Talk:Elizabeth Báthory - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 46.97.170.112 (talk) at 09:15, 7 May 2021 (→Elizabeth Bathory, The Blood Countess: Fact Vs. Fiction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:15, 7 May 2021 by 46.97.170.112 (talk) (→Elizabeth Bathory, The Blood Countess: Fact Vs. Fiction)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elizabeth Báthory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 5 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Crime and Criminal Biography High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Crime and Criminal Biography High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Hungary Low‑importance

	Hungary portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Slovakia Low‑importance

	Slovakia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SlovakiaWikipedia:WikiProject SlovakiaTemplate:WikiProject SlovakiaSlovakia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

European history Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 150 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Template:Vital article

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Crystal Ro (2019-11-29). "15 Horrifying Female Serial Killer Misplaced Pages Pages That Are Not For The Squeamish". Buzzfeed.

Untitled

"Elizabeth Báthory" Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
"Báthory Erzsébet" Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Names of locations

It would be useful to unite names in the text, and to decide for either hungarian names of location, with currently used name of location in brackets, or to use currently used names everywhere. Now there are for example two different names of Čachtice castle used, and unaware reader could think, that Čachtice Castle and Castle of Csejte are two different locations. Even in other cases, some locations are written in hungarian, and some in slovak, unification would help this article. ( Lukáč Peter (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC) )

Hi, we will use contemporary naming, amf after brackets the modern name in case. As you might see, the article now unerwent of mass reverts, still waiting as the normal contributions would follow, then we may fix this issue. Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC))

This problem still persists, althrough I wanted to unify names, it was reverted, but without and explanation or any corrections in the article. At the same time there are slovak names used for some locations (i.e. Nové Mesto nad Váhom) or "neutral" names for other (i.e. Transylvania) in the article, althrough hungarian variants of these names exists too, and were used at the time, but they are not used in the article, but at the same time there is hungarian Csejte many times, which has different current name... But again, not always, there are two photos of the same castle, one with hungarian, and second with slovak name, as if they were of different buildings. It would be good to unify names in one system, whether hungarian names, or modern, but it does not have logic to use one form of name for one location, and second for the other, it does only confuse foreign readers. Thanks.Lukáč Peter (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I corrected a few, if something missing tell me. Here contemporary (modern) should be followed generally.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC))

Inconsistency in "Prison and death"

Quote from that section as of the current revision:

She wrote a will in September 1610, in which left all current and future inheritance possession to her children. In the last month of 1614, she signed her arrangement, in which she distributed the estates, lands, and possessions among her children. On the evening of 20 August 1614, Báthory complained to her bodyguard that her hands were cold, whereupon he replied "It's nothing, mistress. Just go lie down." She went to sleep and was found dead the following morning.

I find it hard to believe that "she signed her arrangement" "in the last month of 1614" (implying December) but died in August, unless some unmentioned different calendar system is involved. The references for the arrangement appear to be books in Hungarian, so I am unable to verify.

--178.197.226.84 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent POV, unsourced edits and WP:Synthesis

Mitch.n8v (talk · contribs), regarding this? Dimadick was right to revert you here. Firstly, we do not relay content in that tone in our Misplaced Pages articles. See WP:Tone. Your tone is not encyclopedic. You added "it is a well-known fact, that the whole strange and confusing murder cases were all based on rumors." A well-known fact? You need a WP:Reliable source that actually states that. Otherwise, it's WP:Original research or specifically WP:Synthesis. And even then we wouldn't state "well-known fact." We shouldn't be calling any of it strange or confusing in Misplaced Pages's voice. So that is why I reverted you on that. And this appears to be more of the same from you. What source states that "It is possible that Deseő and Szilvássy were also afraid of torture if they didn't give the desired answers."? I reverted that. The source at the end of that paragraph is not in proper WP:Citation style and the reference doesn't provide sufficient information about the source. You need to discuss these changes here on the talk page. And I mean discuss, not just make a comment here on the talk page and revert to your preferred wording. I ask that you don't WP:Edit war. If I need to get this article WP:Semi-protected or WP:Full-protected, I will.

Imaginestigers, regarding this, you actually need one or more WP:Reliable sources stating that "recent and historical scholarship believes that she was the result of a conspiracy for political gain, and her prosecution was based on rumours." And that edit is not minor edit. So don't mark edits as minor when they are not minor. See WP:Minor.

Cedar777, it would help if you would revert edits like this when you see them. No need to ping me if you reply. I only pinged you to get your attention. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

While this article is still on my watchlist, I rarely monitor the changes to it. The subject matter is well outside my wheelhouse. The biography could really use careful and observant editing by someone who has read many of the existing sources, including the multiple works by Kraft. I had hoped that by flagging the article earlier this year, that editors with significant knowledge of the subject would comment/discuss matters and make improvements. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"You need a WP:Reliable source that actually states that. Otherwise, it's WP:Original research" Which is why I reverted these edits. They change the tone of the article, without adding new sources. And while it is plausible that torture victims would give false answers to avoid further pain, the claim does not seem to match the cited source of that paragraph. Dimadick (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Dimadick. Also pinging Acroterion and KIENGIR, who have helped to revert unsourced and POV material in this article before. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I also see Display name 99 in the edit history. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I visited this article without knowing there was drama on this Talk page. I know very little about Bathory. I visited the page, corrected clumsy writing to be slightly less clumsy based on reading the rest of the article, and I left. If you are keeping an eye on this page, that's fine, but you need to either fix up the rest of the article or elevate your concerns. I did not check the citations (I have now), but my reading of the first line of this section made me think that this was a feeling in contemporary scholarship. It breached WP:NPOV, and I changed it. It was intended as a minor edit, and there is no need to scold: WP:GF. I hope that if you look at what I changed vs what was there, you can understand why I (someone unfamiliar with The Drama) would think that the lead was a good summation of the rest of the article, and that line was just horribly written. Given your history with this page, I suggest taking it to WP:ANEW. The article might need some protection. Good luck! Imaginestigers (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Imaginestigers, like WP:ONUS states, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I am not obligated to fix up this article. I also don't yet have much history with it. I reverted the article away from some issues months ago and watch it now so that it does not get worse. What it needs is historians or those very familiar with the literature, or willing to become very familiar with the literature as they go, working on it. Above on this talk page, I already noted that I will not be investing in this article in that way. As for scolding you and WP:Assume good faith, noting that your text needed a reliable source and that it's not a minor edit doesn't violate WP:Assume good faith. I do see how you would view my tone as scolding. Indeed, it was meant to be stern for the matter at hand (in general). It did cross my mind that you were trying to improve the POV wording that was there, and I appreciate that you also see an issue with that addition by Mitch.n8v. As for the WP:Edit warring noticeboard, I am aware that it is a route to take if Mitch.n8v keeps reverting to their wording. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I've asked an administrator to take a look at the page. I've Watched it for now, so if there's more vandalism and the administrator doesn't feel it yet warrants protection, I'll be around. Sorry about my tone earlier -- I was trying to do a good thing for the article, and would have reverted had I known about these problems. I like fixing up articles... After I finish what's on my plate right now, I'll take a look at it. Thanks for keeping an eye on things. Best wishes. Imaginestigers (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Your help will be needed. I apologize for my tone coming across as scolding when addressing you. I was annoyed, but I was more so annoyed by Mitch.n8v's edits and those like them. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Page has been protected for one month. Hopefully this will ease the vandalism. Article definitely still needs work... I'll get to it. At some stage. Apology accepted; I fully understand why you'd be frustrated. For now, I'm going to remove the section on her Reputation. Given what it sources, it may as well be unsourced entirely. I acknowledge that Bathory might not have done what she is accused of, but verifiable scholarship is lacking, and WordPress isn't enough to go in the other direction. Imaginestigers (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

As for WP:ONUS, I have a slightly different reading here. The onus is on those who wanted to include the contentious information, but they had already won that fight: the article is populated (almost exclusively) with unreliable sources which corraborate their edits. With that in mind, I've deleted 'Reputation' now. If you have some time, re-raising it with the WikiProjects attached to her might help a little. If you don't, I'll try and do it later this week. Imaginestigers (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding WP:ONUS, the content would need to be disputed by one or more Misplaced Pages editors. When content isn't disputed by one or more Misplaced Pages editors, then it gets added and stays (for however long). Of course, editors can dispute content that has been in the article for however long, as is clear by you removing the Reputation section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

After a chat with ferret, it was decided to leave Reputation in-tact. Most of the sources are fine, if a bit hard to deal with (translations, text availability). Regarding Kimberly L. Craft's work, there is an argument that it should be allowed as it relates to the translations of Bathory's correspondence. Will need to be discussed and decided at a later date (I hope you'll participate). I don't have time at the moment, but for now, best to err on the side of caution, and leave the article as much in-tact as possible before some wider-scale work can be done. Imaginestigers (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

When it comes to the article's sourcing in general, I stand by what I stated in the #Poor sourcing in, and accuracy of, this article section above. I won't be supporting self-published sources, not unless they meet the "may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" and WP:About self exceptions mentioned at WP:Self-published. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

On a side note: How did you contact Ferret? How have you discussed things with Ferret? I don't see that you have email enabled. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, regarding Craft. If someone is inclined to remove them, I won't object, but I won't be doing it myself right now. I can't do due diligence on it right now, and I don't want to remove what I'm not able to investigate (I expect that's why you haven't done so either). If it hasn't been removed by the time I come to the article (I hope it is), I'll make a post here, listing if (more likely where) Craft's work deviates from general consensus, with something we can point to rather than just reliability rules. Reliability is significant to us, but clearly not to new users who come here with a particular (and strangely specific) agenda. I might be over-compensating for my slip-up earlier, but this article is a terrible mess, and I am hoping the protection will not have to be re-applied if I'm thorough... I doubt it, though. Craft isn't the only offender, either. Plenty of pseudo-scholars in the references. A section called 'Legacy' might be more fitting than 'Reputation'. I'd move the mention of the Guinness Book of World Records down there, too. I don't think it should be in the lead, given it tends towards a sensationalist view. I wish the Encyclopaedia Britannica was more transparent about where they get this from, though: "While documents from the 1611 trial supported the accusations made against her, modern scholarship has questioned the veracity of the allegations." (EB) All this hullabaloo over a centuries-dead aristocrat and a £2.99 e-book, very silly, isn't it? Re: ferret, Discord. Imaginestigers (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The reason I haven't done any significant editing of the article, other than a big revert I made months ago, is simply not wanting to get heavily invested in the article. That will happen if I significantly improve it. I also do not want to devote much time to this article, at least at this point in my life. Even after I made that revert that I thought was helping, I saw that the article is mostly supported by poor sources. So I encouraged others who seemed invested in the topic to improve the article appropriately.

As for the Guinness World Records piece, I'm sure it's there because Báthory is famous in modern times for being the most prolific female murderer. Quoting the Guinness World Records on the matter makes mentioning that aspect less subject to debate. I mean, it's us reporting that this reputable source has stated it...rather than simply stating it in Misplaced Pages's voice. But, depending on what scholarship states, we can also state it in Misplaced Pages's voice. Or, if preferable given whatever scholarship states, relay something like "Various authors have referred to her as the most prolific female murderer." Editors can believe that she was made to look like a prolific murderer back in her time, but it's still the case that we must adhere to WP:Due weight and WP:Lead. And it's WP:Due and lead material that we mention this aspect regarding her. The lower part of the article is for the details on that. Per the initial section I started on this talk page ("Poor sourcing in, and accuracy of, this article"), the Guinness World Records piece also seems to be there because it states "murderer" rather than serial killer. Media sources tend to refer to Báthory as a serial killer -- the most prolific female serial killer. But (aside from the number of victims) they surely are not defining serial killer the way that experts in that field usually do. An issue with this article has been whether or not to label Báthory a serial killer. But I do see that even Guinness World Records states, "Described as the most vicious female serial killer of all time ."

I figured you were talking with Ferret on Discord. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bathory, The Blood Countess: Fact Vs. Fiction

I am writing this in good faith.

The article states that it is definite that she was a serial killer, in recent years, the truth behind these tales has been brought into question and some scholars now argue that Elizabeth Báthory was no murderer, but rather the victim of political betrayal. (REF.:https://www.britannica.com/biography/Elizabeth-Bathory)

In the last two decades, a number of historians, most notably Laszlo Nagy, have come forward to defend the name of Elizabeth Báthory, claiming that the accusations made against her were part of a cunning plan by Thurzò to imprison a bothersome political rival. A number of arguments have been put forward by those proclaiming Elizabeth’s innocence. ref ( https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/elizabeth-bathory)

Firstly, Thurzò took steps to imprison Bathory as soon as he became Palatine of Hungary, leading some scholars to suggest that this move was pre-planned. Thurzò had been assisting King Matthias in his efforts to extend his control over powerful Hungarian nobles and the Bathory family certainly fell into his category. It has also been said that there is evidence that Thurzò was after Bathory’s significant wealth. ref ( https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/elizabeth-bathory)

It is impossible to know the true facts regarding Elizabeth’s story as she was never given a trial ( hence why there is no proof of the witnesses statement) (ref: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/elizabeth-bathory-16th-century-deranged-serial-killer-or-victim-betrayal) and so there were no official records of the case. It is known that confessions from Bathory’s alleged accomplices was obtained through torture, and they were subsequently executed. Elizabeth’s supposed list of victims has never been found, nor have other key documents that could have shed light on the true facts. If there was an attempt made to frame Elizabeth for crimes she did not commit, the real motivation remains only a matter of speculation.

I also like to point out that, lots of original resources has been written in Hungarian, and the writer of the article does not speak the language, or seen the original document, but confirms that as he/she would done that. (refhttps://www.biography.com/crime-figure/elizabeth-bathory)

References:

Elizabeth Bathory: a mass murderer or an innocent victim? – Keisz Augustine (https://www.origo.hu/tudomany/20131219-bathory-erzsebet-grofno-tomeggyilkos-vagy-artatlan-aldozat.html) - translated

Guilty or innocent? Outlining a historical dilemma – Countessebathory

Elizabeth Bathory – E-Grafo Magazine (https://countessebathory.wordpress.com/)

Serial Killers – Allthatsinteresting (https://allthatsinteresting.com/tag/serial-killers)

Infamous Lady: The True Story of Countess Erzsébet Báthory - Infamous Lady.com (http://www.infamouslady.com/new_research.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatalinBera (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It's worth considering that AFAIK there is no known case of a female serial killer anywhere, any time, or any place who was even remotely like Bathory in terms of the scale and brutality of the alleged crimes. The victims are also extremely odd for a female serial killer; has there ever existed a female serial killer who tortured and murdered young women exclusively? To say that it makes her an outlier would be an extreme understatement. At the very least, it's fair to say that the a priori likelihood of the allegations against Bathory must be low. It's now unanimously appreciated that confessions made under duress (ie torture) are unreliable, and that even widespread witness corroboration of fantastic events (especially in the context of late medieval Hungary) can't be taken as strong evidence per se, so I don't like the word "verified" in the lead. I think it's at least possible that the "horribly mutilated" dead and dying were actually patients, not victims. I don't think the question of motive for framing Bathory is as important as it seems; the Salem witch trials took place more than 80 years later, and there were no obvious motives to frame the accused in most cases. I'm persuaded that it's more intellectually honest to say "we don't know" than to affirm that Bathory was actually a prolific murderer. Nevertheless, all we can do is cite reliable sources. There does seem to be some good, well-sourced skepticism in the article (but again, it's undermined by the poorly-written lead) I think your information would be perfectly fine to add to the Reputation section, and I also think the lead should be edited to reflect better neutral POV. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@KatalinBera:@Global Cerebral Ischemia:I am seeing a lot of undecisiveness on the part of editors and I decided to chime in a bit, even if I'm late to the discussion. I should first point out that the Hungarian Great Lexicon (the spiritual successor to Révai's great lexicon, only has a short article on Bathory, focusing mainly on political and religious conflicts, presents the trial as a political one and doesn't even mention the accusations besides half a sentence that dismisses them entirely as fiction.

That being said, it is a well known fact that Hungary is, and to some degree always has been a hotbed of right wing populism and nationalist sentiments and the whitewashing, idealizing and romanticizing of Hungarian history by laymen and scholars alike is not an unprecedented phenomenon. I noticed that all of the dissenting opinions, both edits and comments on the talk page come from Hungarian users, and while I believe they want to act in good faith, the conflict of interest should not be dismissed. Bathory is an important name in Hungarian history, and it being associated with vampirism in international popular consciousness leads to knee-jerk reactions. It's not hard to imagine that many of the Hungarian scholars who challenge the common perception of Elizabeth Bathory as the most prolific female murderer are also motivated by national pride, probably more so than pursuit of truth.

Finally, I should point out that the above arguments are, for the most part, speculations. Misplaced Pages's purpose is to report on what reliable sources say on a given subject, and if reliable sources prominently call her he most prolific female murderer, than that is what wikipedia will say. Not "allgedly" not that "she was accused" but that she WAS. And no amount of theses and self-published sources will change that. It is not wikipedia's job to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Csók István Báthory Erzsébet.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Categories: