Talk:Mayerling Incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mayerling Incident article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] please note:

A paragraph in your article (see http://www.visualstatistics.net/East-West/Mayerling%20Tragedy/Mayerling%20tragedy.htm ) violated copyright of Cruise Scientific and was removed. For further information contact info@visualstatistics.net.

Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?, The Chronicle, 27 October 2006, comments on this page:

'But errors on Wikipedia are not confined to its margins. C. Earl Edmondson, a professor of history at Davidson College, recalls visiting Wikipedia's article on the Mayerling Incident, a 19th-century scandal in which Rudolf, crown prince of Austria, died along with his mistress under mysterious circumstances. European historians consider the incident important. But Wikipedia's treatment of it, says Mr. Edmondson, is troubling.

"Much of the article seems to be valid, even if not comprehensive," he says, but its concluding comments — including a passage that cites the incident as "the end of the ancient house of Habsburg" — are "atrociously erroneous." (In fact, the Habsburgs were deposed in 1918. And Wikipedia's article on the royal house makes no mention of the Mayerling Incident.)'

[edit] What a mess

Ah, I leave this article feeling that I know less about Mayerling than I did when I started. Why is it that topics like this always attract the nuts? What is needed is a good narrative of what historians generally believe happened. There have surely been numerous accounts of what happened that could be used. john k 00:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a good account here. john k 00:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree, John. All these stupid theories need binning. No encyclopaedia would carry them. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article Rudolf, Crown Prince of Austria has another extensive account of the incident. Probably its information should be merged in here, and a brief summary and cross-reference left in its place.132.239.145.181 (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dates

Is the television movie by Anatole Litvak with Audrey Hepburn and Mel Ferrer from 1954 as stated in a now deleted section from Baroness Mary Vetsera or 1957 as stated here? Could the discrepancy be due to the theatrical release in Europe vs. TV broadcast in the US? Likewise Kronpriz Rudolf with Max von Thun, Vittoria Puccini and Omar Sharif; is it 2006 as in this article or 2007 per the deleted Mary Vetsera section? Robert Greer (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

The Rudolf article says:

In December 1992 the remains of Baroness Vetsera were stolen from the cemetery at Heiligenkreuz. When the missing remains were tracked down, the police, to ensure they were the correct remains, asked the Viennese Medical Institute to examine them. While they did confirm that they were the correct remains, the institution noted how the skull contained no evidence whatsoever of a bullet hole, the supposed means by which Vetsera had been killed by the crown prince. The evidence instead suggested she may have been killed by a series of violent blows to the head.

The Baroness article says:

Gerd Holler, in his (1980) book Mayerling: Die Lösung des Rätsels, tells that in the late spring of 1945, the Soviet artillery began shelling the Cistercian monastery in Heiligenkreuz where Mary Vetsera had been buried. A projectile of the Soviet long-range gun dislodged the granite plate covering the grave of Mary Vetsera. As a young physician stationed in Heiligenkreuz, Holler was called to examine Mary Vetsera's remains and to witness the reinterment. Dr. Holler carefully scrutinized Mary Vetsera's skull and other bones for traces of a penetration hole or other marks that could have been caused by a projectile, but there was no apparent damage to the skeleton.

The Mayerling article says:

In December 1992, the cemetery at Heiligenkreuz was vandalized and Mary Vetsera's remains were stolen. Upon recovery they were examined to ensure that they were the correct remains. The findings again contradicted the official reports that she had been shot; her skull showed no evidence of bullet wounds or shrapnel. Instead, the evidence indicated that she had been beaten to death. However, given the circumstances of the examination, there is room for doubt whether it really was Mary Vetsera's body which had been recovered. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Easily solved. Someone's inserted an unattributed editorial comment into "Mayerling" (given the circumstances of the examination, there is room for doubt whether it really was Mary Vetsera's body which had been recovered), so out it goes. All agree there was no bullet hole, so we change the Baroness article from "no damage" to "no evidence of a bullet hole" (which is what was meant if you read the sentence.) -Nunh-huh 06:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)