![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The section Motive and methods, starts out as "Over a period of years after the death of Sarah Borden, life in the Borden home had grown unpleasant with affection between the older and younger family members had waning."
This is rather unfortunate as Sarah has not been introduced, obviously not in this paragraph as it is the first sentence, but neither earlier in the article.
One find out who she was by Ctr+F "Sarah" <Enter>, but that is rather idiotic.
Not to make the sentence to heavy one might have to simply state it as an opening phrase. ZBs birth-mother, SB, died in the (fall|winter|summer|autumn) of 1863. Over a period of years after her death....
Or heavy; Over a period of years after the death of Sarah Borden, Zs birth-mother, life in the Borden home had grown unpleasant with affection between the older and younger family members had waning.
I also find the end of the sentence, if not read twice, gibberish. The italic part -^ in conclusion with the rest of the sentence. (But that might be my 1.st language, which isn't English, kicking in :P ) Essexesd ( talk) 02:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Essexesd ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually the ref says that the court concluded the testimony was competent and should be admitted William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I reverted twice with very clear edit summaries as to why I was reverting such as this 'Numbers are in use not writing it out, you are changing the meanings from the refs such as friendship to relationships sentence. don't need to use full names and the hidden noticices there are there for a very needed reas[on]. I thought the editor True Crime Writer would come to this talk page like the edit summary said twice during the three reverts done. I come here now when I have a moment to respond to comments about why the edits were returned without any reasoning for the edits and there is nothing here. Please come to the talk page and explain why the edits made are useful to the article please. Changing 30 to thirty which was done first by an IP is not good since that was drive by vandalism that I reverted. There is a difference between using the word friendship vs. relationship, the two words are not equal in the context of the article at all. The notices that were removed about trivia to the article needs to be returned. That is not seen by our readers and is only there for editors so that they know if trivia is added to the article the trivia will be removed. I look forward to hearing from you, -- CrohnieGal Talk 19:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I do understand that continually reverting and providing edit summaries is tiresome, and I do apologize, but I think it's probably more productive to talk about such big undos first instead of just reverting wholesale. I understand about the numbers thing and it should be a number rather than a word representation of the number. There is a difference between friendship and relationship, but it's been established by more than one author that the "friendship" between Borden and O'Neil was really more than just a friendship. Another editor a few weeks ago undid my change where I had said "lesbian". I think that "relationship" is a good compromise, because it was believed the two had a homosexual relationship. Using relationship is a stronger choice which represents the views of the authors who maintain the relationship was sexual without really saying it, you know? As far as the notices about trivia, according to WP:Trivia, trivia sections are not verboten and are in some instances acceptable. I don't see why something has to be included that really isn't in the spirit of the encyclopaedia's manual of style to begin with and think the notices should be removed. It's not a rule to have no trivia, so why were they even placed there? I find them limiting and off putting to see and others probably feel the same. If someone adds something that is trivia like, it can be discussed here on the talk page can't it? Like I said, I can see that this is a tiresome discussion and process, but I'd like to propose that we invite other WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography project members to add their opinions on this article and these changes. That's it for now. True Crime Reader ( talk) 21:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
As the verbose paragraph above indicates and edits (changing all to last names) and remarks in edit summary are screaming 'I am SRQ" it is time to take action with her latest sockpuppet identity. There is no doubt. See her history and you will see the pattern. DocOfSoc ( talk) 06:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Why are you saying I am a sockpuppet and harassing me? You did this on my talk page today too. All I did was read the manual of style regarding use of names and made appropriate changes to this page on Borden. Please stop harassing me. And I'm not that new because I've been here since July. True Crime Reader ( talk) 06:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The Borden and Culture section should perhaps be split out into a subarticle..it is getting too large and already detracts from this article. Reads like a lot of pop
fancruft and is secondary to the core subject. It would suit me to completely can it - but the subarticle would probably satisfy as well. What do you think?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► (
(⊕))
04:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
"There is a possibly apocryphal story about Lizzie having ordered something from a mail-order company and the delivery man was having trouble opening the crate. She supposedly offered to get the man a hatchet, causing him to run from the house and refuse to ever deliver to that address again."
Let me begin this by stating my thesis right up front: I believe that there is a strong probability that Lizzie Borden had children, although the public-known supposed ‘fact’ is that she did not.
The hypothesis starts with a woman named Diane K. Schilke-legal birth name is Dianne Borden Kessler(Kesslar). She was born in Providence, Rhode Island on July 14, 1933. She was alive during a large portion of my life and I knew her personally on a periodic basis. She declared to her family and friends that her mother had died during childbirth and her father had already bolted and wanted nothing to do with her or the unknown mother. She also declared that she had two aunts that lived in Providence, RI and they were supposedly given custody of Dianne.
Her first husband will not play a role in this story, so I will leave his name out of it, to not cause confusion.
She married her 2nd husband in 1967 in California-his name was Richard Martin Schilke. All of her life, she went by Dianne Borden Schilke. Her husband, Richard, died in October 2000. In his will, which I have visibly obtained and read from one of my sources, were the words: “…to my wife, Dianne Borden Schilke…” Dianne occasionally leaked out details about her childhood when questioned, and it was very clear she had a fairly horrible upbringing and had been tortured on numerous occasions. And sadly, Dianne carried a lot of similar behavior with her into her own life. She even tried having her first husband killed by putting out a ‘dead or alive’ wanted bulletin at the police department during the time she was intimately involved with one or more police officers at the station and her husband had found out about it.
Another family member has clear memories of running away from her as she chased him with a hatchet and threw it at him during a fit of rage. And yet another family member witnessed and discovered that Dianne had covertly and intentionally broke up his engagement with his fiancée because Dianne was unable to control her.
This article has not been written to bring up her past deeds, but to reveal similar characteristics of an extremely painful childhood as should be assumed in the Borden household.
Here’s where it gets interesting…
Dianne died in September of 2010. The exact name on the obituary was ‘Diane K. Schilke.’ A couple members of the family got some ‘red flags’ on this because it wasn’t the name that they knew her as. That’s when they contacted me to research this. These people actually prayed about this, and the Lord told them to research the name ‘Borden.’ To their shock, the most common thing that came up was the Lizzie Borden case, and the family members had never heard about Lizzie Borden. The family began to strongly wonder if there was a relation, since there were several strong coincidences:
Here’s where the evidence comes in.
This took about a hundred hours to figure out. There have been numerous name changes and cover-ups in this family line. The reason for the cover-ups is still unknown.
Those who were close to her during her life recall many of these types of cover-ups and name changes as Dianne attempted to manipulate the situations around her. She even created a will of her own about 8 days before her 2nd husband, Richard, died-with the name ‘Diane K Schilke.’ Those around her and Richard during this time knew that Richard would be going very soon.
Coincidentally, when Dianne died, this will was not discovered until about seven months after her death. There was another will in place (the main will) that was released to the family right after her death that ‘most’ people in the family knew would be coming. I have been told that the contents of the 2nd ‘mysterious will’ have not yet been fully revealed to the family other than there is a somewhat large sum of money that was found.
GENEAOLOGY: We’ll start with Dianne’s mother: Emma Almaretta Kessler(later became Emma Najac), born April 15, 1909 in Providence, RI and died October 1986 in Providence, RI. The birth records clearly show that she was the mother of ‘D Keslar’ on July 14, 1933. This is the only Keslar/Kesler/Kessler born on this day and this year(same birth date and place as Dianne), and has the same address as Dianne Borden Kesler on the 1935 census 2 years later. FACT: EMMA IS THE MOTHER OF DIANNE.
The father is unknown and probably will not ever be known.
Also, there are three different found spellings of Kessler, but they all seem to follow the same family line in that area of the country.
Emma’s sister was Elizabeth Irene Kessler. Both girls were born to Philip Valentine Kessler and Pearl Irene Colman.
Pearl is from Canada and her line leads in the other direction.
Philip’s line, however, leads down a much more interesting path. Philip changed his middle initial “V” to the letter “N” sometime between 1930 and 1935(it’s possible that the N and V could be mis-read on the census form, but unlikely). His birthdate, address, and family members remain the same. After this, I cannot trace him. Philip was born in February 3, 1881 to Harry/Fred Kessler (I’ll explain this later) and Elizabeth Kessler. Philip has two different birth locations from two different documents. On one document, the birth place is Germany and on the other, it’s Jersey City, NJ. Harry and Fred Kessler are one in the same person….. Unless Elizabeth just happened to marry two different people with the last name Kessler that happened to be born on the same day. On the 1910 census from Providence, RI, here’s the parents and children and their birth years listed:
FRED(FATHER)B-1857,
ELIZABETH(MOTHER)B-1860,
EMMA: B1884,
BESSIE: B1891,
FLORA: B1897.
Ok, so now, here’s the info from the previous 1900 census from Jersey City, NJ:
HARRY(FATHER) B1857,
ELIZABETH(MOTHER) B-1860,
EMMA B1884,
BESSIE B1891-1892,
FLORA B1897,
PHILIP B1881,
TILLIE B1882.
The only things that have changed between the two census’ is Harry became Fred, and the family has 'moved' from Jersey City to Providence. There is also a potential name change from Fred Kessler to Frederick Schneider between 1916-1920. This same ‘Fred’ lived with Albert H Schneider(Fred’s son in law) in 1927. Also, Bessie changed her name to Elizabeth at some point-why would parents and then children change their first names?
Bessie/Elizabeth was married to Albert Schneider and had a 1 year old daughter in 1920 in Providence, RI.
So, let’s go back to Elizabeth Kessler, the mother, married to Harry/Fred. She was born in July of 1860. This is the same month and year as Lizzie Borden. Her birth place was listed as Germany, and she was listed as dead in 1916. So it appears the story ends. Maybe. Maybe not.
Also, there are still two different documents that I have seen with my eyes that have two different birth places labeled for her son, Philip. One of them is a WWI document that I would assume Philip himself filled out showing him born in Jersey City. The other one is a census document I would assume the parents filled out showing Germany as the birth place of Philip. Another thing, there are two census documents that contradict each other on the year the Harry/Fred and Elizabeth came over to the states from ‘Germany.’ One document says 1880 and the other says 1882. I have observed the original handwritten documents, and they are clear contradictions.
CONCLUSION: Can I actually prove that Lizzie Borden had children? NO. I cannot.
However, with the coincidences in Dianne’s life, I would say there is a probable relation.
Also, if Elizabeth Kessler is not Lizzie Borden, there are still a heavy amount of lies going on. We’ve got numerous contradicting documents, numerous name changes, and we’ve got major cover-ups and lies in Dianne’s life and in her parents’ lives. We’ve got numerous attempted murders and covert sabotage. We’ve also got a random middle name of ‘Borden’ popping up for no known reason-this is the most puzzling fact for me-not only that she's randomly named BORDEN, but then she changes her name shortly before she dies to remove the word "BORDEN" from her record. Borden8046 ( talk) 22:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Request the addition of the play 40 Whacks currently running at the Annoyance Theater in Chicago, IL. The Annoyance is a well known in the fringe theater circuit, as well as having such well known shows as "Coed Prison Sluts" and "Splatter Theatre", the show is has recieved rave reviews from the Chicago press. Not allowing the addition of 40 Whacks is a great disservice to those interested in the fringe theater movement. - Request the addition of the play 40 Whacks currently running at the Annoyance Theater in Chicago, IL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.251.58 (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC) - Regarding 40 Whacks at the Annoyance theater, it is highly recommended by the Chicago Reader: http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/40-whacks/Event?oid=1888046 by New City: http://newcitystage.com/2010/06/21/review-40-whacksannoyance-theatre/ by the Chicago Theater Blog, Chicago Stage Review and an article on the creators was published here: http://chicago.metromix.com/theater/article/killer-comedy/1980507/content — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.123.217 ( talk) 19:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Not done We do not allow
promotion within Wikipedia articles.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►
23:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
"Andrew was known by family, friends, and business associates as tight-fisted and generally rejected modern conveniences. The family still threw their excrement buckets (slops) onto the backyard. The two daughters, well past marriage age, gladly entered the modern outside world whenever they visited friends."
This section needs fixing. Slops are not excrement, they are kitchen scraps and stuff like that--usually thrown out for the chickens. Early 20th century Americans did not throw their dung in the backyard, especially urban ones. Also, in Lizzie Borden's testimony she clearly states that she went to the water closet in the basement on the morning of the murders. This would suggest that there was some kind of plumbing in the home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brechbill123 ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
"Billy Borden killed them with the help of lizzie borden"
This is an unconfirmed opinion. It's obvious this slipped through because of the sentence errors and the fact that it just pops up out of nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilosopherSocrates ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
did anybody else notice the physical resemblance between Lizzie Borden and Zac Efron? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.69.177 ( talk) 03:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
In Season: 11 Episode: Blood Moon (3) (232 in Series) Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Al Robbins and Assistant Medical Examiner David Philips are performing an autopsy on a decapitated victim. David Philips recites part of the poem about Lizzie Borden, "Lizzie Borden got an axe and gave her mother 40 whacks". To which Dr. Al Robbins replied, "Contrary to the poem, Lizzie Bordern gave her parents a total of 29 whacks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.112.116 ( talk) 03:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
If Film and Theatre references are to be included, surely literary references should be included too? I am thinking specifically about "The Fall River Axe Murders" and "Lizzie's Tiger" by Angela Carter, two stories directly influenced by the murders by an incredibly important writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.183.47 ( talk • contribs) 7:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Episode 26 of Season 2 of "The Practice" has a Lizzie Borden reference. The title of the episode is "Axe Murderer" and was actually a crossover episode with the show "Ally McBeal." A woman in the episode believes she is the reincarnation of Lizzie Borden and murders somebody with an axe. Could this episode be referenced under "Lizzie Borden in culture"? mcrachael, August 24, 2010
I suggest the following additions...
TV
Literature
Children! Children! Do not quarrel! Let me give examples of artistic works which definitely do merit mention, or even substantial discussion, in articles on actual persons or events, because including such mention or discussion adds (according to the criterion I proposed above) "to an understanding of the subject itself, or of the subject's place in history or popular perception":
So it's not true that discussion of fictional or artistic presentations don't belong in factual articles. But the standard is high, and a minimum requirement is that secondary sources must discuss the work's effect on popular perception etc. -- lacking such sources, even such "obvious" statements about how a given work related to (returning to the topic at hand) Lizzie Borden, drawn from direct reading of the work itself, is WP:OR, which is a no-no.
Therefore if you have any favorite works you think should be included, get cracking to find such sources. EEng ( talk) 04:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Per the discussion in the previous section, I've removed all this material. The diff is here [1] for those who think something should be salvaged. The criterion applied, which I am just tickled pink to say I suggested, was
Before writing any angry protests, please read the previous section in full. Attitudes toward pop culture etc. material has moved around a great deal over WP's life, and there's no clear universal guideline that I know of. However, there can be no question that no work can be listed whose relationship to LB isn't described in a reliable secondary source; to write here that "Play X imagines LB's inner thoughts during her trial", citing only the play itself, is WP:OR plain and simple, and has no place anywhere on WP. But having a secondary source is only a minimum, gateway requirement -- beyond that the question is, Why would someone wanting to know about LB want to know about this work? Anyway, none of the stuff I'm removing now meets even the secondary-source requirement, at least based on the sources in the article. EEng ( talk) 17:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been addressed, but it seems like this article exclusively uses the British spelling axe. Lizzie Borden was an American, and the murders took place in the United States. Therefore, shouldn't we us the American spelling ax, without the e? 98.221.128.109 ( talk) 20:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:CONSISTENCY calls for consistent use of just one national variety of English in any given article, and this being a decidedly American topic WP:TIES suggests that variety should be American English -- within which both ax and axe are equally acceptable (possibly one or the other is either preferred or shunned in British English -- I don't know -- but that's neither here nor there). So either ax or axe should be used consistently. Which one? One thought might be to sample the primary sources (which I suspect should be at least, and likely more, consistent than secondary sources) and see if their usage favors one or the other. (The has the advantage of making article text as consistent as possible with any quotations it incorporates.) Then we can stop wasting time on this excruciatingly tiny question -- the article overall remains a controlled mess and that's where the brainpower should be expended. EEng ( talk) 12:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Sisterhood may be powerful, but it's not notable. Any objections? EEng ( talk) 06:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I hope not prematurelyt I've gone ahead and done Bridget -- what a pain in the Wiki merging is -- there's like 852,000 templates to add and stuff! EEng ( talk) 19:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why you're so exercised about this. The old wording was estate's final distribution in 1933, which communicates the year the estate wound up just as well as your new text estate's final probate in 1933. But as already explained final probate makes no sense. As for time it took to probate Lizzie's estate: long probates were common in those days, especially for large estates with unusual bequests, and say nothing about the "quality" of the will.
Since I am presumably the shithead you're addressing, let me say that I don't claim to be an expert -- I simply copyedited the text, removing trivia and repetition which, I thought, didn't add to the reader's understanding of the subject. If there's something you think should go back in by all mean add it back, or discuss it here if you think that would be better. Emma is clearly non-notable (unless there's something not in her article) and all that detail about her life really has no place on WP,
The pissing and snippyness are all on your side, as far as I can see -- this Talk and your own Talk are full of message from people offended by your hairtrigger hostility. If you don't participate anymore, it's not because of what others have done, rather that you have a hard time accepting that things can't always go your way.
(signed) The new HNIC (Helpful and Nice, if Intermittent, Contributor) EEng ( talk) 22:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The photo of Lizzie hasn't changed since 2008 (two years before your first edit to the article) and the prior photo was the one seen here, so your complaint that "her picture has been edited to an ugly mess" is puzzling at best, though a less charitable interpretation would be that you're just kvetching. [pic was indeed changed "umder the hood" -- see below]
My suggestion would be for you to improve the article by adding, for example, badly-needed detail on the trial, household tensions, etc., and supplying references where needed. By the way, contrary to your edit summary a secondary source is needed for the burial place -- a photo is primary and not reliable on its own (there are plenty of gravestones with incorrect names and dates, and stones for people who aren't actually there).
EEng ( talk) 05:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right. The name of the file didn't change but as you noticed Mr. Hohum substituted a modified version. I agree the original is superior. I tried to restore the original but the technical details elude me. I'm gonna sask a friend to help.
But you still need to cut out the kvetching.
EEng (
talk)
06:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
A helpful pal switched back to the prior version of the pic.
EEng (
talk)
03:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a need for "for unclear reasons" here:
It was common for families to change the names of servants. This might be to save the bother of learning a new name, or because they just didn't like the real name; but the reason doesn't matter in this article. jnestorius( talk) 08:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I came by to read about Lizzie and was rather put off by all the tags throughout the article. Excessive tags within the text make things hard to read which defeats the purpose of articles. Aren't these things supposed to be used when content is questionable/dubious? Do we really need them after each sentence when there's a citation that clearly sources the text at the end of a paragraph? I took some time and added some sources. Some of what was tagged was already sourced - the citation just wasn't directly following a sentence. It took me all of three seconds to figure that out. Also, some of the '[when?]' and '[clarification needed]' tags were just silly. The word "tension" needs to be clarified? The text right after the sentence that includes the word tension explains why there was tension between the girls and their parents. And we really need to clarify the word "lawsuit" and "claims"? I don't think we have to dumb things down that much. I also removed a lot of the silly hidden notes in the article. Suggestions or questions should be put on the talk page, not hidden within text all jammed up by references. How is a hidden note that says "cue creepy foreshadowing music" helpful to people who actually edit articles and try to improve them? If you have time to leave little funny notes like that, you have time to source and/or clarify some content. 24.224.43.225 ( talk) 01:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I added a few sourced items I felt were interesting about the trial.
I also removed these citations from the sections on Abby and Andrew Borden: name=crime> "Abby Durfee Gray Borden". The Lizzie Borden Collection. Retrieved January 30, 2014. name=crime> "The Lizzie Borden Collection". The Crime. Retrieved January 30, 2014. "Andrew Jackson Borden". The Lizzie Borden Collection. Retrieved January 30, 2014.
They link to advertising pages and not source material. I tried typing them into my browser manually and still landed on the same advertising business blog. I also removed one sentence that used these citations as a source because it said Lizzie changed her story to 10 minutes during the inquest. I recently read the inquest transcript and am pretty certain she stood by her story of 20 - 30 minutes. However, what she did during that time changed throughout. If someone else can properly cite the page where she changed her story to 10 minutes, I would gladly accept it, but without a reference, I don't think it belongs. 2601:D:2C00:8D00:89B5:E32A:A866:ED4F ( talk) 01:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
User 71.46.248.22 seems to find it hilarious to keep adding a bit about the step mother farting in her sleep. Yep a real thigh slapper that one. Done it twice now... Tigerman2005 ( talk) 02:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
"The victims' heads were removed during autopsy." In fact I believe there was two autopsies: a mini-autopsy in the home, where the stomachs were removed, and a full autopsy at the cemetery. It is my understanding the heads were removed during the full autopsy. It was said that the funeral was stopped before burial, and the autopsy performed, and heads removed. I believe the bodies were then buried later without their heads. The heads being buried in boxes above the caskets after the trial.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/LizzieBorden/bordenautopsies.html
MonsieurET ( talk) 06:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, it came out in the trial that the evidence against her was mostly manufactured. Two officers were punished, one for selling sensational stories to a Boston newspaper about the evidence, another for perjury during the trial. I will look for the evidence on this. I am remembering evidence from a book I read 5 years ago, so I need to verify what I have stated above. (entered 2016-07-16) ScienceExplains ( talk) 18:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I saw this article from Rolling Sone today and wanted to put it in the External Link section. I noticed it was mentioned in there that "no additional links should be added" and, if you wanted to add one, you should ask on the talk page first. Well here I am!
While the RS article does not provide a whole lot of additional information about Lizzie Borden, it does give a nice reflection of how Lizzie Borden has impacted (and continues to impact) popular culture in the United States. Let me know if you think it would be OK to add this to the external link section, or maybe it merits a new section relating to pop culture? Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Lists are not encouraged on Wikipedia, but many of the main mentions in the popular culture section do at least engage with and are supported by the facts covered in the article. However, not every chance mention of Lizzie Borden is significant and I have removed all those that do not deal directly with her life, which is the subject of the article. Some came with a reference which did not support what was claimed. Ideally, someone should combine all of the items in these lists into a coherently written section so as to remove the risk of it becoming a dumping ground for trivia. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 09:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lizzie Borden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The word "vacations" is in quotes in the article, implying something other than a rest break or family outing, and suggesting a stay at a sanitorium or similar institution or medical specialist. No proof or explanation is given for the alleged vacation, much less the reason for it being in quotes. As such, it is suspect and should be removed or changed. Skaizun ( talk) 13:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
"... delivering 17 direct hits to the back of her head, until she was dead." Was this 'expert' testimony? It is likely she was dead before the last several blows. Better phrasing would help. Also, the 'Folk rhyme' section says it was 18 or 19 blows; which number is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.247.220 ( talk) 12:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lizzie Borden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
She appeared in the simpsons episode "Treehouse of Horror IV". She was part of a "Jury of the Damned". Is this something worth mentioning ? Past edits by me were reverted. Philippe97 ( talk) 06:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lizzie Borden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lizzie Borden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
It was said that Lizzie had just gotten a illness. This illnesses was said to be what drove her to kill her parents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.33.44.13 ( talk) 19:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Weren't the victims killed with a hatchet and not an axe? L. Thomas W. ( talk) 14:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Yup
Cornstalks ( talk) 22:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The last editor changed the picture of Lizzie, saying that the old one was of Bridget Sullivan and that this was the "right" one. As a matter of fact, they are both of Lizzie and there are several pictures of her, and therefore no one "right" one. Kostaki mou ( talk) 19:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
There's a musical from 2013 called "Lizzie" that's not mentioned in the article. It doesn't have its own article, either. It's based off of the Lizzie Borden story, so shouldn't it be mentioned? -- post by someone or other
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The section Motive and methods, starts out as "Over a period of years after the death of Sarah Borden, life in the Borden home had grown unpleasant with affection between the older and younger family members had waning."
This is rather unfortunate as Sarah has not been introduced, obviously not in this paragraph as it is the first sentence, but neither earlier in the article.
One find out who she was by Ctr+F "Sarah" <Enter>, but that is rather idiotic.
Not to make the sentence to heavy one might have to simply state it as an opening phrase. ZBs birth-mother, SB, died in the (fall|winter|summer|autumn) of 1863. Over a period of years after her death....
Or heavy; Over a period of years after the death of Sarah Borden, Zs birth-mother, life in the Borden home had grown unpleasant with affection between the older and younger family members had waning.
I also find the end of the sentence, if not read twice, gibberish. The italic part -^ in conclusion with the rest of the sentence. (But that might be my 1.st language, which isn't English, kicking in :P ) Essexesd ( talk) 02:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Essexesd ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually the ref says that the court concluded the testimony was competent and should be admitted William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I reverted twice with very clear edit summaries as to why I was reverting such as this 'Numbers are in use not writing it out, you are changing the meanings from the refs such as friendship to relationships sentence. don't need to use full names and the hidden noticices there are there for a very needed reas[on]. I thought the editor True Crime Writer would come to this talk page like the edit summary said twice during the three reverts done. I come here now when I have a moment to respond to comments about why the edits were returned without any reasoning for the edits and there is nothing here. Please come to the talk page and explain why the edits made are useful to the article please. Changing 30 to thirty which was done first by an IP is not good since that was drive by vandalism that I reverted. There is a difference between using the word friendship vs. relationship, the two words are not equal in the context of the article at all. The notices that were removed about trivia to the article needs to be returned. That is not seen by our readers and is only there for editors so that they know if trivia is added to the article the trivia will be removed. I look forward to hearing from you, -- CrohnieGal Talk 19:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I do understand that continually reverting and providing edit summaries is tiresome, and I do apologize, but I think it's probably more productive to talk about such big undos first instead of just reverting wholesale. I understand about the numbers thing and it should be a number rather than a word representation of the number. There is a difference between friendship and relationship, but it's been established by more than one author that the "friendship" between Borden and O'Neil was really more than just a friendship. Another editor a few weeks ago undid my change where I had said "lesbian". I think that "relationship" is a good compromise, because it was believed the two had a homosexual relationship. Using relationship is a stronger choice which represents the views of the authors who maintain the relationship was sexual without really saying it, you know? As far as the notices about trivia, according to WP:Trivia, trivia sections are not verboten and are in some instances acceptable. I don't see why something has to be included that really isn't in the spirit of the encyclopaedia's manual of style to begin with and think the notices should be removed. It's not a rule to have no trivia, so why were they even placed there? I find them limiting and off putting to see and others probably feel the same. If someone adds something that is trivia like, it can be discussed here on the talk page can't it? Like I said, I can see that this is a tiresome discussion and process, but I'd like to propose that we invite other WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography project members to add their opinions on this article and these changes. That's it for now. True Crime Reader ( talk) 21:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
As the verbose paragraph above indicates and edits (changing all to last names) and remarks in edit summary are screaming 'I am SRQ" it is time to take action with her latest sockpuppet identity. There is no doubt. See her history and you will see the pattern. DocOfSoc ( talk) 06:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Why are you saying I am a sockpuppet and harassing me? You did this on my talk page today too. All I did was read the manual of style regarding use of names and made appropriate changes to this page on Borden. Please stop harassing me. And I'm not that new because I've been here since July. True Crime Reader ( talk) 06:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The Borden and Culture section should perhaps be split out into a subarticle..it is getting too large and already detracts from this article. Reads like a lot of pop
fancruft and is secondary to the core subject. It would suit me to completely can it - but the subarticle would probably satisfy as well. What do you think?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► (
(⊕))
04:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
"There is a possibly apocryphal story about Lizzie having ordered something from a mail-order company and the delivery man was having trouble opening the crate. She supposedly offered to get the man a hatchet, causing him to run from the house and refuse to ever deliver to that address again."
Let me begin this by stating my thesis right up front: I believe that there is a strong probability that Lizzie Borden had children, although the public-known supposed ‘fact’ is that she did not.
The hypothesis starts with a woman named Diane K. Schilke-legal birth name is Dianne Borden Kessler(Kesslar). She was born in Providence, Rhode Island on July 14, 1933. She was alive during a large portion of my life and I knew her personally on a periodic basis. She declared to her family and friends that her mother had died during childbirth and her father had already bolted and wanted nothing to do with her or the unknown mother. She also declared that she had two aunts that lived in Providence, RI and they were supposedly given custody of Dianne.
Her first husband will not play a role in this story, so I will leave his name out of it, to not cause confusion.
She married her 2nd husband in 1967 in California-his name was Richard Martin Schilke. All of her life, she went by Dianne Borden Schilke. Her husband, Richard, died in October 2000. In his will, which I have visibly obtained and read from one of my sources, were the words: “…to my wife, Dianne Borden Schilke…” Dianne occasionally leaked out details about her childhood when questioned, and it was very clear she had a fairly horrible upbringing and had been tortured on numerous occasions. And sadly, Dianne carried a lot of similar behavior with her into her own life. She even tried having her first husband killed by putting out a ‘dead or alive’ wanted bulletin at the police department during the time she was intimately involved with one or more police officers at the station and her husband had found out about it.
Another family member has clear memories of running away from her as she chased him with a hatchet and threw it at him during a fit of rage. And yet another family member witnessed and discovered that Dianne had covertly and intentionally broke up his engagement with his fiancée because Dianne was unable to control her.
This article has not been written to bring up her past deeds, but to reveal similar characteristics of an extremely painful childhood as should be assumed in the Borden household.
Here’s where it gets interesting…
Dianne died in September of 2010. The exact name on the obituary was ‘Diane K. Schilke.’ A couple members of the family got some ‘red flags’ on this because it wasn’t the name that they knew her as. That’s when they contacted me to research this. These people actually prayed about this, and the Lord told them to research the name ‘Borden.’ To their shock, the most common thing that came up was the Lizzie Borden case, and the family members had never heard about Lizzie Borden. The family began to strongly wonder if there was a relation, since there were several strong coincidences:
Here’s where the evidence comes in.
This took about a hundred hours to figure out. There have been numerous name changes and cover-ups in this family line. The reason for the cover-ups is still unknown.
Those who were close to her during her life recall many of these types of cover-ups and name changes as Dianne attempted to manipulate the situations around her. She even created a will of her own about 8 days before her 2nd husband, Richard, died-with the name ‘Diane K Schilke.’ Those around her and Richard during this time knew that Richard would be going very soon.
Coincidentally, when Dianne died, this will was not discovered until about seven months after her death. There was another will in place (the main will) that was released to the family right after her death that ‘most’ people in the family knew would be coming. I have been told that the contents of the 2nd ‘mysterious will’ have not yet been fully revealed to the family other than there is a somewhat large sum of money that was found.
GENEAOLOGY: We’ll start with Dianne’s mother: Emma Almaretta Kessler(later became Emma Najac), born April 15, 1909 in Providence, RI and died October 1986 in Providence, RI. The birth records clearly show that she was the mother of ‘D Keslar’ on July 14, 1933. This is the only Keslar/Kesler/Kessler born on this day and this year(same birth date and place as Dianne), and has the same address as Dianne Borden Kesler on the 1935 census 2 years later. FACT: EMMA IS THE MOTHER OF DIANNE.
The father is unknown and probably will not ever be known.
Also, there are three different found spellings of Kessler, but they all seem to follow the same family line in that area of the country.
Emma’s sister was Elizabeth Irene Kessler. Both girls were born to Philip Valentine Kessler and Pearl Irene Colman.
Pearl is from Canada and her line leads in the other direction.
Philip’s line, however, leads down a much more interesting path. Philip changed his middle initial “V” to the letter “N” sometime between 1930 and 1935(it’s possible that the N and V could be mis-read on the census form, but unlikely). His birthdate, address, and family members remain the same. After this, I cannot trace him. Philip was born in February 3, 1881 to Harry/Fred Kessler (I’ll explain this later) and Elizabeth Kessler. Philip has two different birth locations from two different documents. On one document, the birth place is Germany and on the other, it’s Jersey City, NJ. Harry and Fred Kessler are one in the same person….. Unless Elizabeth just happened to marry two different people with the last name Kessler that happened to be born on the same day. On the 1910 census from Providence, RI, here’s the parents and children and their birth years listed:
FRED(FATHER)B-1857,
ELIZABETH(MOTHER)B-1860,
EMMA: B1884,
BESSIE: B1891,
FLORA: B1897.
Ok, so now, here’s the info from the previous 1900 census from Jersey City, NJ:
HARRY(FATHER) B1857,
ELIZABETH(MOTHER) B-1860,
EMMA B1884,
BESSIE B1891-1892,
FLORA B1897,
PHILIP B1881,
TILLIE B1882.
The only things that have changed between the two census’ is Harry became Fred, and the family has 'moved' from Jersey City to Providence. There is also a potential name change from Fred Kessler to Frederick Schneider between 1916-1920. This same ‘Fred’ lived with Albert H Schneider(Fred’s son in law) in 1927. Also, Bessie changed her name to Elizabeth at some point-why would parents and then children change their first names?
Bessie/Elizabeth was married to Albert Schneider and had a 1 year old daughter in 1920 in Providence, RI.
So, let’s go back to Elizabeth Kessler, the mother, married to Harry/Fred. She was born in July of 1860. This is the same month and year as Lizzie Borden. Her birth place was listed as Germany, and she was listed as dead in 1916. So it appears the story ends. Maybe. Maybe not.
Also, there are still two different documents that I have seen with my eyes that have two different birth places labeled for her son, Philip. One of them is a WWI document that I would assume Philip himself filled out showing him born in Jersey City. The other one is a census document I would assume the parents filled out showing Germany as the birth place of Philip. Another thing, there are two census documents that contradict each other on the year the Harry/Fred and Elizabeth came over to the states from ‘Germany.’ One document says 1880 and the other says 1882. I have observed the original handwritten documents, and they are clear contradictions.
CONCLUSION: Can I actually prove that Lizzie Borden had children? NO. I cannot.
However, with the coincidences in Dianne’s life, I would say there is a probable relation.
Also, if Elizabeth Kessler is not Lizzie Borden, there are still a heavy amount of lies going on. We’ve got numerous contradicting documents, numerous name changes, and we’ve got major cover-ups and lies in Dianne’s life and in her parents’ lives. We’ve got numerous attempted murders and covert sabotage. We’ve also got a random middle name of ‘Borden’ popping up for no known reason-this is the most puzzling fact for me-not only that she's randomly named BORDEN, but then she changes her name shortly before she dies to remove the word "BORDEN" from her record. Borden8046 ( talk) 22:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Request the addition of the play 40 Whacks currently running at the Annoyance Theater in Chicago, IL. The Annoyance is a well known in the fringe theater circuit, as well as having such well known shows as "Coed Prison Sluts" and "Splatter Theatre", the show is has recieved rave reviews from the Chicago press. Not allowing the addition of 40 Whacks is a great disservice to those interested in the fringe theater movement. - Request the addition of the play 40 Whacks currently running at the Annoyance Theater in Chicago, IL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.251.58 (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC) - Regarding 40 Whacks at the Annoyance theater, it is highly recommended by the Chicago Reader: http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/40-whacks/Event?oid=1888046 by New City: http://newcitystage.com/2010/06/21/review-40-whacksannoyance-theatre/ by the Chicago Theater Blog, Chicago Stage Review and an article on the creators was published here: http://chicago.metromix.com/theater/article/killer-comedy/1980507/content — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.123.217 ( talk) 19:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Not done We do not allow
promotion within Wikipedia articles.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►
23:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
"Andrew was known by family, friends, and business associates as tight-fisted and generally rejected modern conveniences. The family still threw their excrement buckets (slops) onto the backyard. The two daughters, well past marriage age, gladly entered the modern outside world whenever they visited friends."
This section needs fixing. Slops are not excrement, they are kitchen scraps and stuff like that--usually thrown out for the chickens. Early 20th century Americans did not throw their dung in the backyard, especially urban ones. Also, in Lizzie Borden's testimony she clearly states that she went to the water closet in the basement on the morning of the murders. This would suggest that there was some kind of plumbing in the home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brechbill123 ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
"Billy Borden killed them with the help of lizzie borden"
This is an unconfirmed opinion. It's obvious this slipped through because of the sentence errors and the fact that it just pops up out of nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilosopherSocrates ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
did anybody else notice the physical resemblance between Lizzie Borden and Zac Efron? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.69.177 ( talk) 03:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
In Season: 11 Episode: Blood Moon (3) (232 in Series) Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Al Robbins and Assistant Medical Examiner David Philips are performing an autopsy on a decapitated victim. David Philips recites part of the poem about Lizzie Borden, "Lizzie Borden got an axe and gave her mother 40 whacks". To which Dr. Al Robbins replied, "Contrary to the poem, Lizzie Bordern gave her parents a total of 29 whacks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.112.116 ( talk) 03:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
If Film and Theatre references are to be included, surely literary references should be included too? I am thinking specifically about "The Fall River Axe Murders" and "Lizzie's Tiger" by Angela Carter, two stories directly influenced by the murders by an incredibly important writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.183.47 ( talk • contribs) 7:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Episode 26 of Season 2 of "The Practice" has a Lizzie Borden reference. The title of the episode is "Axe Murderer" and was actually a crossover episode with the show "Ally McBeal." A woman in the episode believes she is the reincarnation of Lizzie Borden and murders somebody with an axe. Could this episode be referenced under "Lizzie Borden in culture"? mcrachael, August 24, 2010
I suggest the following additions...
TV
Literature
Children! Children! Do not quarrel! Let me give examples of artistic works which definitely do merit mention, or even substantial discussion, in articles on actual persons or events, because including such mention or discussion adds (according to the criterion I proposed above) "to an understanding of the subject itself, or of the subject's place in history or popular perception":
So it's not true that discussion of fictional or artistic presentations don't belong in factual articles. But the standard is high, and a minimum requirement is that secondary sources must discuss the work's effect on popular perception etc. -- lacking such sources, even such "obvious" statements about how a given work related to (returning to the topic at hand) Lizzie Borden, drawn from direct reading of the work itself, is WP:OR, which is a no-no.
Therefore if you have any favorite works you think should be included, get cracking to find such sources. EEng ( talk) 04:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Per the discussion in the previous section, I've removed all this material. The diff is here [1] for those who think something should be salvaged. The criterion applied, which I am just tickled pink to say I suggested, was
Before writing any angry protests, please read the previous section in full. Attitudes toward pop culture etc. material has moved around a great deal over WP's life, and there's no clear universal guideline that I know of. However, there can be no question that no work can be listed whose relationship to LB isn't described in a reliable secondary source; to write here that "Play X imagines LB's inner thoughts during her trial", citing only the play itself, is WP:OR plain and simple, and has no place anywhere on WP. But having a secondary source is only a minimum, gateway requirement -- beyond that the question is, Why would someone wanting to know about LB want to know about this work? Anyway, none of the stuff I'm removing now meets even the secondary-source requirement, at least based on the sources in the article. EEng ( talk) 17:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been addressed, but it seems like this article exclusively uses the British spelling axe. Lizzie Borden was an American, and the murders took place in the United States. Therefore, shouldn't we us the American spelling ax, without the e? 98.221.128.109 ( talk) 20:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:CONSISTENCY calls for consistent use of just one national variety of English in any given article, and this being a decidedly American topic WP:TIES suggests that variety should be American English -- within which both ax and axe are equally acceptable (possibly one or the other is either preferred or shunned in British English -- I don't know -- but that's neither here nor there). So either ax or axe should be used consistently. Which one? One thought might be to sample the primary sources (which I suspect should be at least, and likely more, consistent than secondary sources) and see if their usage favors one or the other. (The has the advantage of making article text as consistent as possible with any quotations it incorporates.) Then we can stop wasting time on this excruciatingly tiny question -- the article overall remains a controlled mess and that's where the brainpower should be expended. EEng ( talk) 12:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Sisterhood may be powerful, but it's not notable. Any objections? EEng ( talk) 06:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I hope not prematurelyt I've gone ahead and done Bridget -- what a pain in the Wiki merging is -- there's like 852,000 templates to add and stuff! EEng ( talk) 19:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why you're so exercised about this. The old wording was estate's final distribution in 1933, which communicates the year the estate wound up just as well as your new text estate's final probate in 1933. But as already explained final probate makes no sense. As for time it took to probate Lizzie's estate: long probates were common in those days, especially for large estates with unusual bequests, and say nothing about the "quality" of the will.
Since I am presumably the shithead you're addressing, let me say that I don't claim to be an expert -- I simply copyedited the text, removing trivia and repetition which, I thought, didn't add to the reader's understanding of the subject. If there's something you think should go back in by all mean add it back, or discuss it here if you think that would be better. Emma is clearly non-notable (unless there's something not in her article) and all that detail about her life really has no place on WP,
The pissing and snippyness are all on your side, as far as I can see -- this Talk and your own Talk are full of message from people offended by your hairtrigger hostility. If you don't participate anymore, it's not because of what others have done, rather that you have a hard time accepting that things can't always go your way.
(signed) The new HNIC (Helpful and Nice, if Intermittent, Contributor) EEng ( talk) 22:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The photo of Lizzie hasn't changed since 2008 (two years before your first edit to the article) and the prior photo was the one seen here, so your complaint that "her picture has been edited to an ugly mess" is puzzling at best, though a less charitable interpretation would be that you're just kvetching. [pic was indeed changed "umder the hood" -- see below]
My suggestion would be for you to improve the article by adding, for example, badly-needed detail on the trial, household tensions, etc., and supplying references where needed. By the way, contrary to your edit summary a secondary source is needed for the burial place -- a photo is primary and not reliable on its own (there are plenty of gravestones with incorrect names and dates, and stones for people who aren't actually there).
EEng ( talk) 05:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right. The name of the file didn't change but as you noticed Mr. Hohum substituted a modified version. I agree the original is superior. I tried to restore the original but the technical details elude me. I'm gonna sask a friend to help.
But you still need to cut out the kvetching.
EEng (
talk)
06:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
A helpful pal switched back to the prior version of the pic.
EEng (
talk)
03:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a need for "for unclear reasons" here:
It was common for families to change the names of servants. This might be to save the bother of learning a new name, or because they just didn't like the real name; but the reason doesn't matter in this article. jnestorius( talk) 08:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I came by to read about Lizzie and was rather put off by all the tags throughout the article. Excessive tags within the text make things hard to read which defeats the purpose of articles. Aren't these things supposed to be used when content is questionable/dubious? Do we really need them after each sentence when there's a citation that clearly sources the text at the end of a paragraph? I took some time and added some sources. Some of what was tagged was already sourced - the citation just wasn't directly following a sentence. It took me all of three seconds to figure that out. Also, some of the '[when?]' and '[clarification needed]' tags were just silly. The word "tension" needs to be clarified? The text right after the sentence that includes the word tension explains why there was tension between the girls and their parents. And we really need to clarify the word "lawsuit" and "claims"? I don't think we have to dumb things down that much. I also removed a lot of the silly hidden notes in the article. Suggestions or questions should be put on the talk page, not hidden within text all jammed up by references. How is a hidden note that says "cue creepy foreshadowing music" helpful to people who actually edit articles and try to improve them? If you have time to leave little funny notes like that, you have time to source and/or clarify some content. 24.224.43.225 ( talk) 01:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I added a few sourced items I felt were interesting about the trial.
I also removed these citations from the sections on Abby and Andrew Borden: name=crime> "Abby Durfee Gray Borden". The Lizzie Borden Collection. Retrieved January 30, 2014. name=crime> "The Lizzie Borden Collection". The Crime. Retrieved January 30, 2014. "Andrew Jackson Borden". The Lizzie Borden Collection. Retrieved January 30, 2014.
They link to advertising pages and not source material. I tried typing them into my browser manually and still landed on the same advertising business blog. I also removed one sentence that used these citations as a source because it said Lizzie changed her story to 10 minutes during the inquest. I recently read the inquest transcript and am pretty certain she stood by her story of 20 - 30 minutes. However, what she did during that time changed throughout. If someone else can properly cite the page where she changed her story to 10 minutes, I would gladly accept it, but without a reference, I don't think it belongs. 2601:D:2C00:8D00:89B5:E32A:A866:ED4F ( talk) 01:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
User 71.46.248.22 seems to find it hilarious to keep adding a bit about the step mother farting in her sleep. Yep a real thigh slapper that one. Done it twice now... Tigerman2005 ( talk) 02:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
"The victims' heads were removed during autopsy." In fact I believe there was two autopsies: a mini-autopsy in the home, where the stomachs were removed, and a full autopsy at the cemetery. It is my understanding the heads were removed during the full autopsy. It was said that the funeral was stopped before burial, and the autopsy performed, and heads removed. I believe the bodies were then buried later without their heads. The heads being buried in boxes above the caskets after the trial.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/LizzieBorden/bordenautopsies.html
MonsieurET ( talk) 06:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, it came out in the trial that the evidence against her was mostly manufactured. Two officers were punished, one for selling sensational stories to a Boston newspaper about the evidence, another for perjury during the trial. I will look for the evidence on this. I am remembering evidence from a book I read 5 years ago, so I need to verify what I have stated above. (entered 2016-07-16) ScienceExplains ( talk) 18:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I saw this article from Rolling Sone today and wanted to put it in the External Link section. I noticed it was mentioned in there that "no additional links should be added" and, if you wanted to add one, you should ask on the talk page first. Well here I am!
While the RS article does not provide a whole lot of additional information about Lizzie Borden, it does give a nice reflection of how Lizzie Borden has impacted (and continues to impact) popular culture in the United States. Let me know if you think it would be OK to add this to the external link section, or maybe it merits a new section relating to pop culture? Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Lists are not encouraged on Wikipedia, but many of the main mentions in the popular culture section do at least engage with and are supported by the facts covered in the article. However, not every chance mention of Lizzie Borden is significant and I have removed all those that do not deal directly with her life, which is the subject of the article. Some came with a reference which did not support what was claimed. Ideally, someone should combine all of the items in these lists into a coherently written section so as to remove the risk of it becoming a dumping ground for trivia. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 09:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lizzie Borden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The word "vacations" is in quotes in the article, implying something other than a rest break or family outing, and suggesting a stay at a sanitorium or similar institution or medical specialist. No proof or explanation is given for the alleged vacation, much less the reason for it being in quotes. As such, it is suspect and should be removed or changed. Skaizun ( talk) 13:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
"... delivering 17 direct hits to the back of her head, until she was dead." Was this 'expert' testimony? It is likely she was dead before the last several blows. Better phrasing would help. Also, the 'Folk rhyme' section says it was 18 or 19 blows; which number is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.247.220 ( talk) 12:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lizzie Borden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
She appeared in the simpsons episode "Treehouse of Horror IV". She was part of a "Jury of the Damned". Is this something worth mentioning ? Past edits by me were reverted. Philippe97 ( talk) 06:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lizzie Borden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lizzie Borden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
It was said that Lizzie had just gotten a illness. This illnesses was said to be what drove her to kill her parents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.33.44.13 ( talk) 19:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Weren't the victims killed with a hatchet and not an axe? L. Thomas W. ( talk) 14:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Yup
Cornstalks ( talk) 22:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The last editor changed the picture of Lizzie, saying that the old one was of Bridget Sullivan and that this was the "right" one. As a matter of fact, they are both of Lizzie and there are several pictures of her, and therefore no one "right" one. Kostaki mou ( talk) 19:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
There's a musical from 2013 called "Lizzie" that's not mentioned in the article. It doesn't have its own article, either. It's based off of the Lizzie Borden story, so shouldn't it be mentioned? -- post by someone or other