Talk:Peter Stumpp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of the Serial Killer Task Force, a work group of WikiProject Crime. It is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on serial killers, mass murders, spree killers and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article is on a subject of high-importance for serial killer-related articles. |
|
Serial Killer Task Force To-do:
|
|
[edit] NPOV
Um, you realize that all these claims of killings, incest, etc., were admitted under TORTURE, right? That this was a witchcraft trial, and, like most witchcraft trials, the accused sung like a canary and admitted whatever lunacy the torturers told them to...? So writing the article as if all of these claims were 100% real is a little, well... reckless and misleading, wouldn't you say? DreamGuy 07:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
i'd say so.
- Perhaps the claims are irresponsibly worded, but that's a relatively easily fixed problem. I'm more worried that the article is unverified; I'll upgrade the tag. Melchoir 00:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
In the German Wikipedia they say that it might have been a political trial in the course of the Counter-Reformation and reestablishment of Catholic faith.
Hi, it's me who is responsible for the above-mentioned addition to the German page. I have done a lot of research into the case as I live near Bedburg and I have also published some stuff on the case. First: How does the author of this page know Stubbe's exact year of birth? Unfortunately all church registers were destroyed some three hundred years ago. Second: Stubbe is reported to have confessed without being tortured, but he was put to the rack and confronted with the instruments of torture, which I consider a special kind of torture, though not a physical one. Human rights activists may know what I mean. Third point: All people who wrote on the case ignored the fact that the Rhine district had suffered from a most brutal civil war caused by an abortive attempt to turn the Catholic Electorate of Cologne into a Protestant territory. In the years between 1582 and 1589 the population had been subject to raids by regular armies (both friend and foe), maroding soldiers and eventually by the plague. So we may assume that the crimes that Peter Stubbe and his family were accused of could as well be ascribed to bands of soldiers or street-robbers. Some of the crimes Stubbe was supposed to have committed sound rather like tales that were still told at the beginning of the last century. His alleged incestuous relationship with his daughter could not have been hidden to the villagers. (And what about his seuxual relation with a succubus that is reported to have lasted for more than 25 years? Where does the author of this article have the information that Stubbe had sex with lots of women? Our source knows of only two - his daughter and his "gossip".) Another point: Why should people of the highest social ranks have gathered at a dreary country-town and watch the execution of a werewolf and two witches, unless this trial had been of special importance? Considering the fact that a) Bedburg had been strongly Protestant for a couple of years and that b) the town and the neighbouring villages had just been handed over the a staunch Catholic count by the Arch-Bishop and Elector of Cologne it is reasonable to speculate about a non-witchcraft background of the affair. I know that the scarcety of documentary evidence is a problem, but reading the existing sources with the usual set of critical questions in mind can yield some interesting results for the sceptical historian. By the way, the first and the second weblinks are - to say the best - highly superficial and bear no resemblance to the original text, which is found on the third website. Relying on Brad Steiger's Werewolf Book is a dangerous affair, if you want to use the stuff for a website that is intended to be more than a joke.
(Peter Kremer, May 1st 2006)
- Peter, I would agree that the links were bad, so i removed them. The German link was completely pointless so that's gone too. But, honestly, some of the comments you make above do not make any sense whatsoever. "Why should people of the highest social ranks have gathered at a dreary country-town and watch the execution of a werewolf and two witches, unless this trial had been of special importance?" Uh, yeah, the mere fact that it was an alleged wereworlf and witch is already special importance! Not like a trial like this happened every weekend, I mean, come on.
- I think I will need to go through your edits with a fine tooth comb here, because we haveto follow the Wikipedia:No original research policy, which prohibits people with coming up with conclusions on their own and entering them into the article. You seem to be citing yourself as an expert for the info you are putting in, and that's a major no no here. DreamGuy 22:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, I would have to disagree with you DreamGuy -- the aristocracy, thoughout history, have been hesitant to mingle with the commoners. This is a practice that stretches back at least as far as Egypt and the pharoahs, who would not allow themselves to venture outside amongst the masses very often so that when they did, it would inspire a sense of awe.
-
- To a lesser degree, this is seen in European history. Kings, queens and the aristocracy would refuse to even be seen near the "lesser" individuals.
-
- Heck, look at world leaders today: when was the last time you saw President Bush, Koffi Annan, or Stephen Harper just appear in some backwater hick town, no matter what the occassion. I would say Peter's comments, if not properly backed by citations are at the very least logical.
-
-
- "You seem to be citing yourself as an expert for the info you are putting in, and that's a major no no here" Uh, no. Wrong, DreamGuy. VERY wrong. Inserting stuff that is POV and/or uncited, including "original research" is a "no no" here. Merely being an expert on a subject you're editing the article for is NOT verboten in any way, shape or form, and if it were, Wikipedia would be worthless. Because, let's face it, technically an "expert" can be considered someone who is merely experienced with something... which would mean someone who has read all the Harry Potter books can't write about Harry Potter, someone who's been to WorldCon every year since it started couldn't write about WorldCon, etc., not to mention taking it to the other extreme, by your logic a Nobel Prize-winning physicist could not correct a mistake in a physics article. For that matter, by that logic only people who aren't fluent in a language could write articles about that language or that define terms from it!
-
-
-
- Personally, I think you just caught the merest whiff of original research and got a little worried - which, you know, understandable. But what you should have done was link the (new?) fellow, expert Wikipedian to the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. And while I don't think you've gone there yet, DreamGuy, please keep Wikipedia:Civility in mind, all right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Runa27 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
-
