Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Richards Tilton
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Elizabeth Richards Tilton
Elizabeth Richards Tilton, 1870
- ... that under the rules of criminal conversation, Elizabeth Richards Tilton (pictured) could not testify in the adultery trial brought by her husband Theodore Tilton against Henry Ward Beecher? Source: "On 20 August 1874, New York editor and author Theodore Tilton sued Henry Ward Beecher for adultery, claiming that the minister had seduced Tilton's wife Elizabeth... [2nd last line of page] ... But in criminal conversation cases a wife cannot take the stand", page 46 of The New Nineteenth Century: Feminist Readings of Underread Victorian Fiction
- ALT1:... although Elizabeth Richards Tilton (pictured) was a central figure in a six-month-long trial, she was never allowed to speak in court? Quote Sourced: "She was the silent party throughout much of the trial, muted by a legal fiction that defined a civil trial for adultery as a property dispute between one man and another. Nearly four months into the trial, she rose and tried to read a statement to the court and was summarily denied by the judge." The trial began on January 4, 1875 and ended July 2, 1875.
- ALT2:... that Elizabeth Richards Tilton (pictured) attempted to make a statement to the court, during the six-month-long Beecher-Tilton trial, but was summarily denied? Same source as for 'ALT1.
- Reviewed: Pam Coats
Created by Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk). Self-nominated at 23:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC).
- Comment (not a review). Is it really the most hooky thing we can come up with for a fighter for women's rights to talk about her sex life, or to discuss a legal case between two men without even saying how she was connected to the case? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- A lot of people have no idea that women weren't considered people, from a legal standpoint, in cases like this - which is the point of the hook. The question that should come to mind is "Why couldn't she testify?" which hopefully inspires someone to read the article. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- The article criminal conversation says "neither the plaintiff, defendant, nor the wife accused of the adultery was permitted to take the stand", which suggests that it was both male and female involved parties who couldn't testify, not just women? I will have to read the sources which cover the trial to see if that was the case at that time and place. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- OK, so the husband and the alleged adulterer both spent two weeks on the witness stand. So different rules from those described by the criminal conversation article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- I've added an ALT1 and ALT2, that don't reference the Crim-con article, both focusing on her attempt to be heard in court. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Mary Mark Ockerbloom, I had thought of reviewing this, but got distracted by ITN and AfDs - and by reading some of the Waller source. So I'm glad that Cwmhiraeth has reviewed it! It's a fascinating story, and tragic in many ways. I just wanted to mention that I have added a bit to several sections of the article. I was struck by the quotes in Waller that Theodore Tilton thought his wife was his best critic, and was undervalued intellectually; that he was a woman's rights supporter; but he was also ashamed of how Elizabeth looked, dressed and spoke. To me, those contradictory opinions seem important to the course of events, so I have added some of that content. I've also added a bit in Work and in Consequences, sourced from digitised newspapers, which I thought gave a rather fuller picture of Elizabeth later in life (she was an active member of another church, etc). I hope you're happy with the additions - feel free to edit them, of course! RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- @RebeccaGreen:, thanks for the great additions. They are much appreciated. I am tempted to strike the original ALT, and have taken out the link in it to Crim. con. as confusing -- opinions? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Mary Mark Ockerbloom: I think that helps, taking out a link to an article which has information about different rules. I do quite like ALT0 without that confusion, and it makes clear that her not speaking was not a preference of hers or her counsel, but she was disallowed by the rules of the time. (Maybe I would have suggested saying "that under the rules of the time"?) But I think they're all OK, and make that point in different ways. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
This interesting and comprehensive article is new enough and long enough. The image is in the public domain, the hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright or plagiarism issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
