Talk:Elizabeth Báthory

...at the time Kingdom of Hungary

...moved to Nádasdy Castle in Sárvár, at that time Kingdom of Hungary.

All places mentioned in this article were situated at that time in the Kingdom of Hungary.

In this form it suggests that there are nowadays not in Hungary. But Nyirbátor, Sárvár are there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ResetGomb (talk • contribs) 08:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Also reference to the Slovakian people is an anacronism. Slovakian nation was formed of different Slavic people under the Slovakian nationalism, a XIX. century movement limited to a narrow intellectual base. Mitochondrial DNA comparison of Slovakian and Hungarian people practically shows no difference, so Slovakian people might be considered also as Slavic-tongued Hungarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.207.251 (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is complete and utterfull rubish, how can you even suggest something like this?! Certainly not true! Most slavic people in the region were magyarised (actually forcefully), so more likely it would be the other way! This part of the article seems to have been EDITED BY A HUNGARIAN NATIONALIST, instead I would suggest we change this to slovakia and into brackets we put, then Hungarian Empire. That is certainly more objective and less insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.111.191 (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Diary: unsubstantiated claims

This number became part of the legend surrounding Báthory. Reportedly, diaries in Báthory's hand are kept in the state archives in Budapest. The diaries are allegedly difficult to read due to the condition of the material, the old language, the hand-writing and the horrific content. [11] However, supposing such diaries exist, none of the many successive regimes which took power at Budapest during the following centuries had seen fit to publish them. A web page as source. It's the joke of the day.--ResetGomb (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The webpage has been modified with an e-mail from a more knowledgeable source stating that the location of a diary is unkown. http://bathory.org/p-erzsfaq.html. This statement should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.23.40 (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

False accusations

According to the sources of the Hungarian article, these sadistic deeds ware little more than false accusations in a show trial without any evidence and that she porpably wasn't crueler than any other countess of her time. It should be made more clear in this article that even though she was labeled a serial killer, it's propably a myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.127.94.7 (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Outright saying it's "probably a myth" would be taking a side, but that view must be clearly articulated and sourced to some reliable authority in the article somewhere. DreamGuy (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering that all evidence against her was gathered under torture by accusers who stood to gain substantially from her downfall, the general tone of this article as it currently stands is extremely one-sided. (Guinness book of records murderess.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.23.79.216 (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Did guinness have record of this woman? Newone (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that her trial was not really that different from other trials at the time, your attempts to whitewash her and turn her into a national heroine become extremely silly. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether the trial was like other trials at the time really is moot anyway, as torture and witchcraft accusations in no way support the claim that the confessions were true just because other trials used the same methods. Lots of people do dispute the idea that she did all the things those tortured people claimed. One doesn't have to be trying to make her into a national heroine to think confessions made under torture aren't reliable. It's not for Wikipedia to take a side here. We need to make sure the article is written neutrally and with good sources. DreamGuy (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is one sided, the accusations had no basis in fact. There was no evidence, Catholica against Lutheran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.104.29 (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm hot an expert, but I remember learning about her, and there was lots of evidence and historians have recovered evidence more as time went on. In the study of phycology, it's considered a fact she was a serial killer and she is a common study of an example of a rare female serial killer in text books.

Restoring category (Category:Alleged witches)

I restored "Category:Alleged witches" . This category is used for people rumoured for magic and sorcery, and who have been called witches, and according to the article, this aplied to her.--85.226.47.128 (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I will restore this category again. I have no idea why some one keeps removing it. --85.226.45.225 (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

diary

where the hell did the diary quote at the beginning come from? it's unsourced and her diaries are only briefly mentioned later in the text, and they sound almost mythical. also, does a website really count as a reliable source? a website faq is the document used to support the allegations of the existence of the diaries. it should be made more clear that this is at best a rumor.

i'd like more information on the possibility of a conspiracy against her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.49.220.226 (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A website can count as a reliable source but it has to meet the same criteria as printed works essentially. Eg. who is it published by? Are they considered reliable in their field?--Senor Freebie (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)