Talk:Angel Makers of Nagyrév

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The name of the article is incorrect. Julius is the anglicization of the Hungaran male name Gyula, but the article is about not this Gyula but about his wife. Couldn't find her real name, though. – Alensha 寫 词 17:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of sloppy conjecture on this one: "the men-deprived women of the village had their fantasy come true"? Not quite encyclopedic. Leaving as is until I can find a source on this one. --Eve Adams 02:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of victims[edit]

Béla Bodó puts the number of victims at only 45 - 50. He also states in a comment here that the normal number of deaths per year in the village would be less than 20. This implies that the total number of people in the village who died OF ALL CAUSES during the 15 years of the poisonings would be less than 300. I suspect that this might be the origin of the figure of 300 for the number of victims: someone mistook the 'all deaths' figure for the number of poison victims. Can anyone find a reliable source for the 300 victims figure? --TristramBrelstaff (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get the quote from my source later - it's quite possible they mistook the total death count for the murder count. Dcoetzee 20:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is bibliography really references?[edit]

I see something reverted because it's alleged they were called "husband killers" but where's the reference? Interesting topic but definitely needs better referencing or one has to wonder about its accuracy. 20:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

see the murderpedia entry - it includes contemporary articles which describe them as such. They mostly targeted husbands, lovers, and sons.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is it is not clear if the bibliography includes references and thus it looks like a lot of unsourced material that should be removed if there are no references. Just don't know how much is some editors WP:OR and/or Synth off of a series of incidents. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

violence against men cats[edit]

Several editors are ignoring BRD and are removing a category here that clearly applies eg violence against men. A contemporary source, in this case the New York Times article, can be found At http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2013/11/murder-by-wholesale-female-serial.html?m=1. Note the subtitle, which says (roughly) "trials now being held for 42 poisonings, mostly of men by women, present an almost incredible tale of collusion and gullibility in village life" a documentary on the issue calls them 'husband killers' and other contemporary sources note the victims were in the main husbands. The two children we know of who were killed in this case were both also boys. I ask all those trying to remove this category to read beyond the Wikipedia article and consult sources and not judge a blog that itself simply reproduces a reliable source (eg New York Times)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"unknownmisandry.blahblahblahblha" is not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a coherent argument. The blog quotes a printed article. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly coherent. X is not Y. What's not coherent about that? I think you're confusing the words "comprehend" and "coherent".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources: BBC, Independent, Encyclopedia of Death & Human Experience, The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither source supports the inclusion of the cat and the second is just some dude's opinion piece.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I provided four sources to support inclusion, one is an opinion piece. Please stop edit-warring, we just got done with a round of this from another editor. This category has been present in the article in some form since 2012. That's consensus enough to require discussion prior to removal. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you did not "provide four sources to support inclusion". You provided four sources which merely support the fact that this event happened. Not a single of your sources actually supports this as "violence against men". I don't care how long the category has been in here, that's not "consensus", that's just "some crap has managed to escape undetected for awhile", it shouldn't have been here in the first place - the other editor was right to remove it. And since you've been reverting left, right, up, down, against, as you admit, multiple editors (though I guess you're careful enough to watch 3RR), you're the one edit warring.
Start an RfC. The world won't end if this category is not included for a week or so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not how it works. All sources identify the targeting of (male) "husbands." James J. Lambden (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not sufficient for including this category. Especially since parents, children, etc. were also targeted. Like I said, start an RfC and if consensus is indeed to include it, then I'll be happy to abide by it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Targeting husbands with violence + husbands are men = targeting men with violence, thus Category:Violence against men (in Europe) James J. Lambden (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that = synthesis Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, we need reliable sources to make the connection between two unrelated pieces of information for it to be includable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not synthesis to connect "husband" to "man". We don't need to cite reliable sources connecting them. This line of argument is disruptive. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this edit summary is about as nonsensical lame justification for edit warring against consensus as I've ever seen. ANY edit is a change. What requires consensus is INCLUSION. Which you don't have.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The category was present and stable before removal on Sept 5. Talk page discussion resulted in no consensus for removal, yet editors persist in their removal. Change requires consensus Marek, you know that. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce[edit]

Quote: Divorce was not allowed socially ... So it was legal at the time? And could the wife instigate it? And there was a social climate where judges would refuse to apply the law that punished abortionists? Thank you, Maikel (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POWs[edit]

During World War I, when able-bodied men were sent to fight for Austria-Hungary, rural Nagyrév was an ideal location for holding Allied prisoners of war. With POWs having limited freedom within the village, the women living there often had one or more foreign lovers while their husbands were away.

I have never heard of a situation founded in reality where such a "POW sex camp" situation existed. Usually such relations did occur but all parties involved were harshly punished. Maikel (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the midwife[edit]

Hungarian Wikipedia calls her Fazekas Gyuláné which would be her Hungarian wedded name. Gyuláné Fazekas if written according to Western convention of stating the first name before the family name. Maikel (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angel_Makers_of_Nagyrév&oldid=1186902396"