Talk:Iron maiden

First main Paragraph

"The legendarium that has accrued to the early 17th-century Countess Elizabeth Báthory features..." I'm sure someone is proud of his prose, but this doesn't sound encyclopedic. 98.221.124.80 (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"The legendarium that has accrued to the early 17th-century Countess Elizabeth Báthory features a very similar torture device, which she allegedly dubbed the 'iron virgin'" -- Who talks like that in the 21st Century? Vincent Price? giggle 14:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory.george.lewis (talk • contribs)

REDIRECT

This page should NOT!!!! be the default page for the search "Iron Maiden". It should either be the band or straight to the disambiguation page. I don't know how to change this, but it is really stupid the way it is now.

I agree.--E tac 19:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Iron Maiden was never used in the Middle Ages

The Iron Maiden was never used in Medieval Europe or by any Catholic institution. It was invented after the Reformation in Protestant Germany.

Urban Legend? It seems so...

As written in the article, it is not true that this Iron Maiden is the only one. There's another just for representative purpose at Kyburg castle in Switzerland. Please see http://www.schlosskyburg.ch/rundgang/folter_jungfrau.html

I agree. And the publication quoted in de:Schandmantel looks more reliable than the sources we (don't) have have here. The gist of it is that several Iron Maidens have been found, but none is believed to be authentic, i.e. not one was used for torture or execution in the medieval ages – unless you count a pillory as a torture device, that is, because that's what these devices (or some of them) actually were; apparently, nails and spikes were added much later (19th century).

The article as is doesn't reflect any of those problems. Since the editors here have not managed to agree on some wording, I have tagged the article with {{Disputed|date=March 2008}} so people coming here to learn about the Iron Maiden at least get a hint that there is some controversy. Algae 19:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I have made an effort to improve the article with some weasel words (such as "supposedly" and "allegedly"). I think that the Iron Maiden was as much a device of torture as it was of execution, and it would have been possible to remove someone from it so that he could confess to anything or implicate others in heresies or treasonous plots, real or imagined.

I have no means of determining whether the device was more than an urban legend. Unless it were adequately ventilated, someone put into it would have suffocated, and all screams would have stopped as the victim expired from the lack of oxygen. Death from asphyxiation would be relatively swift. But if it were ventilated, people nearby would have been able to hear the screams, so we have a contradiction in the story.

But "allowed the victim to remain standing" (or similar language)? The device would have forced the victim to remain standing, and as he weakened he would have drooped, only to feel the spikes dig into him even more. --66.231.41.57 21:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

the german article clearly calls the am an urban legend. the thorns seem to be added in the 19th century. thus they have been removed now from some of the maidens.--Tresckow 14:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

General

Can somebody include something about the torture device? -- Zoe

Is the torture device also with dual caps? Small distinction, I know, with only two words in the title, but.... --KQ

Good point.  :-) -- Zoe

I would be interested in seeing an article on the torture device, though. --KQ

Plus the rack, and other torture devices.  :-) -- Zoe, being sadistic tonight.

Let's start an inquisition. I have some unfounded accusations lying around.  :-) --KQ

I can have a stab at it over the weekend. This article btw belongs under Iron Maiden (band). I will move it there at the same time as I work on the real Iron Maiden. user:sjc

Are people deathly afraid that someone will use the device on them if they date their comments? :) The real purpose of my comment here is to ask why this isn't a disambiguation page? I suspect the band will have far more google hits than the device. I think far more people know about the band than this somewhat obscure torture device but I'm probably biased because I actually own a couple of the band's albums on vinyl. RedWolf 05:42, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with RedWolf. A search on Google revealed the band article on the first page of the results, with the torture device article only on the third page. So I think that the band topic should be considered primary and thus moved here, with the Nuremberg's Maiden placed under the title Iron Maiden (torture device) or something like that. Or, as an alternative, we could make this into a disambiguation page, like RedWolf proposed. And note that I'm not really biased since I don't own any of the band's albums :) Aegicen 28 June 2005 17:52 (UTC)

So, I have moved this page and created a disambig list at Iron Maiden. Will fix the links soon. Aegicen 3 July 2005 09:14 (UTC)

Answering the call for (more) sources, I'll put this here instead of out on the actual page, as those more hip to Wikipedia Ways can decide how much of this would constitute fair use. As a single source, it may not be authoritative, but comes from a fairly scholarly work, and not much else has been offered here for discussion. "The 'iron maiden' ... may well be called a curiosity of legal history. Because of the long spikes inside it, it was regarded for a long time as an instrument of execution and hence as proof of the cruelty of medival penal practices. Admittedly, the famous legal historian Karl von Amira (1848-1930) also proceeded from the assumption that the iron maiden was an executioner's tool. He advanced the opinion, however, that it was never used as such, but served only the purpose of 'territion', i.e. of terrifying. The more recent research work of F. T. Schulz, however, seems adequate proof that the spikes were a later addition and that the iron maiden was accordingly a pillory-like instrument for inflicting degrading punishment, a mantle of infamy for women. The iron maiden exhibited in the Crime Museum in Rothenburg ob der Tauber presumably comes from Bohemia and to all appearances dates from the 16th century. In the past century it stood in a castle, was sold to England in 1889, went from there to American, and came to Rothenburg in 1968. The iron maiden shown in Nurenburg up to its destruction in the war in 1944 was a copy of the one now in Rothenburg." (pp 152-153, "Criminal Justice Through the Ages," edited by Christoph Hinckeldey, published 1993 by Mittelalterisches Kriminalmuseum, Rothenburg o.d.T, translated by John Fosberry.) TMT 2005-10-21

The device in Rothenburg is not an iron maiden, but an infamy cloak originally without nails and spikes. Spikes were added in the 19th century romantic era, but were removed by the museum's historians after finding out about the later addition. see german WP--mmg 22:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I was born in 1976 and lived all my life in the United States, and the torture device is primary in my mind as opposed to the band. Hackwrench 16:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Forgery?

The german article claims that all Iron Maidens were forgeries of the mid-19th century. This is in contradiction to the present article. --84.56.126.121 14:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Even worse the article is just silly. How can an iron maiden be built to kill someone slowly? Or more accurately, how can it be built to kill more than one person slowly? Theoretically if you had a great deal of knowledge about human anatomy (more than I would think they did at the time) you could put sharp knives through a person's body without killing them. But the IM's are fixed. If the next guy is two inches shorter they are no longer in the right place. That guy would die. The history of torture is full of forgeries. This looks like one to me. Anyone have any evidence for it in the sense of real academic work, not just something they downloaded off the Web? Lao Wai 09:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, it was part of the torture procedure: The victim couldn't know for sure if he/she would only be tortured(injured), killed or even both.

Urban Legend Status

I have asked nicely for proof that this device exists. No one has provided any. The German article, as 84 points out, makes it clear they are all faked. Why should Wikipedia accept an article which states as fact something with, at best, no evidence? Leave it as it is please and stop reverting it. Or, better yet, provide some evidence. Lao Wai 14:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The German article does not "make it clear" they were all fake, it provides no real evidence and even the talk page leads to yet more uncertainty about the virgin's use. But the devices existance cannot be denied. Hell, when the US toppled Iraq a few years ago one of Saddam's son's had one in his torture playroom. Present us with evidence that they were all faked and the article will be changed to indicate that, but for now it should indicate that it was a real. And to address your above point about the Iron Maiden being fixed and killing people of different sizes, the spikes are said to have been moveable to "accomodate" those of differentiating measurements.68.212.105.67 18:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well then it asserts that they were all fake. It is no more possible to provide evidence of a fake than it is of Santa Claus. The Saddam claim makes it clear what the problem is - people make this stuff up. Any evidence that Saddam's son had one much less used it?

Try this:

TIME.com: Iron Maiden Found in Uday Hussein's Playground -- Page 1 No, not the heavy metal band, the medieval torture device. www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,444889,00.html - Similar pages

Clearly, it is YOU who are spouting off without doing a little research first. What agenda are you pushing, and why? 131.96.14.236 17:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

All sorts of bullshit claims have been made about Saddam, I notice few people have even tried to prove them. How can I present evidence of a fake if they are all fake? I can't prove Santa Claus does not exist either. The onus of proof in an encyclopedia ought to be on the people making a positive claim - and if no one can find evidence of its existence it ought to go. The same way there is no page on the existence of unicorns. The spikes thing is clear an ex posto rationalisation as there are no existing models (and probably never were) and what evidence there is is that the spikes did not move. People, for some reason, want to believe this is true and are very very resistent to the truth. Wikipedia should not be in the business of peddling half-baked urban legends. It ought to go entirely, but failing that it ought to be modified until such time someone can provide evidence of its existence. Which I suspect no one will. Lao Wai 20:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It ought to not go entirely. Even entertaining your suspicions that all Iron Maidens are fake, the device is still engrained in the public image and popularized as a method of excruciating torturous pain by sick puppies just like Uday Hussein. Some people may want to know exactly what an Iron Maiden is and there should most definitely be a page for it to inform them. I mean, after all, Unicorns and Santa Claus do not exist, but they get their own pages because they are a definitive part of public lore. Now whether this is simply lore or not, I cannot say just yet, but everything I am coming across seems to point to the existance of these devices and their use as implements of torture and execution, and their current existance. And as for people making this stuff up, well if you put that much distrust in TIME magazine okay, but they ran the story -with pictures- making it clear that not only did Hussein's son have the device, but apparently dulled the spikes putting it to not-so-good use. [[1]]68.212.102.34 09:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Even I don't think it ought to go entirely, but it ought to be moved out of any real world categories and into fictional categories (the same way unicorns are not listed among the mammals). So far all I want it to make it clear this is probably an urban legend. A fairly minor ambition in the circumstances. Even the link from this page says they are faked. And if you read the Times story carefully you will notice they found one 20 metres from his house in a rubbish tip. And if you look at the pictures you will see the spikes are notional - they are not worn down from use, they are purely symbolic spikes. The Times ran the story but the media ran a lot of stories. Even the neo-con press admitted that the Human Shredder was a lie. You see the problem - it is the baby incubators all over again. Lao Wai 10:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Even without spikes it'd still meet most people's definition of torture. And it would count as a torture device even if Uday owned it but never used it. For the record, I believe the Iraqi athletes who claim that they were tortured by Uday. Andjam 12:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Every wikipedia is ran on its own. Anyways keep it in Cat:Torture as a lot of articles there seem to have never existed. Also how do you explain the picture that's there? How's it a hoax? And it was amazingly uncivil of you to say "reverting someone's reign of terror". Redwolf24 17:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Me, Necropenguin, and even an anon prefer the version as such vs. your version. Wikipedia runs by consensus and 3:1 is a fair one. Keep as is. Redwolf24 17:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry you thought that was uncivil. I thought you were being funny. If you refer to your own actions as a reign of terror I do not see how you can complain about others doing so too. But if it helps, I am sorry I hurt your feelings. It was not my intentions. The fact that a lot of other people screw up is not a good reason, imo, for us to keep doing so too. One article at a time. The picture is simple - as the article says there are a lot of modern "reconstructions". Presumably it is not the (alleged) one single unique original. Over time a consensus can change. I think that most people here are reasonable and once we have finished discussing it there will be a new consensus. Admittedly that may be that I am wrong, but I live in hope. Certainly Wikipedia is dynamic and does not rest of past achievements. You may have noticed I have not changed it recently. The bottom line remains a lack of evidence. I think there will never be any evidence, but certainly no one else has found any. Lao Wai 18:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The Finnish "New Encyclopedia" ("Uusi Tietosanakirja" [2]) from the year 1964 includes a short article on the Iron Maiden torture device ("Rautaneitsyt" in Finnish). The article maintains that the Iron Maiden was built in Nuremberg in the year 1867 and that it "presumably" was never used. The encyclopedia's editor-in-chief was an esteemed Finnish lexicographer Veli Valpola, with the historians and researchers Aira Kemiläinen and Tuomo Polvinen as historical advisors. -128.214.198.11 08:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Execution method

The Iron Maiden was a method of execution, not torture. It takes its design (spikes) from a type of press which used spikes to impale people; the Iron Maiden, in contrast to many tools of execution, is highly stylized.

Other forms of impalement can be found in the middle ages, where spikes were set through a wooden barrel with a person who is trapped inside. --80.209.54.2 18:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It can be execution and torture at the same time! WhisperToMe 02:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Older origins and wider geographical use

There are references to the basic idea used in classical times, when the victim was clamped and embraced by spiked arms. The enclosed form as shown in this article was a later development. They were in widespread use: I found one casually displayed in a small museum in an old town in France. BrownBean 02:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yay for improvement!

I am happy to see that Gracefool has taken the initiative to work the concerns from the talk page into the article. If anyone feels like further improving it, the article still seems somewhat inconsistent when read as a whole, particularly because the spirit of the old article oozes out in several places (e.g. "The doors of the Maiden were shut slowly" as if we had it on a reliable source that and how these contraptions were used). Algae 09:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you do it? :p ··gracefool |☺ 22:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Because I am just barely qualified to complain. Fixing it well is much harder. That and I'm a lazy bastard. Algae 22:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Johann Philipp Siebenkees / Schandmantel

Hello, I was asked about my sources for my edits on 20. Jan 2006; 00:57 (about the story of a coin forger killed with an iron maiden, and about the 19th century origin of iron maidens as a misunderstanding of a medieval "Schandmantel"). My main source was german wikipedia. Further readings (all in german):

• Schild, Wolfgang: Die eiserne Jungfrau. Dichtung und Wahrheit (Schriftenreihe des Mittelalterlichen Kriminalmuseums Rothenburg o.d.Tauber Nr.3) Rothenburg o.d.Tauber o.J. [2000]
• Zeitenblicke - Jürgen Scheffler: Der Folterstuhl - Metamorphosen eines Museumsobjektes
• Vortrag von Klaus Graf: Mordgeschichten und Hexenerinnerungen

Some more info on Prof. Johann Phillip Siebenkees :

• http://www.ai.fh-nuernberg.de/Professors/Kuegel/Blumenorden/privgesakt.htm

--mmg 07:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks a bunch, I've added them to the article (though minus some information since I don't read German). Thanks also for the Johann Philipp Siebenkees article. ··gracefool |☺ 09:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

I think "Iron Maiden" as a query should redirect here. Presently, asking for Iron Maiden leads to an article about a rock band. So people who don't know what an iron maiden actually is, never get to find out (i.e. they may just think it's a made up name for a band) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guruclef (talk • contribs) October 26, 2006

However, the reason I personally searched it, was because I am a fan of the band, and wanted to see what the torture device did, and if it even existed, or if it was only an urban legend. The article for the rock band, should be titled Iron Maiden (Rock Band) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.126.173 (talk) December 1, 2012

At the top of the Iron Maiden page, there is a note: "For other uses, see Iron maiden (disambiguation)." This should be sufficient to notify all readers that there are other uses of the name beyond the (quite excellent) rock band. Those so inclined can hit the disamb. page to search for more information. The majority of Iron Maiden searches are bound to be about the band, so the direct link to the band's article seems legit. Dr bab (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction

The supposed operation opening and closing seem to contradict each other. It starts off by saying that '...On the outside, the maiden appeared harmless and nonthreatening...' and ends by saying that '...like most instruments of torture, to intimidate the prisoner...' RichMac (Talk) 16:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC) If you were to open up such a contraption, it probably would not look as harmless and nonthreatening.

I think I've managed to rephrase it to get round the apparent contradiction. garik 18:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I did not read through all of the entries here. Did anyone discuss the Iron Maiden that is on display at the Museum of Mideival Torture in Rothenburg, Germay?

Supposed operation

moved from main article, because there is no evidence and no source for the claimed:

Purportedly, the condemned prisoner had to pass through seven rooms with seven doors before his scheduled execution. At the end of a long corridor he found himself looking into the face of an iron wardrobe that vaguely resembled a female form. Although on the outside the maiden appeared harmless and non-threatening, the doors were then opened to reveal spikes of iron on the inside that would torture the victim slowly rather than kill.

The doors of the maiden were shut slowly, so that the very sharp points penetrated a man’s arms, and his legs in several places, along with his belly and chest, bladder, eyes, shoulders, and his buttocks, but not enough to kill him. Allegedly, the spikes were sometimes heated red hot as well to increase pain, or possibly cauterize the puncture wounds as to prolong suffering. Historical experts have theorized that the spikes on the inside of the doors may have been movable. They were thought to have been able to be repositioned and/or relocated depending on the individual requirements of the person’s body and their crime. The overall result would be more or less lethal and mutilating depending upon where the spikes were located.

The object was to inflict extreme pain and punish the victim – and also, like most instruments of torture, to intimidate prisoners before actual use, so that they confessed!

Even if the device is not a historical reality, I am interested in its purported use. I guess it would need to be sourced, but this article would be improved with a discussion on the theory, or supposed theory, of how it works. I mean, okay, you close it on someone and it stabs them, but beyond that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.249.166 (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction in dates

How can somebody forge the history of something at the end of the 18th century if it wasn't built until the 19th century? Professor Ninja 10:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Even uglier, the line: "The iron maiden probably was not used until the twentieth century, if at all." TWENTIETH century?! Can someone with knowledge on the topic kindly unscrew this article? For, indeed, it is made to look like the iron maiden was used somewhere between 1900 and 2000, when it's origin is highly dubious at best and most certainly not used in modern times!Wzrd1 (talk) 05:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hellboy Reference?

I added a reference to the appearance of Hecate in the guise of an Iron Maiden in the Hellboy comics, but it appears to have been removed. Does anyone know why it was removed? Thanks MauriceReeves 16:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

According to Siebenkees' colportage, it was first used on August 14, 1515, to execute a coin forger.

It is often associated with the Middle ages but was not invented until the nineteenth century.

Any comments? Reginmund 23:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone fixed it. Reginmund 23:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Still contradicts itself. --68.44.106.132 (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

One found in Iraq

I edited the information about the one found in Uday hussein's property. It wasn't found by US troops, and it wasn't found in a soccer field. Deathtalon 18:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd remove the reference entirely, unless we have a citation for it. Indeed, without citation, one could assume it as factual as the WMD's of Iraq! Cite it or have it deleted.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Contested move request (August 2007)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Stemonitis 06:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Iron maiden (torture device) → Iron maiden —(Discuss)— the only usage that is not a proper noun —Reginmund 20:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hardly uncontroversial. Iron maiden could justifiably redirect to either Iron Maiden or Iron maiden (disambiguation). PC78 21:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Like I said, it is the only usage that is not a proper noun Reginmund 22:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • And that matters because? Personally I would rather have it redirect to Iron Maiden as a {{R from other capitalisation}}. It would be confusing to have seperate articles at Iron Maiden and Iron maiden; the dablink at the top of the bands article should be sufficient. PC78 07:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• I've already been over the issue of why it shouldn't redirect to the band with another Wikipedian. It matters because of this:

It is possible to create two non-redirect pages with the same name but different capitalization. If this arises, a disambiguation link should always be placed at the top of both pages, linking either to a dedicated disambiguation page or to the other article.

• It seems quite stupid to have an improper noun redirect to a proper noun, especially when the improper noun is the only usage here. Reginmund 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see what the problem is with having Iron Maiden redirect to the band and Iron maiden redirect to the device. With both of them having DAB links at the top of their respective pages. If you have both articles at "Iron Maiden" and "Iron maiden" then that would just be confusing, when simple redirects make more sense. ≈ Maurauth ^(Ravenor) 17:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• What seems silly especially is that the apparatus is at (torture device) but the band isn't at (band). I don't see the problem of moving it when DAB links are available. Reginmund 19:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I expect that is due to the first article titled Iron Maiden was written about the band, before an article was written about the device, when wiki was just starting out. 86.6.17.37 01:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requested move (September 2007)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move. Let me clarify: this particular request goes against WP:PRECISION. A case could be made how the band and the device should be disambiguated, but this debate is not (supposed to be) about it: at least one should receive a bracketed disambiguator, regardless of capitalization. In addition, I redirected Iron maiden (per Ajax) to the band and fixed few incoming links, to facilitate use of the search box and bring consistency. But again, by convention, we don't use capitalization to disambiguate; which one is the primary topic is another issue. Duja► 08:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Iron maiden (torture device) → Iron maiden — No need for proposed title to redirect to current title. There is already a dab link at the top of the page for the band with the same name, and a disambig page for other uses of the word. Plus, no consensus was opened to move the page to the current title. —Admc2006 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support per nomination. Admc2006 19:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - also taking into consideration that this is the only usage that this is not a proper noun. Reginmund 23:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Per nom. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I generally don't think that it's a good idea to have different articles at different capitalizations, and there's a pretty strong case for the band being the primary meaning of the term. My preference is still to redirect Iron maiden to Iron Maiden as a {{R from other capitalisation}}. PC78 07:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with suggested action from Apple below. ≈ Maurauth ^(Ravenor) 09:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Also agree with suggested action as below. Drivenapart 10:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Iron maiden (as the torture device) and Iron Maiden (as the band) can handle the primary meanings for each capitalization, and direct readers to each other and the dab pages with, for example, {{two other uses}}. -- JHunterJ 00:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:PRECISION recommends "adding a parethical (bracketed) disambiguator to the page name: for instance when both spellings are often or easily confused." Also oppose User:Anthony Appleyard's proposal below since the torture device has not been established as significant enough to warrant a bracketed dab for the band. — AjaxSmack 02:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above. M3tal H3ad 07:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. In future, please notify WP:HMM when you wish to move metal pages. LuciferMorgan 10:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - This isn't actually about moving the Iron Maiden page. The main purpose of this request was to move iron maiden (torture device) to iron maiden. Reginmund 18:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• "Iron Maiden" (ignoring case differences) has many meanings, and the torture device is not now used in the real world, thank God. My suggestions:
  • Move Iron maiden (disambiguation) to Iron maiden
  • Move Iron Maiden to Iron Maiden (heavy metal band), as case of letters is officially stated not to be enough difference in page names.
  • Then, redirect Iron Maiden to Iron maiden.

  Anthony Appleyard 16:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I really object to redirecting Iron Maiden. There are more than 1000 links to that page, all intended to go to the band, and there are less than 100 total links intended for the torture device. A dablink would be much better. Dekimasuよ! 13:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • If the band recieves a bracketed dab it should be Iron Maiden (band) — heavy metal is unnecessary. — AjaxSmack 02:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I feel that we should take advantage of these grammatical differences to avoid those obnoxious appendages known as brackets. It worked with the Apollo Theatre and the Apollo Theater. Reginmund 00:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Regimund here. And keep in mind that it also worked with Death certificate and Death Certificate. Admc2006 19:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• • The former is somewhat a negative example as the dab header reads like a decent sized novella. But, thanks for the tip. I'll post the latter to WP:RM soon. — AjaxSmack 02:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Add a link to the torture device on top of the band article. 90% of people want the band and the device article is basically trivia. M3tal H3ad 07:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Frankly I don't think either of these two examples "work". It would be less confusing to disambiguate. PC78 13:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Right, M3tal H3ad: add a link to the torture device on top of the band article Iron Maiden and add a link to the ban on top of the torture device article Iron maiden (once it gets moved there). This was my proposal above. -- JHunterJ 18:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• No matter how many want the band, they can put in their search terms correctly. If they don't, there's always a DAB link. Reginmund 18:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Insisting that people "search correctly" is hardly a valid argument. PC78 02:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Can you verify that this isn't a valid argument? Anyone looking for an article that is disambiguated in one way or another is bound to end in the wrong place. That is why we have DAB links. Reginmund 02:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly. People can find Iron maiden (torture device) via a dablink from the band's article. You can't just insist that people capitalize their search terms to suit your preferences. PC78 00:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • People can find the band via a dablink on the torture device's article. You can't just insist that people put their search terms in miniscule to suit your preferences. Reginmund 00:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Both of you are correct which is why iron maiden and Iron Maiden should direct to the same place. — AjaxSmack 19:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Trivia

Sorry, but is there any real point keeping the endless list of trivia about places where an iron maiden has come up in popular culture? ≈ Maurauth ^(Ravenor) 17:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Of course there is. Please see WP:LIST. The "in popular culture section" is not a trivia section. Reginmund 23:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• The popular culture section seems to be a trivia section, and this is not a WP:LIST. Perhaps that crufty list should be spun off into its own List article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Rather sort it than get rid of it. There are plenty of popular culture references that deserve mention. Trivia are just minor details about the device itself.Reginmund (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• According to Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content:

"When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:

Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?

Have reliable sources that don't generally cover the subject pointed out the reference?

Did any real-world event occur because of the reference?

If you can't answer "yes" to at least one of these, you're just adding trivia.

I took a look at the trivia items now on the list and theire corresponding wikipedia article. For the following items, the words "iron maiden" are not mentioned in the article which I take as an indication that the cultural reference to iron maiden is not all that noteable:

• The book Matilda by Roald Dahl features a similar device called "The Chokey": a wooden closet lined with spikes or bits of glass in which one has to stand perfectly upright to avoid being scratched. The villain of the story, Miss Trunchbull, uses this to punish school children.
• In the manga series Naruto, Kankuro uses a technique titled "Iron Maiden" because of its similarities to the torture device
• In many Castlevania games the Iron Maiden is used as either a block to a higher level of the game, or a dangerous background item that encloses and damages the players that come near it.
• The Johnny Depp movie, Sleepy Hollow, employs an Iron Maiden device featured in childhood flashbacks.
• The Pink Panther short "Pinkcome Tax" (1968) features the Pink Panther hiding the Little Man inside an Iron Maiden to avoid detection by a prison guard. The Little Man survives, but, in a lot of pain (the spike ended up bent), though.
• In 2010's CGI-animated family crime comedy, Despicable Me, Edith steps into an Iron Maiden that gets slammed shut. The only damage is a spike piercing her juice box.
• In the video game Resident Evil 4, the Iron Maiden is a spiked version of the Regenerator, by which got its name by its spikes and attacks, in similarity to the torture device.
• In the video game Manhunt 2, There is a level with the Iron maiden in it being used as an environmental execution weapon.
• In the video game Haunting Ground, the torture room has an Iron Maiden which can be used as a hiding place when the spikes are retracted - but if Daniella finds you hiding in there it leads to an automatic game over!

I have removed these items from the article, but preserved them here on the talk page in case the edit is contested. Dr bab (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Disputed Accuracy

The article says that the Iron Maiden was definitely not made in medieval times, but this is not confirmed. Try reading [3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.127.55 (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

I suspect that whoever wrote this paragraph is very confused about the information they've used and failed to reference. Reading the article on Siebenkees, I suspect that what the paragraph should say is that he falsified the history of iron maidens in general, rather than the Nuremberg iron maiden. Would it be fair to change it to this? It would be no more untrue than the nonsense currently in this paragraph Melaena (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I was unable to find even the title of Siebenkees' remarks. How are we able to report so surely on what Sierbenkees wrote?--Wetman (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we can't write with certainty if the remarks can't be found, but how can you justify writing something that makes absolutely no sense instead? I'm sure that whatever Sierbenkees wrote, he didn't write about the Nuremberg iron maiden as the article suggests, if the nurmeberg iron maiden didn't exist. The issue is made even more ridiculous by the fact that the article alleges without referencing that historians have 'ascertained' this patent nonsense. If the author of the second paragraph is not prepared to reference the work of these historians, at least so that somebody else can make sense of the situation, then the references to Siebenkees should be removed. The same applies to the claim that the Nuremberg iron maiden was constructed shortly before 1892: only one of these two claims can be true Melaena (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Was it ever actually used?

The article should say whether there is any confirmation of an iron maiden actually being used. If no-one here knows of one, we should just say "there is no confirmed actual usage", if there is one, it should be cited. ··gracefool☺ 14:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, except that a statement to the effect that there are no confirmed cases of iron maidens being used should itself be sourced. I suspect that there are no confirmed cases, and that a historian can probably be found to support that. Any ideas, anyone? garik (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, except that a statement to the effect that there are no confirmed cases of iron maidens being used should itself be sourced.

A sterling example of a statement that does NOT need to be sourced. beefman (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Not true. Such a claim needs a citation just as much as any other claim. One should not, after all, say there are no confirmed cases simply because one has never heard of one. garik (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's reading that will help here, not ideas. Any suggested reading?--Wetman (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. By "ideas", I meant "ideas of what reading might furnish useful citations one way or the other"; I should probably have been more explicit. garik (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to TODAY'S version of the article, it was "The iron maiden probably was not used until the twentieth century, if at all." That is beyond belief and uncited, hence my tagging of the lack of citation. If no citation appears in a reasonable time, I'll delete that statement.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Origin?

The article reads as if the iron maiden is of German origin. But it's never explicitly stated. Is it? ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 14:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted text

The long and eye-rollingly dramatic alleged French account (in English), reprinted from Geoffrey Abbot Execution (New York: St. Martin's Press) seems to be a copyright violation-- in addition to its pseudo-historical "Black Legend" silliness. Sensible caveats in the text are continually deleted by some fantasist. --Wetman (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Cultural references

If I'm not mistaken, the device is shown in the movie Sleepy Hollow. It could be added in the 'cultural' section. 64.18.168.47 (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

'Legendarium'

Does this word exist in English? Norvo (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Cultural references

We should add "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" to wit: Evil Duke: Put them in the iron maiden! Ted: Iron Maiden? (thinking of the band "Iron Maiden") Bill, Ted: Excellent! [air guitar] Evil Duke: Execute them! Bill, Ted: Bogus! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.36.143.199 (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No, we should not. That is a typical example of what cultural references should not be. It is a passing mention of Iron Maiden, and it would be pointless to list every trivial reference in every book, film, tv-series etc. We should limit ourselves to where the Iron Maiden plays a role as a key plot element. For more information, please check out Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Dr bab (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think that all of the current cultural references, except perhaps the band Iron Maiden ought to be removed. TJRC (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be right. The band-reference should stay in my opinion, as being named after something is a pretty non-trivial reference. For the others, I'm not so sure. I did a massive clear up a few months back where I tried to remove all items of the "passing mention"-type and retaining the "important plot element"-type. Of course, I am not very familiar with all of these references, and I tried to err on the side of inclusion not to roughle too many feathers. Looking at it again: I guess the Doctor Who reference appears to be an important plot element in that one episode, but not in the show in general. The Addams family reference is simply a prop. As I have not played Amnesia or seen Five Deadly Venoms, I am not certain how important (or not) the iron maiden is in these cases.

I would not contend the removal of any of these references apart from the band-reference.Dr bab (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A very poorly written article

This article is written very haphazardly, starting out by saying that the thing wasn't medieval only much later to say that in fact it was. This needs to be cleaned up. 174.91.7.232 (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Where does the article say that the iron maiden was in fact medieval? I agree, however, that it's not a very good article. Why don't you have a go at fixing it? garik (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Killbox Redirect

There should be a Killbox disambiguation page instead of a redirect. As the person above stated, there is a band named Killbox, and I ended up here looking for a wiki page about Killbox, or Pocket Killbox, the program. Someone needs to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.55.252 (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. There is ZERO mention of "killbox" in the article, but a search of killbox DOES land one directly to this article. As I have zero clue how to fix that, I respectfully request one with more knowledge of the Wikipedia system kindly fix that gaff, or justify it in the main article.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

A DAB page would not be appropriate. There doesn't seem to be any other page that would be listed (neither the band nor software referred to by 208.103.55.25 have articles). But I do think the redirect should be deleted. It appears that one editor who has made exactly two edits over a two-day period in 2009 created an article "Killbox" ([4]), that was promptly redirected here, when it should have instead been deleted. I see no support for the contention that the "killbox" is a synonym for "iron maiden". The wikipedia community would be better served if a search for killbox came up empty, rather than sending them here.

The only incoming link to it is an error; it's actually referring to the software. (See [5], HijackThis.)

If there were an actual article about the band or software, I would suggest changing the redirect to point there. But as it stands, I would support its deletion, if anyone wants to take it to WP:RFD. Alternatively, perhaps it should point to Killbox 13, "the twelfth full-length studio album by thrash metal band Overkill in 2003". TJRC (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be deleted immediately, and only restored when Killbox (band) or Killbox (software) are created. I googled "Killbox Iron Maiden", and a lot of the top hits are created because of the killbox-iron maiden-link created by this redirect. I will nominate it at WP:RFD.Dr bab (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I've put in my two cents on the discussion there in support of deletion. TJRC (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Dates

Article states, "The Iron Maiden is often associated with the Middle Ages, but in fact was not invented until the 19th century.[1] No account of the iron maiden has been found earlier than 1793 ...".

If an account exists of the device's existence in 1793, then it must have been invented prior to that time. Either that or the account is false. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point, which I made mention of the sentence after claiming it would have only been used in the twentieth century, with no citation, only a totally unfounded or cited claim. OR the device was used for the first time in the twentieth century, as is claimed in the article. While, I'm dubious on BOTH points, I'm not an expert on the matter, hence my reading of the article tonight, which is rather challenging in temporal sense, to put it mildly. Indeed, to plot out the times of claimed existence, claims of use and claims of witnessing the device, one would absolutely require a time machine to accomplish it! Can someone with knowledge on this subject kindly untangle the history WITHOUT requiring time travel?Wzrd1 (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Added Cites & Reorganized

I added a number of citations, did some reorganization of the article, but there are still some major problems I could not find a fix for. First, the timeline of the history of the Iron Maiden is very confusing. Second, the bit about "The original 17th century iron maidens may have been constructed as probable misinterpretation of a medieval Schandmantel" needs to be sourced. I did a web search on "Iron Maiden" and "Schandmantel" and found only stuff in German, or stuff obviously sourced from this Wikipedia article. If someone who speaks German happens upon this page, please consider finding a source! Carl Henderson (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Earlier than 1793

The claim that there are no references to iron-maiden devices does not seem to be true. Valerius Maximus, writing in the first century AD, wrote: "The Carthaginians cut off Atilius Regulus’ eyelids, shut him in a machine in which sharp points stood out from all angles, and killed him from lack of sleep and extension of pain..." (Valerius Maximus, Factorum et dictorum memorabilium, 9.2.ext.1). See Crucifixion in Antiquity 24.91.75.78 (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 17 June 2015

• Iron maiden (torture device) → Iron maiden
• Iron maiden → Iron Maiden (disambiguation)

– The device is in lower case, and the band Iron Maiden named themselves after it. If it was the band that needed disambiguating then maybe it could be argued that capital letters weren't enough for that, but this is in lower case, so surely (lack of) capitals can suffice here. Unreal7 (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support I'm surprised this isn't the status quo. It seems to be the only usage that can be referred to with this capitalization. Whether or not we could call it a primary topic, WP:DIFFCAPS applies. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support: makes utter sense. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support I think the device is the primary topic overtop the band anyways. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Well spotted by nom. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Question, what exactly has changed since the previous requested move? ~Mable (chat) 16:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:DIFFCAPS didn't exist eight years ago, right? Red Slash 19:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Consensus, apparently. bd2412 T 17:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DIFFCAPS. bd2412 T 17:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DIFFCAPS Red Slash 19:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)