Talk:Elizabeth Báthory/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This article is awful

To begin with, the biggest paragraph in the opening section is dedicated to the bloodbath legend without marking it as a legend. To claim that this originates from testimonies of the Bathory trial is just wrong. And what is that body count of 1,612? - seems like the summation of all existing estimates, at best. The highest number I am aware of is a runaway 400, mentioned in one testimony, while all the others suggest "only" dozens of victims. I`m really surprised about how awful that article is, because in the literature section, there is a reference to Michael Farins 2003 book "Heroine des Grauens". It`s an excellent book I happen to have my bookshelf. Unlike popular history or "true crime" writing, this book is a vast collection of sources, both historical and fictional (that is, 18th and 19th century literature most of the legends can be traced back to). And as far as I remember, Farin refrains from own speculation and keeps to scientific standards. At the moment I am far away from my bookshelf, but I will see what I can do about this article, using that book and the references therein. Just one thing to be taken account of is that E.B. is a historical as well as a literary figure (I mean, different from contemporary popular culture cited in the article). The legends section could be easily converted into a "E.B. in literature and myth" section, or something alike. This can be done properly, quoting valid sources. Wouldn't that be a way to clean this mess up?--Sam195 04:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Some Questions

1. Was any evidence other than confessions produced at the trial and, if so, what was it?

2. Why was Countess Bathory not tried? Were members of the Hungarian aristocracy immune from prosecution for murder at the time?

3. If any important aspect of the case was political, does anyone know what, if anything, Hungarian historians of the period have to say about the issues? Norvo 23:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Norvo, unfortunately at the moment I can only tell you that from my memory - as soon as I have checked it out, I will put it in the article, with the according references.

If I remember correctly...

1) ...that lady was caught with her pants down. Dead bodys all over the place, burried in graves too shallow or just dumped in some ditches, a surviving victim found by Thurzo`s party, dying soon after... sounds almost too good to be true, but that`s the primary sources. Unless someone finds a historian who doubts it (not that I`m aware of any), we don`t have the authority to do so in the article. Anybody who wants to make that point should come up with valid references.

[The things you mention here are myth. When Thurzo arrived, Elizabeth was not at her estate and so was not "caught with her pants down." Furthermore, the woman is said to have been tortured didn't die - she lived and she would have made a great eyewitness. Curiously, she never testified, which seems rather odd to me, considering how valueable her testimony of being tortured could have been.]

2) I was surprised to read that in the article, I thought she WAS tried, but only spared the death penalty - for the very same political reasons stated in the article (last paragraph of "life"). Otherwise, why would she have been locked up for the rest of her life? Again, I have to check that out, but I thought that records of her testimony in the trial were handed over to the family, and they got lost over the centuries. Too bad, would have been interesting...

3) Interesting point, hope anybody will find about that. It will depend on the question, whether from the historian`s point of view, she ever was more than a mere historical curiosity or a black spot on an important noble family`s record. The facts the article seems to get right show, that she was investigated (or tried - we will see...) DESPITE her family`s clout, after complaints over her wrongdoings could not be ignored any longer, but in the end the family had their way, cf. 2).

[She was a powerful noblewoman and an ally of the ruler of Transylvania (her brother) before he was murdered.]

Another (technical) question of my own:

- that stupid part about the fondling of genitalia - can`t we just remove it? Or move it here? Is some sort of consensus needed to do so? (sorry, again, I`m new here). The following sentence even suggests (accidentaly, no doubt) that THIS would be "one of the most enduring parts of Báthory's legend". Instead of fixing that statement I`d suggest to remove the former sentence completely, because the "citation needed" here seems to be nothing but a poor excuse for making a totally unfounded statement.--Sam195 12:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam. From what I've read there seems to be some confusion as to whether EB herself was tried and convicted of the murders or whether she was imprisoned on some other basis - perhaps some form of 'protective custody' or imprisoned while awaiting trial - perhaps a trial that the authorities hoped to avoid. Did she ever appear in any court of law, for example and if so when, where and with what result(s)? What you write in (2) suggests she was tried, convicted - and then her death sentence was commuted? It would also be very useful to have definite information on the question of aristocratic immunity in Hungary at the time.

Martin von Schwartner in his somewhat oddly entitled book on the Hungarian constitution, Statistik des Kõnigreichs Ungern. Ein Versuch, zweyter und dritter Theil, zweyte Ausgabe, Ofen [Buda] 1811, p.152, writes at some length about immense importance in the Hungarian constitution of preserving the immunity of nobles. In fact, he remarks - and it I quote in translation: 'Even the liberty of the proud and free Briton is not more firmly secured than the personal safety of the Hungarian nobleman'. At that time (1811) there were enormous difficulties even arresting a Hungarian aristo, unless charged with treason or a handful of other crimes, but these did NOT include murder. Any noble accused had to appear without delay before an aristorcratic judge of at least the same rank. Moreover, commoners were not allowed to give evidence against nobles. Obviously, the position may have changed between 1611 and 1811, but the whole thing points to amazing privileges for the nobility and to all kinds of legal obstacles. Norvo 14:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. The article states 'It is alleged that Elizabeth started to kill young women between the years 1585 and 1610'. If she herself had been tried, I'd have expected the trial to have either narrowed this long timespan or for there to be much information on why this couldn't be done. After all, she wouldn't have been tried by a jury but by a panel of atistocratic judges using an inquisitorial system. On the other hand if the only people tried were her alleged accomplices then each would presumably have been tried for the period when he/she was an alleged accomplice. Norvo 15:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I really hate that I can`t offer more than speculations at the moment... The intervention of her family (if verifiable, but it is mentioned quite consistently) wouldn`t it suggest that conviction and execution were at least possible, if not imminent?

We will see if it is merely a confusion or if indeed two (or more) different versions are believed true by historians (in which case both had to be included in the article). First: EB investigated, tried, (sentenced?) but not executed, locked up, spending rest of life writing letters pointing to growing insanity. Second (unless an editor of the article made it up himself...) EB put under house arrest, investigated in absentia, defending herself in letters, (sentenced??), locked up.

The time frame given in the article seems to represent a nowadays reconstruction of events. Maybe it would be expecting too much from a court of the closing middle ages to establish a time frame, track a "criminal career" or investigate into events 20 years back (only guessing here...)--Sam195 02:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The article itself is untrustworthy. According to many accounts there was a huge investigation, and some claim that over 200 witnesses were questioned. EB's (alleged) accomplices were executed. Of your two conjectures, most accounts seem to point to the second or something like it. I don't think I've come across any account that expressly claims that EB herself was tried. After all, the raid on her castle took place at the end of December 1610 and she died in August 1614. It's not unknown for people to spend that length of time 'awaiting trial', especially if the authorities were seeking to avoid a trial altogether, or if there were legal obstacles to a trial that first had to be overcome, such as aristocratic immunity. (It would be useful to know what the constitutional position was). Norvo 03:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that interesting discussion, I was not aware of that situation. That will probably make two versions then. At least I think I will be able to present references pointing to the first one. Could you (or anybody else, of course) take care of verifying and presenting the other version, so we can assure balance? Finding out about the constitutional circumstances of her time would be a straightforward, and, no doubt, interesting approach. But by linking it to EB I think we had to be very careful not to end up doing original research. I think my first priority will be to give that article some more structure, and of course tackle that dime novel style "legend" section, which (I believe) is the biggest flaw of this article. Unfortunately my contribution will have to wait for a few more weeks.--Sam195 06:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. I take that back. The "Investigation of her actions"-section is awful, too. And the only reference is a joke.

The question of the fondling...I have read that somwhere else and will do my best to find the cititaon, but if you want I would have no problem with you moving it here, though I am not the original writer of this article...it just caught my eye as I am currently visiting the Czech Republic and plan to see Slovakia as well... John Doe or Jane Doe 15:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Were members of the Hungarian aristocracy immune from prosecution for murder at the time?" Yes. A noble women can be prosecuted at the time only if she kills the husband, parents or child etc. Also close relatives. --87.97.37.5 22:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

NO. There were other noblewomen accused and TRIED for similar crimes (killing and torturing their maids) and pardoned by the king.

And those maids were probably, like pages, lesser nobility in training or hostage status too. Killing a peasant might have been subject to a fine though. Maybe someone can find the official laws for nobility at that date and locality and cite it as being relevant. Even then official laws were some times ignored and not always the ones for practical purposes.

Remember rules of English modern law DID NOT apply to procedures in 1600 Central Europe. All these 200+ witness accounts are lost by the standard procedure of the investigator being able to give hearsay evidence summarizing what they had to say. I doubt there were ever any detailed notes taken. Imprisonment for political reasons still happened particularly in Central Europe. Technically this was what happened to EB in order to avoid the embarrassment of being proven guilty in royal or church courts. The nearest modern equivalent to this is military administrative punishment which also forgoes formal trial and most often detailed documentation in exchange for a lesser range of punishment. But pleading "no contest" and throwing yourself on the mercy of the court might be similar too in that if the court accepts it there is no trial nor detailed documentation.

The Hapsburgs were the last gasp of old style Central European privilege of nobility in the face of popular demands and the Protestant revolution. So at the time of EB, nobles in the region were still limited in legal power only by church law and those decrees of the local King or Emperor. Gunpowder had not yet forced equality under the law. Thus killing peasants would not have been illegal for EB in the normal sense, but would have significant political impact. Which is some accounts say the real investigation only began when she began killing lesser nobility and people of political importance. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Elements pending verification

I believe it in the best interest of this articles quality to place unverified elements here. Those with reference only to private webpages shouldn`t have been in the article in the first place. I think this is the case for some more elements in the article, but I will limit myself to three elements I believe to be most problematic.

While interrogating Turks, her husband at one time employed articulated claw-like pincers of silver which, when fastened to a whip, would tear and rip the flesh to such an obscene degree that even he, a cruel man himself, soon abandoned the apparatus in disgust and left it at the castle. Báthory's aunt, a known bisexual and sadist, had introduced her to the practice of flagellation (enacted upon others), and she equipped herself with her husband's silver claws for use on Slavic debtors and other victims. She preferred to whip her subjects on the front of their nude bodies rather than their backs, so that the wounds would be more severe and so that she could watch their faces contort in agony and horror at their fate.

Báthory used other methods of torture as well, often as punishments for servants who incurred her displeasure. Sticking pins under the fingernails of maids; having a maid stripped, covering her in honey, and leaving her outside to be bitten and stung to death by insects; or having a maid stripped, taking her outside in the worst parts of winter, and dousing the unfortunate maid in cold water until she froze to death were among the tortures rumored to have taken place at her castle. She and her servants also beat and starved her victims. Other legends mention Báthory's use of the iron maiden, but this is not in the testimony of the interrogated servants. Some witnesses described spiked cages with drains in the bottom; victims were placed into the cages and prodded at with red-hot pokers until they impaled themselves on the spikes, thus providing a blood shower for Báthory. Also described was an orb-shaped cage lined with spikes that victims were placed into and the cage was then hoised up on a pulley and rocked like a pendulum, thus ensuring that the victim's flesh was shredded. Still, evidence of these spiked cages is scant.

Obviously, all of this has to be verified, parts may be plagiarized (cf above). Another reason for putting it here is, that some elements (freezing to death, starving, biting) CAN in fact be verified as historical by trial records, therefore they don`t belong to the legends/literature section but to the "life" section or to an improved "investigation" section.

It is also said that before killing her victims the countess would fondle her victims' genitalia as a way of preparing them for death.

Citation is needed indeed.

Her diaries, if they exist, may shed light on her motives but have not been published. They are said to be in Hungary's national archives[1].

I appologize to the person who allready improved that part, but I believe it still belongs here. It is true that their existance is dubious, but we would have to find a published source, stating that their existence is dubious. This reference is a private webpage whose author admits that he doesn`t know himself. By the way, I am thinking about how to ask that national archive without annoying them. I imagine they got more than one nutcase every day inquiring about it. Could any Hungarian out there help us, maybe this information is accesible on the national archives webpage?--Sam195 07:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is another one...

Because her eventual punishment was politically motivated, some have questioned whether she was guilty at all.

I`m not saying they didn't. Just find a published source that does so. --Sam195 13:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

(1,612 in all)

won't be that many. There will be several body counts in the end: those believed true by historians (will be ranging from 60 and 180, or whatever you find) plus the 650 or 670 mentioned by one witness in the trial.

Number of victims. In the trial János Újvari says 35,Dorottya Szentesi says 30,Katalin Beniczki says 50, Ilona Jó can't give a number (L.Nagy).--87.97.35.157 18:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• The Straight Dope on Erzsébet Báthory

1. feautures EB only among other, 2. mixes facts and fiction, 3. is completely nuts (vampires are real, or something like that...)--Sam195 18:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[the evidence against her] would not be considered acceptable in most developed countries by today's standards, since it...

Redundant, or even misleading. A 1600s court can only be judged by 1600s standard. Today's courts would accept circumstancial evidence, while back then confessions were needed for a verdict. Therefore, flawed as it may be, torture made perfect sense in jurisdiction--Sam195 04:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In the latest History Channel documentary about the history of vampires, which aired on October 31st 2006, Bathory was described as having been lesbian, having sexual affairs with her victims, drinking their blood while they were still alive, and killing them after she became bored with them.

Sorry, but a Halloween tv special can hardly be considered a valid source, (even if it weren't as flawed as this one), it's not even published in a sense that anybody could check it, nor is it in any way revied or stating it's sources. --Sam195 16:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

new section: EB in folklore and literature

Could native speakers please have a look at the new section? There should still be many problems of grammar and style. If so, please don`t waste time discussing them, but go ahead and change them as you please. (Actually the whole article could benefit from that)

Please let me briefly comment on my changes:

– Verifiablility: I know that`s a problem at the moment, especially after my moving unverified elements to the talkpage... All the parts I inserted could be roughly referenced to Michael Farin's book "Heroine des Grauens", but I don`t want to do that quick and dirty. Actually anybody with access to this book (or probably to McNally's book) could add some of the references.

– Future of that section: I will add representative stories as references, in order to illustrate the statements I have given there. Again, everybody with access to those sources mentioned above can do that as well. Hopefully one day this section will contain a list of all recorded stories.

– Subdivision: I think it will be useful to later divide that section into "tales" as opposed to "interpretations", placing folklore and morale stories in the former categorie, while the latter contains modern, well, interpretations, such as McNally's theory or narratives pointing to sadism or lesbianism (or, if necessary, to innocence accused, or whatever interpretations editors will dig out).--Sam195 08:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The section about torture with silver pincers/claws has been plagiarized. [2] For what it's worth, this is one of the few online sources that mentions the issue of aristocratic immunity (towards the end). Norvo 00:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A majority of internet sources states indeed that the trial against her didn`t take place, so that version should be found at least in some book (to be honest, I`m not really sure what Farin or the sources quoted by him got to say about that). Well, anybody veryfying any of those statements would improve this article a lot.--Sam195 12:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Help! (technical/layout question)

I was trying to insert footnotes and ran into problems,

1) there is no "notes and references" section yet! Does a "references and further reading" section, as it exists now, even make sense? References would be numbered, further reading would be just listed?

2) when I tried to create a footnote, the whole article following it would vanish... could somebody give me a link to a WP Manual explaining how it's done?

3) if someone wants to create a reference section, here would be an example reference:

in the "EB in folklore..." section, in "EB and the vampire myth", the final statement "...refuted by other authors." Should be referenced to:

Miller, Elizabeth: Dracula - Sense and Nonsense. Desert Island Books 2006. ISBN: 190532815X

Thank you very much--Sam195 04:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and see if I can answer your questions:

1. No, I don't think the section "references and further reading" makes sense. If a book is useful as a reference it will automatically be useful as further reading as well, so the section should propably be renamed to either "References" or "Further reading" (or split in two).
2. This would happen if you forgot to put a closing </ref> tag after the <ref>. Here's an example of a footnote; press edit to see the markup codes, I'm using. The footnote manual with all the details is at Wikipedia:Footnotes.
3. To create the notes section, simply use a <references/> tag, like this:

If any of this needs further clarification, feel free to ask. Hemmingsen 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that answers my questions indeed! --Sam195 05:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Motives

section as it was:

Elizabeth was born in a brutal environment in which her family often used violence to maintain their power (e.g. the Transylvanian ruler Zsigmond Báthory who liked to have his retainers killed). Alternatively, inbreeding is sometimes wrongly believed to have caused various psychotic disorders that the family was rumored to have. McNally and Radu Florescu imply that she learned techniques of torture from her husband, the "Black Beg", or Karabeg in Turkish. Some writers claim the Báthorys were brutal individuals even for the time, but others accuse such writers of selling fiction at any cost and slandering a family that achieved great things for Hungary[3].

Her crimes, arrest, and imprisonment can be seen in the context of a financial wartime power struggle she and her family eventually lost to the Habsburgs. The Báthory family's influence had declined in its base, Transylvania, after their involvement in the Long War with the Turks and subsequent betrayal at the hands of their allies. After her husband's death, the Emperor had refused to pay debts owed to the late "Black Beg". Elizabeth's relative Gabriel Báthory (listed as a brother, cousin, or nephew depending on the source) was involved in anti-Habsburg intrigue following the Long War and she was said to have been linked to these activities[4][5].

Two thirds don't deal with motives at all, parts have been mentioned earlier, important aspects missing, information in parts not verified, or quoting private web pages,...

Actually motives are a topic that should be dealt with, but this had to be done in a proper way. Same goes for the historical context, in a reasonable extent. --Sam195 15:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is relevant because it deals with the Habsburgs' motives for punishing her. She was never given a trial, so it would be POV to assume they did not have their own agenda. That is not to say she was innocent, but no serious historian has ever looked at this case without admitting those who punished her had other motivations besides seeing justice done. 00:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Wheatcroft is just one example of many historians who consider Matthias II one of the worst rulers the Habsburg dynasty ever produced. I am not saying Elizabeth Bathory was innocent of mass murder, but she was a victim of a politically motivated sham trial and a smear campaign against her family (who may or may not have deserved it, certainly they were no angels but whether they were all bad is another question). 04:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place for encyclopedic articles, rather than essay-like discussion. Please see the WP:NPOV page and also WP:NOT. Andrew Wheatcroft is a highly regarded historian and any allegations he makes may be worth adding to the article (with references), but please be careful to maintain a neutral point of view. Phrases like "just one example of many historians" etc definitely come under the category of weasel words. Moreover, terms like "smear campaign" are emotive. Incidentally, when you say "it would be POV to assume they did not have their own agenda" - no, it wouldn't. It would be POV to state "They had no agenda", but everyone is assumed innocent until proven guilty! If you want to prove them guilty, you need facts and references. -- TinaSparkle 11:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree - with both of you. Those things are worth being mentioned, if verified, but I disagree with the way you started doing this, and with the location within the article.

I rather suggest we create a "historical background" section, where we could briefly mention:

• the war and her husbands role,
• the importance and influence of the Báthory family
• the power struggle with Matthias II

That can be dealt with in very few sentences, it would help to further structure the article, because these bits of information are spread over the article so far. And refraining from POV vocabulary like "betrayal" - I am troubled a bit by the language you used so far.

I'm not so sure any more a "motive"-section is needed, there is not much relevant information at all, and it can easily be added to the literature section. I might include her being mentioned in Psychopathia Sexualis as soon as I find my copy. --Sam195 18:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not mean to be POV, I am simply pointing out that she was never actually convicted of a crime in a court of law, let alone a fair trial. And also, that she and her family were involved in a power struggle with the Habsburg crown following a costly war. What was wrong with my link to the source claiming Matthias II owed Nadasdy a debt? The BBC site has no POV agenda about this case. I'm not here to say she's my hero or anything of the sort, but the given motive that she was a serial killer has no credibility at all. 20:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Consider this:

• She was never given a trial
• While it does seem authentic, the testimony of her accomplices is hasty because it was extracted through torture. The details are vague and incomplete.
• It is, however, the only thing close to a detailed and reliable documentation of her crimes we have to go on today.
• None of the witnesses ever mentioned her actually killing anybody to kill them, she seemed to brutally mistreat her victims and just let them die as if they brought it on themselves with their own weakness. It is almost certain that she tortured and starved many girls and was responsible for many deaths, but there is no evidence of any clearly sexually motivated serial killings. Her treatment of her victims seems more gulag-like to me[6].
• Sabine Baring-Gould was the first widley read writer to spread the legends about her bathing in blood, and a lot of the today's stories about her originate from Valentine Penrose's poorly researched trash novel The Bloody Countess. Neither of these sources are based on any actual testimony.
• As I've mentioned, her family has in a post-war power struggle with the Habsburgs, and Matthias II was controversial at best.
• Thurzo also had a lot to gain by seizing her property.

The questions about her motives and those of the rulers who brought her to "justice" remain unanswered, and will continue to remain so until someone examines her as a figure of her times and not as a figure of the times we are in now. Perhaps the legends, rumors, and flat out lies about her are so perversely appealing in this day and age that people just don't care to get to the bottom of the truth. Or maybe it's a matter of people imposing their views of modern "science" on this case. Personally I've never been a fan of so-called historians trying to apply Freudian methods to centuries-old historical figures, but then again I've never been a fan of Freudian methods at all. Maybe someday someone will come up with a plausible and historically valid motive. Until then, it seems Elizabeth Bathory is what whatever we make her. 21:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I am not sure you have read the article entirely. It leaves no doubt about the nature of those legends, they are traced right back to their 18th century origin. After all this article is getting to the bottom of the truth, by limiting itself to things documented and widely accepted by historians. Even claims made by those "popular history" biographers are given very limited attention. Speculations about her motives, Freudian or else, are part of the historical reception of the case, and they are never treated as fact in the article, if included at all.

Let me briefly address the other issues you have raised:

• The essay on the bbc website is by some anonymous author not citing his/her sources, and it is not published in a sense that would make it a valid source itself (peer reviewed, publisher...). And by suggesting that those circumstances are directly responsible for her behaviour, you make a claim that has to be verified - the bbc essay did not even say so. And I'm sure for the validity of Matthias' debt there can be found a real source.
• This article has to represent historical (read: scientific) mainstream. If you think her not being a sexually or whatever motivated serial killer represents that mainstream, you have to come up with sources. Same is true for the interpretation and evaluation of witness accounts, what you suggest considering would be original research. It is just not relevant what you or I think about it, as long as it isn't published in a respectable source.
• The different interests and power struggle are mentioned. More than once. It could be done in a more central way, in a "historical background" section. Your input could be helpful there. But I still think that controversy surrounding Matthias II belongs to the Matthias II article. --Sam195 11:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I admit I was probably overstepping my bounds by making a claim about her true motives, but I was correct in saying that no one has ever proven what her true motives were and that her being a serial killer is pure speculation. As for my claim that Matthias II owed her husband, it was in the first article on her there was in the Crime Library by Denise Noe, which was far more detailed and better researched than the current one but sufferred from an annoying feminist POV. I can't find it, but I'll look elsewhere for this fact. As it is, her historical background is no more and no less of a proven factor than being a serial killer. None of the crimes that are actually documented prove she was a serial killer, although they do not necessarily disprove such an allegation either. You may be right that it would probably take original research to prove she had other motives and was at least somewhat motivated by what was going on around her, but it wouldn't be wrong to point out that allegations and assumptions of her being a serial killer have never been proven. 23:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that she was involved in battles against muslims ("Turks")? Her husband was killed by muslims, and genocidal battles were going on all around this part of Europe (the "bleeding edge" of Islam). Wars between muslims and infidels are always extremely bloody, and that might explain the lack of freudian or psychopathic proofs. And, of course, Christians never want to talk about it afterward, especially if Christians were actually involved in the slaughter of muslims. Hoserjoe 20:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we're in serious danger of getting into the territory of original research here. Please bear in mind that we have to keep this article within the confines of what has already been written and published on Elizabeth Báthory in reliable sources. -- TinaSparkle 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry. This is the "Talk" segment, and I'm just doing some blue-sky speculation. It's fair to speculate on "motives" within the talk section on the off chance that someone has uncovered some hard information Hoserjoe 07:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)