Jump to content

Talk:Elizabeth Báthory: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Elizabeth Báthory/Archive 5) (bot
 
(27 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{controversial}}
{{controversial}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|listas=Bathory, Elizabeth|vital=yes|living=no|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|class=C|living=no|royalty-work-group=yes|listas=Bathory, Elizabeth}}
{{WikiProject Biography|royalty-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Serial Killer task force|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=High|serialkiller=yes|serialkiller-imp=High}}
{{WikiProject Criminal Biography|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Hungary|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Hungary|class=C|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Slovakia|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Slovakia|class=C|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject European history|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject European history| class=C| importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=C|importance=Mid}}
}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 18: Line 17:
|archive = Talk:Elizabeth Báthory/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Elizabeth Báthory/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Criminals|class=B}}
{{Press|author=Crystal Ro|title=15 Horrifying Female Serial Killer Wikipedia Pages That Are Not For The Squeamish|org=Buzzfeed|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/crystalro/female-serial-killers|date=2019-11-29}}
{{Press|author=Crystal Ro|title=15 Horrifying Female Serial Killer Wikipedia Pages That Are Not For The Squeamish|org=Buzzfeed|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/crystalro/female-serial-killers|date=2019-11-29}}
__TOC__
__TOC__
Line 25: Line 23:
* "Elizabeth Báthory" {{Find3|Elizabeth Báthory}}
* "Elizabeth Báthory" {{Find3|Elizabeth Báthory}}
* "Báthory Erzsébet" {{Find3|Báthory Erzsébet}}
* "Báthory Erzsébet" {{Find3|Báthory Erzsébet}}
== Maintenance tags ==
== Elizabeth Bathory, The Blood Countess: Fact Vs. Fiction ==
I am attempting to address the issues noted by the maintenance tags. I have worked on the neutrality and sourcing issues (so far removing livejournal and pop history sources) and will continue to do so. I wanted to ask here, though, about the citation style tag. I have noticed some citations that do not have complete info; is that what it's referring to? What exactly is "unclear" about the citation style?--[[User:MattMauler|MattMauler]] ([[User talk:MattMauler|talk]]) 19:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)


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) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:KatalinBera|KatalinBera]] ([[User talk:KatalinBera#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/KatalinBera|contribs]]) 15:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: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. [[User:Global Cerebral Ischemia|Global Cerebral Ischemia]] ([[User talk:Global Cerebral Ischemia|talk]]) 19:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

::{{ping|KatalinBera}}{{ping|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. Wikipedia'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]]. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.112|46.97.170.112]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.112|talk]]) 09:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

{{Reply to|46.97.170.112}} Being from the same country as the subject of an article does not constitute a conflict of interest. If it did, then the majority of Wikipedia articles have almost certainly been written by or contributed to by editors with undisclosed COIs. Assuming bad faith on the part of an editor based solely on their national origin is borderline racist, and Occam's razor would suggest that people who live in a country and speak the language of that country would have a degree of familiarity with subjects involving said country and written in the language — as opposed to,say,the editors having ulterior right-wing motives that just so happen to match up with the narrative of someone with a keen interest in everything right wing from a singular POV. [[User:Love stephie|Love stephie]] ([[User talk:Love stephie|talk]]) 20:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

== Removing unreliable information ==

I have removed the "reputation" section as well as another paragraph appended to the section on her trial. These sections used sources that were, as per prior consensus, ruled as unreliable. Ironically enough, while these sources were written to exonerate the subject's, the removed section clearly state that it is impossible to declare the subject was wrongfully accused and convicted, without rigurous re-examination of the mountains of evidence against her. As I stated above, Wikipedia is not a place to [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]]. We're not here to argue wether the subject was guilty or innocent. Reliable sources already have a clear and unambiguous consensus on that, and that's what the wikipedia article must reflect. Not historical revisionism from authors who are more than likely to be biased on the subject.
On a sidenote, I also cleaned up some trivia that was attributed to the same sources, as well as redundant information. Please keep that in mind when reverting. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.112|46.97.170.112]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.112|talk]]) 14:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
:That seems a plainly false statement, those sections contained various academic sources and sources which are by no means unreliable (and haven't been ruled as such). Your are welcome to cleaned up insufficiently sourced parts/unreliables sources, but ''only'' those.
:Your deletion removed several published academic sources, the encyclopedia britannica and probably published non-fiction books wholesale, hence i've reverted it.
:And while you are right that Wikipedia is not place to right all wrongs, we do nevertheless compile/report what reputable published academic sources say on the articke subjects and if some of them "exonerate" Bathory we report that as well. Whether your or me agree with that assessment/"exoneration" is of no consequence for Wikipedia.---[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 14:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
::{{ping|Kmhkmh}}It was not my intention to remove reliable academic sources. The only claim attributed to Encyclopedia Britannica that I removed was trivia, that was included for questionable purposes (the king's debt to the Bathory family). If that deletion removed all citations to EB, that was an honest mistake on my part.
::Nevertheless, the "Reputation" section, and the third paragraph under "Arrest" however, were created entirely to whitewash the subject. The sources used have already been discussed at [[Talk:Elizabeth_Báthory/Archive_5#Poor_sourcing_in,_and_accuracy_of,_this_article]]. These sections were added afterwards, in spite of previous consensus. Bledsaw and the two Craft books were agreed on as unreliable, and the hungarian books are primary sources (plus not at all unbiased). Please note that this article was protected at one point due to frequent vandalism by anonymous users trying to push the fringe view that the subject was a victim of conspiracy, but a couple of registered users still managed to push these sections through without establishing consensus first.
::Another thing you should keep in mind, is that one of the citations you restored was a tumblr blog post. In addition, the section under the "Prison and Death" heading (which in itself is poorly worded) is unencyclopedic, and contains trivia, redundant and contradicting information. Maybe it was a mistake on my part to half-assedly try and clean that up in the same edit. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.112|46.97.170.112]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.112|talk]]) 15:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
:::Those tumbler and wordpress pieces are not really an issue upon closer insoection imho, as the are merely a translation of an article by a Hungarian academic published in a Hungarian academic journal. Ideally one should cite the original Hungarian article directly but resorting to an English translation, which is accessible to more readers seems reasonable to me (note a reference to the original Hungarian artcicle is given in the wordpress piece).--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 16:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Kmhkmh}}This fails to address my point. Or the thread I linked to. Bledsaw and Craft are not reliable sources, and the hungarian sources aren't exactly verifiable either. The possibility that they are biased cannot be ruled out, unless there are peer reviewed, english language sources or peer reviewed sources that received official english translations, that confirm that the arguments that supposedly exonerate Bathory do indeed carry water and aren't just the product of biased historians trying to whitewash their nation's history. Until then, the article should stick with what the widespread consensus is. Anything else is POV-pushing. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.112|46.97.170.112]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.112|talk]]) 09:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::The "possibility that something might be biased" is not really in argument with regard to Wikipedia (any source can be declared biased anyhow). Wikipedia simply goes by reputation of author, publisher and reviews and as far as that is concerned there is nothing wrong with the Hungarian sources and they are of course verifiable. Note verifiable sources does not mean, that you can verify their content quickly online, it just means they can be looked up (and verified) by other Wikipedians in principle. Also there is no requirement for English sources (although they are preferred if available).
::::: However I agree that Craft and Bledsaw seem to be unacceptable as sources for Wikipedia at first glance and should be removed.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 22:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::P.S. The main problem with Craft is, that her book is self published and she doesn't seem to be recognized expert on the subject nor a professional historian. This pretty much disqualifies her as a source for WP. However if somebody were to produce some properly published (positive) reviews of her book (ideally in academic journals, but reputable newspaper might do as well), then it could be used as a source.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 23:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::And how exactly do we know the hungarian sources are reliable. You say they're verifiable, but if the best we got in terms of an english translation is a tumblr blog with zero guarantee for accuracy, than that casts a major shadow over the source. If we're talking about reputable authors, why didn't their works receive international publication, with official english language translations? Still, I'm glad we agree on Craft and Bledsaw at least. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.112|46.97.170.112]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.112|talk]]) 08:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::They are verifiable as any other source, that is one can get a copy of the publication and read it. Again verifiability means that ''one'' can do it, it does not mean that you can do it in English and online. There are many reputable journals (and authors) in particular with regard to local issues that do not get translated into English. Since Bathory is subject from Hungarian/Austrian/central European history, it stands to reason that probably most sources on her and publications about her (potentially even the best) are written in Hungarian, German or Slovakian. Those countries have well established reputable academia, so unless there is specific issue, there's no reason to distrust their publications.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 19:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|Kmhkmh}} It also stands to reason that many of these sources could be biased. I beg you to differ on the claim that Hungary has well established and reputable academia. Hungarian academia is in fact highly partisan and has been under the thumb of the far right Orban administration for a decade. We are talking about a country with no freedom of press, that banned gender studies and shut down universities that do not adhere to their ideologies. All of this has been covered by reliable sources - you can look it up yourself. Whitewashing an infamous serial killer to safeguard the honor and reputation of her family's name isn't that far removed from reality, considering [[1776_Commission|very real, very recent attempts at nationalist historical revisionism]]. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.112|46.97.170.112]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.112|talk]]) 10:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Yrs revisionism under Orban will eventually influence certain branches of Hungaria academia, but until now Orban was mostly at odds with the academia and (actual) revisionist influence (beyond normal academic diversity) at best affects rather recent and possibly future publications. However it isn't quite clear how nationalism necessarily ingluences Bathory desctiption, but more importantly the publications in question are not from the Orban period.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 11:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|However it isn't quite clear how nationalism necessarily influences Bathory's desctiption...}} - Bathory is a historically relevant name to hungarians, and it being associated with vampirism and various heinous crimes is a source of no small frustration to hungarian national pride. Add to that the religious and political conflicts, and early hungarian nationalists' conflation of the catholic church with the Habsburgh dynasty following 1848, and you get a narrative framing Elizabeth's case as an anti-protestant witchhunt conducted against a powerful woman, by the catholic church, rather than a clear cut criminal case, which is the most reasonable assumption based on available historical sources. And need I remind you, Orban is just the symptom of a deep seeded problem, not the root of hungarian nationalism. Even the Kadar regime had to adopt a nationalist/populist slant after 1956, to pacify the people and prevent another bloody uprising. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.112|46.97.170.112]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.112|talk]]) 13:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::That's one of many option how nationalist influence might go. Another might be adopting, owning and marketing the story (like Romania does with dracula, london with jack the ripper, etc.).
:::::::::::The existence of nationalism as such (which you have in almost any country) is no vallid reason to discounts its academia in general.
:::::::::::As far as narratives are concerned, i'm not an expert on Bathory, but to my knowledge her being framed is indeed a possibility seriously considered amd mischaracterizations of historical figures by their contemporaries which subsequentially get revised of over time by historians is not an uncommon thing. So this here is more of an legitimate academic dispute between historians rather nationalist rewriting schemes as far as I can tell.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 14:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::Embracing foreign pop-culture perceptions of a historical figure in order to boost tourism is the opposite of nationalism. And even so, those are two entirely different historical figures. Vlad the Impaler was famous for his military victories and his ruthless tough-on-crime policies, long before he was known as Dracula, and the dracula mythos doesn't harm his reputation, if anything it can be reframed as a testament to how powerful and feared he was. Elisabeth on the other hand is the proverbial "red headed stepchild" of a very prestigious family of aristocrats, who played a major role in hungarian history. A serial killer in that family puts a nasty stain on not just their name, but the country's history as well. The "other perspective" to balance that out, is the catholic conspiracy against a rich protestant woman, so that she was innocent and the thing that she owes her reputation to was a lie.
::::::::::::You are right that mischaracterizations of historical figures by their contemporaries which subsequentially get revised of over time by historians is not an uncommon thing. As the article demonstrates, the stories of her bathing in blood were fabricated by a jesuit monk a century after her death (not that actually bathing in blood is even possible mind you). Even in the absolute best case scenario, she had to have abused servants, some of whom even died under her care, so that their injuries/graves could be used as evidence (the real question would then be, which aristocrat did NOT do that). But all of this is a moot point, because we have to go by reliable sources. My point is, I don't trust the reliability of the hungarian sources, without a reliable and independent second opinion. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.112|46.97.170.112]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.112|talk]]) 09:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Well to bring it to that point. You personally being wary of a (normal academic) source because it is not in English or in Hungarian is not a sufficient reason for that source not to be used. WP's sourcing rules are rather clear on this. So either you have concrete evidence for something being wrong with that specific article or its author (or maybe the journal it was published in) or it can be used as a source.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 11:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

== Significant discrepancies between this and huwp article ==

First I apologise, but "fixing" this article would require an enormous amount of time, which I don't currently possess, so I just put here a warning/reminder only.

The state of this article is very different from the Hungarian version: while this English article present the murder and vampiric accusations as facts the Hungarian article shows plenty of well sourced (Hungarian language) statements about the process, which was a then-typical '''witch hunt''', a '''conception trial''' with multiple well known and documented '''political and economical motivations'''. The article there details the '''lack of real trial or judgement''', '''confessions extracted by torture or oppression''', and the main political motivation of nearly all of the accusers. Also there are sources about the '''unreliability of material''' used for accusations.

While the English article show many signs of popular folk tales it seems to have significantly diverged from the historical facts and the accepted current stance of historical science (and historians) about this story. Since all of this have happened in the Kingdom of Hungary I would at least suggest to consider the sources of professional historians from the same country with due weight. --[[user:grin|grin]] [[user talk:grin|✎]] 17:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

:{{ping|grin}} Your concerns are noted. This is not the Hungarian wikipedia, and how they manage their pages is not related to what's being done here. We don't know what the standards over there are, and quite frankly, it doesn't matter. As has been mentioned above multiple times, Wikipedia goes by reliable secondary sources, and whether you like it or not, there aren't many scholarly sources that challenge the popular perception of the subject, aside from self published works or theses, which do not meet the standards for reliability. As a matter of fact, I'm having reservations against the reliability of sources that DID get used.
:Indeed, this article has problems, as over the years there have been multiple attempts by hungarian editors to try and expand the article with paragraphs (poorly) translated from Hungarian, so right now, it's a jumbled mess of poorly phrased, contradictory claims, that tries to balance out the general consensus, with hungarian historical revisionism, and it looks like nobody wants to undertake the daunting task of rewriting the entire article top to bottom.
:If you're willing to do that, be my guest, but I will remind you, that you will need to establish consensus first and also, that undue emphasis on contemporary hungarian reinterpretations of the subject's life, or on sources that do not meet Wikipedia's standards, will be reverted very quickly. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.112|46.97.170.112]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.112|talk]]) 09:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

::This article has been a hot mess for quite some time. It needs the care and attention of editors fluent in Hungarian, English, and German to review the range of sources. One need not be a Hungarian nationalist to swiftly see that this is not a good article at all. Disputed claims should not be made in wiki voice and need to be attributed to their sources. [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 14:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

:::{{re|Cedar777}} If I had both time and energy I would DeepL translate the Hungarian version and incorporate the English version sourced statements and additional informations, but it'd be still just a first draft, since - as you properly noted - it would need multiple countries' editors to look at their native language sources and update the article. Probably starting as a separate (new) article. Unfortunately I'm full to the brim with tasks now, that's why I only left a warning here for the future generations. ;-) Thanks for the positive message! --[[user:grin|grin]] [[user talk:grin|✎]] 19:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Cedar777}}} I agree, with the added remark that it is the claims made to exonerate her that are disputed, not the claims that have been common knowledge for centuries. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.79|46.97.170.79]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.79|talk]]) 10:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

:::: It has been ''common knowledge for centuries'' that witches use infants' blood to live forever, they cast magic on people to charm them and they are flying to their meetings where they hail their lord Satan in naked orgies. I do not think "common knowledge" should be followed rather than historical proofs. What you believe in may be false, as it turns out to be in many cases. Happens to me, too. This topic is well researched and the article shall contain less "common false knowledge" and more "historically proven, factual information". --[[user:grin|grin]] [[user talk:grin|✎]] 14:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

::::: False equivalence. You're conflating religious people believing in all sorts of superstitious nonsense with a historical murder trial. There's a difference between what uneducated people centuries ago used to believe, and what the current academic consensus is, which is all wikipedia should care about. If Hungarian wikipedia considers the hungarian sources alone to be sufficient, that's their business, though might I add, the Hungarian article reads as non-neutral, unencyclopedic, makes contested statements in wikivoice and has entire paragraphs that are seemingly copied word for word from the source. And that's just the lede. I hope you understand why it cannot be used as a template for this one. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.79|46.97.170.79]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.79|talk]]) 09:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
::::::The claims are so over the top that it is the English article that “reads as non-neutral, unencyclopedic, makes contested statements in wikivoice”. Many of the sources cited by the English article are not at all scholarly, rather they are collections of gossip and read like tabloid headlines where the subject is one of hundreds of bios covered in a work with only a paragraph per person - with absurd claims e.g., she “bathed in the blood of six hundred virgins” or she killed 600 people as the “worlds worst serial killer” . . . er, sure she did. Never mind that the witnesses were tortured. She was in a position of power that threatened Habsburg influence in the region. The king owed her husband serious $$$. More powerful people had significant motivations to eliminate or weaken her political and social influence by any means necessary. This became much more feasible once her husband died. Quite a few of the sources here state these facts from her time but the English article is the one that goes off the rails. Many of the sources cited in this English version cannot be verified - if editors here feel strongly that claims stated in wiki voice are solid, it would be best to QUOTE from the source by adding a field in the citation (or at least adding a quote here at the talk page) so editors can discuss what is due or undue for this biography of a person (not a legend). [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 13:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

::Just a sidenote to the '''anon''' above: please before you start explaining how Wikipedia works do check who are you talking to, especially taking care of noticing the account registration date. I also explicitely mentioned that I am talking about sourced informations, so I feel most of your comments were unjustified. Also I do not thrive to be "your guest", if that wouldn't have been clear from what I wrote. No offense taken, but please spare the paternalism. Thank you. --[[user:grin|grin]] [[user talk:grin|✎]] 19:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

== Epilepsy claims original research ==

The English article contains this statement:
“At the time, symptoms relating to epilepsy were diagnosed as falling sickness and treatments included rubbing blood of a non-sufferer on the lips of an epileptic or giving the epileptic a mix of a non-sufferer's blood and piece of skull as their episode ended.” If the cited source does not name Báthory in the context text if this passage . . . this is original research [[WO:OR]] and adds an implication that is likely unwarranted.
Can an editor with access to this source please quote the relevant passage or passages regarding Báthory for discussion as to whether this content is [[WP:DUE]]? [[User:Cedar777|Cedar777]] ([[User talk:Cedar777|talk]]) 13:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:20, 28 October 2024

Untitled

[edit]

Maintenance tags

[edit]

I am attempting to address the issues noted by the maintenance tags. I have worked on the neutrality and sourcing issues (so far removing livejournal and pop history sources) and will continue to do so. I wanted to ask here, though, about the citation style tag. I have noticed some citations that do not have complete info; is that what it's referring to? What exactly is "unclear" about the citation style?--MattMauler (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Báthory&oldid=1253949290"