Jump to content

Talk:Elizabeth Báthory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kmhkmh (talk | contribs) at 11:34, 16 September 2021 (→Removing unreliable information). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Untitled

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.[27] In the last month of 1614, she signed her arrangement, in which she distributed the estates, lands, and possessions among her children.[39][40] 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.[41]

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)[reply]

I also find it hard to believe that at some point in time she did not convince someone to let her go outside as she was held prison in her own castle also how were they so sure she had no secret passage that she may have used to get out for periods of time just a theory I have no backings to this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaki-Pitt (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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. 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. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@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. Love stephie (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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

Age at Marriage

If she was born 7 August 1560, and married 8 May 1575, then how is she 15 years old at the time of her marriage?

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. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.---Kmhkmh (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@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. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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).--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@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. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@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 very real, very recent attempts at nationalist historical revisionism. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Báthory&oldid=1044658987"