Talk:Elizabeth Báthory/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposed split

At the moment, this page is very long. I feel that readers who come here looking for information on the historical figure Elizabeth Bathory will not necessarily want to wade through exhaustive and often vandalised lists of her appearances as a fictional character in folklore, literature, video boardgames, Buffy the Vampire Slayer comics, Cradle of Filth albums, and internet-published slashfiction by goth fantasists. These manifestations of the fictional EB are completely irrelevant to the life and true story of the historical EB. Moreover, these bloated lists will keep growing forever, and it's getting kind of tedious removing stuff from them when people add their own dreadful self-published novels and the song about bathing in blood they posted on their MySpaces. All of this tends to detract from, rather than add to, the quite well-researched and informative sections on EB the real person.

I propose that there be two articles: one about the historical figure EB, under the present title, and one entitled Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture (unless anyone can think of a better title), to put the present literature, folklore and popular culture sections in. If there are no objections, I'll do this next week. -- TinaSparkle 14:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I also find those growing lists of irrelevant information annoying. Only I would prefer to split off only the popular culture section and keep the section above in the main article, for several reasons:

• It's reasonably short and not likely to grow.
• readers looking for E.B. are likely to have heard about the bloodbath or related myths.
• this reception has a quite long history itself and belongs to her. There is not much historical information on the real person, so research has always been a separation of fact from fiction. I feel it would be alright if the article reflects that.

--Sam195 13:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, Sam195. I've now split the article. I agree with you that plenty of people coming here will be interested in the myths, and as such I have kept some of the information from the section you mention in the main article (cut down a little to avoid going into too much detail). The full version is retained in the new article. I've moved some of the detail, simply on the basis that I don't want to make a value-judgement: to leave literature and folklore in the main article, while relegating music, film etc to a subsidiary, could be seen as a bit offensive. Of course please do move more bits back, or whatever, if you think I've left anything important out of the main piece. -- TinaSparkle 09:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Anastasia Báthory

I can't find the source of this illegitimate daughter. I think it comes from any fiction literature. It should be moved to the fiction section.--ResetGomb 18:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I haven't read about that in any book either. Delete it altogether! It would be beyond the scope of this article to list any existing misinformation about her. --Sam195 13:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Crimelibrary.com mentions that at age 14 she was impregnated by a local peasant. It does not give the baby's name nor any info on who/how/where it was raised. And although there are many references cited on that site, I have no clue which if any of those references they got this info from.

Just an idea. It might refer to an old misconception cleared very early. One 17th century German biographer investigated such claims and even found some church records pointing to empregnation (and, not sure about that, abortion) - and he could show that the Elizabeth Bathory mentioned there was definitely not the one in question here. That might explain the mentioning in crimelibrary.com, but not the daughter Anastasia here. I think I will take her out of the article until somebody comes along with a source. --Sam195 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sam195, do you perhaps know who this German biographer was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.234.83 (talk) 11:33, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Nagy and similar sources

Rather than adding to above discussions (that are all about much older versions of the article), let's start this here.

I have removed some edits for several reasons:

• This article has to represent historical mainstream. Nagy and his kind represent a minority view, so it can only be included as such. Other authors have rebutted his claims, and at least two respectable biographers write he is crap. Removing such quotes and adding "convincingly" to Nagy's arguments gives a wrong impression about that mainstream.
• Editors seem to confuse the article with a talk page.
• Editors have removed perfectly verified and undisputed facts that did not fit their argumentation.

I see the problem, those chosing to believe those sources will find the article wrong and misguided, and feel they have to correct it. But this is not the point of any wiki article, an encyclopedic article can not install "the truth" but only present what is held true by a variety of published sources. I recomend you to check out the guidelines. And there is little point arguing the claims of these authors vs those of others. It is just not relevant what you or I think about it. Nagy doesn't have to convince you or me, but his fellow historians, which according to Farin and McNally he failed doing. --Sam195 08:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edits

Nadasdy took on her last name because of her status.

What does it mean?

It is said that he also was viloent with his wife.

Source ?

Her diary was found with a list of over 600 women that she had slain.

Where is the diary?

--ResetGomb 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Diablo 2

Is the Countess, from Diablo2:Act 1, based on Elizabeth Báthory, and if so, should any mention be made? Vampus 17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the fictional legend from the game and The Countess character are inspired by Elizabeth Bathory. The Countess is mentioned in the Elizabeth Bathory in Popular Culture article, which is linked to in this article. A reference to a specific piece of her in popular culture isn't needed in the main article. 65.28.160.239 21:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Further reading

For clarity and order (appearance) I have divided the list of further reading into English, German, Hungarian, and Slovak texts that are fairly recent and not too difficult to obtain. I have also alphabetized these texts by author. The previous listing of further readings was a bit jumbled together. I have not deleted books that were listed by previous users. I have added a few more to the list that represent both a Hungarian and Slovakian p.o.v. on this topic.

I must mention that a couple of the texts are actually fictitious accounts of Elizabeth Báthory and should not be viewed as being historical biographies, e.g. Gia Bathory Al Babel, and Andrei Codrescu. Perhaps these two books should be removed and tranferred to the article on Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture?

The inclusion of additional Hungarian and Slovak texts, though not accessible to most in English, gives the list of sources greater depth and scope since Elizabeth Báthory was a Hungarian who spent much of her life in what is now Slovakia. Therefore, inclusion of references from those two cultures/countries is relevant.--Gyula 23:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

slovak nationalism

[1]. Definietly not needed. Use prper that time names. --195.56.131.242 19:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read and follow WP:NCGN while editing articles on Wikipedia. Tankred 19:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these apply, the modern official name or the modern local historical name should be used, respectively. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects. - I've read it many times, but you not, just reverting and linking a WP policy, wich eventually proves that you're vandalizing pages. Vince17:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks and read the whole policy page. You will find that any discussion should occur on the talk page of the locality in question (Cachtice in this case) and there is a list of required evidence you should provide if you believe that there is any "widely accepted historical English name" of Cachtice. Otherwise, the modern official name will be used. Tankred 18:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You are quite annoying and boring with this continuous asking of "oh really? oh really?" what you answer for yourself immediately with "no". Why asking, if you're not intrested in the answer? Countless times proved to me, as now again, that you're not intrested in sources. If you check the two english speaking external links, you'll find out whether Csejte (older form Csejthe) or Cahtice (sorry, I don't have slovak keyboard) is used in (popular) english (sites). You know, I'm wondering whether you'll be ever intrested in facts rather than reverting me at sight. Ad hominems are only good to move you into that way, and prevent you to be caught again lying that you read, what you obviously did't. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 09:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

People, people. Calm down and stop it with the personal attacks. This is only a very minor issue of nomenclature. No angry mastodons: please assume good faith, etc. If there's still an issue here, please set out your arguments straightforwardly without insulting each other, and we'll go for a consensus verdict. Thank you. -- TinaSparkle 15:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned comment

The supposedly Germanic-Norse rock band "Bathory" is named after her.

I have deleted this unsigned comment from the top of this page and placed it here for reference. PLEASE NOTE that such observations belong in the article Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture. Not on this talk page, and not in this article. Thank you. -- TinaSparkle 19:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

elizabeth Bathory

elizabeth Bathory was a hungarian contess who, murderd 600- 700 young woman. Why? because she was drived by her absession with youth and wanting to stay young forever. she thought the blood would revitlize her. So, she fooled girls into coming to her castle for finishing school. once they were their she had many ways of torture and murder. she would kill them bath with their dead bodyies in a tub of blood. She would drink it and she would bite her servant girls when she would made them watch. Then she went to far killing the royal daughters when she was finally stopped she couldn't of been killed because she was royalty. but she could of been put under house arest so she was locked in one room in her castle until she died. was she caray? mently ill? or just a vampiress? we shall never know for sure?

Diary

In her diary there is documentation of the torture 610 women of noble and peasant lineage alike whose blood she later bathed in

• I must ask again: Where is this diary?--ResetGomb 07:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted that addition - it's completely unsupported, and as far as I know there is no diary. -- TinaSparkle 07:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The writings in her personal diaries, written in Old Hungarian, are often referred to as a source for this figure, although language barriers make such ambiguous

• I must ask again: Where is this diary? I can read Old and New Hungarian. But I can't find the diary.--ResetGomb 07:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

PICTURE of Bathory, ...what do you think?

The Hungarian Wikipedia page has a picture of her that is somewhat larger and more distinct. Shouldn't we add that picture here as well? I don't know much about editing but here's the link to the Hungarian version of this article: [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.2.86.87 (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, please add it. --164.107.223.217 14:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad source (Seabrook witchcraft book) removed

Per Wikipedia reliable sources policy and NPOV policy, and claims that are made in the William Seabrook's book Witchcraft: Its Power in the World Today. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company 1940 and unsupported elsewhere need to be removed whenever anyone adds them. That book is horrible, written by someone claiming that witchcraft was real and out to get us all and making up total nonsense about Bathory admitting to have been in a coven, admitting witchcraft, etc. The way NPOV and references work is that something only in one book cannot be presented as if it were a fact, if it's included at all (and this stuff should not be, because it's completely unreliable) it should be cited that so-and-so author CLAIMS such-n-such, not that such-n-such was eally a fact, then a footnote, then going to the foortnote shows it was written by someone making McCarthyism-inspired nutjob witchcraft accusations.

I've removed those sections, and if anyone EVER sees any info in here about Bathroy admitting witchcraft or being in a coven, or anything citing Seabrook's book, remove it immediately. DreamGuy 10:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is Fickó?

The article says that three of her four collaborators was killed. The 'collaborators' section lists four names. Then it goes on to discuss someone called Fickó being put to death as a collaborator, yet this person is not mentioned as one of the four. Possibly one of the collaborators has an alternative name? Are there really five collaborators? As it currently stands, it doesn't make sense to someone coming in to the subject without prior knowledge (like me). I can't correct it because I'm not sure what needs changing, but I'm sure someone here can. Polenth 23:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fickó was the nickname of Johannes Újvári.--ResetGomb 16:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say the change has been made, so this is sorted now. Polenth 22:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Reprint of discussion in regards to the revert war

1. These are not "my edits"; I'm simply attempting to undo the damage wrought by another anon IP. You have this confused. I simply found his butchery in passing and gave it a revert--I have no consuming passion about the topic (unlike the other anon, apparently). You took a side, not that of a stalwart defender of "consensus" but of one anon against another.
2. I am not going against "consensus"; this hackneyed attack isn't even appropriate, given that the difference between it and the last version you edited (which I guess is according to you, "consensus") and the difference made by the other anon is vast, as you can see in this version, which reveals the primary difference between your last edit and my reversion to be spelling changes and a whole two elaborating sentences. Note that among the changes you will not see in the "consensus" (i.e. your) version is the ludicrous subheader, "Alleged crimes".
3. Immediate 3RR threats. I'm perfectly aware of policy, but you wish to use it as a blunt instrument of first resort. Try actually looking at the diffs in question and the horrible editing done by the anon instead of playing power games, please.

--72.65.88.166 22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The so-called "damage" by an anon IP was actually badly-needed edits to restore some semblence of WP:NPOV. If you'd bother to read the talk page of that article you would see that there is no evidence of any supposed diary by Bathory, and so forth and so on. Your edits go completely against any number of Wikipedia policies, and are shoddy attempts to through rumor mongering into the article without reliable sources. Simply put, your edits (and the people who put equally bad edits in in the past) will not survive, so you should give up right now, as there is absolutely no justification for them, and consensus is clearly against them. DreamGuy 00:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the following IPs were used to insert those two sentences of caveats:

91.104.238.113

65.48.21.69

I have no connection to these IPs. --72.65.88.166 00:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are not "caveats" those are outright and inexcusable POV-pushing. I doubt that you have no connection to those IPs, but since they so blatantly violate the most fundamental policy on Wikipedia it doesn't particularly matter, They are just shy of vandalism. DreamGuy 00:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you haven't responded to any of my points; you've just repeated the same name-calling and bad faith characterizations. I didn't insert those into the article originally, so I'm not "pushing" anything. I was responding to the anon who went through and watered down the crime section and left hanging code on the article page. You originally said I was going against a "consensus" version; now that it is clear that the person in question was actually changing that version, you instead have said he was acting in the ethereal spirit of "consensus" instead.

No, sorry. My opinion is as valid as yours. The idea that these crimes are merely "alleged" is patent nonsense, and the anon's edit needs cleaned and worked over. --72.65.88.166 01:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I responded to your points, you are just too stubborn to admit you are wrong, and, no, your opinion is not as valid as mine, because what you say is a direct contradiction of the most important policy on the site. DreamGuy

I also find it interesting that you are giving me lessons about 3RR. --72.65.88.166 01:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of those blocks were by admins who didn't know that the policy was for more than three reverts. They would have blocked you for your edits also. Personally I don't care if you violate 3RR, I care that you are pushing extremely biased opinions into an article. DreamGuy 04:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a legitimate editing dispute. The fact that you characterize my reverts (not even my original edits) as violating policy is not surprising and is wholly irrelevant--it is in your interest to do so. You did not engage on the substance here. --72.65.92.220 15:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you ignore the substance and just assert you are right when anyone who had bothered to look at the talk page or our policies would know that you aren't. DreamGuy 20:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert War Discussion

Waiting 24 hours so that you get three more reverts is rather against the spirit of the three revert rule. There is clearly something here that needs discussing, so it should be discussed before carrying out the edits. Discussing it here is the most appropriate, so that other editors can comment (talking on user talk pages hasn't worked in this case, so let's open it out).

Looking at this from outside, the lack of references to the anon's changes is a cause for worry. It would help to have some specific references for the new statements. Then the references can be discussed in terms of how reliable they are. Polenth 19:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

All of the changes the anon user is making have already been discussed on this talk page above... See "Bloodbath" "Authenticity? Guilt?" "This article is awful" "Nagy and similar sources" "Diary" and so forth. This anon user is just reverting to majorly POV-pushing comments added by other anon IP accounts (who could very be the same person) that violate major policies and the clear consensus as discussed on this talk page. The edits will not stay. There are no reliable sources that prove the kinds of things these anons want the article to say, and if they found a book that made such a claim it's overruled by the other books by respected scholars that clearly say the exact opposite with full sources. DreamGuy 20:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It is at least a positive development that another user is directly encouraging dialogue but the revert is inappropriate, not least because the edit, among other things, changes egregious errors in parsing and biased, inflammatory ALL CAPS commentary. I would suggest to third parties who wish to intervene to at least consider the changes on the merits, individually, rather than blindly reverting the entire edit. I would ask the same of DreamGuy were I am of the mind that he could respect the request amidst the flurry of righteous denunciations. Now then, I am going to repost the discussion (above, as it took place prior to this one) contained on his talk page, so that readers here can be disabused of false notions he has repeated about what has been inserted by whom and why. In regard to further intrusions in search of revert buddies, this time on User talk:Polenth#Elizabeth Bathory, I have the following responses:

1. I am not "removing NPOV wording", I am reverting the deletion of information from the article.

2. My reverts do not pertain to "baths of blood" and other sensational accounts; there were two references to the diary, however, one of which was in need of further citation and so I declined to support its furtherance in the article as of the last edit. However, the mention of the diary in the context of the separate passage was highly appropriate and should not be excised.

3. It is wholly appropriate to note that the judgment of one observer (Raymond Macnally) is not definitive and that the sum of the lurid tales can be simply chalked up to retrospective sexism. This is editorializing by misdirection.

4. I do not argue, nor do the edits argue, that all accounts gleaned are "abslutely [sic] true", but they are certainly relevant to mention, rather than to excise completely.

5. I have written nothing about witchcraft.

It should be noted that the most egregious aspects of this, the hidden commentary, the hanging code, and the change of "Documented crimes" to "Alleged crimes", were of no interest to DreamGuy as of his last edit, yet he is claiming them to be part of the ostensible "consensus" that existed prior to edits by anons (who he still seems to think lay on the lap of one person, namely myself). I know not of what phantoms and demons DreamGuy has been doing battle with at this article or elsewhere from time immemorial but I have no interest in them but rather the simple integrity of this article. To wit, the "crimes" of Bathory are not merely "alleged"; it is a matter of the details of the crimes that is murky. And it is absolutely absurd that no one bothers to notice either this fact, the bad code and commentary left unmolested on the page, nor DreamGuy's hypocrisy and hystrionics on the matter. --72.84.58.186 21:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

First up, WP:NPA. Second, actually, as you can see from this talk page and sources, the extent of the crimes most certainly are in dispute, and the claims of 100s of intentional deaths, admissions of guilt brought from torture, etc. are certainly only alleged. The factual part is that some servant girls were mistreated and abused, leading to some deaths, but the 100s of them intention killed thing is not "documented crimes" (except in the sense that people being tortured admitted it, but people being tortured admit to anything to make it stop).

Regarding earlier points:

1. You're not reverting deletion of "information" as the "information" is just unreleable sources expressing a POV.
2. Your revert returning the claim that McNally should not be believed is directly related to the bloodbaths, as that was what was being discussed. You also claim outright that the diary must exist and try to cite that with somebody else's personal opinion. Both of those are just POV-pushing of rumors against the accepted scholarly position.
3. Putting into an article the personal opinion that the recognized expert on the case may not be right is about as direct of a POV-push as someone can get.
4. No, claims without reliable sources, especially when they are there to push a POV against both consensus and scholarly opinion, must be removed per policy. Trying to weasel your way out by saying "well, I didn't say they were absolute truth" is nonsense, as the context makes it clear that the article itself is arguing that they are by having it there without any sources or caveats or historical basis.
5. Which doesn't excuse writing about a diary as if it were true, claiming that the accusations against Bathory were true, directly using the article to argue against the leading expert on the topic, and so forth and so on... But then it's also mghty convenient to claim you aren't discussing witchcraft when you accept at face value the claims people made under torture about killings and witchcraft claims were also made at the same time. You for some reason want us to blindly accept the reality of one and pass on talking about the rest. That seems pretty convenient.

DreamGuy 22:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to state further that DreamGuy's responses have thus far been highly incendiary and inappropriate; unsubtantive and satisfactory only towards the self-interested furtherance of his objectives. Scant attention has been paid to the merits of the case in favor of blanket calls of policy violation. This is far inadequate in resolving the dispute but only tends to exacerbate it. Whether that is DreamGuy's purpose I can not properly discern as of now, but relevant comments on the points put forth would be a welcome change. --72.84.58.186 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, WP:NPA. And the relevant points have always been in the edit comments and already on the talk page, you just ignore them.DreamGuy 22:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I trust you will not make a big stink about the moving of comments as it is otherwise a bit illegible to me. Allow me to respond in turn:

1. The details of what persons provided what testimony under what circumstances is certainly information. That information was excised by the anon, and was contained in your last edit prior.
2. "My edit" (which is not my edit) does not say McNally is not to be believed, but emphasizes that this is a view of how the legends came to be, not a definitive explanation. I most emphatically do not state, nor do the edits I endorse state, that the diary "must" exist but that it is believed by some to exist. You are simply denying that possibility, which is itself POV-pushing.
3. Context is given in the article with respect to testimony as it regards torture, conflicting testimonies, and hearsay. But context is not context if the bare facts are not mentioned, which includes the fact that x people gave y testimony to the effect of z. Otherwise it is simply an editorial about the faults of the trial itself.
4. When I mention "details" I am referring both to the more sensationalist claims (blood-bathing, etc.) as well as the body count. What is not in dispute is that crimes took place, so to label the section as "Alleged crimes" gives the misimpression that Bathory may in fact not be a murderer, instead a hapless victim of a frame up, which is in fact an extreme minority position and most definitely not "consensus". You have failed yet to address why this did not disturb "consensus" prior to a few days ago, just as you have failed to address the inflammatory commentary inserted by the anon, which also included unnecessary code left hanging in the article as it was. --72.84.58.186 22:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "I trust you will not make a big stink about the moving of comments" -- You shouldn't move comments around that makes the responses lose their context. I've moved it around to make more sense for anyone reading it. Please do not touch other people's comments.

"Facts" are not encyclopedic facts unless there are reliable sources to that effect, and the way the sections were written was extremely deceptive. I am not denying any possibility, I am simply removing your edits outright campaigning for sides.

And, actually, it IS in dispute whether Bathory was a murderer and whether she was a victim of a frame up. And I don't know that that is an extreme minority opinion. It is certainly a minority opinion in America, but Wikipedia shouldn't have institutional and geographic bias. But, more to the point, the way your version had it was actively campaigning for the factual basis of the most outrageous and least believed stories about Bathory, including the huge death count in the 600s, the bloodbath legend, and so forth and so on. That's an extreme bias, introduced recently by some anon users and removed and then restored by you, also an anon user.

And the argument that because something lasted on the page for a few days that it had consensus, despite copious evidence to the contrary on this talk page demonstrating that editors time and time again have affirmed that those kind of statements do not belong, is just a ridiculous statement to make.

And you need to get over the "unnecessary code" -- it was not visible in the article and was there simply to immediately demonstrate to anyone trying to edit the article specifically why certain content cannot be in the article.

The prior discussion demonstrates that your edits were unacceptable, the discussion below demonstrates that they are still unacceptable, so you just need to give up trying to push your opinion into the article. DreamGuy 04:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be a few days at least before regular editors of the article see the discussion and have a chance to reply, so I'm asking politely to give them that time. You can use that time to find the reliable sources you need. I've removed the html comments, so that's no longer a reason for reverting.

Looking through the talk page and history, these seem to be the issues (with some suggested compromises where appropriate):

• The alleged crimes section deals with the lot, including a lot of sketchy allegations. It's a commonly used word, even in cases where the suspect is found guilty, so doesn't seem inappropriate to me. That's a more subjective thing, so some other views would be useful.
• The diaries are a piece of folklore. Putting them in the historical section gives the idea they exist weight, regardless of how it is worded. However, they aren't discussed in the folklore section. This could be compromised perhaps by writing about them in folklore rather than the history part? They do appear to be a modern folkloric invention after all. If it's later discovered they're real, the article can be changed.
• No source is given for the eye-witness account numbers section. It's possible there is one, but it needs to be found and listed with the addition. A lot of the rest of the article is also poorly sourced, but at least it stops things getting worse.
• The popular prejudice line implies the two historians mentioned previously are some sort of fringe wackos with no idea what they're talking about. It might not have been intended, but that it how it comes across. This needs to be reworded in a non-POV way. If you can find a notable historian that disagrees with them, that would be a much better alternative to the current line. The vanity line struck me as odd the first time too, but read in the context of the section is more clearly about bloodbaths. Perhaps a bit of rewording of that line, to emphasise the bloodbath aspect, would make it seem less strange on a first read.

Polenth 03:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Overall I agree. If the diary is mentioned it must be mentioned as not having any evidence of existing... but without some solid references to even bring it up, bringing it up at all could give it WP:UNDUE weight. And that last part where you suggest rewording it into a non-POV way really cannot be reworded, as it's essentially straight POV-pushing soapboxing. It'd be like going into the Evolution article and saying that just because the major experts all agree it doesn't mean they are right. DreamGuy 04:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that User:DreamGuy is guilty of using the most extreme, violent and intemperate language. He has to be told that he is not the owner of the Elizabeth Bathory page and that he must respect other people's edits. 87.243.196.167 10:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like this whole thing comes down to you wanting to make personal attacks on my character and demand that you own the page over the long established consensus of multiple editors here. I respect edits that follow policy. Yours don't. If you want respect, there's an easy way to get it: start following policy and try to improve the encyclopedia instead of using it for rumor and unsupported (and widely discredited) opinions. DreamGuy 20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Since this dispute was brought up on my talk page, but I don't really care enough to investigate all the edits, I will just comment on what little I HAVE seen. 1: Any claims put into the article MUST be supported by the citation of reliable secondary sources. I haven't seen any such sources presented. If the contested information is true, or even suspected to be true by anyone notable enough for us to report here, then there has to be sources that can be cited. 2: I have a pet peeve about commented-out remarks that are placed into the code of articles. I don't believe these should be allowed in general, except to point out non-contentious technical info having to do with the formatting of the page, etc., but no commentary that normally would go on an article's talk page should be placed thusly. These comments tend to live on in articles long after consensus has been reached on the talk page, and that consensus discussion has been archived away. Fifty years from now, an editor may see those tags, and not realize that he is reading the POV of a particular editor, which may or may not have ended up being the consensus view on the now long-ago-archived talk page. This is inherently POV. That is really all I have to say about this dispute. I encourage you both to continue to talk this out rather than edit war. I think you both have room for compromise here. Since the subject has not been a living person for a very long time, I am not inclined to get involved here in a hardnosed way. - Crockspot 16:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the comment lines being removed. They were mainly there to try to point out to the anon user(s) why those sections were wrong, as it's questionable whether anons even ever see the talk page. No that we're sure that he/she has, the comments serve no point, and it is much preferable that the bad sections be removed entirely instead of sitting around invisible on the page where someone might not understand that the code was to make it disappear and edit it out so that the bad text reappears. Those sections are absolutely forbidden from being live in any article, per your comments, the commens of editors above, policy in general, and just common sense. DreamGuy 20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Responses to DreamGuy and Polenth, respectively (numbers help keep me sane); first DreamGuy:

1. You shouldn't move comments around that makes the responses lose their context. This can quickly become a confusing madhouse in my experience. It is much better to either quote someone or keep points in order, as I am attempting to do. Parsing comments makes a mess of things.
2. I did not "campaign" for "sides". I merely reverted the excising of a mention of the alleged diary in the context of it being believed by some to be true. Allowing for the existence of a view is not advocacy for that view.
3. In regards to the "dispute" on Bathory, this is bordering on patent nonsense. The conspiratorial view is definitely in the minority of any type of literature or scholarship on the question and is mostly relegated to local authors (which is why my first revert comment was noticing the nationalist bent of the deletions). Wikipedia should not have any bias, not merely that of an "institutional" bent. If you believe there is a legion of editors (much less cited authors you yourself give credence) who are prepared to defend the proposition that Bathory did not kill anyone, I'm afraid your idea of "consensus" is quite bizarre.
4. You keep bringing up "consensus" and prior talk sections but I am having trouble finding the relevance of the sections you mention (in fact, anything currently on the talk prior to this section) to what was being reverted. I did not incorporate witchcraft, I did not advocate the diary or "bloodbath", I did not posit a high number as fact, and in fact I took no position at all. I simply reverted the deletion of material. Repeating that I violated random Wiki policies you trot out or that I am flat out "unacceptable" will not suffice.
5. You are above speaking to a separate anon in regards to your lording over the page. I do not know what prior interest he may seprately have had in the article, but he is not me.

Now, Polenth:

1. It is an unfortunate matter that many neglected historical topics on this site go for far too long without adequate sourcing even for banal and acknowledged information. However, it is rather odd and selective that we are suddenly to discover that the mentioning of witnesses is what is in need of specific citation apart from the rest of the shoddy prose. DreamGuy mentioned "context". That context can be given and is given. But it is at the moment a context stripped from an original meaning, effectively presenting an argument about the trials rather than explaining the significance of what was just described (or rather should be). There is no valid reason I see for the exclusion at this stage until someone undertakes more thorough work on the article.
2. I agree that there might be some compromise found on the point of scholarship in regards to the bloodbath legend. Might you propose an alternative compromise?
3. I am not seeing much in the way of compromise in stating the uncontroversial fact that Bathory's crimes are not merely "alleged". The records and scholarship attest to this in the extreme, and the minority view that Bathory is innocent is mentioned but should not overtake the article anymore than Holocaust denial (to use an extreme example). Perhaps simply referring to the section as "Crimes"? But this poses the problem that it refers to some procedural information (hence, "documented") whereas there is a previous section on the trial. All inadequate, I know. This article needs a major shake-up.

As of now I am going to reinsert the witness information and previous (and previously acceptable) subheader. --72.65.93.115 20:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny... everyone tells you you're wrong, but you STILL insist on reverting? That's some pretty hardcore stubborn POV-pushing there. DreamGuy 05:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to coherently and rationally explain how either the material in question is "POV-pushing" or how I am "POV-pushing" by reverting to reinstate it from deletion after a prior period in which you acquiesced to it.

Of the two editors you goaded to the page, one essentially agreed with you and the other stated general principles and an intention to stay out. And a third user simply said you were being intemperate. Which you still are. --72.84.56.55 07:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone here has already told you why your edits were POV-pushing, calmly and rationally. The full context of this talk page show that your edits were clearly against policy and undesirable. At this point you have stooped to putting false vandalism warnings on my talk page. You have demonstrated no desire to listen to anyone's comments here, read the rest of this talk page for understanding, or even become remotely familiar with the standard policies here. Any claim you might have had to acting in good faith has no gone out the window. DreamGuy 19:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)