Talk:Elizabeth Báthory/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

"Vandalism"

Hi, I'm the user whose changes you keep rolling back calling it 'vandalism.' The current phrasing of the popular culture section is ripe with POV. You present a single, revisionist interpretation of Bathory as gospel, and it is just not balanced. If you have some kind of revisionist historical agenda, that's fine. Take it elsewhere. The single sentence I added to the popular culture balanced out the currently radical interpretation--painting Bathory as some kind of victim of patriarchy. While that claim is out there, when you push it to the exclusion of other views, you are at best presenting original research, and at worst presenting outright POV--neither of which is wiki-ok. I also can no longer find the language I used in the history, because you decided to delete that. It was immediately after the lines "Radu Florescu and Raymond T. McNally have concluded that the theory Báthory murdered on account of her vanity sprung up from contemporary prejudices about gender roles. Women were not believed to be capable of violence for its own sake" and it was something along the lines of "However, while popular prejudice of the time is noted, these scholars' view is neither the only, nor the most accepted interpretation of the actual events." Come on, tell me that's vandalism.

  • I agree it's not vandalism... I didn't change, your work... cite it and i think there is no problem "these scholars' view is neither the only" add another scholar with a differing viewpoint... if you know one I'm sure people here would love to read more about this interesting historical figure.
  • People who spend a lot of time editing this page must seem to think it is "the most accepted interpretation of the actual events." prove it with multiple sorces, most of the information in this page is cited. John Doe or Jane Doe 13:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Coven Membership

The reference stating that Elizabeth Bathory was in a coven sounds absurd. Witches didn't organize themselves like that in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. The reference saying this is from the 1940s and seems to have a sensationalistic title. Has anyone investigated it? 71.182.123.174 00:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It appears as though someone found a dusty old book from grandma's attic and took its content a bit too seriously. The reason so much nonsense about this case pervades is that most of what we have to go on reflects astounding ignorance of Central European history rather than any facts. Nothing published in a book before McNally's Dracula Was a Woman should be considered a credible source, and even that book is incomplete and speculative.Shield2 23:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed "New age" or movie style covens is unlikely. However, you were not there. To say that no "witches" covens/clubs/churches existed in 1500-1600 is as likely as saying no form of Christian church existed before the first cathedral was built. We have simply lost records in both cases. The almost total lack of witchcraft records is in part due to lack of original effort/literacy and in part due to historical persecution -- not because pagan cults and witchcraft didn't exist in earlier Europe. Versus Bathory herself, it is truly all speculation. The admitted point of how the case was handled, according to surviving records, was to cover up political scandal. You don't cover up scandal by making lots of records, ask Richard Nixon if you can speak to the dead. Sure the speculation aspect should be noted. However, I think old speculation is more appropriate and likely to closer to truth than "new age" speculation of total innocence based on no additional information.69.23.124.142 (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Bloodbath"

The "bloodbath" section of this article is terrible, but I'm not sure whether it should be edited or deleted altogether. Most of it is speculation or repetition of things already mentioned in the article, and it seems to have been written by someone who takes her guilt (and the existence of witches) as fact. --nichie 22:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important part in this article. Most of the stories I have heard were about the bloodbaths. This section should have more information in it. Without this section, most of her story is not there. --Chriss 23:55, 5 July 2006

Perhaps it should be redressed as a prevailing myth/legend? I don't know what evidence was ever found to suggest that she did bathe in blood, or to back-up the general claim as to why she did if so, but it's definitely a widely held popular tenet of the Bathory story that she took blood-baths.

I respectfully disagree in part and agree in part. I agree with the above contention that the details of Countess Bathory's torture needs to be corrected, however what may suprise you is the level of mental dise

I say leave it, maybe find some citations? John Doe or Jane Doe 12:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC) No luck so far with creditable sorces most pages and recorces I've found so far are, fiction...sorry I'll keep looking though, unfortunaly speculation dosn't count here only facts John Doe or Jane Doe 15:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


In my opinion, the key problem so far is, that historical accounts of torture are mixed with literary accounts.
The former are based on trial testimonies which are preserved and in part reprinted, e.g. by Farin. And only the literary sources contain all the bloodbathing. This is stated correctly in the article, with reference to McNally. Now as this bloodbathing happens to be almost all EB was known for in the 18th and 19th century, I think it has to be included as what it is - fiction. There are sources as important as the Brothers Grimm that can be quoted here.
At first I didn`t want to tackle this "EB in fiction" problem before I have access to my sources, so I can list representative narratives. But now that there is such a lifely discussion going on, I think I will come forward with a proposal for that section asap, can`t get much worse, can it...?
And I wholeheartedly agree with John/Jane Doe on the importance of verifyiability, I think this is the key to turn this into a good article.--Sam195 04:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, done. see below


Citation standards for any POV is not going to happen. The second-hand analyses that are in dispute are as close as you will get to original records without making a personal visit to special records sections of various Central European museums. You just aren't going to find comprehensive reproduction of original records online or in recent publications -- especially in legible English. We know that from the start. Very few actual records were ever created due to "whatever" was being covered up. Richard Nixon is one of the few major political idiots who kept extensive records and tried to cover up at the same time. It is also known that most of those records that might have been created were likely destroyed in various wars and fires -- very common fate of records in central Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.124.142 (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Authenticity? Guilt?

Perhaps the question of her guilt should be more seriously examined. The opening lines of the article seem to assume that she is guilty, while the body of the text offers little more than a paragraph stating that she may have been innocent. The "legends" section is ridiculous and simply repeats uncontested rumours. One of my very good friends is a direct descendent of Erzsebet and I have not only heard drastically different accounts (i.e. that she was accused of these crimes in order to remove her as a threat to the Habsburgs), I have read actual historical documents concerning her trial, execution, life, etc. This article is not nearly as rigorous as it should be.--Ajcarriere 17:08, 22 July 2006

Most of the regional history is more than half rumor. But one of the most persistent rumors is that mere ownership of property not owned by the Hapsburgs made you a "Threat" to the Hapsburgs. Of course that tended make the threat part self-fulfilling as property owners tried to preserve their own lives, retain ownership of property, or flee all connection to the country (meaning you likely went AWOL from military duties). But put the whole into perspective, war with the Turks meant the whole region was militarized to the limit -- every resource and able male was required to be patriotically available to support the long war when it flared up. Thus the Hapsburgs had no choice but to seize the properties of cowards, dilentes and the dead -- or the merely unreliable. Given the connections of the Bathory's some tale might have been needed to cover national necessity.
If you want to spin modern historical revisionist tales, do a Doctor Quinn Medicine Woman. Say that Ms. Bathory gave refuge to female victims of the war without prejudice and that most of them by circumstance were of Turkish descent. Thus the Hapsburgs found out, sent troops that killed all the women as enemies of the state, dug up those who had died of wounds to count extent of aid over time, and blamed it all on Bathory in the popular legend claiming they were local women. Of course in their eyes she would have diverted war resources to aiding the enemy, withheld the spoils of war from local troops lowering morale, dangerously exposed a key defensive castle to takeover from within, and even provided intelligence opportunities to the Turks. None of which would mean anything to a Dr.Quinn. Which means the logical barbarian would need to do her in and discourage any undiscovered accomplices of doing similar things -- thus the lurid tale and punishment.
Spinning such alternative tales is harmless unless you start labeling your fictional tales - psychically recovered history or better supported by facts than the legend. Being a distant relative (even if true) is a branch of the same tree unless they own unpublicized documents which can be scientifically proven as written by Ms. Bathory. Most oral family histories tend to distort quite rapidly - often in a very flattering or at self-important ways. Four hundred years is a lot time and generations for distortion.

69.23.120.164 10:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


Nobody knows of her direct bloodline and how would you know if your friend was a direct descendent of her? I highly doubt that you could know that for sure, though the trial did have alot of political motives it isnt entirely discounted that she did commit these awful crimes and many "historical documents" do go in favor that she did infact commit some horrendous acts. While she may not of had bloodbaths or whatever she did indulge in torture often, and she wasnt executed, just sentenced to life imprisonment. -Jwhyte1 10:00, 31 July 2006

According to her own diary she killed at least 650 girls. Perhaps Ajcarriere is correct in his/her assumptions that Báthory's trial was politically motivated (her husband had loaned the government of the day a considerable sum of money to aid its war with Turkey, and by finding her guilty (her husband was dead by this time) the State was able to confiscate her property, including the loan) but I respectfully suggest that her guilt has never really been in question. She wasn't executed, by the way; she was walled up in a tower in her own castle and fed daily. She died there ten years later. Her favourite method of murder was to strip her victims naked, push them into the snow, and pour buckets of cold water over them. An excellent reference for her life and activities is Raymond T. McNally's book Dracula Was A Woman: In Search Of The Blood Countess Of Transylvania, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1983, ISBN 0070456712. This article needs some serious work. Wocky 07:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree, the article needs much work (and I tagged it as such long ago, unfortunately every time I come back it's not really improved). But as a matter of fact, there have indeed been serious doubts about her guilt raised by modern historians. McNally's book shouldn't be taken at face value - it's popular history with a sensationalist bent. The truth of the matter is that if Bram Stoker hadn't popularized a Bulgarian myth as a Magyar with a Romanian name, few people would be giving this story any more consideration than for any other 16th century witchcraft trial. --BluePlatypus 03:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If serious modern historians raised doubts about her guilt, I would be interested to hear their arguments (BluePlatypus, could you give us a reference?). As for the "truth of the matter", legends and fairytales about E.B. are much older than Bram Stoker`s Dracula, suggesting that she always has been a fascinating historical/literary figure of her own right. And when was the trial clasified a "witchcraft trial"? As for Ajcarriere, that the Bathory family might hold drastically different accounts is hardly surprising, nor is it a valid argument. Unless the primary sources (that`s what you meant? I envy you!) you studied tell differently, that is, offer facts yet unknown. Speaking of primary sources, since when is the contends of "her personal diary" known, Wocky? Speaking of political motivation, didn`t her family benefit from her not being excecuted as murderer, in which case her fortune would have been seized? Is McNally suggesting otherwise in his book? cf 8) of this page.--Sam195 04:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"If serious modern historians raised doubts about her guilt, I would be interested to hear their arguments ". Here is the article [1], in hungarian. My English isn't good enouph to translate it. It's the same article by Szádeczky-Kardoss Irma that is already referenced here, but the link is dead. There is a book too: "Nagy László: A rossz hírű Báthoryak, Kossuth Könyvkiadó, 1984, ISBN 9630923084" --87.97.37.5 22:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

well, don`t worry about your English then, here are enough people who would take care of that. Or anybody else who knows that book? --Sam195 11:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
-- The Myth of Legend of .....
This whole article should be titled "The Myth (or Legend) of...". The facts are that there are NO facts, only rumor. More than the simple passage of time makes applying normal Wikipedia documentation standards pointless. The Legend or Myth itself says that there was a concerted effort to conceal and destroy evidence so as not to embarrass noble families. This region has had many wars where sackings of towns and incidental burning of public records was common. Now add the many tales that say destroying and distorting the record and memory of your enemies was a common tactic of many regional victors in this general region from soon after it was settled until (supposedly) the fall of the USSR. So proof of the truth is unlikely.
For other historical figures enough verified documents exist to back up some aspects of their stories. In particular personal documents can be carbon dated and handwriting verified by cross reference with other public documents kept elsewhere by reputable libraries and record centers.
I don't think the rumored diary has actually authenticated back to that date, but I am almost certain that the diary cannot be proven to be written by Bathory even if it is that old. Apparently what little second-hand documentation there is could easily have been written to cover a number of political contingencies, including simple hole plugging where officials simply had no idea what happened but need to stablize the situation. Even the accounts of court execution and imprisonment are supposedly less than rigorous in their accounts in a truly tabliod manner.
So basically fact-wise she existed and shortly after her general husband died, her property was transferred to male relatives. She most probably died not too long afterward. Rumor spread that the transfer was expedited for the reasons given in the legend. End of facts.

69.23.120.164 10:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Torture" section plagiarized?

This section bears remarkable similarities to parts of the text at http://www.abacom.com/~jkrause/bathory.html.

  • True, text the author himself calls "creative nonfiction" and "fiction" in his disclaimer. Not a valid source for anything, isn`t it? Taken together, doesn`t that qualify the corresponding paragraph to be deleted? (I`m new to Wiki, could anybody else comment?) --Sam195 05:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Village of Čachtice

The name of the village in Hungarian is Csejte, see [2]. This is correct in the Čachtice Castle article.

Plagiarism and/or storytelling?

This article reads very much like a vignette out of some novelty book of famous vampires. The way in which facts are presented is not only POV-ridden but goal-driven; the author is clearly trying to evoke delicious horror and explicitly points out irony in the subject's life and fate. I'm not sure of the best way to clean this up, or indeed the best template to apply (I don't see a "this article may be plagiarized" template), so I'm putting up the Noncompliant tag and letting someone in the know handle it.


Half the article focuses on the legends and trashy stories about her while the other half does a good job putting her real motives and the real motives for punishing her in perspective relative to the political situations in Transylvania and Royal Hungary at the time. I am not sure if it is anything more than a conspiracy theory to suggest it was Basta who killed her husband. More likely he died in battle with the Turks. But besides that and the part about her fondling her victims' genitilia, this is not a bad article. Not much is really known about this case, and most of it is supposition and speculation based on her life and times. As much as a fan as I am of McNally and Florescu's work there is yet to be a book written about this bizarre and fascinating caseShield2 06:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

genealogy

What was her relationship to the king of Poland and various princes of Transylvania? She seems to be of an age to be a daughter of Christopher Báthory, but was she? Or was she more distantly related? john k 17:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 
 
 
 
 
 {{{16}}}
 
 
 András III Bathori de Ecsed
 
 
 
 
 
 
 {{{17}}}
 
 
 András V Bathori
 
 
 
 
 
 
 {{{18}}}
 
 
 Julia Drágfi de Béltek
 
 
 
 
 
 
 {{{19}}}
 
 
 George Bathori
 
 
 
 
 
 
 {{{20}}}
 
 
 István Rozgonyi de Rozgony
 
 
 
 
 
 
 {{{21}}}
 
 
 Katalin Rozgonyi de Rozgony
 
 
 
 
 
 
 {{{22}}}
 
 
 Katalin de Hédervár
 
 
 
 
 
 
 {{{23}}}
 
Erszebet Bathori
 
 
 
 
 
 Istvan II Bathori
 
 
 Miklos IV Bathori de Somlyo
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dorottya Warday de Kisvarda
 
 
 Istvan VI Bathori
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Janos Banffy de Losoncz
 
 
 Zsofia Banffy de Losoncz
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Margit de Malacz
 
 
 Anna Bathori
 
 
 
 
 
 
 {{{28}}}
 
 
 Istvan Thelegdy de Telegd
 
 
 
 
 
 
 {{{29}}}
 
 
 Katalin Thelegdy de Telegd
 
 
 
 
 
 
 {{{30}}}
 
 
 Margit Bebek de Pelsocz
 
 
 
 
 
 
 {{{31}}}
 

bg:Шаблон:Генеалогично дърво-5 That family tree is unusual because it is formatted backwards. George and Anna were her parents, and it reads from Erzsebet to her anscestors, not her descendants. Christopher Bathory was her uncle, as was King Stephen Bathory of Poland. Her parents were cousinsShield2 07:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Backwards? No, it's a perfectly reasonable way to show a family tree. - Nunh-huh 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose. But I could see how John Kenney was confused about it and others might be as well. It looks like a good family tree to me thoughShield2 05:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC) It is backwards, in that readers of English expect things to begin in the left and proceed to the right, along the direction of reading. E.g.: English-using comics and scientific graphs. It should be expected that many would be confused. Smajie 22:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It is backwards, in that readers of English expect things to begin in the left and proceed to the right, along the direction of reading. E.g.: English-using comics and scientific graphs. This family tree, however, proceeds chronologically in the opposite direction. It should be expected that many would be confused. Smajie 22:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just fine anyone with half a brain can figure out that two people have a child not the otherway around John Doe or Jane Doe 17:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Uh, sorry, but have you really made an honest effort? The Báthory family are high nobility and their genealogy is extremely well documented and not very hard to find. Get the names correct and consistent. It's written "Báthory", with an accent on the 'a' and a 'y' at the end. The "-y" ending implies nobility. You've also dropped most accents, and switch between Hungarian and English versions of names. Plus more subtle inconsistencies like using the variant "Drágfi" instead of "Drágffy" but "Bánffy" instead of "Bánfi". (Which also have the Serbo-Croatian versions "Dragović" and "Banović" respectively) Also "Warday" is German spelling of "Várday" (or "Várdai"). I have doubts about the credibility of your source here: Why assume they can keep their facts straight when they can't keep the names in order? Don't rely on random websites when there are plenty of better alternatives. --BluePlatypus 02:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Her parents weren't cousins. The family tree can be found here.[3] --87.97.37.5 22:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Something I Thought I Heard About Her.

I thought I read somewhere, that actually she was a medicine women with advanced techniques, and she was only killed because people thought her treatments were some sort of evil torture. Has anybody else heard that? Where did I hear that? Did I hear that on this site?--Mullon 02:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

OMG, someone blatantly picking up the concept of Dr. Quinn medicine woman and confusing it with reality. Nice alternative universe science fiction fantasy idea though. No, the simplest and most logical conspiracy is that they simply needed to quickly put the properties into the hands of male relatives loyal to the Hapsburgs and the war against the Turks - without upsetting her uncle by ignoring legal niceties. 69.23.120.164 11:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's one theory proposed by a Hungarian revisionist. From what I have seen about this case, it is not a very likely one. There's always some nut who comes along and says the most foul, guilty-as-sin criminal in the world was framed. Still, many people say the "Blood Countess" was unfairly imprisoned by the Habsburgs. She did not get much of a trial at all. This is one of the most bizarre cases in history. My view is that the stories about her bathing in blood her likely spread to cover up their own complicity and inaction for many years. As for her real motives, that is still a mystery. You really have to look at what was going on in her time (i.e. the Ottoman Wars, and to make matters worse Hungary still had a fuedal system during the Renaissance). I tend to think she really was what we'd call a psychopath, but not like the kind she is commonly portrayed as. More like one who seemed normal and perhaps even welcome for a time in a brutal and cutthroat environment until even the people around her had finally had enough, like a mobster who's more interested in having people "whacked" than making money.Shield2 03:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The stories about bathing in blood didn't come until a long. long tim after, so it couldn't have been spread by family members. And certainly with all the false withcraft accusations running aroud the world back thenmaking up the most outrageous accusations, it's certainly understandable why some people would think it was all just as ridiculous as the Salem witch trials etc. DreamGuy 11:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the blood baths were likely a later local embellishment for young children and visitors. Probably also an faulty effort to understand why so many victims and to visualize what so many victims might be like. Just like the old war stories that say the streets of Jeruselum ran ankle deep in blood when the Crusaders entered -- it is not likely to be literally true. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly enough it is wrong to assume that witchcraft trials were always false accusations in all places at all times - or that someone pointed the finger at some else. In this backward region of the world there were more self-advertised witches than you might think. Think of were Baba Yaga is a popular kid's story for thousands of years. Why do you think the Gypsies (Roma) originate from here?
Maybe the folk truthfully practicing witchcraft didn't really get results from the devil but merely psychotropic plant extracts. But nevertheless, the point is many folk particularly in this region either believed they were practicing witchcraft or like Vlad Tepis advertised that they did. Why? To intimidate enemies and gain psychological power over reluctant allies, many witches in this region and time weren't suggesting they practiced advanced medicine for the public good but rather advertised services and self-focus attainment of power and punishment of enemies. And the psychological terror tactics are still used by Hell and Brimstone preachers and so-called voodoo cults -- regardless of the reality of the metaphysical aspects. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


Oh my, here we have nonsene being replaced by lesser nonsense. The facts are quite simple: yes, she did kill and torture all these girls. Her power and social standing protected her for a while but not in the end. She was arrested and not put on trial only to protect her family's name and to avoid a confiscation of her propert. She was not imprisoned by "the Habsburgs" but by the Palatin of Hungary in cooperation with her son and sons-in-law. The Habsburg Emperor pressed the Palatin to proceed along normal lines of justice (which would have resulted in her execution, confiscation of property etc.) BTW, there is no indication that Elizabeth and her husband were illoyal to the Habsburgs (though her father definitely was). She was definitely was not a medicine woman, nor a witch, nor a victim of political machinations. Str1977 (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
First my point about the property was emphasis on being in MALE relatives hands. Her husband was dead by the time actual investigation began. Female rulers in 1600s Central Europe weren't a commonly accepted thing. Her sons were known directly to the Hapsburgs from what I read. Thus properties in the hands of "loyal male relatives" would be the solution most acceptable to all parties -- family allies and the Hapsburgs.
Also as far whether she or her husband were disloyal, the point was not that there was any proof of disloyalty. What a modern concept. The standard assumption for most of history has been loyalty through family first, unless you were a direct personal friend -- which is why so many peace treaties were consummated via marriage. So her disloyal father and a lack of personal friendship would mean...she would be assumed untrustworthy. Plus the Hapsburgs were considered paranoid even within their own time frame. The Hapsburg rule tended to be "do unto others BEFORE they can do unto you" and "better a mistake with your neck than mine". Of course in the context of the times where the ambitious, intriguing aspects of Machiavelli were the educated political standard -- that might well have been quite a healthy survival tactic for the very rich and powerful Hapsburgs. They really did have lots of enemies and people who wanted a piece of what they had. Concepts of justice and restraint of government and fiscal power are actually very new. Though the Magna Carta kicked things off in England, it took until just a couple decades ago to spread to most the world including Central European countries. In Central Europe the power of nobility was still mainly limited by the Church and local King.

Again the key legal point in the pursuit of EB was that she started killing lesser noble women and people of political important.

Also interpreting what the Hapsburgs wanted done can not be taken as simply as you say -- since intrigue and double meanings were commonly associated with how they exerted their power. That is the request for her trial and execution may well have been a threat with an actual desire for some sort unofficial bargain. The fact that the Hapsburgs did not vigorously protest the outcome is usually interpreted as they got what they really wanted.
My point on witchcraft was that it might scientifically be defined as "psychological warfare of terror" or "spiritual intimidation". Now combine that with trials and investigations which were often very confused back then except as to verdict and punishment. All of which means maybe she was guilty of something beyond simple sociopathic insanity and murder -- or maybe not. The deaths are almost certainly true as local gossip would have undermined a totally false political accusation. But the motivation and details of the crimes are most likely unrecoverable and truly unimportant at this date. She is long dead and defaming her name won't harm her. But proving anyone's reputation can be whitewashed in the future might set a bad precedent for those megalomaniacs whose morality is only constrained by how history might remember them.
Pure speculation on maybe why she MIGHT have been using psychological warfare type "witchcraft"? Perhaps she was having local political trouble with her husband away and later dead. Local mayors or nobles might have been trying to take charge. She might have decided to take a Vlad Tepis approach of scaring her enemies with ruthless gruesome murders of personal servants and claiming power outside the male governed church. Even though legend says it took the murder of noble women to finally force action against her; that might have been last ditch escalation as murdering servants became ineffective in making local politicians fearful. But most likely after her husband died it was only a matter of time before outsiders would remove a woman from power.

69.23.124.142 (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is awful

To begin with, the biggest paragraph in the opening section is dedicated to the bloodbath legend without marking it as a legend. To claim that this originates from testimonies of the Bathory trial is just wrong. And what is that body count of 1,612? - seems like the summation of all existing estimates, at best. The highest number I am aware of is a runaway 400, mentioned in one testimony, while all the others suggest "only" dozens of victims. I`m really surprised about how awful that article is, because in the literature section, there is a reference to Michael Farins 2003 book "Heroine des Grauens". It`s an excellent book I happen to have my bookshelf. Unlike popular history or "true crime" writing, this book is a vast collection of sources, both historical and fictional (that is, 18th and 19th century literature most of the legends can be traced back to). And as far as I remember, Farin refrains from own speculation and keeps to scientific standards. At the moment I am far away from my bookshelf, but I will see what I can do about this article, using that book and the references therein. Just one thing to be taken account of is that E.B. is a historical as well as a literary figure (I mean, different from contemporary popular culture cited in the article). The legends section could be easily converted into a "E.B. in literature and myth" section, or something alike. This can be done properly, quoting valid sources. Wouldn`t that be a way to clean this mess up?--Sam195 04:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Some Questions

1. Was any evidence other than confessions produced at the trial and, if so, what was it?

2. Why was Countess Bathory not tried? Were members of the Hungarian aristocracy immune from prosecution for murder at the time?

3. If any important aspect of the case was political, does anyone know what, if anything, Hungarian historians of the period have to say about the issues? Norvo 23:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Norvo, unfortunately at the moment I can only tell you that from my memory - as soon as I have checked it out, I will put it in the article, with the according references.

If I remember correctly...

1) ...that lady was caught with her pants down. Dead bodys all over the place, burried in graves too shallow or just dumped in some ditches, a surviving victim found by Thurzo`s party, dying soon after... sounds almost too good to be true, but that`s the primary sources. Unless someone finds a historian who doubts it (not that I`m aware of any), we don`t have the authority to do so in the article. Anybody who wants to make that point should come up with valid references.

[The things you mention here are myth. When Thurzo arrived, Elizabeth was not at her estate and so was not "caught with her pants down." Furthermore, the woman is said to have been tortured didn't die - she lived and she would have made a great eyewitness. Curiously, she never testified, which seems rather odd to me, considering how valueable her testimony of being tortured could have been.]

2) I was surprised to read that in the article, I thought she WAS tried, but only spared the death penalty - for the very same political reasons stated in the article (last paragraph of "life"). Otherwise, why would she have been locked up for the rest of her life? Again, I have to check that out, but I thought that records of her testimony in the trial were handed over to the family, and they got lost over the centuries. Too bad, would have been interesting...

3) Interesting point, hope anybody will find about that. It will depend on the question, whether from the historian`s point of view, she ever was more than a mere historical curiosity or a black spot on an important noble family`s record. The facts the article seems to get right show, that she was investigated (or tried - we will see...) DESPITE her family`s clout, after complaints over her wrongdoings could not be ignored any longer, but in the end the family had their way, cf. 2).

[She was a powerful noblewoman and an ally of the ruler of Transylvania (her brother) before he was murdered.]

Another (technical) question of my own:

- that stupid part about the fondling of genitalia - can`t we just remove it? Or move it here? Is some sort of consensus needed to do so? (sorry, again, I`m new here). The following sentence even suggests (accidentaly, no doubt) that THIS would be "one of the most enduring parts of Báthory's legend". Instead of fixing that statement I`d suggest to remove the former sentence completely, because the "citation needed" here seems to be nothing but a poor excuse for making a totally unfounded statement.--Sam195 12:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam. From what I've read there seems to be some confusion as to whether EB herself was tried and convicted of the murders or whether she was imprisoned on some other basis - perhaps some form of 'protective custody' or imprisoned while awaiting trial - perhaps a trial that the authorities hoped to avoid. Did she ever appear in any court of law, for example and if so when, where and with what result(s)? What you write in (2) suggests she was tried, convicted - and then her death sentence was commuted? It would also be very useful to have definite information on the question of aristocratic immunity in Hungary at the time.
Martin von Schwartner in his somewhat oddly entitled book on the Hungarian constitution, Statistik des Kõnigreichs Ungern. Ein Versuch, zweyter und dritter Theil, zweyte Ausgabe, Ofen [Buda] 1811, p.152, writes at some length about immense importance in the Hungarian constitution of preserving the immunity of nobles. In fact, he remarks - and it I quote in translation: 'Even the liberty of the proud and free Briton is not more firmly secured than the personal safety of the Hungarian nobleman'. At that time (1811) there were enormous difficulties even arresting a Hungarian aristo, unless charged with treason or a handful of other crimes, but these did NOT include murder. Any noble accused had to appear without delay before an aristorcratic judge of at least the same rank. Moreover, commoners were not allowed to give evidence against nobles. Obviously, the position may have changed between 1611 and 1811, but the whole thing points to amazing privileges for the nobility and to all kinds of legal obstacles. Norvo 14:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
PS. The article states 'It is alleged that Elizabeth started to kill young women between the years 1585 and 1610'. If she herself had been tried, I'd have expected the trial to have either narrowed this long timespan or for there to be much information on why this couldn't be done. After all, she wouldn't have been tried by a jury but by a panel of atistocratic judges using an inquisitorial system. On the other hand if the only people tried were her alleged accomplices then each would presumably have been tried for the period when he/she was an alleged accomplice. Norvo 15:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I really hate that I can`t offer more than speculations at the moment... The intervention of her family (if verifiable, but it is mentioned quite consistently) wouldn`t it suggest that conviction and execution were at least possible, if not imminent?

We will see if it is merely a confusion or if indeed two (or more) different versions are believed true by historians (in which case both had to be included in the article). First: EB investigated, tried, (sentenced?) but not executed, locked up, spending rest of life writing letters pointing to growing insanity. Second (unless an editor of the article made it up himself...) EB put under house arrest, investigated in absentia, defending herself in letters, (sentenced??), locked up.

The time frame given in the article seems to represent a nowadays reconstruction of events. Maybe it would be expecting too much from a court of the closing middle ages to establish a time frame, track a "criminal career" or investigate into events 20 years back (only guessing here...)--Sam195 02:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks. The article itself is untrustworthy. According to many accounts there was a huge investigation, and some claim that over 200 witnesses were questioned. EB's (alleged) accomplices were executed. Of your two conjectures, most accounts seem to point to the second or something like it. I don't think I've come across any account that expressly claims that EB herself was tried. After all, the raid on her castle took place at the end of December 1610 and she died in August 1614. It's not unknown for people to spend that length of time 'awaiting trial', especially if the authorities were seeking to avoid a trial altogether, or if there were legal obstacles to a trial that first had to be overcome, such as aristocratic immunity. (It would be useful to know what the constitutional position was). Norvo 03:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that interesting discussion, I was not aware of that situation. That will probably make two versions then. At least I think I will be able to present references pointing to the first one. Could you (or anybody else, of course) take care of verifying and presenting the other version, so we can assure balance? Finding out about the constitutional circumstances of her time would be a straightforward, and, no doubt, interesting approach. But by linking it to EB I think we had to be very careful not to end up doing original research. I think my first priority will be to give that article some more structure, and of course tackle that dime novel style "legend" section, which (I believe) is the biggest flaw of this article. Unfortunately my contribution will have to wait for a few more weeks.--Sam195 06:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. I take that back. The "Investigation of her actions"-section is awful, too. And the only reference is a joke.


The question of the fondling...I have read that somwhere else and will do my best to find the cititaon, but if you want I would have no problem with you moving it here, though I am not the original writer of this article...it just caught my eye as I am currently visiting the Czech Republic and plan to see Slovakia as well... John Doe or Jane Doe 15:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Were members of the Hungarian aristocracy immune from prosecution for murder at the time?" Yes. A noble women can be prosecuted at the time only if she kills the husband, parents or child etc. Also close relatives. --87.97.37.5 22:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


NO. There were other noblewomen accused and TRIED for similar crimes (killing and torturing their maids) and pardoned by the king.


And those maids were probably, like pages, lesser nobility in training or hostage status too. Killing a peasant might have been subject to a fine though. Maybe someone can find the official laws for nobility at that date and locality and cite it as being relevant. Even then official laws were some times ignored and not always the ones for practical purposes.

Remember rules of English modern law DID NOT apply to procedures in 1600 Central Europe. All these 200+ witness accounts are lost by the standard procedure of the investigator being able to give hearsay evidence summarizing what they had to say. I doubt there were ever any detailed notes taken. Imprisonment for political reasons still happened particularly in Central Europe. Technically this was what happened to EB in order to avoid the embarrassment of being proven guilty in royal or church courts. The nearest modern equivalent to this is military administrative punishment which also forgoes formal trial and most often detailed documentation in exchange for a lesser range of punishment. But pleading "no contest" and throwing yourself on the mercy of the court might be similar too in that if the court accepts it there is no trial nor detailed documentation.

The Hapsburgs were the last gasp of old style Central European privilege of nobility in the face of popular demands and the Protestant revolution. So at the time of EB, nobles in the region were still limited in legal power only by church law and those decrees of the local King or Emperor. Gunpowder had not yet forced equality under the law. Thus killing peasants would not have been illegal for EB in the normal sense, but would have significant political impact. Which is some accounts say the real investigation only began when she began killing lesser nobility and people of political importance. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Elements pending verification

I believe it in the best interest of this articles quality to place unverified elements here. Those with reference only to private webpages shouldn`t have been in the article in the first place. I think this is the case for some more elements in the article, but I will limit myself to three elements I believe to be most problematic.

While interrogating Turks, her husband at one time employed articulated claw-like pincers of silver which, when fastened to a whip, would tear and rip the flesh to such an obscene degree that even he, a cruel man himself, soon abandoned the apparatus in disgust and left it at the castle. Báthory's aunt, a known bisexual and sadist[citation needed], had introduced her to the practice of flagellation (enacted upon others), and she equipped herself with her husband's silver claws for use on Slavic debtors and other victims. She preferred to whip her subjects on the front of their nude bodies rather than their backs, so that the wounds would be more severe and so that she could watch their faces contort in agony and horror at their fate.
Báthory used other methods of torture as well, often as punishments for servants who incurred her displeasure. Sticking pins under the fingernails of maids; having a maid stripped, covering her in honey, and leaving her outside to be bitten and stung to death by insects; or having a maid stripped, taking her outside in the worst parts of winter, and dousing the unfortunate maid in cold water until she froze to death were among the tortures rumored to have taken place at her castle. She and her servants also beat and starved her victims. Other legends mention Báthory's use of the iron maiden, but this is not in the testimony of the interrogated servants. Some witnesses described spiked cages with drains in the bottom; victims were placed into the cages and prodded at with red-hot pokers until they impaled themselves on the spikes, thus providing a blood shower for Báthory. Also described was an orb-shaped cage lined with spikes that victims were placed into and the cage was then hoised up on a pulley and rocked like a pendulum, thus ensuring that the victim's flesh was shredded. Still, evidence of these spiked cages is scant.

Obviously, all of this has to be verified, parts may be plagiarized (cf above). Another reason for putting it here is, that some elements (freezing to death, starving, biting) CAN in fact be verified as historical by trial records, therefore they don`t belong to the legends/literature section but to the "life" section or to an improved "investigation" section.

It is also said that before killing her victims the countess would fondle her victims' genitalia as a way of preparing them for death[citation needed].

Citation is needed indeed.

Her diaries, if they exist, may shed light on her motives but have not been published. They are said to be in Hungary's national archives[4].

I appologize to the person who allready improved that part, but I believe it still belongs here. It is true that their existance is dubious, but we would have to find a published source, stating that their existence is dubious. This reference is a private webpage whose author admits that he doesn`t know himself. By the way, I am thinking about how to ask that national archive without annoying them. I imagine they got more than one nutcase every day inquiring about it. Could any Hungarian out there help us, maybe this information is accesible on the national archives webpage?--Sam195 07:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is another one...

Because her eventual punishment was politically motivated, some have questioned whether she was guilty at all.

I`m not saying they didn't. Just find a published source that does so. --Sam195 13:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

(1,612 in all)

won't be that many. There will be several body counts in the end: those believed true by historians (will be ranging from 60 and 180, or whatever you find) plus the 650 or 670 mentioned by one witness in the trial.

Number of victims. In the trial János Újvari says 35,Dorottya Szentesi says 30,Katalin Beniczki says 50, Ilona Jó can't give a number (L.Nagy).--87.97.35.157 18:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

1. feautures EB only among other, 2. mixes facts and fiction, 3. is completely nuts (vampires are real, or something like that...)--Sam195 18:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[the evidence against her] would not be considered acceptable in most developed countries by today's standards, since it...

Redundant, or even misleading. A 1600s court can only be judged by 1600s standard. Today's courts would accept circumstancial evidence, while back then confessions were needed for a verdict. Therefore, flawed as it may be, torture made perfect sense in jurisdiction--Sam195 04:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In the latest History Channel documentary about the history of vampires, which aired on October 31st 2006, Bathory was described as having been lesbian, having sexual affairs with her victims, drinking their blood while they were still alive, and killing them after she became bored with them.

Sorry, but a Halloween tv special can hardly be considered a valid source, (even if it weren't as flawed as this one), it's not even published in a sense that anybody could check it, nor is it in any way revied or stating it's sources. --Sam195 16:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

new section: EB in folklore and literature

Could native speakers please have a look at the new section? There should still be many problems of grammar and style. If so, please don`t waste time discussing them, but go ahead and change them as you please. (Actually the whole article could benefit from that)

Please let me briefly comment on my changes:

– Verifiablility: I know that`s a problem at the moment, especially after my moving unverified elements to the talkpage... All the parts I inserted could be roughly referenced to Michael Farin's book "Heroine des Grauens", but I don`t want to do that quick and dirty. Actually anybody with access to this book (or probably to McNally's book) could add some of the references.

– Future of that section: I will add representative stories as references, in order to illustrate the statements I have given there. Again, everybody with access to those sources mentioned above can do that as well. Hopefully one day this section will contain a list of all recorded stories.

– Subdivision: I think it will be useful to later divide that section into "tales" as opposed to "interpretations", placing folklore and morale stories in the former categorie, while the latter contains modern, well, interpretations, such as McNally's theory or narratives pointing to sadism or lesbianism (or, if necessary, to innocence accused, or whatever interpretations editors will dig out).--Sam195 08:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


The section about torture with silver pincers/claws has been plagiarized. [5] For what it's worth, this is one of the few online sources that mentions the issue of aristocratic immunity (towards the end). Norvo 00:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
A majority of internet sources states indeed that the trial against her didn`t take place, so that version should be found at least in some book (to be honest, I`m not really sure what Farin or the sources quoted by him got to say about that). Well, anybody veryfying any of those statements would improve this article a lot.--Sam195 12:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Help! (technical/layout question)

I was trying to insert footnotes and ran into problems,

1) there is no "notes and references" section yet! Does a "references and further reading" section, as it exists now, even make sense? References would be numbered, further reading would be just listed?
2) when I tried to create a footnote, the whole article following it would vanish... could somebody give me a link to a WP Manual explaining how it's done?
3) if someone wants to create a reference section, here would be an example reference:
in the "EB in folklore..." section, in "EB and the vampire myth", the final statement "...refuted by other authors." Should be referenced to:
Miller, Elizabeth: Dracula - Sense and Nonsense. Desert Island Books 2006. ISBN: 190532815X

Thank you very much--Sam195 04:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and see if I can answer your questions:
  1. No, I don't think the section "references and further reading" makes sense. If a book is useful as a reference it will automatically be useful as further reading as well, so the section should propably be renamed to either "References" or "Further reading" (or split in two).
  2. This would happen if you forgot to put a closing </ref> tag after the <ref>. Here's an example of a footnote;[1] press edit to see the markup codes, I'm using. The footnote manual with all the details is at Wikipedia:Footnotes.
  3. To create the notes section, simply use a <references/> tag, like this:
  1. ^ Miller, Elizabeth: Dracula - Sense and Nonsense. Desert Island Books 2006. ISBN: 190532815X
If any of this needs further clarification, feel free to ask. Hemmingsen 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much, that answers my questions indeed! --Sam195 05:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Motives

section as it was:

Elizabeth was born in a brutal environment in which her family often used violence to maintain their power (e.g. the Transylvanian ruler Zsigmond Báthory who liked to have his retainers killed). Alternatively, inbreeding is sometimes wrongly believed to have caused various psychotic disorders that the family was rumored to have. McNally and Radu Florescu imply that she learned techniques of torture from her husband, the "Black Beg", or Karabeg in Turkish. Some writers claim the Báthorys were brutal individuals even for the time, but others accuse such writers of selling fiction at any cost and slandering a family that achieved great things for Hungary[6].
Her crimes, arrest, and imprisonment can be seen in the context of a financial wartime power struggle she and her family eventually lost to the Habsburgs. The Báthory family's influence had declined in its base, Transylvania, after their involvement in the Long War with the Turks and subsequent betrayal at the hands of their allies. After her husband's death, the Emperor had refused to pay debts owed to the late "Black Beg". Elizabeth's relative Gabriel Báthory (listed as a brother, cousin, or nephew depending on the source) was involved in anti-Habsburg intrigue following the Long War and she was said to have been linked to these activities[7][8].

Two thirds don't deal with motives at all, parts have been mentioned earlier, important aspects missing, information in parts not verified, or quoting private web pages,...

Actually motives are a topic that should be dealt with, but this had to be done in a proper way. Same goes for the historical context, in a reasonable extent. --Sam195 15:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is relevant because it deals with the Habsburgs' motives for punishing her. She was never given a trial, so it would be POV to assume they did not have their own agenda. That is not to say she was innocent, but no serious historian has ever looked at this case without admitting those who punished her had other motivations besides seeing justice done.Shield2 00:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Wheatcroft is just one example of many historians who consider Matthias II one of the worst rulers the Habsburg dynasty ever produced. I am not saying Elizabeth Bathory was innocent of mass murder, but she was a victim of a politically motivated sham trial and a smear campaign against her family (who may or may not have deserved it, certainly they were no angels but whether they were all bad is another question).Shield2 04:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place for encyclopedic articles, rather than essay-like discussion. Please see the WP:NPOV page and also WP:NOT. Andrew Wheatcroft is a highly regarded historian and any allegations he makes may be worth adding to the article (with references), but please be careful to maintain a neutral point of view. Phrases like "just one example of many historians" etc definitely come under the category of weasel words. Moreover, terms like "smear campaign" are emotive. Incidentally, when you say "it would be POV to assume they did not have their own agenda" - no, it wouldn't. It would be POV to state "They had no agenda", but everyone is assumed innocent until proven guilty! If you want to prove them guilty, you need facts and references. -- TinaSparkle 11:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree - with both of you. Those things are worth being mentioned, if verified, but I disagree with the way you started doing this, and with the location within the article.
I rather suggest we create a "historical background" section, where we could briefly mention:
  • the war and her husbands role,
  • the importance and influence of the Báthory family
  • the power struggle with Matthias II
That can be dealt with in very few sentences, it would help to further structure the article, because these bits of information are spread over the article so far. And refraining from POV vocabulary like "betrayal" - I am troubled a bit by the language you used so far.
I'm not so sure any more a "motive"-section is needed, there is not much relevant information at all, and it can easily be added to the literature section. I might include her being mentioned in Psychopathia Sexualis as soon as I find my copy. --Sam195 18:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not mean to be POV, I am simply pointing out that she was never actually convicted of a crime in a court of law, let alone a fair trial. And also, that she and her family were involved in a power struggle with the Habsburg crown following a costly war. What was wrong with my link to the source claiming Matthias II owed Nadasdy a debt? The BBC site has no POV agenda about this case. I'm not here to say she's my hero or anything of the sort, but the given motive that she was a serial killer has no credibility at all.Shield2 20:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Consider this:

  • She was never given a trial
  • While it does seem authentic, the testimony of her accomplices is hasty because it was extracted through torture. The details are vague and incomplete.
  • It is, however, the only thing close to a detailed and reliable documentation of her crimes we have to go on today.
  • None of the witnesses ever mentioned her actually killing anybody to kill them, she seemed to brutally mistreat her victims and just let them die as if they brought it on themselves with their own weakness. It is almost certain that she tortured and starved many girls and was responsible for many deaths, but there is no evidence of any clearly sexually motivated serial killings. Her treatment of her victims seems more gulag-like to me[9].
  • Sabine Baring-Gould was the first widley read writer to spread the legends about her bathing in blood, and a lot of the today's stories about her originate from Valentine Penrose's poorly researched trash novel The Bloody Countess. Neither of these sources are based on any actual testimony.
  • As I've mentioned, her family has in a post-war power struggle with the Habsburgs, and Matthias II was controversial at best.
  • Thurzo also had a lot to gain by seizing her property.

The questions about her motives and those of the rulers who brought her to "justice" remain unanswered, and will continue to remain so until someone examines her as a figure of her times and not as a figure of the times we are in now. Perhaps the legends, rumors, and flat out lies about her are so perversely appealing in this day and age that people just don't care to get to the bottom of the truth. Or maybe it's a matter of people imposing their views of modern "science" on this case. Personally I've never been a fan of so-called historians trying to apply Freudian methods to centuries-old historical figures, but then again I've never been a fan of Freudian methods at all. Maybe someday someone will come up with a plausible and historically valid motive. Until then, it seems Elizabeth Bathory is what whatever we make her.Shield2 21:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Excuse me, but I am not sure you have read the article entirely. It leaves no doubt about the nature of those legends, they are traced right back to their 18th century origin. After all this article is getting to the bottom of the truth, by limiting itself to things documented and widely accepted by historians. Even claims made by those "popular history" biographers are given very limited attention. Speculations about her motives, Freudian or else, are part of the historical reception of the case, and they are never treated as fact in the article, if included at all.
Let me briefly address the other issues you have raised:
  • The essay on the bbc website is by some anonymous author not citing his/her sources, and it is not published in a sense that would make it a valid source itself (peer reviewed, publisher...). And by suggesting that those circumstances are directly responsible for her behaviour, you make a claim that has to be verified - the bbc essay did not even say so. And I'm sure for the validity of Matthias' debt there can be found a real source.
  • This article has to represent historical (read: scientific) mainstream. If you think her not being a sexually or whatever motivated serial killer represents that mainstream, you have to come up with sources. Same is true for the interpretation and evaluation of witness accounts, what you suggest considering would be original research. It is just not relevant what you or I think about it, as long as it isn't published in a respectable source.
  • The different interests and power struggle are mentioned. More than once. It could be done in a more central way, in a "historical background" section. Your input could be helpful there. But I still think that controversy surrounding Matthias II belongs to the Matthias II article. --Sam195 11:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I admit I was probably overstepping my bounds by making a claim about her true motives, but I was correct in saying that no one has ever proven what her true motives were and that her being a serial killer is pure speculation. As for my claim that Matthias II owed her husband, it was in the first article on her there was in the Crime Library by Denise Noe, which was far more detailed and better researched than the current one but sufferred from an annoying feminist POV. I can't find it, but I'll look elsewhere for this fact. As it is, her historical background is no more and no less of a proven factor than being a serial killer. None of the crimes that are actually documented prove she was a serial killer, although they do not necessarily disprove such an allegation either. You may be right that it would probably take original research to prove she had other motives and was at least somewhat motivated by what was going on around her, but it wouldn't be wrong to point out that allegations and assumptions of her being a serial killer have never been proven.Shield2 23:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that she was involved in battles against muslims ("Turks")? Her husband was killed by muslims, and genocidal battles were going on all around this part of Europe (the "bleeding edge" of Islam). Wars between muslims and infidels are always extremely bloody, and that might explain the lack of freudian or psychopathic proofs. And, of course, Christians never want to talk about it afterward, especially if Christians were actually involved in the slaughter of muslims. Hoserjoe 20:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we're in serious danger of getting into the territory of original research here. Please bear in mind that we have to keep this article within the confines of what has already been written and published on Elizabeth Báthory in reliable sources. -- TinaSparkle 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to worry. This is the "Talk" segment, and I'm just doing some blue-sky speculation. It's fair to speculate on "motives" within the talk section on the off chance that someone has uncovered some hard information Hoserjoe 07:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed split

At the moment, this page is very long. I feel that readers who come here looking for information on the historical figure Elizabeth Bathory will not necessarily want to wade through exhaustive and often vandalised lists of her appearances as a fictional character in folklore, literature, video boardgames, Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics, Cradle of Filth albums, and internet-published slashfiction by goth fantasists. These manifestations of the fictional EB are completely irrelevant to the life and true story of the historical EB. Moreover, these bloated lists will keep growing forever, and it's getting kind of tedious removing stuff from them when people add their own dreadful self-published novels and the song about bathing in blood they posted on their MySpaces. All of this tends to detract from, rather than add to, the quite well-researched and informative sections on EB the real person.

I propose that there be two articles: one about the historical figure EB, under the present title, and one entitled Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture (unless anyone can think of a better title), to put the present literature, folklore and popular culture sections in. If there are no objections, I'll do this next week. -- TinaSparkle 14:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I also find those growing lists of irrelevant information annoying. Only I would prefer to split off only the popular culture section and keep the section above in the main article, for several reasons:
  • It's reasonably short and not likely to grow.
  • readers looking for E.B. are likely to have heard about the bloodbath or related myths.
  • this reception has a quite long history itself and belongs to her. There is not much historical information on the real person, so research has always been a separation of fact from fiction. I feel it would be alright if the article reflects that.
--Sam195 13:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, Sam195. I've now split the article. I agree with you that plenty of people coming here will be interested in the myths, and as such I have kept some of the information from the section you mention in the main article (cut down a little to avoid going into too much detail). The full version is retained in the new article. I've moved some of the detail, simply on the basis that I don't want to make a value-judgement: to leave literature and folklore in the main article, while relegating music, film etc to a subsidiary, could be seen as a bit offensive. Of course please do move more bits back, or whatever, if you think I've left anything important out of the main piece. -- TinaSparkle 09:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Anastasia Báthory

I can't find the source of this illegitimate daughter. I think it comes from any fiction literature. It should be moved to the fiction section.--ResetGomb 18:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I haven't read about that in any book either. Delete it altogether! It would be beyond the scope of this article to list any existing misinformation about her. --Sam195 13:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Crimelibrary.com mentions that at age 14 she was impregnated by a local peasant. It does not give the baby's name nor any info on who/how/where it was raised. And although there are many references cited on that site, I have no clue which if any of those references they got this info from.

Just an idea. It might refer to an old misconception cleared very early. One 17th century German biographer investigated such claims and even found some church records pointing to empregnation (and, not sure about that, abortion) - and he could show that the Elizabeth Bathory mentioned there was definitely not the one in question here. That might explain the mentioning in crimelibrary.com, but not the daughter Anastasia here. I think I will take her out of the article until somebody comes along with a source. --Sam195 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sam195, do you perhaps know who this German biographer was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.234.83 (talk) 11:33, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Nagy and similar sources

Rather than adding to above discussions (that are all about much older versions of the article), let's start this here.

I have removed some edits for several reasons:

  • This article has to represent historical mainstream. Nagy and his kind represent a minority view, so it can only be included as such. Other authors have rebutted his claims, and at least two respectable biographers write he is crap. Removing such quotes and adding "convincingly" to Nagy's arguments gives a wrong impression about that mainstream.
  • Editors seem to confuse the article with a talk page.
  • Editors have removed perfectly verified and undisputed facts that did not fit their argumentation.

I see the problem, those chosing to believe those sources will find the article wrong and misguided, and feel they have to correct it. But this is not the point of any wiki article, an encyclopedic article can not install "the truth" but only present what is held true by a variety of published sources. I recomend you to check out the guidelines. And there is little point arguing the claims of these authors vs those of others. It is just not relevant what you or I think about it. Nagy doesn't have to convince you or me, but his fellow historians, which according to Farin and McNally he failed doing. --Sam195 08:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edits

Nadasdy took on her last name because of her status.

What does it mean?

It is said that he also was viloent with his wife.

Source ?

Her diary was found with a list of over 600 women that she had slain.

Where is the diary?

--ResetGomb 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Diablo 2

Is the Countess, from Diablo2:Act 1, based on Elizabeth Báthory, and if so, should any mention be made? Vampus 17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the fictional legend from the game and The Countess character are inspired by Elizabeth Bathory. The Countess is mentioned in the Elizabeth Bathory in Popular Culture article, which is linked to in this article. A reference to a specific piece of her in popular culture isn't needed in the main article. 65.28.160.239 21:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Further reading

For clarity and order (appearance) I have divided the list of further reading into English, German, Hungarian, and Slovak texts that are fairly recent and not too difficult to obtain. I have also alphabetized these texts by author. The previous listing of further readings was a bit jumbled together. I have not deleted books that were listed by previous users. I have added a few more to the list that represent both a Hungarian and Slovakian p.o.v. on this topic.

I must mention that a couple of the texts are actually fictitious accounts of Elizabeth Báthory and should not be viewed as being historical biographies, e.g. Gia Bathory Al Babel, and Andrei Codrescu. Perhaps these two books should be removed and tranferred to the article on Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture?

The inclusion of additional Hungarian and Slovak texts, though not accessible to most in English, gives the list of sources greater depth and scope since Elizabeth Báthory was a Hungarian who spent much of her life in what is now Slovakia. Therefore, inclusion of references from those two cultures/countries is relevant.--Gyula 23:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

slovak nationalism

[10]. Definietly not needed. Use prper that time names. --195.56.131.242 19:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read and follow WP:NCGN while editing articles on Wikipedia. Tankred 19:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these apply, the modern official name or the modern local historical name should be used, respectively. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects. - I've read it many times, but you not, just reverting and linking a WP policy, wich eventually proves that you're vandalizing pages. Vince17:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks and read the whole policy page. You will find that any discussion should occur on the talk page of the locality in question (Cachtice in this case) and there is a list of required evidence you should provide if you believe that there is any "widely accepted historical English name" of Cachtice. Otherwise, the modern official name will be used. Tankred 18:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You are quite annoying and boring with this continuous asking of "oh really? oh really?" what you answer for yourself immediately with "no". Why asking, if you're not intrested in the answer? Countless times proved to me, as now again, that you're not intrested in sources. If you check the two english speaking external links, you'll find out whether Csejte (older form Csejthe) or Cahtice (sorry, I don't have slovak keyboard) is used in (popular) english (sites). You know, I'm wondering whether you'll be ever intrested in facts rather than reverting me at sight. Ad hominems are only good to move you into that way, and prevent you to be caught again lying that you read, what you obviously did't. --Vince hey, yo! :-) 09:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

People, people. Calm down and stop it with the personal attacks. This is only a very minor issue of nomenclature. No angry mastodons: please assume good faith, etc. If there's still an issue here, please set out your arguments straightforwardly without insulting each other, and we'll go for a consensus verdict. Thank you. -- TinaSparkle 15:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned comment

The supposedly Germanic-Norse rock band "Bathory" is named after her.

I have deleted this unsigned comment from the top of this page and placed it here for reference. PLEASE NOTE that such observations belong in the article Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture. Not on this talk page, and not in this article. Thank you. -- TinaSparkle 19:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

elizabeth Bathory

elizabeth Bathory was a hungarian contess who, murderd 600- 700 young woman. Why? because she was drived by her absession with youth and wanting to stay young forever. she thought the blood would revitlize her. So, she fooled girls into coming to her castle for finishing school. once they were their she had many ways of torture and murder. she would kill them bath with their dead bodyies in a tub of blood. She would drink it and she would bite her servant girls when she would made them watch. Then she went to far killing the royal daughters when she was finally stopped she couldn't of been killed because she was royalty. but she could of been put under house arest so she was locked in one room in her castle until she died. was she caray? mently ill? or just a vampiress? we shall never know for sure?

Diary

In her diary there is documentation of the torture 610 women of noble and peasant lineage alike whose blood she later bathed in

  • I must ask again: Where is this diary?--ResetGomb 07:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted that addition - it's completely unsupported, and as far as I know there is no diary. -- TinaSparkle 07:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The writings in her personal diaries, written in Old Hungarian, are often referred to as a source for this figure, although language barriers make such ambiguous

  • I must ask again: Where is this diary? I can read Old and New Hungarian. But I can't find the diary.--ResetGomb 07:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

PICTURE of Bathory, ...what do you think?

The Hungarian Wikipedia page has a picture of her that is somewhat larger and more distinct. Shouldn't we add that picture here as well? I don't know much about editing but here's the link to the Hungarian version of this article: [11] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.2.86.87 (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, please add it. --164.107.223.217 14:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad source (Seabrook witchcraft book) removed

Per Wikipedia reliable sources policy and NPOV policy, and claims that are made in the William Seabrook's book Witchcraft: Its Power in the World Today. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company 1940 and unsupported elsewhere need to be removed whenever anyone adds them. That book is horrible, written by someone claiming that witchcraft was real and out to get us all and making up total nonsense about Bathory admitting to have been in a coven, admitting witchcraft, etc. The way NPOV and references work is that something only in one book cannot be presented as if it were a fact, if it's included at all (and this stuff should not be, because it's completely unreliable) it should be cited that so-and-so author CLAIMS such-n-such, not that such-n-such was eally a fact, then a footnote, then going to the foortnote shows it was written by someone making McCarthyism-inspired nutjob witchcraft accusations.

I've removed those sections, and if anyone EVER sees any info in here about Bathroy admitting witchcraft or being in a coven, or anything citing Seabrook's book, remove it immediately. DreamGuy 10:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is Fickó?

The article says that three of her four collaborators was killed. The 'collaborators' section lists four names. Then it goes on to discuss someone called Fickó being put to death as a collaborator, yet this person is not mentioned as one of the four. Possibly one of the collaborators has an alternative name? Are there really five collaborators? As it currently stands, it doesn't make sense to someone coming in to the subject without prior knowledge (like me). I can't correct it because I'm not sure what needs changing, but I'm sure someone here can. Polenth 23:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Fickó was the nickname of Johannes Újvári.--ResetGomb 16:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say the change has been made, so this is sorted now. Polenth 22:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Reprint of discussion in regards to the revert war

  1. These are not "my edits"; I'm simply attempting to undo the damage wrought by another anon IP. You have this confused. I simply found his butchery in passing and gave it a revert--I have no consuming passion about the topic (unlike the other anon, apparently). You took a side, not that of a stalwart defender of "consensus" but of one anon against another.
  2. I am not going against "consensus"; this hackneyed attack isn't even appropriate, given that the difference between it and the last version you edited (which I guess is according to you, "consensus") and the difference made by the other anon is vast, as you can see in this version, which reveals the primary difference between your last edit and my reversion to be spelling changes and a whole two elaborating sentences. Note that among the changes you will not see in the "consensus" (i.e. your) version is the ludicrous subheader, "Alleged crimes".
  3. Immediate 3RR threats. I'm perfectly aware of policy, but you wish to use it as a blunt instrument of first resort. Try actually looking at the diffs in question and the horrible editing done by the anon instead of playing power games, please.

--72.65.88.166 22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The so-called "damage" by an anon IP was actually badly-needed edits to restore some semblence of WP:NPOV. If you'd bother to read the talk page of that article you would see that there is no evidence of any supposed diary by Bathory, and so forth and so on. Your edits go completely against any number of Wikipedia policies, and are shoddy attempts to through rumor mongering into the article without reliable sources. Simply put, your edits (and the people who put equally bad edits in in the past) will not survive, so you should give up right now, as there is absolutely no justification for them, and consensus is clearly against them. DreamGuy 00:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the following IPs were used to insert those two sentences of caveats:

91.104.238.113
65.48.21.69

I have no connection to these IPs. --72.65.88.166 00:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are not "caveats" those are outright and inexcusable POV-pushing. I doubt that you have no connection to those IPs, but since they so blatantly violate the most fundamental policy on Wikipedia it doesn't particularly matter, They are just shy of vandalism. DreamGuy 00:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you haven't responded to any of my points; you've just repeated the same name-calling and bad faith characterizations. I didn't insert those into the article originally, so I'm not "pushing" anything. I was responding to the anon who went through and watered down the crime section and left hanging code on the article page. You originally said I was going against a "consensus" version; now that it is clear that the person in question was actually changing that version, you instead have said he was acting in the ethereal spirit of "consensus" instead.
No, sorry. My opinion is as valid as yours. The idea that these crimes are merely "alleged" is patent nonsense, and the anon's edit needs cleaned and worked over. --72.65.88.166 01:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I responded to your points, you are just too stubborn to admit you are wrong, and, no, your opinion is not as valid as mine, because what you say is a direct contradiction of the most important policy on the site. DreamGuy

I also find it interesting that you are giving me lessons about 3RR. --72.65.88.166 01:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of those blocks were by admins who didn't know that the policy was for more than three reverts. They would have blocked you for your edits also. Personally I don't care if you violate 3RR, I care that you are pushing extremely biased opinions into an article. DreamGuy 04:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a legitimate editing dispute. The fact that you characterize my reverts (not even my original edits) as violating policy is not surprising and is wholly irrelevant--it is in your interest to do so. You did not engage on the substance here. --72.65.92.220 15:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you ignore the substance and just assert you are right when anyone who had bothered to look at the talk page or our policies would know that you aren't. DreamGuy 20:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert War Discussion

Waiting 24 hours so that you get three more reverts is rather against the spirit of the three revert rule. There is clearly something here that needs discussing, so it should be discussed before carrying out the edits. Discussing it here is the most appropriate, so that other editors can comment (talking on user talk pages hasn't worked in this case, so let's open it out).

Looking at this from outside, the lack of references to the anon's changes is a cause for worry. It would help to have some specific references for the new statements. Then the references can be discussed in terms of how reliable they are. Polenth 19:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

All of the changes the anon user is making have already been discussed on this talk page above... See "Bloodbath" "Authenticity? Guilt?" "This article is awful" "Nagy and similar sources" "Diary" and so forth. This anon user is just reverting to majorly POV-pushing comments added by other anon IP accounts (who could very be the same person) that violate major policies and the clear consensus as discussed on this talk page. The edits will not stay. There are no reliable sources that prove the kinds of things these anons want the article to say, and if they found a book that made such a claim it's overruled by the other books by respected scholars that clearly say the exact opposite with full sources. DreamGuy 20:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It is at least a positive development that another user is directly encouraging dialogue but the revert is inappropriate, not least because the edit, among other things, changes egregious errors in parsing and biased, inflammatory ALL CAPS commentary. I would suggest to third parties who wish to intervene to at least consider the changes on the merits, individually, rather than blindly reverting the entire edit. I would ask the same of DreamGuy were I am of the mind that he could respect the request amidst the flurry of righteous denunciations. Now then, I am going to repost the discussion (above, as it took place prior to this one) contained on his talk page, so that readers here can be disabused of false notions he has repeated about what has been inserted by whom and why. In regard to further intrusions in search of revert buddies, this time on User talk:Polenth#Elizabeth Bathory, I have the following responses:
1. I am not "removing NPOV wording", I am reverting the deletion of information from the article.
2. My reverts do not pertain to "baths of blood" and other sensational accounts; there were two references to the diary, however, one of which was in need of further citation and so I declined to support its furtherance in the article as of the last edit. However, the mention of the diary in the context of the separate passage was highly appropriate and should not be excised.
3. It is wholly appropriate to note that the judgment of one observer (Raymond Macnally) is not definitive and that the sum of the lurid tales can be simply chalked up to retrospective sexism. This is editorializing by misdirection.
4. I do not argue, nor do the edits argue, that all accounts gleaned are "abslutely [sic] true", but they are certainly relevant to mention, rather than to excise completely.
5. I have written nothing about witchcraft.
It should be noted that the most egregious aspects of this, the hidden commentary, the hanging code, and the change of "Documented crimes" to "Alleged crimes", were of no interest to DreamGuy as of his last edit, yet he is claiming them to be part of the ostensible "consensus" that existed prior to edits by anons (who he still seems to think lay on the lap of one person, namely myself). I know not of what phantoms and demons DreamGuy has been doing battle with at this article or elsewhere from time immemorial but I have no interest in them but rather the simple integrity of this article. To wit, the "crimes" of Bathory are not merely "alleged"; it is a matter of the details of the crimes that is murky. And it is absolutely absurd that no one bothers to notice either this fact, the bad code and commentary left unmolested on the page, nor DreamGuy's hypocrisy and hystrionics on the matter. --72.84.58.186 21:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

First up, WP:NPA. Second, actually, as you can see from this talk page and sources, the extent of the crimes most certainly are in dispute, and the claims of 100s of intentional deaths, admissions of guilt brought from torture, etc. are certainly only alleged. The factual part is that some servant girls were mistreated and abused, leading to some deaths, but the 100s of them intention killed thing is not "documented crimes" (except in the sense that people being tortured admitted it, but people being tortured admit to anything to make it stop).

Regarding earlier points:

  1. You're not reverting deletion of "information" as the "information" is just unreleable sources expressing a POV.
  2. Your revert returning the claim that McNally should not be believed is directly related to the bloodbaths, as that was what was being discussed. You also claim outright that the diary must exist and try to cite that with somebody else's personal opinion. Both of those are just POV-pushing of rumors against the accepted scholarly position.
  3. Putting into an article the personal opinion that the recognized expert on the case may not be right is about as direct of a POV-push as someone can get.
  4. No, claims without reliable sources, especially when they are there to push a POV against both consensus and scholarly opinion, must be removed per policy. Trying to weasel your way out by saying "well, I didn't say they were absolute truth" is nonsense, as the context makes it clear that the article itself is arguing that they are by having it there without any sources or caveats or historical basis.
  5. Which doesn't excuse writing about a diary as if it were true, claiming that the accusations against Bathory were true, directly using the article to argue against the leading expert on the topic, and so forth and so on... But then it's also mghty convenient to claim you aren't discussing witchcraft when you accept at face value the claims people made under torture about killings and witchcraft claims were also made at the same time. You for some reason want us to blindly accept the reality of one and pass on talking about the rest. That seems pretty convenient.

DreamGuy 22:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to state further that DreamGuy's responses have thus far been highly incendiary and inappropriate; unsubtantive and satisfactory only towards the self-interested furtherance of his objectives. Scant attention has been paid to the merits of the case in favor of blanket calls of policy violation. This is far inadequate in resolving the dispute but only tends to exacerbate it. Whether that is DreamGuy's purpose I can not properly discern as of now, but relevant comments on the points put forth would be a welcome change. --72.84.58.186 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, WP:NPA. And the relevant points have always been in the edit comments and already on the talk page, you just ignore them.DreamGuy 22:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I trust you will not make a big stink about the moving of comments as it is otherwise a bit illegible to me. Allow me to respond in turn:
  1. The details of what persons provided what testimony under what circumstances is certainly information. That information was excised by the anon, and was contained in your last edit prior.
  2. "My edit" (which is not my edit) does not say McNally is not to be believed, but emphasizes that this is a view of how the legends came to be, not a definitive explanation. I most emphatically do not state, nor do the edits I endorse state, that the diary "must" exist but that it is believed by some to exist. You are simply denying that possibility, which is itself POV-pushing.
  3. Context is given in the article with respect to testimony as it regards torture, conflicting testimonies, and hearsay. But context is not context if the bare facts are not mentioned, which includes the fact that x people gave y testimony to the effect of z. Otherwise it is simply an editorial about the faults of the trial itself.
  4. When I mention "details" I am referring both to the more sensationalist claims (blood-bathing, etc.) as well as the body count. What is not in dispute is that crimes took place, so to label the section as "Alleged crimes" gives the misimpression that Bathory may in fact not be a murderer, instead a hapless victim of a frame up, which is in fact an extreme minority position and most definitely not "consensus". You have failed yet to address why this did not disturb "consensus" prior to a few days ago, just as you have failed to address the inflammatory commentary inserted by the anon, which also included unnecessary code left hanging in the article as it was. --72.84.58.186 22:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You wrote: "I trust you will not make a big stink about the moving of comments" -- You shouldn't move comments around that makes the responses lose their context. I've moved it around to make more sense for anyone reading it. Please do not touch other people's comments.
"Facts" are not encyclopedic facts unless there are reliable sources to that effect, and the way the sections were written was extremely deceptive. I am not denying any possibility, I am simply removing your edits outright campaigning for sides.
And, actually, it IS in dispute whether Bathory was a murderer and whether she was a victim of a frame up. And I don't know that that is an extreme minority opinion. It is certainly a minority opinion in America, but Wikipedia shouldn't have institutional and geographic bias. But, more to the point, the way your version had it was actively campaigning for the factual basis of the most outrageous and least believed stories about Bathory, including the huge death count in the 600s, the bloodbath legend, and so forth and so on. That's an extreme bias, introduced recently by some anon users and removed and then restored by you, also an anon user.
And the argument that because something lasted on the page for a few days that it had consensus, despite copious evidence to the contrary on this talk page demonstrating that editors time and time again have affirmed that those kind of statements do not belong, is just a ridiculous statement to make.
And you need to get over the "unnecessary code" -- it was not visible in the article and was there simply to immediately demonstrate to anyone trying to edit the article specifically why certain content cannot be in the article.
The prior discussion demonstrates that your edits were unacceptable, the discussion below demonstrates that they are still unacceptable, so you just need to give up trying to push your opinion into the article. DreamGuy 04:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


It might be a few days at least before regular editors of the article see the discussion and have a chance to reply, so I'm asking politely to give them that time. You can use that time to find the reliable sources you need. I've removed the html comments, so that's no longer a reason for reverting.

Looking through the talk page and history, these seem to be the issues (with some suggested compromises where appropriate):

  • The alleged crimes section deals with the lot, including a lot of sketchy allegations. It's a commonly used word, even in cases where the suspect is found guilty, so doesn't seem inappropriate to me. That's a more subjective thing, so some other views would be useful.
  • The diaries are a piece of folklore. Putting them in the historical section gives the idea they exist weight, regardless of how it is worded. However, they aren't discussed in the folklore section. This could be compromised perhaps by writing about them in folklore rather than the history part? They do appear to be a modern folkloric invention after all. If it's later discovered they're real, the article can be changed.
  • No source is given for the eye-witness account numbers section. It's possible there is one, but it needs to be found and listed with the addition. A lot of the rest of the article is also poorly sourced, but at least it stops things getting worse.
  • The popular prejudice line implies the two historians mentioned previously are some sort of fringe wackos with no idea what they're talking about. It might not have been intended, but that it how it comes across. This needs to be reworded in a non-POV way. If you can find a notable historian that disagrees with them, that would be a much better alternative to the current line. The vanity line struck me as odd the first time too, but read in the context of the section is more clearly about bloodbaths. Perhaps a bit of rewording of that line, to emphasise the bloodbath aspect, would make it seem less strange on a first read.

Polenth 03:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Overall I agree. If the diary is mentioned it must be mentioned as not having any evidence of existing... but without some solid references to even bring it up, bringing it up at all could give it WP:UNDUE weight. And that last part where you suggest rewording it into a non-POV way really cannot be reworded, as it's essentially straight POV-pushing soapboxing. It'd be like going into the Evolution article and saying that just because the major experts all agree it doesn't mean they are right. DreamGuy 04:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that User:DreamGuy is guilty of using the most extreme, violent and intemperate language. He has to be told that he is not the owner of the Elizabeth Bathory page and that he must respect other people's edits. 87.243.196.167 10:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like this whole thing comes down to you wanting to make personal attacks on my character and demand that you own the page over the long established consensus of multiple editors here. I respect edits that follow policy. Yours don't. If you want respect, there's an easy way to get it: start following policy and try to improve the encyclopedia instead of using it for rumor and unsupported (and widely discredited) opinions. DreamGuy 20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Since this dispute was brought up on my talk page, but I don't really care enough to investigate all the edits, I will just comment on what little I HAVE seen. 1: Any claims put into the article MUST be supported by the citation of reliable secondary sources. I haven't seen any such sources presented. If the contested information is true, or even suspected to be true by anyone notable enough for us to report here, then there has to be sources that can be cited. 2: I have a pet peeve about commented-out remarks that are placed into the code of articles. I don't believe these should be allowed in general, except to point out non-contentious technical info having to do with the formatting of the page, etc., but no commentary that normally would go on an article's talk page should be placed thusly. These comments tend to live on in articles long after consensus has been reached on the talk page, and that consensus discussion has been archived away. Fifty years from now, an editor may see those tags, and not realize that he is reading the POV of a particular editor, which may or may not have ended up being the consensus view on the now long-ago-archived talk page. This is inherently POV. That is really all I have to say about this dispute. I encourage you both to continue to talk this out rather than edit war. I think you both have room for compromise here. Since the subject has not been a living person for a very long time, I am not inclined to get involved here in a hardnosed way. - Crockspot 16:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with the comment lines being removed. They were mainly there to try to point out to the anon user(s) why those sections were wrong, as it's questionable whether anons even ever see the talk page. No that we're sure that he/she has, the comments serve no point, and it is much preferable that the bad sections be removed entirely instead of sitting around invisible on the page where someone might not understand that the code was to make it disappear and edit it out so that the bad text reappears. Those sections are absolutely forbidden from being live in any article, per your comments, the commens of editors above, policy in general, and just common sense. DreamGuy 20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Responses to DreamGuy and Polenth, respectively (numbers help keep me sane); first DreamGuy:

  1. You shouldn't move comments around that makes the responses lose their context. This can quickly become a confusing madhouse in my experience. It is much better to either quote someone or keep points in order, as I am attempting to do. Parsing comments makes a mess of things.
  2. I did not "campaign" for "sides". I merely reverted the excising of a mention of the alleged diary in the context of it being believed by some to be true. Allowing for the existence of a view is not advocacy for that view.
  3. In regards to the "dispute" on Bathory, this is bordering on patent nonsense. The conspiratorial view is definitely in the minority of any type of literature or scholarship on the question and is mostly relegated to local authors (which is why my first revert comment was noticing the nationalist bent of the deletions). Wikipedia should not have any bias, not merely that of an "institutional" bent. If you believe there is a legion of editors (much less cited authors you yourself give credence) who are prepared to defend the proposition that Bathory did not kill anyone, I'm afraid your idea of "consensus" is quite bizarre.
  4. You keep bringing up "consensus" and prior talk sections but I am having trouble finding the relevance of the sections you mention (in fact, anything currently on the talk prior to this section) to what was being reverted. I did not incorporate witchcraft, I did not advocate the diary or "bloodbath", I did not posit a high number as fact, and in fact I took no position at all. I simply reverted the deletion of material. Repeating that I violated random Wiki policies you trot out or that I am flat out "unacceptable" will not suffice.
  5. You are above speaking to a separate anon in regards to your lording over the page. I do not know what prior interest he may seprately have had in the article, but he is not me.

Now, Polenth:

  1. It is an unfortunate matter that many neglected historical topics on this site go for far too long without adequate sourcing even for banal and acknowledged information. However, it is rather odd and selective that we are suddenly to discover that the mentioning of witnesses is what is in need of specific citation apart from the rest of the shoddy prose. DreamGuy mentioned "context". That context can be given and is given. But it is at the moment a context stripped from an original meaning, effectively presenting an argument about the trials rather than explaining the significance of what was just described (or rather should be). There is no valid reason I see for the exclusion at this stage until someone undertakes more thorough work on the article.
  2. I agree that there might be some compromise found on the point of scholarship in regards to the bloodbath legend. Might you propose an alternative compromise?
  3. I am not seeing much in the way of compromise in stating the uncontroversial fact that Bathory's crimes are not merely "alleged". The records and scholarship attest to this in the extreme, and the minority view that Bathory is innocent is mentioned but should not overtake the article anymore than Holocaust denial (to use an extreme example). Perhaps simply referring to the section as "Crimes"? But this poses the problem that it refers to some procedural information (hence, "documented") whereas there is a previous section on the trial. All inadequate, I know. This article needs a major shake-up.

As of now I am going to reinsert the witness information and previous (and previously acceptable) subheader. --72.65.93.115 20:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny... everyone tells you you're wrong, but you STILL insist on reverting? That's some pretty hardcore stubborn POV-pushing there. DreamGuy 05:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You have yet to coherently and rationally explain how either the material in question is "POV-pushing" or how I am "POV-pushing" by reverting to reinstate it from deletion after a prior period in which you acquiesced to it.
Of the two editors you goaded to the page, one essentially agreed with you and the other stated general principles and an intention to stay out. And a third user simply said you were being intemperate. Which you still are. --72.84.56.55 07:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Everyone here has already told you why your edits were POV-pushing, calmly and rationally. The full context of this talk page show that your edits were clearly against policy and undesirable. At this point you have stooped to putting false vandalism warnings on my talk page. You have demonstrated no desire to listen to anyone's comments here, read the rest of this talk page for understanding, or even become remotely familiar with the standard policies here. Any claim you might have had to acting in good faith has no gone out the window. DreamGuy 19:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Tags

DreamGuy's behavior has reached an absurd level. In exasperation I stopped reverting the factual information with respect to Bathory's crimes. In turn he has moved beyond selectively attacking content and is now attempting to delete templates which highlight the problems with this article's content. The very fact that there is no agreement here on Bathory highlights the need for attention from other willing editors. It is in desperate need of rewriting and sourcing and DreamGuy is laboring under the delusion that "consensus" backs his capricious whims to alternately have it ignored or fit to his liking. --72.84.41.13 09:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Noooo... Consensus was clearly formed on this talk page that your edits were contrary to the goals of this encyclopedia. All you are doing is ignoring the policies and discussion here because we won;t let you push your bias onto the article. DreamGuy 19:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
DreamGuy, you are the only person who has used intemperate and uncivil language and are the only one speaking of "POV-pushing". The other editors have mostly spoken about how the disputed section is lacking specific citations for the facts, which is true, but is also true about the article in general (which Polenth in particular seems to agree to). I have responded to their concerns, "calmly and rationally", whereas you have from the beginning claimed "consensus" on no grounds.
This is why the article needs tags, so an outside editor might give it attention rather than continue disruptive and obstinate edit warring the likes of which you are apparently interested in exacerbating. It is vandalism to remove legitimate tag templates without resolving the dispute and just because you claim "consensus" (which isn't true) does not mean you have the right to claim there is no dispute. It is an absurd and untenable position to the extreme. Let me be clear: as a party to a dispute you inherently do not have the ability to say that there is no dispute. Therefore your reverts of legitimate tagged templates constitutes vandalism. Please discontinue doing so or I will take the dispute further. --72.84.37.68 03:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as your claims of my being uncivil and talking about POV-pushing, that's a violation of WP:POT, as you are highly uncivil, make up all sorts of false accusations, falsely label edits you do not agree with as "vandalism," even put a false warning that I was going to be blocked on my talk page, and have, in fact, labeled my edits as POV-pushing several times. Your attempt now to pretend that you are some innocent person defending yourself against some meanie is just ridiculous, as I was simply enforcing WP:NPOV and WP:RS policies, and also the strong consensus long established on this article. One anonymous IP-using editor versus a solid group of real editors does not make a real dispute, it just makes someone refusing to accept that consensus ruled already that his concerns were unfounded. If you got any real editors to side with you, then you could talk. All you are now is an anonymous troll fighting tooth and nail to get your PV-pushing in by hook or by crook, and it simply will not succeed. DreamGuy 06:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

To outside editors regarding the citation templates

Attention outside editors: for those coming due to the article tags, please see the previous three sections pertaining to concerns about unsourced statements and facts in the article, particularly as it pertains to details of the trial and crimes of Bathory. Here is the section that DreamGuy kept reverting out of the article:

Testimonies collected in 1610 and 1611 contain a total of over 300 witness accounts. On September 19, 1610 Andreas of Keresztúr sent 34 witness accounts to Thurzó. On October 27, 1610 Mózes Cziráky sent 18 accounts. 224 witness accounts were sent to Matthias II on July 28, 1611 by A. of Keresztúr, and 12 by M. Cziraky on December 14, 1611. Trial records include testimonies of the four persons indicted, as well as 13 more witnesses. Priests, noblemen and commoners were questioned. Eye-witnesses include the castellan and other personnel of Báthory's Sárvár castle. Trial records include testimonies of the four persons indicted, as well as 13 more witnesses. Priests, noblemen and commoners were questioned.

Details like this are important, but also need to be sourced. The general problem comes from the fact that much of the article is not sourced. Instead of attempting to improve the article generally, DreamGuy has chosen to selectively delete information he does not like. So the article needs general work. Unfortunately I do not have enough time or immediate access to appropriate materials to do the work. This is why I have tagged the article in hopes that someone takes it up. Thanks. --72.84.37.68 04:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to stop giving false claims here to try to mislead people. All you are doing is tagging the article in revenge because a consensus of editors pointed out that the POV-pushing of bad sources you tried to force onto the article does not meet Wikipedia policies. And your bad faith attempt to make it sound like it's me versus everyone else when it very clearly from all the discusion above was you versus everyone else will not fly here. And stop using anon IPs to try to pretend to be more than one person. DreamGuy 06:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to be in poor shape and needs a better system of citations. The templates should probably stay. There may be tempers flaring from reverting so much but there is a need for work on this article.

Also I know from experience that there are POV-pushers that try to water down Bathory's crimes because she is seen as an embarrassment in a small way similar to the popular treatment of Vlad Tepes is for Romanians. Revisionism is prudent but she was definitely a murderer. Contrarrevolucionario 06:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read the WP:NPOV policy. You do not get to decide what facts are facts for the article. So I suppose you'd go over to the articles about various witch trials and say that they really did commit all the crimes they were accused of but that some people try to deny it out of embarrassment? Try to use some objectivity here. DreamGuy 14:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Letters

Some letters from Elisabeth Báthory can be found here: http://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00001/00008/varkonyi.htm --ResetGomb 06:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful Book about Erzebet Bathory <3

I Have been nursing an unhealthy ubsession with Countess Bathory for almost two years now. In all the study i've done of her i have come across one AMAZING book about her. It's called The Blood Countess I can't remeber who it's by but i suggut that EVERYONE read it.

76.5.224.114 23:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Beauty through Blood </3

That book is fiction. It's not at all historically accurate. DreamGuy 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

nothing about the murders

why doesnt it say much about the murders it just goes straight into the trial.

oops

shouldnt the accusations be BEFORE the trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.34.121 (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I was browsing, and...

Found this article.

What strikes me -- aside the usual uncivil namecalling, which in my opinion is all too typical of Wikipedia -- is how naive at least some editors are about the historical validity of records of any kind from the early 1600s in Europe. Writers, sensationalists, horror novelists, and nationalists of all sorts have had 400 years to create a brocade of mythology and legend to surround Báthory.

Do any of you really, truly, genuinely believe any of it? It's not a matter of finding sources that say that she was a witch, a serial killer, a this or a that. In 400 years, someone, probably bunches of someones, have said all that and more.

The problem with this article is, as I said, naivete. You will NOT be able to find the truth, nor even a pale simulacrum thereof... truth is long gone, buried in 400 years of rumor and legend-making. What you can do, if you want to, is organize these legends and tales in something resembling a chronological or sociological framework.

This approach means dating the **sources**. Thus, the first time anyone said she tortured local girls was -- fill in the date with the reference. That date is NOT 1600 or thereabouts. It's 1862, or 1749, or whatever the year was that this statement first surfaced anywhere. That 1862 source can itself assert, without any proof, that diaries and testimony exists from 1602. Anyone can write a book saying anything about diaries and testimony from 1602, that is, from the unknown and unreconstructable past. What they CANNOT do is change the publication date of their own book. And that date of publication is the only verifiable, substantial statement you can make.

Thus: "Jones, in his 1996 horror novel, says that Báthory was a sadistic killer who tortured girls in the year 1602." You cannot use Jones' 1996 book to prove anything about Báthory in the year 1602. You can use it to prove that Jones said it in 1996. Now let's push the 1996 date back further, say to 1749. You can't use that either to prove anything about Báthory in the year 1602. All it proves is that the claim existed in 1749.

That is the kind of work this article needs. The actual events are gone, buried in legend, rumor, and sensationalism. But you can trace the history of the legends, rumors, and sensationalist accusations, by locating when and where and by whom those legends first saw print.

And you can also set those sources into their own historical frameworks of their own times. Thus, a television show today makes claims X, Y, and Z about Báthory; those claims are not evidence. Instead, we can bring to bear on those claims the principle that today, in a modern historical framework, television shows often deal in sensationalism and horror.

Again, let me illustrate. Where is her diary? What diary? Who says there was one? The answer is not that it was described by her accusers. We don't know anything reliable about her accusers or what they said. All we do know is that someone -- in 1749, in 1862, in whatever the year -- wrote a book saying that a diary existed in which she (this source alleges) confessed to a variety of crimes. The idea is to locate the sources of the components of the legends. That can be done. though it's tedious work.

Until that kind of work is done, this article is useless. It's so badly scarred by revert wars that no one should trust any of it. The article is also hopelessly naive -- and, since I can guess that I'm making someone angry, I am not naming anyone -- because it assumes that we can faithfully reconstruct the past. We cannot. Instead, we must rely on documents that DO exist, like books written in 1749 or 1862. Beyond that, we cannot go. Until we have time machines, we cannot now know what happened in 1600 in a long-gone castle in Transylvania. But we can -- and I argue, should -- deal with the documents that exist and can be dated.

Will I myself do that for this article? No. I have no access or knowledge of the detailed documents involved. But the principles are something else, and those I do understand. For this article to make a contribution to Wikipedia, someone is going to have to pull the sources together, and organize them AS SOURCES.

I hope someone does it.

Timothy Perper 00:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

An additional thought, added later by TP.
As a real example from the article, take the reference that says "Letters from Thurzó to both men on March 5, 1610, printed in Farin, Heroine des Grauens, p. 265-266, 276-278."
All we know is that these letters were printed in Farin's 2003 book. The originals might be forgeries from 1610, from 1730, from 1850 -- from any time and any place, and for any reason. Just because they are cited by someone in 2003 does NOT mean that they are true and real copies, made without error, of earlier originals. The moral is: Learn to distrust sources, not as paranoia, but as cautions against being fooled and misled.
Personally, I gravely doubt if they're real -- because letters 400 years old are unlikely to have survived 400 years of wars and mayhem in central Europe. And that includes World War 2 and Soviet invasions of these territories. It isn't a matter of someone accusing me of having this, that, or the other POV. I don't have a POV about it. But I do distrust claims that letters from 1610 survived intact through a long series of wars that have wracked this area of the world for many, many years...
Hope that's clearer.
Timothy Perper 01:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect for your distrust, that cannot be the basis for this article. I am not entirely happy with Farin's book but he gives bibliographical information for the documents he prints. Unless you have a scholar saying that these letters are forgeries we have no reason to even consider this, at least when it comes to writing this article. Of course, your thought that letter cannot survive 400 years is completely without substance.
Of courses, these documents also destroy your false claim that the accusation of her killing young girls stems from 1862 - no, it stems from the proceedings after 1600.
I also don't see how this article is plagued by revert wars. Currently, some other editor tries to insert POV statements into it and gets reverted but thus far this hasn't amounted to a war. Str1977 (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Str1977. You've missed most of what I said, so I'll try again.
The year 1862 was an example. I could have said 1758 or 1696, and made the same point. We don't really know when these letters were written. You trust Farin's bibliography -- which is fine -- but paleographic evidence isn't so simple. Modern paleographers have to examine the letters themselves, objectively, and report their findings in the professional and scholarly literature. Do you have such citations -- not to Farin, but to experts who have studied the letters themselves in, say, the past 10-15 years, with modern methods for detecting aging in paper, the chemical composition of ink, and so on?
You're doing something that is -- alas -- all too common on Wiki and elsewhere. You assert something without evidence and hope that we all accept your assertion, in this case your phrase that my doubts about the survival of these letters is "completely without substance." How do you know? I mean know -- not assert, not guess, not quote Farin -- but know that these letters are genuine? Do you really really really believe that letters survive so easily? Apparently yes, and I think such faith and optimism is naive.
You suggest, I think inaccurately, that the default is to accept an historian's assertion unless another scholar disagrees. Do you really think so, really and truly? Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper? Believe everything the government says -- whichever government you want? Accept every item in a bibliography as telling only the Truth? If so, then I think you are naive. Now, being trusting is a good thing, but it doesn't work when we try to understand the limits of historical evidence. And that is so important that I put it in boldface. People have enemies, governments and officials lie, malicious accusations are made and people killed. The witches at Salem confessed also. Do you believe their confessions?
Before you say "That is irrelevant, completely irrelevant!!!" -- it isn't. Confessions extracted under torture are dubious. If you say "There is NO EVIDENCE for torture!" once again you're being naive. Confession under torture was the legal norm in days past... remember Torquemada?
I have absolutely no POV about Elizabeth Báthory, none at all. It's clear, though, that you do have a POV -- you think she was a major killer. I am not convinced by the evidence -- maybe she was guilty, maybe not. I do not know. But letters said to be from the early 1600s are not good evidence. Such "evidence" assuredly would not hold up in a court today, and therefore we need to be doubtful when we, today, try to assess them as historical evidence. The answer is not to cite Farin and it is not to say that legal standards change with time. We are making our assessments today, in the modern world, and we must use modern criteria for factuality and dubiety. Documents said to date to the early 1600s are prima facie doubtful, especially when they contain confessions of crimes as serious as Elizabeth Báthory was accused of. In the 1930's purges in Soviet Russia, many people confessed their guilt (and were killed). Do you believe those confessions? As long as the possibility of torture exists, the evidence is dubious, no matter when or where the trial was held -- Transylvania in the early 1600s, Salem later in the 1600s, Moscow in the 1930s.
I hope that's clearer -- and I hope also that it's clearer that I am not convinced by mere assertion that Elizabeth Báthory was guilty of anything.
Added later (I forgot, sorry): the "revert war" idea comes from the title of an earlier comment.
Timothy Perper (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
And you were missing what I was saying.
What you are doing is original research which is not what we are doing here at WP. So when I have to say that the "burden of proof" for your claims lies with you, it actually lies with scholars wishing to dispute the findings of other scholars. Or with you bringing up these scholars. So "default is to accept an historian's assertion unless another scholar disagrees" is definitely true for Wikipedia as we are not doing original research. A scholar of course may dispute them and you (whether qualified or not) may do so as well. But we cannot included your findings into WP.
It is also highly speculative and IMHO has no basis in facts. Historians know what they are doing and to my knowledged have not found the letters to be forged. It is you who without any foundation wants to insinuate that they are dubious. You talk about paleographers and if you can come up with their findings it would indeed be relevant. But you cannot make the fact that you and I have not seen them the basis for claims that the letters are forgeries. And indeed, it is that what you are claiming.
And indeed your claims about the letters not havin survived is indeed bogus. There are countless writings that have survived from that time and beyond. Your expectations are simply wrong, clouding your take on the whole matter. (Ah and yes, such letters on important issues tend to survive unless the recipient or his descendents had a reason to destroy them. I don't see how this is the case.)
Also, your remarks about torture are indeed irrelevant, not because there was no torture involved but because these testimonies (and the preliminary findings where I see nothing about torture) are all we have. Do you want us to label any judicial findings "dubious" because torture was used at the time? That's hardly the way to go. I doesn't matter what would hold up in court today as we are no court and will not take the defendent to punishment. History is no law-court. Also, you might know that several criminals do go free nowadays for much smaller errors in procedure. And in general this is better than to convict innocents. But that is not what we are doing here.
I have no intention of blackening Elizabeth's name but neither do I want anyone trying whitewash her in the attempt of creating a national heroine. I have made no speculations about your intentions and have no wish to discuss this with you further. I have a POV (as everyone has, even you) but I do not push it but merely ensure a coverage based on evidence. Evidence that leads me to believe that she was indeed a major killer.
Finally, may I request that you desist from personal attacks ("do you believe anything ... naive etc.) against me or anyone else. Str1977 (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal in my comments, STR1977 -- nothing at all, and I don't want you to take them personally. I think you are being naive about the accusations against Báthory -- but maybe "trusting" is a better word -- which means I think you haven't analyzed the data or evidence with the kind of distrust that all evidence needs when it deals with situations like Elizabeth Báthory's. Have you ever been on a jury? I have -- and distrust is essential. People lie -- sad, but true -- and we have to know that.

Extraordinary accusations need extraordinarily good evidence. Let's start with the idea of finding evidence dubious if torture is involved. Yes, I think that is a good rule of thumb. We should not trust evidence obtained under torture -- and if no other evidence is available, then the case against the accused is weakened significantly. I don't mean the case in law -- that's over and done with -- but the case in history. Hence the genuine and deep relevance of the Salem Witch Trials and the Moscow Purge Trials: they teach us not to trust testimony taken under torture as a guide to historical truth.

Now, on Wiki, our job is not to try or re-try Elizabeth Báthory. Our job is to report what others have said. In part, that means describing what kind of evidence was brought against her and her family, and -- all importantly -- when it first surfaced. When did these legends first originate? From who? That we need to report on Wiki, not to exonerate her or find her guilty, but because we need to be NPOV about it.

I do not accept your argument that I must prove the letters are forgeries. That's not my job at all. I am a reader of this article, and it is your job to convince me. You are the one with a POV -- and from what I am reading, you are being quite clear about it: you think Elizabeth Báthory was guilty. Well, OK, but I'm not convinced one way or the other. And therefore, yes, I do want paleographic evidence about the letters. Without those kinds of data, the letters are not strong evidence.

Here you have misunderstood me in another way as well. I have no evidence that the letters were forged (and I never claimed it either). Nope, I'm not doing Original Research at all, not one tiny bit. Instead, I am raising some pointed questions about the evidence. I said and say again it is quite possible that those letters were forged. If you want to convince your readers that they're genuine, where is your evidence? The burden really is on you, because you are trying to convince your audience (including me) of something you believe. So I am asking some pointed questions about the evidence -- which, to my mind, it isn't good enough to persuade me of much of anything.

Nor am I an expert in the literature about Elizabeth Báthory. If you are, then you must be the one who summarizes all of it, including -- if this is true -- the lack of chemical analyses of the ink on these letters. Or, if there is chemical evidence about the ink, then summarize that. Your faith in these letters is not by itself enough to convince me. Obviously, you are an honest man, but what is your evidence?

What you have said so far simply does not convince me Elizabeth Báthory was guilty of anything. So -- contrary to what you may think -- I have no agenda to make her a heroine of some kind. Other people might think so, but that has nothing at all to do with me. I want evidence, not agendas pro or con. For all I know, she was an absolute horror of an individual -- I don't know at all. But if you say she was a horror, then I want to know what reasons you have. And so far, I'm not convinced.

Yes, I can understand that you don't want to talk to me. But that misses an important point ... people out here, meaning readers of Wikipedia, do not always agree with your POV. Personally, I think it'd be wise if you listened to people like me, but you don't have to if you don't want to.

And once again, nothing personal intended in saying you're being naive about the Elizabeth Báthory case. Or maybe trusting or innocent are better words. Perhaps I'm more doubting than you, but no, nothing personal intended at all.

Timothy Perper (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Local Cachtice Family History as of 1900

About 1900 my grandparents came from a town next to Cachtice. They were descended from a royal family which has been hunted by the Hapsburgs, especially after the 1848 Revolution. According to my grandparents, the written documentation of history in that region is difficult. The Hapsburgs have caused birth records or other records to be either destroyed or altered, so this reliance on written documentation is problematic. In another more southern region my great granduncle was in effect tortured to death by the Hapsburgs but the historical records say that he was given a retirement position. In fact he was made to live in a hut by the road and beg for food. No one was allowed to talk to him, on penalty of death which would be enforced through Hapsburg spies. Eventually my great granduncle starved to death in the cold. His crime was writing poetry that alluded to the Hapsburgs as tyrants.

King Matthias acknowledged lies which he helped to create about Vlad Dracula; in particular, Vlad making an agreement with the Ottoman Turks. King Matthias and his agents are most likely not reliable sources.

My grandparents never mentioned any tortures being performed by E. Bathory so it is possible that these are political lies but it is impossible to determine the truth without any forensic evidence being excavated. If anyone else has personal family history, perhaps it should be added here, for the record. Incidentally, when I have connected my family stories to known historical facts they have been accurate, for example stories of disease and famine.

My grandmother said that it was difficult to manage a castle and estate. The lady worked from early dawn to quite late. My grandmother had an immense knowledge of herbal medicine and healed the sick people in her local community when they could not afford an American doctor. She said that in the Hungarian countryside that doctors were not usually available. She raised a garden which included numerous herbs and covered about a half acre of land. She acted as an unofficial midwife. The speculation about E. Bathory providing medicines is not unreasonable.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.75.59 (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Attacks from Article Writer(s)

Not to defend The History Channel or anything, but it seems that there are repeated attacks on The History Channel from this article and whom ever wrote it. I understand that Elizabeth Báthory and her murders are very controversial due to historical accuracy. But personal and public attacks are down right immature and biased, even if it wasn't intended to sound like one. The History Channel may hit some points people would disagree with. But when it comes to controversial subjects, The History Channel would, logically, choose the side most agreed upon. It may not justify their action enough, but it still justifies them to a degree. I do ask of someone to rewrite in a less hostile-sounding article. I would, but I have had some discrimination issues acted upon from Wikipedia moderators/staff-members.

P.S.: I do find that no citations assigned to the History Channel references a bit -- suspicious.

76.105.205.97 (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Those were added recently as part of overall bad edits by a new editor. All of those have been removed now. DreamGuy (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous Comment: The History Channel appears to me to be terrible in showing unresearched gossip as East and Central European history. In showing East and Central European history they make no efforts to analyze the overall history and behavior patterns or provide any serious facts. In fact, I have sent them several emails on particular details in their programs. Saying that you should agree with the most historians is not a valid stand.

Hmm a single older woman possibly bitter with lots of property in an era when such women were declared witches for all sorts of reason. I just saw a program on discovery which declared she bathed in blood . The argument that the history channel or wiki should report the most repeated ideas is ridiculous. Both should report facts. I see nothing here to suggest anything more than than the hysterical lynching of a woman and four men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.170.97.196 (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)