Talk:Elizabeth Báthory/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Tags

DreamGuy's behavior has reached an absurd level. In exasperation I stopped reverting the factual information with respect to Bathory's crimes. In turn he has moved beyond selectively attacking content and is now attempting to delete templates which highlight the problems with this article's content. The very fact that there is no agreement here on Bathory highlights the need for attention from other willing editors. It is in desperate need of rewriting and sourcing and DreamGuy is laboring under the delusion that "consensus" backs his capricious whims to alternately have it ignored or fit to his liking. --72.84.41.13 09:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Noooo... Consensus was clearly formed on this talk page that your edits were contrary to the goals of this encyclopedia. All you are doing is ignoring the policies and discussion here because we won;t let you push your bias onto the article. DreamGuy 19:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy, you are the only person who has used intemperate and uncivil language and are the only one speaking of "POV-pushing". The other editors have mostly spoken about how the disputed section is lacking specific citations for the facts, which is true, but is also true about the article in general (which Polenth in particular seems to agree to). I have responded to their concerns, "calmly and rationally", whereas you have from the beginning claimed "consensus" on no grounds.

This is why the article needs tags, so an outside editor might give it attention rather than continue disruptive and obstinate edit warring the likes of which you are apparently interested in exacerbating. It is vandalism to remove legitimate tag templates without resolving the dispute and just because you claim "consensus" (which isn't true) does not mean you have the right to claim there is no dispute. It is an absurd and untenable position to the extreme. Let me be clear: as a party to a dispute you inherently do not have the ability to say that there is no dispute. Therefore your reverts of legitimate tagged templates constitutes vandalism. Please discontinue doing so or I will take the dispute further. --72.84.37.68 03:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as your claims of my being uncivil and talking about POV-pushing, that's a violation of WP:POT, as you are highly uncivil, make up all sorts of false accusations, falsely label edits you do not agree with as "vandalism," even put a false warning that I was going to be blocked on my talk page, and have, in fact, labeled my edits as POV-pushing several times. Your attempt now to pretend that you are some innocent person defending yourself against some meanie is just ridiculous, as I was simply enforcing WP:NPOV and WP:RS policies, and also the strong consensus long established on this article. One anonymous IP-using editor versus a solid group of real editors does not make a real dispute, it just makes someone refusing to accept that consensus ruled already that his concerns were unfounded. If you got any real editors to side with you, then you could talk. All you are now is an anonymous troll fighting tooth and nail to get your PV-pushing in by hook or by crook, and it simply will not succeed. DreamGuy 06:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

To outside editors regarding the citation templates

Attention outside editors: for those coming due to the article tags, please see the previous three sections pertaining to concerns about unsourced statements and facts in the article, particularly as it pertains to details of the trial and crimes of Bathory. Here is the section that DreamGuy kept reverting out of the article:

Testimonies collected in 1610 and 1611 contain a total of over 300 witness accounts. On September 19, 1610 Andreas of Keresztúr sent 34 witness accounts to Thurzó. On October 27, 1610 Mózes Cziráky sent 18 accounts. 224 witness accounts were sent to Matthias II on July 28, 1611 by A. of Keresztúr, and 12 by M. Cziraky on December 14, 1611. Trial records include testimonies of the four persons indicted, as well as 13 more witnesses. Priests, noblemen and commoners were questioned. Eye-witnesses include the castellan and other personnel of Báthory's Sárvár castle. Trial records include testimonies of the four persons indicted, as well as 13 more witnesses. Priests, noblemen and commoners were questioned.

Details like this are important, but also need to be sourced. The general problem comes from the fact that much of the article is not sourced. Instead of attempting to improve the article generally, DreamGuy has chosen to selectively delete information he does not like. So the article needs general work. Unfortunately I do not have enough time or immediate access to appropriate materials to do the work. This is why I have tagged the article in hopes that someone takes it up. Thanks. --72.84.37.68 04:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to stop giving false claims here to try to mislead people. All you are doing is tagging the article in revenge because a consensus of editors pointed out that the POV-pushing of bad sources you tried to force onto the article does not meet Wikipedia policies. And your bad faith attempt to make it sound like it's me versus everyone else when it very clearly from all the discusion above was you versus everyone else will not fly here. And stop using anon IPs to try to pretend to be more than one person. DreamGuy 06:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to be in poor shape and needs a better system of citations. The templates should probably stay. There may be tempers flaring from reverting so much but there is a need for work on this article.

Also I know from experience that there are POV-pushers that try to water down Bathory's crimes because she is seen as an embarrassment in a small way similar to the popular treatment of Vlad Tepes is for Romanians. Revisionism is prudent but she was definitely a murderer. Contrarrevolucionario 06:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read the WP:NPOV policy. You do not get to decide what facts are facts for the article. So I suppose you'd go over to the articles about various witch trials and say that they really did commit all the crimes they were accused of but that some people try to deny it out of embarrassment? Try to use some objectivity here. DreamGuy 14:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Letters

Some letters from Elisabeth Báthory can be found here: http://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00001/00008/varkonyi.htm --ResetGomb 06:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful Book about Erzebet Bathory <3

I Have been nursing an unhealthy ubsession with Countess Bathory for almost two years now. In all the study i've done of her i have come across one AMAZING book about her. It's called The Blood Countess I can't remeber who it's by but i suggut that EVERYONE read it.

76.5.224.114 23:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Beauty through Blood </3

That book is fiction. It's not at all historically accurate. DreamGuy 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

nothing about the murders

why doesnt it say much about the murders it just goes straight into the trial.

oops

shouldnt the accusations be BEFORE the trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.34.121 (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I was browsing, and...

Found this article.

What strikes me -- aside the usual uncivil namecalling, which in my opinion is all too typical of Wikipedia -- is how naive at least some editors are about the historical validity of records of any kind from the early 1600s in Europe. Writers, sensationalists, horror novelists, and nationalists of all sorts have had 400 years to create a brocade of mythology and legend to surround Báthory.

Do any of you really, truly, genuinely believe any of it? It's not a matter of finding sources that say that she was a witch, a serial killer, a this or a that. In 400 years, someone, probably bunches of someones, have said all that and more.

The problem with this article is, as I said, naivete. You will NOT be able to find the truth, nor even a pale simulacrum thereof... truth is long gone, buried in 400 years of rumor and legend-making. What you can do, if you want to, is organize these legends and tales in something resembling a chronological or sociological framework.

This approach means dating the **sources**. Thus, the first time anyone said she tortured local girls was -- fill in the date with the reference. That date is NOT 1600 or thereabouts. It's 1862, or 1749, or whatever the year was that this statement first surfaced anywhere. That 1862 source can itself assert, without any proof, that diaries and testimony exists from 1602. Anyone can write a book saying anything about diaries and testimony from 1602, that is, from the unknown and unreconstructable past. What they CANNOT do is change the publication date of their own book. And that date of publication is the only verifiable, substantial statement you can make.

Thus: "Jones, in his 1996 horror novel, says that Báthory was a sadistic killer who tortured girls in the year 1602." You cannot use Jones' 1996 book to prove anything about Báthory in the year 1602. You can use it to prove that Jones said it in 1996. Now let's push the 1996 date back further, say to 1749. You can't use that either to prove anything about Báthory in the year 1602. All it proves is that the claim existed in 1749.

That is the kind of work this article needs. The actual events are gone, buried in legend, rumor, and sensationalism. But you can trace the history of the legends, rumors, and sensationalist accusations, by locating when and where and by whom those legends first saw print.

And you can also set those sources into their own historical frameworks of their own times. Thus, a television show today makes claims X, Y, and Z about Báthory; those claims are not evidence. Instead, we can bring to bear on those claims the principle that today, in a modern historical framework, television shows often deal in sensationalism and horror.

Again, let me illustrate. Where is her diary? What diary? Who says there was one? The answer is not that it was described by her accusers. We don't know anything reliable about her accusers or what they said. All we do know is that someone -- in 1749, in 1862, in whatever the year -- wrote a book saying that a diary existed in which she (this source alleges) confessed to a variety of crimes. The idea is to locate the sources of the components of the legends. That can be done. though it's tedious work.

Until that kind of work is done, this article is useless. It's so badly scarred by revert wars that no one should trust any of it. The article is also hopelessly naive -- and, since I can guess that I'm making someone angry, I am not naming anyone -- because it assumes that we can faithfully reconstruct the past. We cannot. Instead, we must rely on documents that DO exist, like books written in 1749 or 1862. Beyond that, we cannot go. Until we have time machines, we cannot now know what happened in 1600 in a long-gone castle in Transylvania. But we can -- and I argue, should -- deal with the documents that exist and can be dated.

Will I myself do that for this article? No. I have no access or knowledge of the detailed documents involved. But the principles are something else, and those I do understand. For this article to make a contribution to Wikipedia, someone is going to have to pull the sources together, and organize them AS SOURCES.

I hope someone does it.

Timothy Perper 00:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

An additional thought, added later by TP.

As a real example from the article, take the reference that says "Letters from Thurzó to both men on March 5, 1610, printed in Farin, Heroine des Grauens, p. 265-266, 276-278."

All we know is that these letters were printed in Farin's 2003 book. The originals might be forgeries from 1610, from 1730, from 1850 -- from any time and any place, and for any reason. Just because they are cited by someone in 2003 does NOT mean that they are true and real copies, made without error, of earlier originals. The moral is: Learn to distrust sources, not as paranoia, but as cautions against being fooled and misled.

Personally, I gravely doubt if they're real -- because letters 400 years old are unlikely to have survived 400 years of wars and mayhem in central Europe. And that includes World War 2 and Soviet invasions of these territories. It isn't a matter of someone accusing me of having this, that, or the other POV. I don't have a POV about it. But I do distrust claims that letters from 1610 survived intact through a long series of wars that have wracked this area of the world for many, many years...

Hope that's clearer.

Timothy Perper 01:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect for your distrust, that cannot be the basis for this article. I am not entirely happy with Farin's book but he gives bibliographical information for the documents he prints. Unless you have a scholar saying that these letters are forgeries we have no reason to even consider this, at least when it comes to writing this article. Of course, your thought that letter cannot survive 400 years is completely without substance.

Of courses, these documents also destroy your false claim that the accusation of her killing young girls stems from 1862 - no, it stems from the proceedings after 1600.

I also don't see how this article is plagued by revert wars. Currently, some other editor tries to insert POV statements into it and gets reverted but thus far this hasn't amounted to a war. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Str1977. You've missed most of what I said, so I'll try again.

The year 1862 was an example. I could have said 1758 or 1696, and made the same point. We don't really know when these letters were written. You trust Farin's bibliography -- which is fine -- but paleographic evidence isn't so simple. Modern paleographers have to examine the letters themselves, objectively, and report their findings in the professional and scholarly literature. Do you have such citations -- not to Farin, but to experts who have studied the letters themselves in, say, the past 10-15 years, with modern methods for detecting aging in paper, the chemical composition of ink, and so on?

You're doing something that is -- alas -- all too common on Wiki and elsewhere. You assert something without evidence and hope that we all accept your assertion, in this case your phrase that my doubts about the survival of these letters is "completely without substance." How do you know? I mean know -- not assert, not guess, not quote Farin -- but know that these letters are genuine? Do you really really really believe that letters survive so easily? Apparently yes, and I think such faith and optimism is naive.

You suggest, I think inaccurately, that the default is to accept an historian's assertion unless another scholar disagrees. Do you really think so, really and truly? Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper? Believe everything the government says -- whichever government you want? Accept every item in a bibliography as telling only the Truth? If so, then I think you are naive. Now, being trusting is a good thing, but it doesn't work when we try to understand the limits of historical evidence. And that is so important that I put it in boldface. People have enemies, governments and officials lie, malicious accusations are made and people killed. The witches at Salem confessed also. Do you believe their confessions?

Before you say "That is irrelevant, completely irrelevant!!!" -- it isn't. Confessions extracted under torture are dubious. If you say "There is NO EVIDENCE for torture!" once again you're being naive. Confession under torture was the legal norm in days past... remember Torquemada?

I have absolutely no POV about Elizabeth Báthory, none at all. It's clear, though, that you do have a POV -- you think she was a major killer. I am not convinced by the evidence -- maybe she was guilty, maybe not. I do not know. But letters said to be from the early 1600s are not good evidence. Such "evidence" assuredly would not hold up in a court today, and therefore we need to be doubtful when we, today, try to assess them as historical evidence. The answer is not to cite Farin and it is not to say that legal standards change with time. We are making our assessments today, in the modern world, and we must use modern criteria for factuality and dubiety. Documents said to date to the early 1600s are prima facie doubtful, especially when they contain confessions of crimes as serious as Elizabeth Báthory was accused of. In the 1930's purges in Soviet Russia, many people confessed their guilt (and were killed). Do you believe those confessions? As long as the possibility of torture exists, the evidence is dubious, no matter when or where the trial was held -- Transylvania in the early 1600s, Salem later in the 1600s, Moscow in the 1930s.

I hope that's clearer -- and I hope also that it's clearer that I am not convinced by mere assertion that Elizabeth Báthory was guilty of anything.

Added later (I forgot, sorry): the "revert war" idea comes from the title of an earlier comment.

Timothy Perper (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

And you were missing what I was saying.

What you are doing is original research which is not what we are doing here at WP. So when I have to say that the "burden of proof" for your claims lies with you, it actually lies with scholars wishing to dispute the findings of other scholars. Or with you bringing up these scholars. So "default is to accept an historian's assertion unless another scholar disagrees" is definitely true for Wikipedia as we are not doing original research. A scholar of course may dispute them and you (whether qualified or not) may do so as well. But we cannot included your findings into WP.

It is also highly speculative and IMHO has no basis in facts. Historians know what they are doing and to my knowledged have not found the letters to be forged. It is you who without any foundation wants to insinuate that they are dubious. You talk about paleographers and if you can come up with their findings it would indeed be relevant. But you cannot make the fact that you and I have not seen them the basis for claims that the letters are forgeries. And indeed, it is that what you are claiming.

And indeed your claims about the letters not havin survived is indeed bogus. There are countless writings that have survived from that time and beyond. Your expectations are simply wrong, clouding your take on the whole matter. (Ah and yes, such letters on important issues tend to survive unless the recipient or his descendents had a reason to destroy them. I don't see how this is the case.)

Also, your remarks about torture are indeed irrelevant, not because there was no torture involved but because these testimonies (and the preliminary findings where I see nothing about torture) are all we have. Do you want us to label any judicial findings "dubious" because torture was used at the time? That's hardly the way to go. I doesn't matter what would hold up in court today as we are no court and will not take the defendent to punishment. History is no law-court. Also, you might know that several criminals do go free nowadays for much smaller errors in procedure. And in general this is better than to convict innocents. But that is not what we are doing here.

I have no intention of blackening Elizabeth's name but neither do I want anyone trying whitewash her in the attempt of creating a national heroine. I have made no speculations about your intentions and have no wish to discuss this with you further. I have a POV (as everyone has, even you) but I do not push it but merely ensure a coverage based on evidence. Evidence that leads me to believe that she was indeed a major killer.

Finally, may I request that you desist from personal attacks ("do you believe anything ... naive etc.) against me or anyone else. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal in my comments, STR1977 -- nothing at all, and I don't want you to take them personally. I think you are being naive about the accusations against Báthory -- but maybe "trusting" is a better word -- which means I think you haven't analyzed the data or evidence with the kind of distrust that all evidence needs when it deals with situations like Elizabeth Báthory's. Have you ever been on a jury? I have -- and distrust is essential. People lie -- sad, but true -- and we have to know that.

Extraordinary accusations need extraordinarily good evidence. Let's start with the idea of finding evidence dubious if torture is involved. Yes, I think that is a good rule of thumb. We should not trust evidence obtained under torture -- and if no other evidence is available, then the case against the accused is weakened significantly. I don't mean the case in law -- that's over and done with -- but the case in history. Hence the genuine and deep relevance of the Salem Witch Trials and the Moscow Purge Trials: they teach us not to trust testimony taken under torture as a guide to historical truth.

Now, on Wiki, our job is not to try or re-try Elizabeth Báthory. Our job is to report what others have said. In part, that means describing what kind of evidence was brought against her and her family, and -- all importantly -- when it first surfaced. When did these legends first originate? From who? That we need to report on Wiki, not to exonerate her or find her guilty, but because we need to be NPOV about it.

I do not accept your argument that I must prove the letters are forgeries. That's not my job at all. I am a reader of this article, and it is your job to convince me. You are the one with a POV -- and from what I am reading, you are being quite clear about it: you think Elizabeth Báthory was guilty. Well, OK, but I'm not convinced one way or the other. And therefore, yes, I do want paleographic evidence about the letters. Without those kinds of data, the letters are not strong evidence.

Here you have misunderstood me in another way as well. I have no evidence that the letters were forged (and I never claimed it either). Nope, I'm not doing Original Research at all, not one tiny bit. Instead, I am raising some pointed questions about the evidence. I said and say again it is quite possible that those letters were forged. If you want to convince your readers that they're genuine, where is your evidence? The burden really is on you, because you are trying to convince your audience (including me) of something you believe. So I am asking some pointed questions about the evidence -- which, to my mind, it isn't good enough to persuade me of much of anything.

Nor am I an expert in the literature about Elizabeth Báthory. If you are, then you must be the one who summarizes all of it, including -- if this is true -- the lack of chemical analyses of the ink on these letters. Or, if there is chemical evidence about the ink, then summarize that. Your faith in these letters is not by itself enough to convince me. Obviously, you are an honest man, but what is your evidence?

What you have said so far simply does not convince me Elizabeth Báthory was guilty of anything. So -- contrary to what you may think -- I have no agenda to make her a heroine of some kind. Other people might think so, but that has nothing at all to do with me. I want evidence, not agendas pro or con. For all I know, she was an absolute horror of an individual -- I don't know at all. But if you say she was a horror, then I want to know what reasons you have. And so far, I'm not convinced.

Yes, I can understand that you don't want to talk to me. But that misses an important point ... people out here, meaning readers of Wikipedia, do not always agree with your POV. Personally, I think it'd be wise if you listened to people like me, but you don't have to if you don't want to.

And once again, nothing personal intended in saying you're being naive about the Elizabeth Báthory case. Or maybe trusting or innocent are better words. Perhaps I'm more doubting than you, but no, nothing personal intended at all.

Timothy Perper (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Local Cachtice Family History as of 1900

About 1900 my grandparents came from a town next to Cachtice. They were descended from a royal family which has been hunted by the Hapsburgs, especially after the 1848 Revolution. According to my grandparents, the written documentation of history in that region is difficult. The Hapsburgs have caused birth records or other records to be either destroyed or altered, so this reliance on written documentation is problematic. In another more southern region my great granduncle was in effect tortured to death by the Hapsburgs but the historical records say that he was given a retirement position. In fact he was made to live in a hut by the road and beg for food. No one was allowed to talk to him, on penalty of death which would be enforced through Hapsburg spies. Eventually my great granduncle starved to death in the cold. His crime was writing poetry that alluded to the Hapsburgs as tyrants.

King Matthias acknowledged lies which he helped to create about Vlad Dracula; in particular, Vlad making an agreement with the Ottoman Turks. King Matthias and his agents are most likely not reliable sources.

My grandparents never mentioned any tortures being performed by E. Bathory so it is possible that these are political lies but it is impossible to determine the truth without any forensic evidence being excavated. If anyone else has personal family history, perhaps it should be added here, for the record. Incidentally, when I have connected my family stories to known historical facts they have been accurate, for example stories of disease and famine.

My grandmother said that it was difficult to manage a castle and estate. The lady worked from early dawn to quite late. My grandmother had an immense knowledge of herbal medicine and healed the sick people in her local community when they could not afford an American doctor. She said that in the Hungarian countryside that doctors were not usually available. She raised a garden which included numerous herbs and covered about a half acre of land. She acted as an unofficial midwife. The speculation about E. Bathory providing medicines is not unreasonable.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.75.59 (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 

Attacks from Article Writer(s)

Not to defend The History Channel or anything, but it seems that there are repeated attacks on The History Channel from this article and whom ever wrote it. I understand that Elizabeth Báthory and her murders are very controversial due to historical accuracy. But personal and public attacks are down right immature and biased, even if it wasn't intended to sound like one. The History Channel may hit some points people would disagree with. But when it comes to controversial subjects, The History Channel would, logically, choose the side most agreed upon. It may not justify their action enough, but it still justifies them to a degree. I do ask of someone to rewrite in a less hostile-sounding article. I would, but I have had some discrimination issues acted upon from Wikipedia moderators/staff-members.

P.S.: I do find that no citations assigned to the History Channel references a bit -- suspicious.

76.105.205.97 (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Those were added recently as part of overall bad edits by a new editor. All of those have been removed now. DreamGuy (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous Comment: The History Channel appears to me to be terrible in showing unresearched gossip as East and Central European history. In showing East and Central European history they make no efforts to analyze the overall history and behavior patterns or provide any serious facts. In fact, I have sent them several emails on particular details in their programs. Saying that you should agree with the most historians is not a valid stand.

Hmm a single older woman possibly bitter with lots of property in an era when such women were declared witches for all sorts of reason. I just saw a program on discovery which declared she bathed in blood . The argument that the history channel or wiki should report the most repeated ideas is ridiculous. Both should report facts. I see nothing here to suggest anything more than than the hysterical lynching of a woman and four men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.170.97.196 (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Vlad and Dracula

I think it is fairly well established the Vlad III did not, in fact, inspire Stoker's Dracula (see historical references in dracula.) Reference to Dracula having been inspired by Vlad should be removed. In the meantime...I have added "may have" to the sentence in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.177.92 (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

surprised not to see link to Andrei Codrescu's 1996 book —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.140.87.65 (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is quite clear that Stoker took his antagonist from the historical figure of Vlad Tepes. Not only the name Dracula derives from Vlad, also the things that Dracula says about himself and his ancestors point to Vlad. Of course, that is not exactly inspiration for the story. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Also removing the true statement about the bloodbath legends makes the Dracula sentence pointless.

It was also grammatically nonsense: "Like Vlad Dracula ... these stories have led to the modern nicknames of the Blood Countess and Countess Dracula.

So these stories and Vlad the Impaler led to these nicknames?

I reinstated the bloodbath myth (about which there can be no doubt) and reworded the Dracula bit. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Confiscation

Her lands were also confiscated.

It isn't true. See the book of L. Nagy cited in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ResetGomb (talk • contribs) 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Using the Discovery Channel or the History Channel as a source is not valid. From my observations they mostly try to sell popular accounts rather than carefully researched facts. Her lands were not confiscated although that was most likely a strong bargaining point when the Hapsburg King, Matthias, avoided payment of his large debt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.80.179 (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

bathory-in-a-movie

Stay Alive, is one of many movies based on bathory's story, it is about a video game that if your character dies, you shall die that same exact way. you should rent this movie it is very cool. And suspensfull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.226.146 (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?"

"But on the court later Elizabeth was missing as also all her personal household and dependants from her castle. The only statements that were written down were said by aristocrats and people that never lived in or around her castle. All potential witnesses from her castle as also the girls that "were found by Thurzo on Dec. 30 wounded and locked" were never given the chance of speaking on the court."

Perhaps someone familiar with the subject should re-write this paragraph.Dugong.is.good.tucker (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

She recorded her own evil acts in a diary which showed she ended about 600 people's lives. reputedly one of the most beautiful women in Europe and with a briliant brain. Apparently she had a dwarf that helped her torture people. The dwarf was later beheaded. These details I found in our university library. "The Enemy has opted 4 Oblivion!" (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately this diary can't be found. --ResetGomb (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The diary in question is mentioned by Dennis Bathory-Kitsz, a contemporary descendant of the Countess who is also composer. His website "Bathory.org" states the location of the diary and someone who actually saw and read sections of it. --user: Dieblutegraf 7:36 p.m. November 7, 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.173.1 (talk)

Title

I really don't think the word "Countess" should be in the title. I propose a move back to Elizabeth Báthory.--Codenamecuckoo (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't normally put titles in the article titles, so, yeah, why was this moved? DreamGuy (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Do we need a discussion for this, or do you reckon this is obvious enough to list as uncontroversial? Page history shows that the move protection isn't due to consensus at this title, it's because of a Grawp attack, and the editor who originally moved has a long record of moving pages on aristocracy on dubious grounds. Listed at WP:RM as uncontroversial. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We do normally put titles in the article titles (Countess Alexandra of Frederiksborg, Count Aage of Rosenborg, Count Palatine Frederick Michael of Zweibrücken, Duke Anthony Ulrich of Brunswick, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, etc). That's according Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). I don't see anything dubious about that. I won't insist on keeping the noble title in the article title, because neither the current title nor the proposed title would fit Wikipedia:Common name, since this woman is commonly known in English as Elizabeth Bathory (more than 600 sources refer to her as Elizabeth Bathory, while only 20 refer to her as Elizabeth Báthory). Such a hullabaloo about the word "countess", while nobody seems to care about this fact. By the way, it would be nice to notify someone about the discussion and refer to the person using second-person pronoun, rather than referring to someone who is unaware of the discussion using third-person pronoun (also known as talking about someone behind their back). Surtsicna (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

first written account of blood baths by Erzsebet Bathory

Though most accounts state that the blood bath "legend" began in the 18th century, there is a contemporary account written by the historian Bohm in latin that is located currently in the State Archives of Vienna. This account, written at the time of her Ladyship's death in 1614, was not influenced by the Bathory or Nadasdy families and therefore had no need to hide the more atrocious facts of the case. Remember, the Hungarian nobility did all they could to hide the facts as best they could...the witchcraft and blood baths being the most damning to the Bathory name and if such facts were divulged there would have been no alternative but to execute the Countess. As it was, the "inhuman cruelty" she was convicted of sufficed to have her put into perpetual confinement.

The manuscript translates to: "Though no words could be found to match the beauty of Erzsebet and her Venus-like contours, regretfully there is no denying that this most attractive of female creatures had taken baths in human blood, which actions led her to being imprisoned in perpetuity("Elizabetha S. Francisci de Nadasd Agazonum Regalium Magistro nupta, foemina si suae unquam venustatis, formaeque appetentissime. Eam cum humano sanguine persici posse sibi persuasisset, in codem per coedes, et lanienas expresso balneare non dubitavit. Tanti criminis damnata, perpetuoque carceri inclusa, ibidem expiravit anno 1614 de Augusti."

The only reason the legend began a hundred years later was because the whole matter was hushed up and the papers hidden away. Remember, Countess Bathory's name was anathema in polite company...actually, is was AGAINST THE LAW.

I maintain the Blood Baths were in fact, true. I see no other reason for the change to killing the daughters of the lesser Nobility if it were not that "blue blood" would achieve the desired results (since years of bathing in peasant's blood obviously did nothing).Dieblutegraf (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You can believe the blood baths were true, but the experts on the topic conclude otherwise. Furthermore, we need pretty reliable sources to back up claims. This manuscript seems fishy to me, especially since the only source is a book that's been known to be very unreliable when it comes to this topic. I am removing it from the article pending a better source. DreamGuy (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DreamGuy on this. Furthermore, the account provided by Dieblutegraf (the nick suggest a one issue account) does not constitute a secondary source as required by WP. At best, it would be a primary source and evidence for existence of the blood bath myth as early as 1614. However, Dieblutegraf is engaging in Original Research when he makes his claims as the account he cites does not actually relate the blood bath myth (=literally bathing in blood to sustain youth and beauty) but simply uses the word "blood bath" as in the common, idiomatic sense of shedding much blood. And this is what the Countess actually did. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Vampire" or not?

I note that the article is categoried under Vampirism (crime). So how come there is not as much as a single reference to the Countess' "vampirism" in the text of the article? Or are we supposed to 'read between the lines' and imagine some of the 'horrific details' of her crimes for ourselves? Even the section on folklore and popular traditions doesn't mention this alleged "vampirism". If there is reliable evidence for her drinking her victims' blood that should be given here; if there is not the article should be removed from the category. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

farrr, what a crazy lesbian.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.119.151 (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian names

This is not my field, so I have no personal opinion to offer. It also appears to be the case that there is no Wikipedia standard on the subject. But there are many Hungarian names mentioned in this article, and the ordering of surnames and given names appears to be completely random, and I'm pretty sure that's not right. "Báthory Erzsébet" and "István Magyari" can both be justified, but they don't (unless Hungarian is even more complicated than I think it is) belong in the same article. John W. Kennedy (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Furthermore, the article randomly refers to her as Erzsébet and as Elizabeth. I believe the article should always use Elizabeth, as I assume that is the most common name used in English to refer to her. I've replaced Erzsébet with Elizabeth and put given name before surname wherever possible. Surtsicna (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

...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)

Actually they made these claims before being tortured. They just repeated them under torture. In those times confessions under torture were considered more reliable, hence the repeat questioning with added torture. There is no good reason to doubt their guilt. ETA: Also, what witchcraft accusations? Her accomplices said nothing about witchcraft, just pure sadism. 91.128.191.82 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2011 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's [www.thefreedictionary.com/phyco phycology] all right. DreamGuy (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

Did she or didn't she?

From Murderesses in German writing, 1720-1860: heroines of horror by Susanne Kord[1], p. 58:

With only two exceptions so far, historians have pronounced Báthory guilty, and the massive witness statements that Thurzó marshalled against her certainly appears unrefutable. But ... Of the 289 witnesses inteviewed by Thurzó's interrogators, 229 stated that they knew nothing but hearsay, twenty-nine stated that they knew nothing at all; two were guessing, and four claimed to have first-hand knowledge..."

Kord's own opinion, reading between the lines, is that Bathory may have been guilty but we can't be sure because her accusers had a lot of motivation gather false witnesses and she had little opportunity to defend herself.

I notice that several of the article's citations are directly to statements made by her accuser Thurzó; it would be better to quote what historians have said rather than going to primary sources, especially one so non-neutral as Thurzó. Sharktopus ^talk 02:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The descriptions of torture that emerged during the trials were often based on hearsay.

I don't quite get this sentence. There were after all 4 people claiming to have not only seen but also sometimes done it themselves. There was also one surviving victim who claimed she saw and experienced it herself. Isn't that a little more important than witnesses who reported hearsay? It seems to me that this sentence distorts the facts. 91.128.191.82 (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the legend has been given as fact and now we see Countess Bathory as a seriel killer, when, as 91 says, the evidence was often based on hearsay and not actual proof. Should we not give this woman the dignity of including what actually transpired and not what her infamous legend states? 78.146.132.102 Classics (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There were at least 2 eyewitnesses who saw the Countess and her cohorts in action, one of whom was Benedikt Deseo and the other Jakob Szilvassy. Benedikt supervised the Lords staff at Cachtice and witnessed the Countess herself torturing then murdering a young girl at the castle.Dieblutegraf (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Infamous Lady The true story of Countess Erzsebet Bathory Kimberly L. Craft pages 95-100

If she really did bathe in blood, then she would be dirtier than before the bath. Checked with several medical experts at my university and they confirmed that bathing in blood would not have made her youthful, could easily have infected her with blood borne diseases and, as one pointed out, "would have seriously freaked everyone including the Countess herself out". Bathory inherited some sadistic traits from her husband and it would have been normal for her to beat servant girls in order to get high. I very much doubt though that the evidence obtained at the trial was even obtained legally as torture was not an uncommon tactic if you wanted to get the desired verdict. 78.148.78.116 (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

convicted / not convicted

In paragraph 2, she and four collaborators were accused and convicted. In the next sentence, she herself was never convicted. No make sense. Johncurrandavis (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Accused, certainly, but she didn't go on trial: "While the countess was put under house arrest...The countess'[s] associates however were brought to court".--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but what bothers me more (perversely I daresay!) is that the sentence doesn't make sense! Now, it reads like this: "She and four collaborators were accused of torturing and killing hundreds of girls, with one witness attributing to them over 650 victims, though the number for which they were convicted was 80. Elizabeth herself was neither tried nor convicted." My suggestion - to remove the self-contradictory claim over Bathory being or not being included in the conviction: "She and four collaborators were accused of torturing and killing hundreds of girls, with one witness attributing to them over 650 victims; while Bathory herself was never put on trial, her collaborators were convicted of torturing and killing 80 victims." The only concern I have is, were all 80 victims tortured AND killed? Or were they "tortured and/or killed"?

Johncurrandavis (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll be going backwards with this because I feel the last things you said are the ones that are 

most important. All of her victims were killed aside from 1 so it cannot be "tortured and/or killed"

because they were all killed (aside from that pesky 1) the best line I can think of at the moment 

is the original since it's safe to assume they were all tortured because historians and psychologists have come to the conclusion that she was almost certainly a sadist. On to my next issue. Currently it says "with one witness attributing to them over 650 victims" this is incorrect because Thorzo gathered over 200 witness' what the line SHOULD say is "with the only surviving victim attributing to them over 650 victims". Unless of course I'm incorrect and it was a single

witness attributing 650 deaths to her and that the other witness' did not agree that there were 

that many. Oh well it is late I shall be going.

Damn you wiki I can never get those odd boxes out of my text... If when/if you respond you could
tell me how to get rid of those I'd be greatly indebted to you.

• Don't start new paragraphs with a space. Use a colon at the beginning for a single-em indent, two for a double, etc. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm even more in Problem Land with this. The article as written has her convicted in one place and not in another. I can't accept that "it's safe to assume they were all tortured because historians and psychologists have come to the conclusion that she was almost certainly a sadist" - read that back over, it's actually absurd, sorry! Anyway, before looking to phrasing the sentence, maybe it will be best to collate... i) Bathory and four collaborators were accused of torturing and killing hundreds of girls; ii) ... well, actually, I'm lost now for anything more that can reliably be claimed...!!!

Johncurrandavis (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

sexual abuse

Benedikt Deseo told court officials how he heard how the wide firing iron was heated, the girls arms arms were "burned to smoke and, ." The smaller, round fire iron was heated," he added,"until very hot and -on my honor!--, shoved it into their vaginas .

I removed this recent addition to the article, because it is sourced from a self-published book, not considered as a reliable source on Wikipedia. More at WP:SPS. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Using a screenshot of this page in a feature film about Elizabeth Báthory

Hello,

I'm a filmmaker who has recently completed a horror-satire feature called CHASTITY BITES. I would like to include a screenshot of this Wikipedia page in the film; do any of you know how to go about getting clearance for this? I tried to navigate through the usage section in Wikipedia but the best I could find was that the pages are all under Creative Commons and are free to share -- but this is a little different. I think I'm supposed to get permission from the authors of this page, are you guys still on here and reading comments?

Hope to talk soon,

John Knowles Weirdsmobile Productions http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2145637/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.42.4 (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This is no more than an E&OE interim answer, just to break the silence really:

Here a possible starting point. You would need to include in the credits (or somewhere) everyone who has contributed. The text authors are easily accommodated by including just the URL of the article. All the images must be free use, rather than WP:FAIR USE. At the time of posting all qualify, but the individual copyright holders, if any, may need to be acknowledged as well. The Wikipedia logo (top left) is a registered trade mark and the re-use terms are here. The big feature is the page design itself, and the Wikimedia designers should probably also get acknowledgement, to comply with the re-use terms, but I don't know how to do that.

Don't bother to contact the management: "it is useless to email any of our contact addresses for permission to reproduce articles or photographs".

Good luck! --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletions of all references from author Kimberly L. Craft / Infamous Lady the true story of countess erzsebet bathory

Why were all footnotes, references and historical facts were deleted from this article? Author Craft and her book are the latest, most factual accounts by eyewitnesses themselves...notably those of Benedict Deseo and others, such as noblewoman Anna Zelesthey whose daughter was tortured to the extent that her flesh fell from her bones. Also, a footnote regarding Anna and her mother who were given land, a house along with some grains and gold for recompense due to Anna's horrendous injuries. A maid whose foot had a knife in it also escaped the Countess and recounted the horrors within castle Csejthe. Such information taken from court records, letters and other similar first hand accounts should be included to maintain the integrity of the true historical accounts rather than legend and conjecture. Whoever took the time to delete such important and relevant information should explain themselves to all and try to justify such idiotic and petty actions when the whole point of this site is to maintain the veracity of truth above all else. Go ahead... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieblutegraf (talk • contribs) 05:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Tbennert and the recent anonymous editor 78 seem to be working to whitewash many different female figures portrayed pejoratively. It looks like feminist activists have worked to strip any information which might imply that women are capable of being evil serial killers and not victims or pawns. The edits/removal of relevant historical data were totally biased and political and should be reverted. 108.7.7.173 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Tagging the lede

Two points in the lede have been tagged {{cn}}. The references in "Folklore and popular culture", below, seem to cover the issue, which would make the tags unnecessary. The lede need not be referenced if the material is accounted for in the body of the article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If the "Folklore and popular culture" section says "which included no references to bloodbaths", how can the lede have "led to legendary accounts of the Countess bathing in the blood of virgins" - where are these accounts?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

At the time of writing, ^[20] and ^[21] in "Folklore and popular culture" seem to support this; only ^[22] specifically dismisses it. I suppose the most direct way would be to confirm the references in the section and give the statements there more detail, in accord with the sources. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What's with this?

I have a problem with this passage,

"Thus, they joined two powerful political families with strains of madness running through them, both renowned for cruel behavior. Her aunt, a distinguished lady at the court, was reputed to be a lesbian and witch"

Is it just me or does it imply that lesbianism is some sort of madness/cruel behaviour? 212.250.138.33 (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism of large portions of article. Please deal with obvious presenting issue, and investigate further

Please review the following sentences in sections on Early Years and Married Life of this wiki article:

"At the age of 15, she married Count Ferencz Nadasdy, a great warrior who was often away from home. Thus, they joined two powerful political families with strains of madness running through them, both renowned for cruel behavior. Her aunt, a distinguished lady at the court, was reputed to be a witch. An uncle was an alchemist and devil-worshiper, and her brother was a reprobate around whom no woman or female child was considered safe. To make matters worse, her nurse from childhood, Ilona Joo - one of those arrested in 1610 - was steeped in the practice of black magic that reportedly required the sacrifice of children for their bones and blood.[3]"

In True Vampires of History, Donald Glut (echoing Penrose) says that as Erzsebet grew older, she practiced witchcraft and carried a parchment (Penrose says the shriveled caul of a newborn child) on which was inscribed an incantation for protection.[5] Accordingly, she called to the deity Isten for help, health, and long life.

The following two paragraphs by Katherine Ramsland appear at... http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/bathory/women_3.html —

"At the age of 15, ... children for their bones and blood."

"True Vampires of History In True Vampires of History, Donald Glut (echoing Penrose) says that as Erzs�bet ... And keep Elizabeth safe from harm."

It appears there are very serious sourcing issues with this poor article. I recommend it be pulled until its honesty and credibility can be assured. A prof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.244.80 (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the sourcing issue as such is, since the content is sourced. However it appears to be an obvious plagiarism since sentences/paragraphs are apparently copied verbatim from that source. Those paragraphs need to deleted in its current form and then rewritten.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this issue to the attention of Wikipedia editor/users. I came to this section via you posting to Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism.

Wikipedia has a dedicated group of editors who look at copyright violations -- which I think this is and if you have any more concerns over any other page then posting it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems is the thing to do.

Wikipea editors have access to several tools that I know of to help them find copyright issues:

• Copyvio Detector. The tool will then search for its content elsewhere on the web and display a report if a similar webpage is found.

As many Wikipedia web pages are mirrored this is of limited help:

• The Duplicate Detector

See this output (This will of changed because I am going to zap some of the text).

• Wikipedia:WikiBlame is an online browser-based tool for searching the revision history of a MediaWiki based wiki for a text string to identify the author of a particular change to the page.

Wikipedia:WikiBlame who added the text: for the phrase "At the age of 15, she married Count Ferencz Nadasd"

The text in question was added was added by an IP 216.14.248.178 address (whois) on at 19:00, 9 September 2012. The editor of that contribution says in the edit history "corrected and sited supporting references for several inacuracies".

I do not think that it can be described plagiarism because the editor has cited his/her sources and included the webpage that you refer to. As blog cite here dated 2007 links to the page on the trutv.com site by a previous domain name http://www.crimelibrary.com so there is no question of who owns the copyright. However I do think that the contribution is not enough of a summary and as such is a copyright violation. So I am going to zap all the changes made by the IP address. I do not watch this page so if any of the information is placed back in this article and is not sufficiently summarised so that it is not a copyright violation, then please post a request to this and to Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

One other point, all these pages on Wikiepdia are editable by anyone. If you find copyright violations in he text (or anything else that think could be improved upon} you can always press the edit tab at the top of the page and make the changes yourself.

-- PBS (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Immurement

The text of this article says that Bathory was punished with immurement, but that article defines "immurement" as being left to starve in a confined space, and Bathory was fed. Perhaps a minor issue, but shouldn't these two pages be consistent with one another? 66.224.70.107 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Married Life removal

The whole section about her married life should be removed, as nothing is cited to justify its existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.70.11 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction in text

Just FYI to the editors of this page, her date of death is stated as 21 August in the infobox, but in the article it states "On 24 August 1614, Elizabeth Báthory was found dead in her room by a guard looking in through one of the slots. Since there were several plates of food untouched, her actual date of death is unknown." - Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Bastard child and other dubious stuff

The following text was once added without any sourcing. Hence I move it here. It can be added back if there are sources to it:

Two years after the arrangement of their marriage, Elizabeth, at thirteen years old, became pregnant by one of the servants at Castle Sárvár, named László Bende. Although Ferenc was not more than eighteen years, he delivered a blunt punishment to the young server. Ferenc had him castrated and, immediately afterwards, thrown to a pack of dogs. Elizabeth was taken to another Nádasdy castle, where she gave birth in 1574, in secret, to a daughter named Anastasia Báthory. Ferenc ensured that the infant child remained a secret, and was swiftly disassociated with the family.

Str1977 ^(talk) 11:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The article included the following line:

She vowed that her soul would be resurrected and inhabit the next body to be born on the 8th day of August. < ref name = "autogenerated293" >

I once myself added information from the source that now goes under that ref but I can't remember that the ref included that tidbit. Now, my memory might be faulty (which is why I move it here instead of simply delete it) but I don't think this is something I would forget if it were in the source. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

cOUNTESS ERZEBET -I AM RONEL ETSEBETH FROM SOUTH ARRICA ARE CURIOUS ABOUT HER.

im curious about her, her name almost sound like my surname. I am Ronel Etsebeth from South Africa. Can anybody help me in that regard. My ancesters came from Europe in the 1700 to South Africa, and there are rumors that we came from royalty. my email: ronelstorm@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.196.77 (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Her surname was Bathory, not Erzebeth. Erzebet is Elizabeth in Hungarian. This article uses the Western name order, also shows Hungarian name order, but in Hungarian the surname comes first, her name was Elisabeth (Erzebeth ) Bathory, in Hungarian Bathory Erzebet, the same like Bartok Bela, Western name order Bela Bartok, etc.

I am from Europe and I live in the USA, nad I noticed that the countries which were colonized by Europeans, or had lots of emigrants from Europe, quite a number of people claim royal descent- in fact much more than I ever met in Europe so far. I think it is because people don't do proper genealogical research.Only well documented genealogical research can tell you who your ancestors were, not similarities of names (in this case your surname isn't similar to her last name, only to her given name anyway). Keep in mind that even some names were similar or even identical, in the case of aristocracy and peasants or burghers. For ex. Potocki in Poland:the name of high carat aristocratic family and name of peasants families. If I were you, I would start with genealogical websites, Wikipedia is not a good place to start.It may also be that vital records int he West changed name order and made given name to surname, or a name becomes surname like for ex. Simon, Davies, etc. I hope this points in the right direction. Bialosz (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sexuality?

Why is she listed under various LGBT categories? Isn't that post-1800s conjecture based on the idea that she derived sexual pleasure from torturing and killing the girls rather than something we can be sure of? I'd like to see some contemporary sources to back up the claims, otherwise it's just a later horror fantasy projected on her. I like the occasional lesbian vampire movie myself, but... just because she's been sexualised in popular culture, that doesn't really tell us anything about her real sexual inclinations. Historical figures with far more evidence to support their queerness have been struck off the categories because of verifiability problems. --Snowgrouse (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I've seen no explicit mention of lesbian relationships or sexual activity, so it seems like the idea of "this is how she acted therefore there must have been some homosexual desires" seems like pseudo-academic conjecture, prurient projection, or even pro-LGBT motive of seeing homosexuality in many historic figures. Unless someone comes up with contemporary sources, as suggested, I move that the references be stricken. Contemporary conjecture can be moved to, and kept within the bounds of, its own section. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The supposed lesbian urges is relatively new thing, coming from pop culture.Older stories mention only her urge to stay young and beautiful, and using blood of virgins as a type of cosmetic, do not mention her sexuality at all.Bialosz (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

immurement

A comment from the talk page on the wiki article for immurement says it best: "I have eliminated the reference to "The Hungarian Countess Elizabeth Báthory died immured."....she was secluded in her rooms and the main door was bricked, but she lived there for several years, regularly given food and otherwise attended through a small orifice. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.172.51 (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Countess of Trencsén

I was writing a story about her, and I was wondering about her honorific - Which would be Lady [Name of County] - but I didn't know the name of her county. But, after a great deal of research, I discovered that Cachtice Castle is beside the town of Nové Mesto nad Váhoma, which was in what used to be called Trencsén County. I put in the effort to find this information, but I don't know where to put it on the Wiki page - or even if it should be on the page at all - I just figured I'd put it here so that, if someone wants to put it in the document, they can (while also double-checking my research). 2001:44B8:218A:D00:1C8C:151B:7A59:4DB0 (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Fact versus fiction

Please consult my Book 'Countess Dracula' - listed in the references, and Tunde Lengyel and Gabor Varkonyi's work in Hungarian (also referenced). In this Wikipedia entry, as in nearly all the writings about Bathory, and in the 'documentaries' broadcast on the subject, there are multiple errors of fact and transcription, and multiple instances of the fictional depictions of the Countess and the legends surrounding her being put forward as verified historical fact. The presentation of the text as an encyclopedia entry will assure any casual reader of its essential accuracy. It is inaccurate, misleading and unscholarly. Zasipnik (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It would help if you could point out concrete errors, so that other editors may no what to look for. Or even better correct the errors yourself.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Doubt

There is serious doubt about these acquisitions. 1. Báthory was a protestant and had powerfull enemies in the catholic church, mainly because she didn't have to pay them. The simple fact that one of the men accusing her was a protestant, is irrelevant. 2. Her husband was a military genius, and she was very good with money. The good Hungarian King owed her much more money than he could ever pay. That debt was cancelled after the trial, even though she was never put on trial.

There are documents, alledgedly written by Erzsebeth - however, they are forgeries. Spelling mistakes she wouldn't have made, different handwriting. The fact that 300 people blamed her is simply ridiculous. Most of those people had never seen het, been at the castle or even at the hospital. And, if you look at wichcraft-trials, (Salem comes to mind) 300 people claiming someone has sold her (it's always a her) soul to the devil doesn't mean a thing. People also claimed she had sex with Satan.

Most likely theory among scholars: The powerful family was somewhat weakened by the death of Nádasdy - and far to rich and powerfull for the royal family, so she was falsely accused of idiotic crimes. What has been established is that she paid enormous amounts of money to keep Hungary free, to feed the poor and to cure the sick. Yes, people died in het hospital. However, she did not visit that hospital on a regular basis.

In the wars between Hungary, Wallachia, Austria, Trans-sylvania on the one hand and the Turks on the other, indeed many people disappeared. Not surprising. So, The transsylvanian Vovoid Vlad, and Erzsebeth, related to transsylvanian vovoids, are blamed for enormous, bloody deeds. Scholars agree on two things: : We're talking about historical persons and the weird accusations are fabrications. Besides: Vlad III, of the house of Basarab (Besarabia) is a national Hero in more than Romania, as are the Nadasy's and Bartholy's in Slowakia.

Al those things are mainstream history. Just start reading some serious books. Toynbee would be a start, but even simple highschool history books are clear. Since there are no serious references to this article, while serious references are easy to find, I suggest removing this item or renaming it as fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.212.81 (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting mainstream history wich pretty much agrees with the (non-fantastic parts of the ) allegations. Your apparent wish to see the countess whitewashed is not welcome. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I came to check out this entry's talk and history pages because I had the same thoughts about the content - it's fantastical and poorly referenced, doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, and doesn't give any meaningful information about her relationships within the aristocracy. If she was a more recent figure in history, this entry as-is would be pulled. I certainly welcome the above discussion about doubt, and I hope someone with the wherewithal can step in to rewrite it. Smittee (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Smittee, an IP had just copied and pasted a load of stuff in from various websites, now removed re copyright violation. The article needs an overhaul, but hopefully it as not as bad as when you posted your message. Anna (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

As it currently stands, the article is wrong. In the doubt section a rebuttal suggests "Any attempt to cast Báthory as innocent requires considering the testimony of around 300 witnesses who testified as being motivated by moral panic." But are y'all kidding me? Earlier the article says "All but one of the Countess's servants testified against her—the one who refused had her eyes gouged out and her breasts removed before being burned at the stake." If the alternative was *that* kind of suffering, I'd testify to all kinds of BS!! 67.188.178.198 (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What the first guy is saying here, that "most historians agree she was framed" is B.S. Most historians agree that she was guilty and that all the evidence against her make a quite solid case against her innocence. Most scholars might agree that the number of victims claimed is exagerated and also the notion that she bathed in blood is most probably just a legend. Several academical pubblications comfirm that the academia reputes E. Bathory as guilty of torture and murder, such as:

McNally, Raymond T. “Dracula was a woman: In search of the blood countess of Transylvania.” McGraw Hill. 1983 Ivy, Sandra. "Wicked women." University of South Alabama. 2005 Gilbert, et al. "Female serial killers." Louisiana State University. Thorne, Tony. "Countess Dracula: the life and times of the blood countess, Elisabeth Bâathory." London: Bloomsbury, 1997

Also the statement ""All but one of the Countess's servants testified against her—the one who refused had her eyes gouged out and her breasts removed before being burned at the stake."" is also probably false... and no source for such statement was provided! Some of the reputed *accomplices* (and I stress that word!)) of Bathory were tortured, true, but the number of testimonies against here is enormous. Not only that: there was PLENTY of physical evidence even in absence of testimony.

If there are any doubts in academia, really, it's about the wilder accusations of satanism, practitioning of black magic and the number of victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.62.13.214 (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Valentine Penrose

Hello,
It's somewhat difficult to define the book of the French writer/poetess Valentine Penrose. It is both a historical essay and a "smuggled novel" ("L'infidèle biographe de la Bathory, Valentine Boué-Penrose, avait su se départir de la modération française pour offrir au lecteur dans son roman de contrebande quelques belles pages convulsives.", to quote the French essayist Michel Meurger, who has written furthermore a short study about the iron maiden myth).
That is why the French Wiki rightly classifies this book in the bibliographic section "Literature".
Regards. Guise (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Depending on your dictionary, a novel is either a work of prose fiction or a work that is fictitious or partly fictitious. I don't know how much of Valentine Penrose's book is fictitious but it is probably more significant whether she believed it to be fictional. Penrose was a surrealist poet so I would expect her writing to be imaginative and symbolic. I'm not sure where this book should be placed in the continuum between scholarly history and speculative historical fiction. In view of this uncertainty, "novel" could be misleading, and I prefer the neutral "book". Does Littérature in French imply fiction? It does not necessarily do so in English.

It's difficult to know where to place this book in the article. As far as such distinctions are valid, this book is probably high culture rather than popular culture, so it doesn't fit in the Folklore and popular culture section or in the Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture article. The same issue probably applies to the Alejandra Pizarnik book, and possibly to others. The "Further reading" section doesn't imply historical accuracy. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Wise comments, Verbcatcher. You're right, "book" expresses better the ambivalent nature of Penrose's literary work... In fact, I have found the same categorization difficulties through writing the French Wiki article about Gilles de Rais. Best regards. Guise (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Bram Stokers Dracula

The book Dracula was not based on Vlad the Impaler. This is a total inaccuracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.20.210 (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This article should be deleted and re-written.

Someone seriously should delete this article because she didn't killed a single person in her life. Translate this page into english and paste it here, because it tells the truth: https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A1thori_Erzs%C3%A9bet This article in english is terrible. It tells to the world what legends where made about her but everyone says she was innocent. Some source: http://infamouslady.com/ http://www.origo.hu/tudomany/tortenelem/20131219-bathory-erzsebet-grofno-tomeggyilkos-vagy-artatlan-aldozat.html https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A1thory_%E2%80%93_A_legenda_m%C3%A1sik_arca http://www.rubicon.hu/magyar/oldalak/mitosz_kontra_valosag_avagy_igazsagot_bathory_erzsebetnek/ And just read the other guy who wrote before me in the "Doubt" section. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElizaKormendi (talk • contribs) 01:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

congratulations wiki

Ok I did everything I can for poor Erzsébet today, if they not remove that article telling the completely LIE and imagination to the world in english then all the people will believe it and keep making movies about a person believed to massacred 600 people while she was a victim, well, congratulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElizaKormendi (talk • contribs) 01:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

bad English

Check with an expert on how to rewrite this: "want of eternal youth". This means "lack of eternal youth." If that's not what you meant, you need help with your English. 100.15.120.162 (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Trial - references?

There trial section is full of unreferenced statements. Can anyone improve it using reliable sources? A good academic source - perhaps discussing the trial records - might be able to confirm some of this? The Parson's Cat (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Common name

Is her common English name really "Elizabeth Báthory"? I've seen the Hungarian original (Báthory Erzsébet) and the fully Anglicized form (Elizabeth Bathory) but this seems like some sort of half-and-half that I don't recall coming across before. --Khajidha (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth Báthory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150215234548/http://mediaservice-novotny.de/reportage/news/mofBathory01.htm to http://www.mediaservice-novotny.de/reportage/news/mofBathory01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Section "Torture"

The way this section looks at the moment, I don't really see any point in having it at all. The template is larger than the content, the fact or rumor of torturings has been mentioned numerous times throughout the article, and any additional details contained in this section are completely unsourced.

Shouldn't we just get rid of this section altogether, and add details in the other sections of the article as they come up, with appropriate sources? --93.212.232.58 (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth Báthory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150415020000/http://www.cachtice.info/bkk/index.html to http://www.cachtice.info/bkk/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elizabeth Báthory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140311102723/http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/bathory/countess_1.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/bathory/countess_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140311102723/http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/bathory/countess_1.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/bathory/countess_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Prison and Death

She was kept bricked in a set of rooms, with only small slits left open for ventilation and the passing of food.
There are citations missing about this. In fact, it has never been proven that she was walled up inside her castle, according to Tony Thorne in this VICE interview. Taking a look at the bricked entrance it seems almost impossible to reach food through it. So where's the evidence? With the current state of information and the lack of citations, this page reminds me more of a horror comic than a collection of neutral facts. --Buckiboy (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

A rewrite has been proposed, only not where it should have been

So the lead unambiguously calls her a serial killer, cites extensive evidence for her crimes, and then a couple of sentences at the end insists that everything in the article is actually wrong and advises readers to completely ignore it and go read the Hungarian-language one—which most English WP readers will not be able to understand—instead.

Recent research indicates that all this sensational information about the "Lady of Blood" is fake, and that the accusations were made due to differing political interests of the crown as well as for the aim of confiscating her huge estate. The legend was created by a Jesuit monk (about a noble woman who was a convert to protestantism) centuries after her death, which was revised and coloured further in other literary pieces. For a more realistic assessment of her life and career, see the Wikipedia entry in her own language, Hungarian.

What the anonymous editor (109.47.3.194) has done is in fact proposed a major rewrite, which should have been started here, not with a few lines in the article that could easily have been overlooked entirely, particularly since no edit summary was attached to any of the four revisions. 108.34.201.56 (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth Báthory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020214427/http://www.elizabethbathory.net/Countess-Bathory-s-case.html to http://elizabethbathory.net/Countess-Bathory-s-case.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Footnote 10

The ending sentence under the "Early Years" heading cites itself at the end of the page. New to even trying to edit, but that doesn't seem quite right... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.133.194 (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the problem, that has been present since 02:59, 24 June 2017! I have removed the reference and replaced it with a cite request tag. Keith D (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please correct the grammar!

There is even one "sentence" that starts with a lower-case letter.Kdammers (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Page move

I think we should move this page to Elizabeth Bathory, as most English language sources seem not to use the diacritic. --Khajidha (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

No, because its false and deceptive. Majority of scholarly works definitely use the diacritic. Tabloid journalism is irrelevant here. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Limit "Early Years" section to verifiable facts only -- move unsupported rumors to new "Speculation" section

Right now, the "Early Years" section contains speculation about Elizabeth's seizures and about her family training her to be cruel. These arguments are pure conjecture; primary sources do not support either statement. All the citations currently included in the body text are to unverified blogs and "pop history." There are no primary sources that document Elizabeth's childhood, and any claims that she suffered from seizures or that her family trained her to be cruel will never be proven.

It would be better to move the unfounded rumors either in the "Reputation" section or in a new section named "Speculation and Rumors."

Katanadasdy (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)