Talk:Elizabeth Báthory/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Factual errors in "Married Life" section

There are numerous errors in the "Married Life" section of the page. Elizabeth was 12, not 10, when her mother engaged her Nadasdy. Although Elizabeth Bathory kept her maiden name after marriage, there is absolutely no evidence that Ferenc Nadasdy adopted the name "Bathory" after their marriage. There are errors in information about her childrens' names, dates, and marriages. Ursula Nadasdy did not live into adolescence, and there is no evidence she ever married. There is no evidence of any sons named Andras, Miklos, or Gyorgy. If someone has citations for any of these assertions, feel free to provide them.

It also makes sense to me to separate the information about Bathory's marriage and children away from information about battles and politicking that occurred during the Long War. Although her motherhood and the war happened concurrently, they are substantively different materials. It makes more sense to me to create two separate sections, one immediately following the other. Thoughts? Alternative suggestions?

Katanadasdy (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Just go on with your edits, and we'll see.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC))

Disputed content

It appears that a key source by Kimberly Craft was initially published in 2009, and later republished in an expanded 2nd edition in 2014, possibly leading to some of the existing content disputes. Revisions of existing content sourced to the 2009 version with the more updated information from 2014 would be an improvement to the article. Unreliable sources should clearly be removed, and edits sourced to the more recent expanded edition of Craft are preferable. It is also worth recognizing the context that surrounded the subject, i.e. that witch trials were a highly active force during this time and the subject, once widowed, became a potential pivot point for a power grab by those seeking to control the extended and politically important territory that she inherited control of. While folklore and rumors of vampirism and bathing in blood sell tabloids and books, these are not the only accounts of the subject and the article could do a much better job of presenting the disputed content for the sake of neutrality. If a number of the reliable sources disagree on the subject's history, it would be best for the article to state, upfront, which details are a matter of dispute by historians and scholars. Kind Regards,Cedar777 (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Cedar777. I completely agree on all counts.

I think separating out verifiable primary sources versus speculation, pseudo-history, and rumors is incredibly important. We can still include speculation on the page, but it should be clearly labeled in its own section.

I have read the second edition of Craft's work several times, and my (attempted) updates reflect the changed information. I'm also in the process of adding citations to other sources that support Craft's second edition. If you have any thoughts or contributions on the edits, Cedar777, I'll gladly accept them.

Katanadasdy (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Fellow Wikipedians, the problem with this article is fairly evident right out of the gate with the first two sources being at odds. Encyclopedia Brittanica provides a concise summary stating that Bathory's servants were put on trial but that she never was. Brittanica refers to "rumors," and to the subject having "purportedly" tortured and murdered others while more recent research points to "politically motivated slander" of the subject. Then we have Guinness World Records proclaiming that this "alleged" killer set a world record as the worst female serial killer on the planet who had splashed about in the blood of no less than 600 virgins. The sources agree that the accusations are rumors but diverge in making proclamations about the subject's place in history. Of the two, Brittanica is more credible. The question is, what do some of the other existing scholarly sources have to say? Which sources are worth retaining, and which should be released? Does anyone have access to the source by Michael Farin in German to review it for accuracy? First and foremost, this article is a biography of Bathory, for verifiable facts about her life. There already is a separate page for her presence in popular culture. Thanks and Kind Regards Cedar777 (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

In addition to Cedar777's request for someone who has Farin's Heroine des Grauens, I'll also ask if anyone has a copy of R. A. von Elsberg's Die Blutgrafin from 1904? These works have never been translated to English. Signed, Katanadasdy (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Poor sourcing in, and accuracy of, this article

Looking at the poor sourcing in this article, such as the CreateSpace sources, and looking at the edits by the ZápolcAIM (talk · contribs) and Katanadasdy (talk · contribs), I'm not sure how damaged this article is and how far back it needs to be reverted. But I do know that, per WP:Self-published, CreateSpace sources need to be removed and replaced with actual scholarly sources. And what are those? Read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Regarding this and "No Blood in the Water"? That is not the tone we should be using (see WP:Tone) and we don't add theses and dissertations. YouTube videos? See WP:YouTube and WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Someone's random YouTube channel is not a WP:Reliable source. And per WP:Due weight and WP:Fringe, we describe Báthory as the most prolific female murderer if that is how the general literature describes her; we don't use poor or outlier sources to try to contradict the general literature. I don't expect to be involved with this article beyond this post (not much, if at all, anyway), but I felt the need to point out that the current state of this article, whether before or after this revert, is problematic. Wikipedia is doing a disservice to anyone coming to this Wikipedia article to read about this historic figure. When I am eventually reverted by the ZápolcAIM and/or Katanadasdy accounts, I will not revert back since I don't have the time to look through the sources on this topic and fix up this article accordingly. And I am not determined enough to take on problematic editing at this article. I will also go ahead and note that it seems that WP:Socking is going on at this article.

I will alert related WikiProjects (seen at the top of this talk page) to this section so that they will see my concerns and, hopefully, one or more people from one of the WikiProjects will take on fixing up this article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you @Flyer22 Frozen: for weighing in and clarifying policy. After encountering this article at random, it caught my attention that the first two cited sources in the article (Brittanica and Guinness World Records) are at odds in stating that the subject is A) the most prolific female murderer in all of world history and that B) more recent scholars indicate that there is evidence the story is much more complicated in that Bathory may have been subject to "politically motivated slander that allowed relatives to appropriate her lands." Encyclopedia Brittanica refers to "modern scholarship" but does not clarify which scholars those are, and/or if their books are self-published. The credibility of publishing type, i.e., determining if a book sold through Amazon (or other key sellers) has been self-published, was not on my radar and remains difficult to decipher. Is this is pointing towards all of the Craft books as unreliable sources by Wikipedia WP:Self-published criteria? If yes, how best to then incorporate Brittanica as it seems to be validating an opposing viewpoint? It was my hope that editors with extensive knowledge of Bathory would help improve the quality and balance within the article. While I have ordered a book on this subject, it is far back on my list of items to read and review. Thanks and Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Cedar777, WP:Verifiability states, "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." We give most of our weight to what the preponderance of reliable sources state. If the preponderance of reliable sources characterize Báthory as the most prolific female murderer (or serial killer, although the way they are using the term serial killer likely isn't accurate in this case), then so do we. Views that cast doubt on that get less weight. So we are supposed to present what the preponderance of reliable sources state as the prevailing view, and the conflicting view as the minority view. Per WP:Equal validity, we don't give the minority view the same weight as the prevailing view as though the views are of equal validity; that's not what being neutral means on Wikipedia. Also, if Báthory was subject to "politically motivated slander that allowed relatives to appropriate her lands", that doesn't necessarily mean that she wasn't the most prolific female murderer in history. Either way, because she is commonly described as the most prolific female murderer in history, we should continue to relay that, even if simply continuing to give that WP:In-text attribution like the article currently does by stating "Báthory has been labeled by Guinness World Records as the most prolific female murderer." Another way to word that is "Báthory is often credited as the most prolific female murderer" (or something like that), and then add one or two sources making that clear.

As for reliable sources, we simply judge what reliable sources are by what is stated at the WP:Reliable sources guideline. One can also ask editors about sources' reliability at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard.

No need to WP:Ping me if you reply. I will check back. But again, I'm not going to get heavily involved with this article. It's still not on my watchlist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Flyer22 Frozen: I agree with you – and with Wikipedia – that in the vast majority of cases, self-published sources are not appropriate on Wikipedia. In Báthory's case, however, they are some of the most scholarly sources we have!

It is incredibly important not to contradict general literature on a subject – except in cases where most "literature" is pseudo-history and rumors. Báthory is one of those cases.

Here is an overview of every scholarly work I have found and read on Elizabeth Báthory:

• Bledsaw, Rachel L. No Blood in the Water: The Legal and Gender Conspiracies Against Countess Elizabeth Báthory in Historical Context. In “Theses and Dissertations 135,” Illinois State University, 2014.
• Craft, Kimberly L. Infamous Lady: The True Story of Countess Erzsebet Báthory. 2nd ed., CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (self-published), 2014.
• Craft, Kimberly L. The Private Letters of Countess Erzsebet Báthory. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (self-published), 2011.
• Kord, Susanne. Murderesses in German Writing 1720-1860: Heroines of Horror. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
• McNally, Raymond. Dracula Was A Woman: In Search of the Blood Countess of Transylvania. McGraw-Hill, 1987.
• Miller, Elizabeth. “Bram Stoker, Elizabeth Báthory and Dracula” in Dracula – Sense and Nonsense. Desert Island Books, 2006.
• Thorne, Tony. Countess Dracula: The Life and Times of Elisabeth Báthory, the Blood Countess. Bloomsbury Pub Ltd., 1997.

As you can see, if we remove 3 of our 7 sources (Bledsaw and two Craft books), we have halved the scholarly research available on Báthory. Let's take a look at the remaining sources:

• Kord's book contains a really excellent chapter on the connection between Báthory mythology and the vampire craze that swept Europe in the 1700s. Although her book is incredibly interesting and well-sourced, she has only a couple pages on Báthory.
• McNally's book, Dracula Was A Woman, is overwhelmingly rumors, pseudo-history, and werewolf folklore. He does not provide footnotes to actual research. It's basically useless as serious history.
• Miller's book is about the novel by Bram Stoker. Although it's a work of very good scholarship, the author's thesis regarding Báthory is only that Báthory did not inspire Bram Stoker when he wrote Dracula in 1897. Miller does not address Báthory's biography at all.
• Thorne's book, Countess Dracula is a genuinely good, well-researched biography of Báthory. He slips in some editorializing and conspiracy theories, so his work isn't perfect.

If we exclude Craft's two books and Bledsaw's very well-sourced thesis on Báthory, we only have Thorne's biography, plus a couple pages from Kord and Miller that are only tangentially related to Báthory's history. Yikes!

But there's a better argument to include Craft in the body of research on Báthory: Craft is the only person in the last 20 years who has directly translated primary sources from Báthory's personal letters and trial documents into English. Craft's works, although not perfect, are INCREDIBLY important to studying Báthory's history.

I strongly believe that in the case of this page, we should allow citations to Craft for her translations of primary sources only. In contrast, I am very comfortable prohibiting citations to Craft's editorializing and unverified claims elsewhere in her books.

I am also interested in whether any other editors of this article can provide better, scholarly sources than Craft and Bledsaw that translate primary sources and contain valid footnotes to legitimate research. I am a historian who focuses on early modern Central European history, and I happen have a personal interest in Báthory's case. If you can point me to scholarly sources I've missed, you will literally make my day!

Reverting this page back to an earlier version would be a disservice to public knowledge. It contained a lot of pseudo-history from McNally and many citations to an outdated first edition of Craft. It really, really wasn't good.

I'm interested in what everyone else thinks. I'm definitely interested in working with the WikiProjects people to make this article the best it can be. Please get in touch! Signed, Katanadasdy (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Katanadasdy, see my latest comment to Cedar777 above. Keep what I stated in that post in mind when editing. It's important to read and study the policies and guidelines I'm pointing to. As for what does a disservice to public knowledge, using unreliable sources (by Wikipedia's standards) and/or going against what the general literature states does that. As you know, I noted that the CreateSpace sources do not pass our WP:Reliable sources guideline. I also noted that we should not be using theses and dissertations as sources. When it comes to our policies, guidelines, and quality in this regard, we can't make an exception for the Elizabeth Báthory article. If you haven't, I suggest you look on Google Books for academic sources and make sure that the publishers of those sources are reliable. It's also important to keep the WP:Fringe guideline in mind. Read that and study it in addition to the other guidelines and policies I've pointed to. And as for primary sources? They are not preferred. And they need to be used carefully. By this, I mean what is stated at WP:Primary sources and WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Again, no need to WP:Ping me when replying to me. I will check back. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

_____

References

In the process of updating this article

Hi fellow Wikipedians and WikiProject admins,

I am in the process of updating this article with the newest research on Báthory. I have read every scholarly and pseudo-scholarly source I can find on Báthory, and I'm very interested in working with others who have read any of these sources:

1. Bledsaw, Rachel L. No Blood in the Water: The Legal and Gender Conspiracies Against Countess Elizabeth Báthory in Historical Context. In “Theses and Dissertations 135,” Illinois State University, 2014.
2. Craft, Kimberly L. Infamous Lady: The True Story of Countess Erzsebet Báthory. 2nd ed., CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (self-published), 2014.
3. Craft, Kimberly L. The Private Letters of Countess Erzsebet Báthory. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (self-published), 2011.
4. Farin, Michael. Heroine des Grauens. Elisabeth Bathory: Leben und Wirken der Elisabeth Bathory in Briefen, Zeugenaussagen und Phantasiespielen. Kirchheim Peter, 2008. In German.
5. Kord, Susanne. Murderesses in German Writing 1720-1860: Heroines of Horror. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
6. McNally, Raymond. Dracula Was A Woman: In Search of the Blood Countess of Transylvania. McGraw-Hill, 1987.
7. Miller, Elizabeth. “Bram Stoker, Elizabeth Báthory and Dracula” in Dracula – Sense and Nonsense. Desert Island Books, 2006.
8. Rady, Martyn. Customary Law In Hungary: Courts, Texts, and the Tripartitum. Oxford University Press, 2015.
9. Szádeczky-Kardoss, Irma. Báthory Erzsébet igazsága. Nesztor Kiadó, 1993. In Hungarian.
10. Thorne, Tony. Countess Dracula: The Life and Times of Elisabeth Báthory, the Blood Countess. Bloomsbury Pub Ltd., 1997.
11. von Elsberg, R. A. Elisabeth Báthory. (Die Blutgräfin) Ein sitten-und charakterbild. S. Schottlaender Breslau, 1904. In German.

I am especially interested in collaborating with anyone who is fluent in German or Hungarian.

Signed, Katanadasdy (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

See what I stated in the section immediately above this one. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Katanadasdy:,

juts go on with your edits I said, but keep the policies Flyer22 Frozen asked from you. Slowly make your changes and use always sources. Also I may guide you. Regards!(KIENGIR (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC))

Recent POV, unsourced edits and WP:Synthesis

Mitch.n8v (talk · contribs), regarding this? Dimadick was right to revert you here. Firstly, we do not relay content in that tone in our Wikipedia articles. See WP:Tone. Your tone is not encyclopedic. You added "it is a well-known fact, that the whole strange and confusing murder cases were all based on rumors." A well-known fact? You need a WP:Reliable source that actually states that. Otherwise, it's WP:Original research or specifically WP:Synthesis. And even then we wouldn't state "well-known fact." We shouldn't be calling any of it strange or confusing in Wikipedia's voice. So that is why I reverted you on that. And this appears to be more of the same from you. What source states that "It is possible that Deseő and Szilvássy were also afraid of torture if they didn't give the desired answers."? I reverted that. The source at the end of that paragraph is not in proper WP:Citation style and the reference doesn't provide sufficient information about the source. You need to discuss these changes here on the talk page. And I mean discuss, not just make a comment here on the talk page and revert to your preferred wording. I ask that you don't WP:Edit war. If I need to get this article WP:Semi-protected or WP:Full-protected, I will.

Imaginestigers, regarding this, you actually need one or more WP:Reliable sources stating that "recent and historical scholarship believes that she was the result of a conspiracy for political gain, and her prosecution was based on rumours." And that edit is not minor edit. So don't mark edits as minor when they are not minor. See WP:Minor.

Cedar777, it would help if you would revert edits like this when you see them. No need to ping me if you reply. I only pinged you to get your attention. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

While this article is still on my watchlist, I rarely monitor the changes to it. The subject matter is well outside my wheelhouse. The biography could really use careful and observant editing by someone who has read many of the existing sources, including the multiple works by Kraft. I had hoped that by flagging the article earlier this year, that editors with significant knowledge of the subject would comment/discuss matters and make improvements. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"You need a WP:Reliable source that actually states that. Otherwise, it's WP:Original research" Which is why I reverted these edits. They change the tone of the article, without adding new sources. And while it is plausible that torture victims would give false answers to avoid further pain, the claim does not seem to match the cited source of that paragraph. Dimadick (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Dimadick. Also pinging Acroterion and KIENGIR, who have helped to revert unsourced and POV material in this article before. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I also see Display name 99 in the edit history. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I visited this article without knowing there was drama on this Talk page. I know very little about Bathory. I visited the page, corrected clumsy writing to be slightly less clumsy based on reading the rest of the article, and I left. If you are keeping an eye on this page, that's fine, but you need to either fix up the rest of the article or elevate your concerns. I did not check the citations (I have now), but my reading of the first line of this section made me think that this was a feeling in contemporary scholarship. It breached WP:NPOV, and I changed it. It was intended as a minor edit, and there is no need to scold: WP:GF. I hope that if you look at what I changed vs what was there, you can understand why I (someone unfamiliar with The Drama) would think that the lead was a good summation of the rest of the article, and that line was just horribly written. Given your history with this page, I suggest taking it to WP:ANEW. The article might need some protection. Good luck! Imaginestigers (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Imaginestigers, like WP:ONUS states, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I am not obligated to fix up this article. I also don't yet have much history with it. I reverted the article away from some issues months ago and watch it now so that it does not get worse. What it needs is historians or those very familiar with the literature, or willing to become very familiar with the literature as they go, working on it. Above on this talk page, I already noted that I will not be investing in this article in that way. As for scolding you and WP:Assume good faith, noting that your text needed a reliable source and that it's not a minor edit doesn't violate WP:Assume good faith. I do see how you would view my tone as scolding. Indeed, it was meant to be stern for the matter at hand (in general). It did cross my mind that you were trying to improve the POV wording that was there, and I appreciate that you also see an issue with that addition by Mitch.n8v. As for the WP:Edit warring noticeboard, I am aware that it is a route to take if Mitch.n8v keeps reverting to their wording. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I've asked an administrator to take a look at the page. I've Watched it for now, so if there's more vandalism and the administrator doesn't feel it yet warrants protection, I'll be around. Sorry about my tone earlier -- I was trying to do a good thing for the article, and would have reverted had I known about these problems. I like fixing up articles... After I finish what's on my plate right now, I'll take a look at it. Thanks for keeping an eye on things. Best wishes. Imaginestigers (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Your help will be needed. I apologize for my tone coming across as scolding when addressing you. I was annoyed, but I was more so annoyed by Mitch.n8v's edits and those like them. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Page has been protected for one month. Hopefully this will ease the vandalism. Article definitely still needs work... I'll get to it. At some stage. Apology accepted; I fully understand why you'd be frustrated. For now, I'm going to remove the section on her Reputation. Given what it sources, it may as well be unsourced entirely. I acknowledge that Bathory might not have done what she is accused of, but verifiable scholarship is lacking, and WordPress isn't enough to go in the other direction. Imaginestigers (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

As for WP:ONUS, I have a slightly different reading here. The onus is on those who wanted to include the contentious information, but they had already won that fight: the article is populated (almost exclusively) with unreliable sources which corraborate their edits. With that in mind, I've deleted 'Reputation' now. If you have some time, re-raising it with the WikiProjects attached to her might help a little. If you don't, I'll try and do it later this week. Imaginestigers (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding WP:ONUS, the content would need to be disputed by one or more Wikipedia editors. When content isn't disputed by one or more Wikipedia editors, then it gets added and stays (for however long). Of course, editors can dispute content that has been in the article for however long, as is clear by you removing the Reputation section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

After a chat with ferret, it was decided to leave Reputation in-tact. Most of the sources are fine, if a bit hard to deal with (translations, text availability). Regarding Kimberly L. Craft's work, there is an argument that it should be allowed as it relates to the translations of Bathory's correspondence. Will need to be discussed and decided at a later date (I hope you'll participate). I don't have time at the moment, but for now, best to err on the side of caution, and leave the article as much in-tact as possible before some wider-scale work can be done. Imaginestigers (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

When it comes to the article's sourcing in general, I stand by what I stated in the #Poor sourcing in, and accuracy of, this article section above. I won't be supporting self-published sources, not unless they meet the "may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" and WP:About self exceptions mentioned at WP:Self-published. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

On a side note: How did you contact Ferret? How have you discussed things with Ferret? I don't see that you have email enabled. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, regarding Craft. If someone is inclined to remove them, I won't object, but I won't be doing it myself right now. I can't do due diligence on it right now, and I don't want to remove what I'm not able to investigate (I expect that's why you haven't done so either). If it hasn't been removed by the time I come to the article (I hope it is), I'll make a post here, listing if (more likely where) Craft's work deviates from general consensus, with something we can point to rather than just reliability rules. Reliability is significant to us, but clearly not to new users who come here with a particular (and strangely specific) agenda. I might be over-compensating for my slip-up earlier, but this article is a terrible mess, and I am hoping the protection will not have to be re-applied if I'm thorough... I doubt it, though. Craft isn't the only offender, either. Plenty of pseudo-scholars in the references. A section called 'Legacy' might be more fitting than 'Reputation'. I'd move the mention of the Guinness Book of World Records down there, too. I don't think it should be in the lead, given it tends towards a sensationalist view. I wish the Encyclopaedia Britannica was more transparent about where they get this from, though: "While documents from the 1611 trial supported the accusations made against her, modern scholarship has questioned the veracity of the allegations." (EB) All this hullabaloo over a centuries-dead aristocrat and a £2.99 e-book, very silly, isn't it? Re: ferret, Discord. Imaginestigers (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The reason I haven't done any significant editing of the article, other than a big revert I made months ago, is simply not wanting to get heavily invested in the article. That will happen if I significantly improve it. I also do not want to devote much time to this article, at least at this point in my life. Even after I made that revert that I thought was helping, I saw that the article is mostly supported by poor sources. So I encouraged others who seemed invested in the topic to improve the article appropriately.

As for the Guinness World Records piece, I'm sure it's there because Báthory is famous in modern times for being the most prolific female murderer. Quoting the Guinness World Records on the matter makes mentioning that aspect less subject to debate. I mean, it's us reporting that this reputable source has stated it...rather than simply stating it in Wikipedia's voice. But, depending on what scholarship states, we can also state it in Wikipedia's voice. Or, if preferable given whatever scholarship states, relay something like "Various authors have referred to her as the most prolific female murderer." Editors can believe that she was made to look like a prolific murderer back in her time, but it's still the case that we must adhere to WP:Due weight and WP:Lead. And it's WP:Due and lead material that we mention this aspect regarding her. The lower part of the article is for the details on that. Per the initial section I started on this talk page ("Poor sourcing in, and accuracy of, this article"), the Guinness World Records piece also seems to be there because it states "murderer" rather than serial killer. Media sources tend to refer to Báthory as a serial killer -- the most prolific female serial killer. But (aside from the number of victims) they surely are not defining serial killer the way that experts in that field usually do. An issue with this article has been whether or not to label Báthory a serial killer. But I do see that even Guinness World Records states, "Described as the most vicious female serial killer of all time [...]."

I figured you were talking with Ferret on Discord. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Names of locations

It would be useful to unite names in the text, and to decide for either hungarian names of location, with currently used name of location in brackets, or to use currently used names everywhere. Now there are for example two different names of Čachtice castle used, and unaware reader could think, that Čachtice Castle and Castle of Csejte are two different locations. Even in other cases, some locations are written in hungarian, and some in slovak, unification would help this article. ( Lukáč Peter (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC) )

Hi, we will use contemporary naming, amf after brackets the modern name in case. As you might see, the article now unerwent of mass reverts, still waiting as the normal contributions would follow, then we may fix this issue. Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC))

This problem still persists, althrough I wanted to unify names, it was reverted, but without and explanation or any corrections in the article. At the same time there are slovak names used for some locations (i.e. Nové Mesto nad Váhom) or "neutral" names for other (i.e. Transylvania) in the article, althrough hungarian variants of these names exists too, and were used at the time, but they are not used in the article, but at the same time there is hungarian Csejte many times, which has different current name... But again, not always, there are two photos of the same castle, one with hungarian, and second with slovak name, as if they were of different buildings. It would be good to unify names in one system, whether hungarian names, or modern, but it does not have logic to use one form of name for one location, and second for the other, it does only confuse foreign readers. Thanks.Lukáč Peter (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I corrected a few, if something missing tell me. Here contemporary (modern) should be followed generally.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC))

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Csók István Báthory Erzsébet.jpg

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

Inconsistency in "Prison and death"

Quote from that section as of the current revision:

She wrote a will in September 1610, in which left all current and future inheritance possession to her children.[27] In the last month of 1614, she signed her arrangement, in which she distributed the estates, lands, and possessions among her children.[39][40] On the evening of 20 August 1614, Báthory complained to her bodyguard that her hands were cold, whereupon he replied "It's nothing, mistress. Just go lie down." She went to sleep and was found dead the following morning.[41]

I find it hard to believe that "she signed her arrangement" "in the last month of 1614" (implying December) but died in August, unless some unmentioned different calendar system is involved. The references for the arrangement appear to be books in Hungarian, so I am unable to verify. --178.197.226.84 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Age at Marriage

If she was born 7 August 1560, and married 8 May 1575, then how is she 15 years old at the time of her marriage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.18.41.156 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bathory, The Blood Countess: Fact Vs. Fiction

I am writing this in good faith.

The article states that it is definite that she was a serial killer, in recent years, the truth behind these tales has been brought into question and some scholars now argue that Elizabeth Báthory was no murderer, but rather the victim of political betrayal. (REF.:https://www.britannica.com/biography/Elizabeth-Bathory)

In the last two decades, a number of historians, most notably Laszlo Nagy, have come forward to defend the name of Elizabeth Báthory, claiming that the accusations made against her were part of a cunning plan by Thurzò to imprison a bothersome political rival. A number of arguments have been put forward by those proclaiming Elizabeth’s innocence. ref ( https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/elizabeth-bathory)

Firstly, Thurzò took steps to imprison Bathory as soon as he became Palatine of Hungary, leading some scholars to suggest that this move was pre-planned. Thurzò had been assisting King Matthias in his efforts to extend his control over powerful Hungarian nobles and the Bathory family certainly fell into his category. It has also been said that there is evidence that Thurzò was after Bathory’s significant wealth. ref ( https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/elizabeth-bathory)

It is impossible to know the true facts regarding Elizabeth’s story as she was never given a trial ( hence why there is no proof of the witnesses statement) (ref: www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/elizabeth-bathory-16th-century-deranged-serial-killer-or-victim-betrayal) and so there were no official records of the case. It is known that confessions from Bathory’s alleged accomplices was obtained through torture, and they were subsequently executed. Elizabeth’s supposed list of victims has never been found, nor have other key documents that could have shed light on the true facts. If there was an attempt made to frame Elizabeth for crimes she did not commit, the real motivation remains only a matter of speculation.

I also like to point out that, lots of original resources has been written in Hungarian, and the writer of the article does not speak the language, or seen the original document, but confirms that as he/she would done that. (refhttps://www.biography.com/crime-figure/elizabeth-bathory)

References:

Elizabeth Bathory: a mass murderer or an innocent victim? – Keisz Augustine (https://www.origo.hu/tudomany/20131219-bathory-erzsebet-grofno-tomeggyilkos-vagy-artatlan-aldozat.html) - translated

Guilty or innocent? Outlining a historical dilemma – Countessebathory

Elizabeth Bathory – E-Grafo Magazine (https://countessebathory.wordpress.com/)

Serial Killers – Allthatsinteresting (https://allthatsinteresting.com/tag/serial-killers)

Infamous Lady: The True Story of Countess Erzsébet Báthory - Infamous Lady.com (http://www.infamouslady.com/new_research.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatalinBera (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It's worth considering that AFAIK there is no known case of a female serial killer anywhere, any time, or any place who was even remotely like Bathory in terms of the scale and brutality of the alleged crimes. The victims are also extremely odd for a female serial killer; has there ever existed a female serial killer who tortured and murdered young women exclusively? To say that it makes her an outlier would be an extreme understatement. At the very least, it's fair to say that the a priori likelihood of the allegations against Bathory must be low. It's now unanimously appreciated that confessions made under duress (ie torture) are unreliable, and that even widespread witness corroboration of fantastic events (especially in the context of late medieval Hungary) can't be taken as strong evidence per se, so I don't like the word "verified" in the lead. I think it's at least possible that the "horribly mutilated" dead and dying were actually patients, not victims. I don't think the question of motive for framing Bathory is as important as it seems; the Salem witch trials took place more than 80 years later, and there were no obvious motives to frame the accused in most cases. I'm persuaded that it's more intellectually honest to say "we don't know" than to affirm that Bathory was actually a prolific murderer. Nevertheless, all we can do is cite reliable sources. There does seem to be some good, well-sourced skepticism in the article (but again, it's undermined by the poorly-written lead) I think your information would be perfectly fine to add to the Reputation section, and I also think the lead should be edited to reflect better neutral POV. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@KatalinBera:@Global Cerebral Ischemia:I am seeing a lot of undecisiveness on the part of editors and I decided to chime in a bit, even if I'm late to the discussion. I should first point out that the Hungarian Great Lexicon (the spiritual successor to Révai's great lexicon, only has a short article on Bathory, focusing mainly on political and religious conflicts, presents the trial as a political one and doesn't even mention the accusations besides half a sentence that dismisses them entirely as fiction.

That being said, it is a well known fact that Hungary is, and to some degree always has been a hotbed of right wing populism and nationalist sentiments and the whitewashing, idealizing and romanticizing of Hungarian history by laymen and scholars alike is not an unprecedented phenomenon. I noticed that all of the dissenting opinions, both edits and comments on the talk page come from Hungarian users, and while I believe they want to act in good faith, the conflict of interest should not be dismissed. Bathory is an important name in Hungarian history, and it being associated with vampirism in international popular consciousness leads to knee-jerk reactions. It's not hard to imagine that many of the Hungarian scholars who challenge the common perception of Elizabeth Bathory as the most prolific female murderer are also motivated by national pride, probably more so than pursuit of truth.

Finally, I should point out that the above arguments are, for the most part, speculations. Wikipedia's purpose is to report on what reliable sources say on a given subject, and if reliable sources prominently call her he most prolific female murderer, than that is what wikipedia will say. Not "allgedly" not that "she was accused" but that she WAS. And no amount of theses and self-published sources will change that. It is not wikipedia's job to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Removing unreliable information

I have removed the "reputation" section as well as another paragraph appended to the section on her trial. These sections used sources that were, as per prior consensus, ruled as unreliable. Ironically enough, while these sources were written to exonerate the subject's, the removed section clearly state that it is impossible to declare the subject was wrongfully accused and convicted, without rigurous re-examination of the mountains of evidence against her. As I stated above, Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We're not here to argue wether the subject was guilty or innocent. Reliable sources already have a clear and unambiguous consensus on that, and that's what the wikipedia article must reflect. Not historical revisionism from authors who are more than likely to be biased on the subject. On a sidenote, I also cleaned up some trivia that was attributed to the same sources, as well as redundant information. Please keep that in mind when reverting. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That seems a plainly false statement, those sections contained various academic sources and sources which are by no means unreliable (and haven't been ruled as such). Your are welcome to cleaned up insufficiently sourced parts/unreliables sources, but only those.

Your deletion removed several published academic sources, the encyclopedia britannica and probably published non-fiction books wholesale, hence i've reverted it.

And while you are right that Wikipedia is not place to right all wrongs, we do nevertheless compile/report what reputable published academic sources say on the articke subjects and if some of them "exonerate" Bathory we report that as well. Whether your or me agree with that assessment/"exoneration" is of no consequence for Wikipedia.---Kmhkmh (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh:It was not my intention to remove reliable academic sources. The only claim attributed to Encyclopedia Britannica that I removed was trivia, that was included for questionable purposes (the king's debt to the Bathory family). If that deletion removed all citations to EB, that was an honest mistake on my part.

Nevertheless, the "Reputation" section, and the third paragraph under "Arrest" however, were created entirely to whitewash the subject. The sources used have already been discussed at Talk:Elizabeth_Báthory/Archive_5#Poor_sourcing_in,_and_accuracy_of,_this_article. These sections were added afterwards, in spite of previous consensus. Bledsaw and the two Craft books were agreed on as unreliable, and the hungarian books are primary sources (plus not at all unbiased). Please note that this article was protected at one point due to frequent vandalism by anonymous users trying to push the fringe view that the subject was a victim of conspiracy, but a couple of registered users still managed to push these sections through without establishing consensus first.

Another thing you should keep in mind, is that one of the citations you restored was a tumblr blog post. In addition, the section under the "Prison and Death" heading (which in itself is poorly worded) is unencyclopedic, and contains trivia, redundant and contradicting information. Maybe it was a mistake on my part to half-assedly try and clean that up in the same edit. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Those tumbler and wordpress pieces are not really an issue upon closer insoection imho, as the are merely a translation of an article by a Hungarian academic published in a Hungarian academic journal. Ideally one should cite the original Hungarian article directly but resorting to an English translation, which is accessible to more readers seems reasonable to me (note a reference to the original Hungarian artcicle is given in the wordpress piece).--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh:This fails to address my point. Or the thread I linked to. Bledsaw and Craft are not reliable sources, and the hungarian sources aren't exactly verifiable either. The possibility that they are biased cannot be ruled out, unless there are peer reviewed, english language sources or peer reviewed sources that received official english translations, that confirm that the arguments that supposedly exonerate Bathory do indeed carry water and aren't just the product of biased historians trying to whitewash their nation's history. Until then, the article should stick with what the widespread consensus is. Anything else is POV-pushing. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The "possibility that something might be biased" is not really in argument with regard to Wikipedia (any source can be declared biased anyhow). Wikipedia simply goes by reputation of author, publisher and reviews and as far as that is concerned there is nothing wrong with the Hungarian sources and they are of course verifiable. Note verifiable sources does not mean, that you can verify their content quickly online, it just means they can be looked up (and verified) by other Wikipedians in principle. Also there is no requirement for English sources (although they are preferred if available).

However I agree that Craft and Bledsaw seem to be unacceptable as sources for Wikipedia at first glance and should be removed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

P.S. The main problem with Craft is, that her book is self published and she doesn't seem to be recognized expert on the subject nor a professional historian. This pretty much disqualifies her as a source for WP. However if somebody were to produce some properly published (positive) reviews of her book (ideally in academic journals, but reputable newspaper might do as well), then it could be used as a source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

And how exactly do we know the hungarian sources are reliable. You say they're verifiable, but if the best we got in terms of an english translation is a tumblr blog with zero guarantee for accuracy, than that casts a major shadow over the source. If we're talking about reputable authors, why didn't their works receive international publication, with official english language translations? Still, I'm glad we agree on Craft and Bledsaw at least. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

They are verifiable as any other source, that is one can get a copy of the publication and read it. Again verifiability means that one can do it, it does not mean that you can do it in English and online. There are many reputable journals (and authors) in particular with regard to local issues that do not get translated into English. Since Bathory is subject from Hungarian/Austrian/central European history, it stands to reason that probably most sources on her and publications about her (potentially even the best) are written in Hungarian, German or Slovakian. Those countries have well established reputable academia, so unless there is specific issue, there's no reason to distrust their publications.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: It also stands to reason that many of these sources could be biased. I beg you to differ on the claim that Hungary has well established and reputable academia. Hungarian academia is in fact highly partisan and has been under the thumb of the far right Orban administration for a decade. We are talking about a country with no freedom of press, that banned gender studies and shut down universities that do not adhere to their ideologies. All of this has been covered by reliable sources - you can look it up yourself. Whitewashing an infamous serial killer to safeguard the honor and reputation of her family's name isn't that far removed from reality, considering very real, very recent attempts at nationalist historical revisionism. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Yrs revisionism under Orban will eventually influence certain branches of Hungaria academia, but until now Orban was mostly at odds with the academia and (actual) revisionist influence (beyond normal academic diversity) at best affects rather recent and possibly future publications. However it isn't quite clear how nationalism necessarily ingluences Bathory desctiption, but more importantly the publications in question are not from the Orban period.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

However it isn't quite clear how nationalism necessarily influences Bathory's desctiption... - Bathory is a historically relevant name to hungarians, and it being associated with vampirism and various heinous crimes is a source of no small frustration to hungarian national pride. Add to that the religious and political conflicts, and early hungarian nationalists' conflation of the catholic church with the Habsburgh dynasty following 1848, and you get a narrative framing Elizabeth's case as an anti-protestant witchhunt conducted against a powerful woman, by the catholic church, rather than a clear cut criminal case, which is the most reasonable assumption based on available historical sources. And need I remind you, Orban is just the symptom of a deep seeded problem, not the root of hungarian nationalism. Even the Kadar regime had to adopt a nationalist/populist slant after 1956, to pacify the people and prevent another bloody uprising. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

That's one of many option how nationalist influence might go. Another might be adopting, owning and marketing the story (like Romania does with dracula, london with jack the ripper, etc.).

The existence of nationalism as such (which you have in almost any country) is no vallid reason to discounts its academia in general.

As far as narratives are concerned, i'm not an expert on Bathory, but to my knowledge her being framed is indeed a possibility seriously considered amd mischaracterizations of historical figures by their contemporaries which subsequentially get revised of over time by historians is not an uncommon thing. So this here is more of an legitimate academic dispute between historians rather nationalist rewriting schemes as far as I can tell.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Embracing foreign pop-culture perceptions of a historical figure in order to boost tourism is the opposite of nationalism. And even so, those are two entirely different historical figures. Vlad the Impaler was famous for his military victories and his ruthless tough-on-crime policies, long before he was known as Dracula, and the dracula mythos doesn't harm his reputation, if anything it can be reframed as a testament to how powerful and feared he was. Elisabeth on the other hand is the proverbial "red headed stepchild" of a very prestigious family of aristocrats, who played a major role in hungarian history. A serial killer in that family puts a nasty stain on not just their name, but the country's history as well. The "other perspective" to balance that out, is the catholic conspiracy against a rich protestant woman, so that she was innocent and the thing that she owes her reputation to was a lie.

You are right that mischaracterizations of historical figures by their contemporaries which subsequentially get revised of over time by historians is not an uncommon thing. As the article demonstrates, the stories of her bathing in blood were fabricated by a jesuit monk a century after her death (not that actually bathing in blood is even possible mind you). Even in the absolute best case scenario, she had to have abused servants, some of whom even died under her care, so that their injuries/graves could be used as evidence (the real question would then be, which aristocrat did NOT do that). But all of this is a moot point, because we have to go by reliable sources. My point is, I don't trust the reliability of the hungarian sources, without a reliable and independent second opinion. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Well to bring it to that point. You personally being wary of a (normal academic) source because it is not in English or in Hungarian is not a sufficient reason for that source not to be used. WP's sourcing rules are rather clear on this. So either you have concrete evidence for something being wrong with that specific article or its author (or maybe the journal it was published in) or it can be used as a source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Epilepsy claims original research

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

Significant discrepancies between this and huwp article

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

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

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

@Grin: Your concerns are noted. This is not the Hungarian wikipedia, and how they manage their pages is not related to what's being done here. We don't know what the standards over there are, and quite frankly, it doesn't matter. As has been mentioned above multiple times, Wikipedia goes by reliable secondary sources, and whether you like it or not, there aren't many scholarly sources that challenge the popular perception of the subject, aside from self published works or theses, which do not meet the standards for reliability. As a matter of fact, I'm having reservations against the reliability of sources that DID get used.

Indeed, this article has problems, as over the years there have been multiple attempts by hungarian editors to try and expand the article with paragraphs (poorly) translated from Hungarian, so right now, it's a jumbled mess of poorly phrased, contradictory claims, that tries to balance out the general consensus, with hungarian historical revisionism, and it looks like nobody wants to undertake the daunting task of rewriting the entire article top to bottom.

If you're willing to do that, be my guest, but I will remind you, that you will need to establish consensus first and also, that undue emphasis on contemporary hungarian reinterpretations of the subject's life, or on sources that do not meet Wikipedia's standards, will be reverted very quickly. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

@Cedar777:} I agree, with the added remark that it is the claims made to exonerate her that are disputed, not the claims that have been common knowledge for centuries. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

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

False equivalence. You're conflating religious people believing in all sorts of superstitious nonsense with a historical murder trial. There's a difference between what uneducated people centuries ago used to believe, and what the current academic consensus is, which is all wikipedia should care about. If Hungarian wikipedia considers the hungarian sources alone to be sufficient, that's their business, though might I add, the Hungarian article reads as non-neutral, unencyclopedic, makes contested statements in wikivoice and has entire paragraphs that are seemingly copied word for word from the source. And that's just the lede. I hope you understand why it cannot be used as a template for this one. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The claims are so over the top that it is the English article that “reads as non-neutral, unencyclopedic, makes contested statements in wikivoice”. Many of the sources cited by the English article are not at all scholarly, rather they are collections of gossip and read like tabloid headlines where the subject is one of hundreds of bios covered in a work with only a paragraph per person - with absurd claims e.g., she “bathed in the blood of six hundred virgins” or she killed 600 people as the “worlds worst serial killer” . . . er, sure she did. Never mind that the witnesses were tortured. She was in a position of power that threatened Habsburg influence in the region. The king owed her husband serious $$$. More powerful people had significant motivations to eliminate or weaken her political and social influence by any means necessary. This became much more feasible once her husband died. Quite a few of the sources here state these facts from her time but the English article is the one that goes off the rails. Many of the sources cited in this English version cannot be verified - if editors here feel strongly that claims stated in wiki voice are solid, it would be best to QUOTE from the source by adding a field in the citation (or at least adding a quote here at the talk page) so editors can discuss what is due or undue for this biography of a person (not a legend). Cedar777 (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The claims need to reflect what reliable sources say, regardless of how over the top you personally find them. If no high quality sources are available that question the claims then that means the subject is notable only for the rumours and the question of wether the rumours are true or not does not meet wikipedia's standards for notability. I would also recomend that you read the article more carefully, as it very clearly states that rumours of blood baths were written long after her death, and while the 600 victims seems to come from the Guiness World Book of Records, this appears to be fact laundering, so there's a lot more nuance here than what you claim there is. As I stated above, wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Even if there's a serious attempt to rehabilitate the subject among hungarian scholars, that will not change the fact that if it wasn't for the accusations and criminal conviction, and the various legends inspired by it, the subject wouldn't be notable enough to even have a wikipedia article. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

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

It is a momentous error to treat the legend of Bathory as fact

The peer-reviewed source by Aleksandra Bartosiewicz from 2018 is an important addition to this article. It was added in this edit. The detailed and well sourced article was written directly in english. Bartosiewicz first covers the legends surrounding Bathory and then moves on to cover the historical facts of her life. It is a long article with several sections. The Wikipedia biography of Bathory should primarly concern itself with the historical facts rather than the ledgends presented as fact. Much of the existing sourcing in the Wikipedia article is weak and comes from brief blurbs about Bathory from non-academic writers. Bartosiewicz is a very strong source.

Furthermore, we don't know exactly how Michael Farin phrased the claims that have been left in the article's lede from his book Heroine of horror: the life and work of Elisabeth Báthory in letters, testimonies and fantasy games (1989). Did his German get mis-translated? Does his phrasing suggest that it is purported or absolute? It is worth recognizing that Farin's book is interested in subject matter far beyond the historical facts of Bathory's life . . . namely fantasy games. For a book published in 1989, it's not real clear what sort of fantasy games there were to write about at that time in history or how they would be of any use to establishing historical facts about Bathory's life.

If the strongest sources disagree, editors should not just go with the side they prefer. For those who have yet to review Bartosiewicz, see the section titled "Elisabeth Báthory’s biography according to historical sources" which starts on page 113. Cedar777 (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

History.com is not a reliable source

This is what is listed at WP:RSP for the History Channel and History.com:

"Most editors consider The History Channel generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy and its tendency to broadcast programs that promote conspiracy theories." 

The source "History" is too poor of quality for something like this. Content cited to this source was removed once before here for the same reason, that it is flagged as RED at WP:RSP. Nothing has changed. A consensus of editors deem History to be generally unreliable. Cedar777 (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

TheXuitts, there are a number of sources that refer to the accusations against Bathory as alleged, even if you personally disagree that historians are not aligned. There is a brief interview here with Tony Thorne, author of Countess Dracula: The Life and Times of Elisabeth Bathory, the Blood Countess that covers much of the disputed material. While Vice itself is not a great source (its yellow at WP:RSP), Thorne is notable as a writer and his English language book on Bathory, covers a lot of ground. His words in the Vice interview are worth recognizing and it provides a much more concise summary of his overall views after he spent considerable time translating and studying the records of her life which the Google book preview does less effectively. Cedar777 (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed she was alleged to be a serial killer, then was found guilty of being one. It can be stated that there is doubt of her actual guilt while also acknowledging she is a convicted killer. TheXuitts (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Which reliable sources support that she was convicted at a trial of being a serial killer? When was the trial? Where was it held? Cedar777 (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Elisabeth Bathory

The story (straight): https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeX8c-Hc-tb36uxCkE4-kh-jVMD2ByYk3 (Filmography) BATHORY-RUTKOWSKI (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Lots of revisionism around here

The general tone of the article suggests that the modern scholarly consensus is on the side of Bathory's innocence, which I don't think it is. There is a lot of language casting epistemological doubt on the accusations, most of it unsourced or unsourceable. I suspect that Bathory is the sort of historical figure that is much more exciting to revisionists than to their counterparts, to the detriment of the article's neutrality. I'm probably not qualified to do a full scholarly overhaul of the article and its sources, but the bibliography in this AskHistorians essay may be a good place to start. --Jtle515 (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I noted it on AskHistorians as well, but the Hungarian consensus is very strongly in favor of her innocence, while non-Hungarians seem to be on the side of her being guilty. I noticed this discrepancy several times and it's quite curious, I'm no historian just an interested bystander. 86.124.121.88 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)