or on Template:Cite news. Since the quote parameter isn't offered on common usage, it is logical to state that it isn't commonly used. Meanwhile, Template:Cite news instructions indicate that the only required parameter of the template is the title, the rest are optional. So why would one use a quote parameter? WP:QUOTE says that quotes should be used when "dealing with a potentially controversial statement." So is there anything potentially controversial in the quote "The will of Miss Lisbeth (Lizzie) A. Borden of Fall River, disposing of an estate valued at nearly $1,000,000, was filed for probate here today. In it she leaves $500 in perpetual trust for the care of the grave of her father, Andrew J. Borden ..."? No, there is not, and as an aside, the quote actually contradicts the assertion that the name "Lizbeth A. Borden" is a legitimate alternate name. Overall, there seems to be no good reason for this quote to be in the citation and it appears that consensus is against it except in extraordinary circumstances. The probate of a will, fully available online through a link in a citation, isn't extraordinary. The argument that the quote is used because it is there to be used is not supported by examining the Wikipedia guidelines and policies that are relevant. AndToToToo (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom has stated the following (decision of 16 June 2008): the question of what material – such as quotes – should or should not appear in footnotes is substantially a legitimate disagreement over content. Editors who systematically produce articles which contradict style guidance should expect others to bring their articles into line, but style guidance should be decided by consensus after wide consultation. Consensus on this issue seems very clear at this point - almost no one agrees with RAN's use of quotations in footnotes. It appears that Arbcom will enforce such consensus if it is formalized in either an existing or a new style guideline. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbcomm ruled that quotations represent a content issue that should be decided by individual editors. I have checked a few quotations by Richard Arthur Norton in several articles, including this one. All of them seems to be quite appropriate and improve the articles in my opinion. They usually include no more than a couple of sentences and provide some additional details of interest. So, I do agree with him. Of course, I did not look through all his contributions.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom ruled that it representes a content issue, which makes it subject to consensus. As John Broughton stated, consensus seems very clear with this point. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Per this story, lengthy quotations of an Associated Press story now constitute - according to the AP - a violation of "fair use". Per this form, "lengthy" is essentially five or more words. It is precisely this sort of issue that was one (of several) arguments raised in previous discussions. We need a guideline on quotations, if only to have some place to point people who quote AP stories at length. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary

To summarize the opinions offered for this issue, three individuals, myself (Wildhartlivie), John Broughton and Pinkadelica agree that the use of the quotation as it exists in this particular instance is not needed, is inappropriate, violates earlier established consensus regarding the inappropriateness of the use of quotes, as is being practiced here, and further is now being considered a violation of "fair use" by the Associated Press. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) believes this type of usage is appropriate since the parameter is present in citation templates and Biophys agrees with him. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles offered comment which did not address the issue. Consensus, and potential prevailing legality issues, is that the inclusion of quotations used in the manner as it is in this article is not appropriate and violates fair use. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a late-arriver here, but after reading the arguments, my opinion is that the quotation is not needed and is inappropriate. RedSpruce (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency of including subtitles from early 20th newspaper articles

The general style of many earlier newspapers was to give a main headline, followed by a number of lines that are a series of subtitles below the main title. These subtitles aren't the title of the article and are extraneous and cumbersome to the citation. This citation image [4] added clearly shows the main title, separated by lines into smaller subtitles. I broached this issue with the editor earlier with no response regarding it, except that the editor then changed one of the other New York Times citations to include subtitles, using the edit summary of "per talk page." That was not a decision determined in the course of discussion. WP:CITE states to use the title, not all the subtitles following the title. Using the subtitles is cumbersome and not in keeping with citation guidelines.

WP:CITE doesn't appear to make a distinction between Titles and Subtitles. If WP:CITE was modified to declare that article titles are just the first sentence, that may be a good thing. However the New York Times doesn't parse the title into sentences, it treats them as a single sentence using a semicolon. Is our goal to make references titles as short as possible to save space? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This citation image [5], which you added, contradicts what you said. I see no semicolon. I do see lines dividing the main title from subsequent subtitles. However, the request for comments was for input from other editors since you declared no further discussion was forthcoming. Let's wait for that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The link is right here showing the New York Times parsing with semicolons and dashes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That link is to the article's abstract, which is no longer the offered source for that citation. The original article was rendered arbitrarily for electronic storage and retrieval of the article. The actual printed article, which Mr. Norton has uploaded as the actual source, is that with which we are dealing. Any abstract formatting done in the course of data entry, is superseded by examining the actual article. There is a clear and definitive difference between the headline of the New York Times article and the subtitles below it. The difference is both in style and in size and the title is clearly "Prussic Acid In The Case." Frankly, I can't understand why it is so important to present the subtitles. A change today suggests the title is now ""Prussic Acid In The Case. Effort To Show That Lizzie Borden Tried To Buy Some. Counsel Engaged In An Argument As To Admissibility Of Evidence. To-Day." The change was submitted as a "compromise trim of title." If the entire title was all of the text originally put in the reference, why would it be appropriate to trim it, even as a compromise, and by what process was it determined that this part of the title could be trimmed away? That makes no sense to me. AndToToToo (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary

To summarize the opinions offered for this issue: Myself (Wildhartlivie) and AndToToToo agreed that the article, as is observed in the image currently being offered as the reference source, is titled "Prussic Acid In The Case" with the other clauses functioning as subtitles, which should not be presented as the article title. Also, the format presented in the archive is not representative of the title as it is presented in the actual article in the image. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) offered his interpretation that the entire group of clauses is the article title. Consensus is that the title is "Prussic Acid In The Case." Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Late-arriver, I agree with that consensus. RedSpruce (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Changing citation from a properly archived and established weblink to an image cropped from the page and uploaded to Wikimedia.

I have an issue with the change of citations regarding the estrangement of the Borden sisters. The citation was originally to the preserved image of the complete page from the San Francisco Call, housed at the Library of Congress "Chronicling America" website, where one can zoom in to the actual article in the actual newspaper in which it appeared. It was replaced by a cropped image of the article. I am perplexed by the change, as an in situ reference is something the editor who changed the reference has always held to be important. The change seems arbitrary and unnecessary. The Library of Congress page is not likely to fade into obscurity and the article in the newspaper establishes with all certainty where the information appeared and when.

Anyone reading, go to the website, take a minute or two to learn the software, then take another minute to search for the article on the full page. Its fun, but the reference is the single article, not the full page from the newspaper. Lets make reading the original material as easy as possible. No one should have to learn new software, and then search a full page to find the correct article. And now the public domain article is hosted at Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hitting a zoom button requires no effort to learn new software. As stated, this contradicts your earlier efforts at in situ preservation. That is why this is being opened for comments from other editors. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have made no claims of in situ preservation of this article, please show me a history difference, where I make a claim. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read what was said. In situ preservation of sources is something you held to be important when issues regarding this use of redundant quotes was broached in the past. Are you saying your stance on that has changed? Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am broaching these issues for input from the Wikipedia community to clarify these issues per a consensus. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I just compared the website to the clipping and I see no advantage or disadvantage to the clipping. The website provided isn't hard to operate in the slightest. If anyone has to learn new software to click a zoom button or gets confused looking at the page, odds are they'll be confused by looking at the clipping. That's really not for us to decide actually. In all honesty, I don't see why the original reference was replaced with a clipping that is taken from the same website that was used to begin with. I suppose the website could go under and the link could go dead, but I also think that the clipping could be deleted from Wikipedia. I personally find the webpage better but that's just my personal preference. Pinkadelica 01:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much difference in using either the cropped image or the full page. The information is accessible and readable on each of them. I think it was an unnecessary change and I don't understand the rationale for making the change, but it links to the original, so ultimately it serves the same purpose. Rossrs (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Changing the reference from the actual newspaper page to a cropped image was unnecessary and removes the article from its original context. The image page offers no clue to context or origin whatsover. It only gives the name of the city where the trial is being conducted, and the day and date. The image itself is improperly cited, so one is left short regarding its origin. That makes fact and reference checking impossible. The exchange makes no sense, however it would be quite appropriate were there no copies available of the original article. AndToToToo (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary

To summarize opinions offered about this issue: Myself (Wildhartlivie) and AndToToToo agreed that the change of citation from the original newspaper source to a clipped image of the same article was unnecessary. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) stands by his change. Pinkadelica and Rossrs saw no difference in the citations. Consensus was not reached on the disposition of this issue, thus the change will stand. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Late-arriver again; I prefer the cropped upload, especially considering that a link to the original source is on the Wikipedia image page. Also, some image-enhancement could be done to the cropped upload to make it a little easier to read. RedSpruce (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Other theories?

Would it be considered appropriate to add a section for other theories, such as Arnold Brown's view that the murders were committed by Lizzie Borden's illegitimate half-brother? PatrickLMT (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There already is a brief section called "Conjecture" that simply mentions other theories. The problem is that any additions must have verifiable and reliable sourcing and shouldn't go into too much detailing. Since there are interested editors active on the page, it is always beneficial to bring up changes on this talk page for feedback. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so promptly. I was thinking of author Arnold Brown, who wrote "Lizzie Borden, The Legend, The Truth, The Final Chapter." He has theorized that Abby and Andrew Borden were murdered by William Borden, Andrew's bastard son. Lizzie, according to Brown, was an accomplice, but did not wield the hatchet herself. While Brown's theory is generally regarded as having scanty evidence, it surely deserves at least as much consideration as the ridiculous idea that Emma Borden was the culprit. You do say that you require that these require verifiable and reliable sourcing. None of the other possible culprits are, in fact, have any sources, verifiable and reliable or otherwise. PatrickLMT (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be fine. Just be sure to cite the references. Even though some of the article is still in need of referencing, as hopefully you can see, we've been making an effort to get it cited. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Spinster

I removed the the word "spinster" from the opening paragraph as even wiki's page on it says it's an insult. Just seemed inappropriate. 68.166.172.84 (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, it was a valid description of Borden at the time, and is oft used in written accounts of the woman and the trial. Wikipedia's article on spinster is ill-referenced and, in my view, addresses the topic through today's viewfinder. The word wasn't an insult in 1895, and wasn't so considered until feminism gained strength over a half century later. This topic has been addressed before on the talk page and similar points were raised then. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the reasoning for keeping spinster in the opening sentence, and the opinion of Wildhartlivie hardly consistutes a "consensus". It is considered an insulting term. Applying this reasoning, does that make it OK to refer to afro-americans using terms that are no longer acceptable (the n word), were during their lifetime? 165.189.169.190 (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You're free to disagree, but your assertion that it is considered an insult today isn't a widely acknowledged slur, such as the one to which you allude. And, for the record, "afro-american" isn't a widely used term anymore either. It would be "African-American." Beyond that, if you will re-read my comment above, I also said "This topic has been addressed before on the talk page and similar points were raised then." It's a topic that was discussed in the past and consensus was to retain the usage. Please don't misrepresent what I said. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Um. Yeah. It has been discussed extensively here and here. Of course, Consensus can change. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Childhood ?

What's about Lizzies childhood ? Her mother died at the age of 39 or 40. Lizzie was three years old.

The childhood possible give informations about Lizzies charakter. --AndreaMimi (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but there is really little about childhood in reliable sources. The article covers most of what is reliably known. (And it is spelled "character.") Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, well I'll look at this paragraphe and read them exactly. I thank you for yor answer and wish you a nice weekend.

"character" - yes, I know. But my A-Level is to long ago and my english not perfect. --AndreaMimi (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Prose Fiction

Would anyone object to Minette Walters' "The Sculptress" being included under the prose fiction header? http://www.ciao.co.uk/The_Sculptress_Minette_Walters__Review_5438087 62.113.159.156 (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

First, thank you for asking, it isn't often the case. I hadn't heard of this book, although I'm intrigued enough to get it from the library. However, I can't see how it relates to Lizzie Borden, except perhaps in terms of a spinster, accused of murder. We're striving to limited these sections to material that is specifically about Borden, or specifically incorporates her in some meaningful fashion. Thanks though, for the suggestion and the new book I want to read. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

New Addition to Theater Section

- 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

- 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 [6] 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)

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 [7] but twice [8], 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)

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)

The sections on Bordon and culture

The listings there are not referenced at all except for one of them. If this section doesn't get referrenced I suggest it all be deleted. It's a section that is being used for all kinds of trivial claims such as the Simpsons again which do not belong in this article at all. I will be going there and removing those kinds of comments out of the article after this edit. Thoughts on this since we are not to have things in articles that go unreferenced I think this needs to be taken care of. I haven't been on much so I was really surprised to see this addition added again. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The skipping-rope rhyme

Noticed Warehouse 13 gave this, a bit more "calculated", version of the rhyme:

       Lizzie Borden took an ax
       And gave her father forty whacks.
       When the job was neatly done
       She gave her mother forty-one.

First of. Should not axe be ax, as this is US English?

From the article I am not able to tell whether they concluded on who was murdered first. This rhyme conclude the father, which would seem the most logical in the sense that the step mother was (asleep?) in her room. Was this ever specified? Are there any sources on what was the original. Which one is most used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Essexesd (talk • contribs) 01:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Toward the end of the trial section of the article it is noted that the step mother died first. I think the rhyme is sequenced the way it is simply because of the number of "whacks" and not for accuracy. True Crime Reader (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The rhyme has been removed many times in the past if memory serves me and it should again be removed. First, it's a big magnet for vandalism and second it doesn't bring anything useful to the article. It was made for funny not for anything else like facts. Comments please about this rhyme? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how excluding the rhyme can be justified. It's part of the folklore behind Borden and many people knew the rhyme before they knew the story behind it. If you leave it out it will be like ignoring the giant elephant in the room. True Crime Reader (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked and I can't find who wrote the rhyme, who published it, or really anything about it to get the reference needed for it. If someone can find one than fine I'll leave it in as it's late in the day and I'm tired so I may have missed it. If no one can find a reference for the section than it needs to go. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)