Talk:Elizabeth Báthory/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
"Vandalism"
Hi, I'm the user whose changes you keep rolling back calling it 'vandalism.' The current phrasing of the popular culture section is ripe with POV. You present a single, revisionist interpretation of Bathory as gospel, and it is just not balanced. If you have some kind of revisionist historical agenda, that's fine. Take it elsewhere. The single sentence I added to the popular culture balanced out the currently radical interpretation--painting Bathory as some kind of victim of patriarchy. While that claim is out there, when you push it to the exclusion of other views, you are at best presenting original research, and at worst presenting outright POV--neither of which is wiki-ok. I also can no longer find the language I used in the history, because you decided to delete that. It was immediately after the lines "Radu Florescu and Raymond T. McNally have concluded that the theory Báthory murdered on account of her vanity sprung up from contemporary prejudices about gender roles. Women were not believed to be capable of violence for its own sake" and it was something along the lines of "However, while popular prejudice of the time is noted, these scholars' view is neither the only, nor the most accepted interpretation of the actual events." Come on, tell me that's vandalism.
- I agree it's not vandalism... I didn't change, your work... cite it and i think there is no problem "these scholars' view is neither the only" add another scholar with a differing viewpoint... if you know one I'm sure people here would love to read more about this interesting historical figure.
- People who spend a lot of time editing this page must seem to think it is "the most accepted interpretation of the actual events." prove it with multiple sorces, most of the information in this page is cited. John Doe or Jane Doe 13:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Coven Membership
The reference stating that Elizabeth Bathory was in a coven sounds absurd. Witches didn't organize themselves like that in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. The reference saying this is from the 1940s and seems to have a sensationalistic title. Has anyone investigated it? 71.182.123.174 00:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It appears as though someone found a dusty old book from grandma's attic and took its content a bit too seriously. The reason so much nonsense about this case pervades is that most of what we have to go on reflects astounding ignorance of Central European history rather than any facts. Nothing published in a book before McNally's Dracula Was a Woman should be considered a credible source, and even that book is incomplete and speculative.Shield2 23:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed "New age" or movie style covens is unlikely. However, you were not there. To say that no "witches" covens/clubs/churches existed in 1500-1600 is as likely as saying no form of Christian church existed before the first cathedral was built. We have simply lost records in both cases. The almost total lack of witchcraft records is in part due to lack of original effort/literacy and in part due to historical persecution -- not because pagan cults and witchcraft didn't exist in earlier Europe. Versus Bathory herself, it is truly all speculation. The admitted point of how the case was handled, according to surviving records, was to cover up political scandal. You don't cover up scandal by making lots of records, ask Richard Nixon if you can speak to the dead. Sure the speculation aspect should be noted. However, I think old speculation is more appropriate and likely to closer to truth than "new age" speculation of total innocence based on no additional information.69.23.124.142 (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
"Bloodbath"
The "bloodbath" section of this article is terrible, but I'm not sure whether it should be edited or deleted altogether. Most of it is speculation or repetition of things already mentioned in the article, and it seems to have been written by someone who takes her guilt (and the existence of witches) as fact. --nichie 22:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it is important part in this article. Most of the stories I have heard were about the bloodbaths. This section should have more information in it. Without this section, most of her story is not there. --Chriss 23:55, 5 July 2006
Perhaps it should be redressed as a prevailing myth/legend? I don't know what evidence was ever found to suggest that she did bathe in blood, or to back-up the general claim as to why she did if so, but it's definitely a widely held popular tenet of the Bathory story that she took blood-baths.
I respectfully disagree in part and agree in part. I agree with the above contention that the details of Countess Bathory's torture needs to be corrected, however what may suprise you is the level of mental dise
I say leave it, maybe find some citations? John Doe or Jane Doe 12:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC) No luck so far with creditable sorces most pages and recorces I've found so far are, fiction...sorry I'll keep looking though, unfortunaly speculation dosn't count here only facts John Doe or Jane Doe 15:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the key problem so far is, that historical accounts of torture are mixed with literary accounts.
- The former are based on trial testimonies which are preserved and in part reprinted, e.g. by Farin. And only the literary sources contain all the bloodbathing. This is stated correctly in the article, with reference to McNally. Now as this bloodbathing happens to be almost all EB was known for in the 18th and 19th century, I think it has to be included as what it is - fiction. There are sources as important as the Brothers Grimm that can be quoted here.
- At first I didn`t want to tackle this "EB in fiction" problem before I have access to my sources, so I can list representative narratives. But now that there is such a lifely discussion going on, I think I will come forward with a proposal for that section asap, can`t get much worse, can it...?
- And I wholeheartedly agree with John/Jane Doe on the importance of verifyiability, I think this is the key to turn this into a good article.--Sam195 04:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, done. see below
Citation standards for any POV is not going to happen. The second-hand analyses that are in dispute are as close as you will get to original records without making a personal visit to special records sections of various Central European museums. You just aren't going to find comprehensive reproduction of original records online or in recent publications -- especially in legible English. We know that from the start. Very few actual records were ever created due to "whatever" was being covered up. Richard Nixon is one of the few major political idiots who kept extensive records and tried to cover up at the same time. It is also known that most of those records that might have been created were likely destroyed in various wars and fires -- very common fate of records in central Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.124.142 (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Authenticity? Guilt?
Perhaps the question of her guilt should be more seriously examined. The opening lines of the article seem to assume that she is guilty, while the body of the text offers little more than a paragraph stating that she may have been innocent. The "legends" section is ridiculous and simply repeats uncontested rumours. One of my very good friends is a direct descendent of Erzsebet and I have not only heard drastically different accounts (i.e. that she was accused of these crimes in order to remove her as a threat to the Habsburgs), I have read actual historical documents concerning her trial, execution, life, etc. This article is not nearly as rigorous as it should be.--Ajcarriere 17:08, 22 July 2006
- Most of the regional history is more than half rumor. But one of the most persistent rumors is that mere ownership of property not owned by the Hapsburgs made you a "Threat" to the Hapsburgs. Of course that tended make the threat part self-fulfilling as property owners tried to preserve their own lives, retain ownership of property, or flee all connection to the country (meaning you likely went AWOL from military duties). But put the whole into perspective, war with the Turks meant the whole region was militarized to the limit -- every resource and able male was required to be patriotically available to support the long war when it flared up. Thus the Hapsburgs had no choice but to seize the properties of cowards, dilentes and the dead -- or the merely unreliable. Given the connections of the Bathory's some tale might have been needed to cover national necessity.
- If you want to spin modern historical revisionist tales, do a Doctor Quinn Medicine Woman. Say that Ms. Bathory gave refuge to female victims of the war without prejudice and that most of them by circumstance were of Turkish descent. Thus the Hapsburgs found out, sent troops that killed all the women as enemies of the state, dug up those who had died of wounds to count extent of aid over time, and blamed it all on Bathory in the popular legend claiming they were local women. Of course in their eyes she would have diverted war resources to aiding the enemy, withheld the spoils of war from local troops lowering morale, dangerously exposed a key defensive castle to takeover from within, and even provided intelligence opportunities to the Turks. None of which would mean anything to a Dr.Quinn. Which means the logical barbarian would need to do her in and discourage any undiscovered accomplices of doing similar things -- thus the lurid tale and punishment.
- Spinning such alternative tales is harmless unless you start labeling your fictional tales - psychically recovered history or better supported by facts than the legend. Being a distant relative (even if true) is a branch of the same tree unless they own unpublicized documents which can be scientifically proven as written by Ms. Bathory. Most oral family histories tend to distort quite rapidly - often in a very flattering or at self-important ways. Four hundred years is a lot time and generations for distortion.
69.23.120.164 10:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Nobody knows of her direct bloodline and how would you know if your friend was a direct descendent of her? I highly doubt that you could know that for sure, though the trial did have alot of political motives it isnt entirely discounted that she did commit these awful crimes and many "historical documents" do go in favor that she did infact commit some horrendous acts.
While she may not of had bloodbaths or whatever she did indulge in torture often, and she wasnt executed, just sentenced to life imprisonment. -Jwhyte1 10:00, 31 July 2006
According to her own diary she killed at least 650 girls. Perhaps Ajcarriere is correct in his/her assumptions that Báthory's trial was politically motivated (her husband had loaned the government of the day a considerable sum of money to aid its war with Turkey, and by finding her guilty (her husband was dead by this time) the State was able to confiscate her property, including the loan) but I respectfully suggest that her guilt has never really been in question. She wasn't executed, by the way; she was walled up in a tower in her own castle and fed daily. She died there ten years later. Her favourite method of murder was to strip her victims naked, push them into the snow, and pour buckets of cold water over them. An excellent reference for her life and activities is Raymond T. McNally's book Dracula Was A Woman: In Search Of The Blood Countess Of Transylvania, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1983, ISBN 0070456712. This article needs some serious work. Wocky 07:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, the article needs much work (and I tagged it as such long ago, unfortunately every time I come back it's not really improved). But as a matter of fact, there have indeed been serious doubts about her guilt raised by modern historians. McNally's book shouldn't be taken at face value - it's popular history with a sensationalist bent. The truth of the matter is that if Bram Stoker hadn't popularized a Bulgarian myth as a Magyar with a Romanian name, few people would be giving this story any more consideration than for any other 16th century witchcraft trial. --BluePlatypus 03:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
If serious modern historians raised doubts about her guilt, I would be interested to hear their arguments (BluePlatypus, could you give us a reference?). As for the "truth of the matter", legends and fairytales about E.B. are much older than Bram Stoker`s Dracula, suggesting that she always has been a fascinating historical/literary figure of her own right. And when was the trial clasified a "witchcraft trial"? As for Ajcarriere, that the Bathory family might hold drastically different accounts is hardly surprising, nor is it a valid argument. Unless the primary sources (that`s what you meant? I envy you!) you studied tell differently, that is, offer facts yet unknown. Speaking of primary sources, since when is the contends of "her personal diary" known, Wocky? Speaking of political motivation, didn`t her family benefit from her not being excecuted as murderer, in which case her fortune would have been seized? Is McNally suggesting otherwise in his book? cf 8) of this page.--Sam195 04:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
"If serious modern historians raised doubts about her guilt, I would be interested to hear their arguments ". Here is the article [1], in hungarian. My English isn't good enouph to translate it. It's the same article by Szádeczky-Kardoss Irma that is already referenced here, but the link is dead. There is a book too: "Nagy László: A rossz hírű Báthoryak, Kossuth Könyvkiadó, 1984, ISBN 9630923084" --87.97.37.5 22:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- well, don`t worry about your English then, here are enough people who would take care of that. Or anybody else who knows that book? --Sam195 11:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- -- The Myth of Legend of .....
- This whole article should be titled "The Myth (or Legend) of...". The facts are that there are NO facts, only rumor. More than the simple passage of time makes applying normal Wikipedia documentation standards pointless. The Legend or Myth itself says that there was a concerted effort to conceal and destroy evidence so as not to embarrass noble families. This region has had many wars where sackings of towns and incidental burning of public records was common. Now add the many tales that say destroying and distorting the record and memory of your enemies was a common tactic of many regional victors in this general region from soon after it was settled until (supposedly) the fall of the USSR. So proof of the truth is unlikely.
- For other historical figures enough verified documents exist to back up some aspects of their stories. In particular personal documents can be carbon dated and handwriting verified by cross reference with other public documents kept elsewhere by reputable libraries and record centers.
- I don't think the rumored diary has actually authenticated back to that date, but I am almost certain that the diary cannot be proven to be written by Bathory even if it is that old. Apparently what little second-hand documentation there is could easily have been written to cover a number of political contingencies, including simple hole plugging where officials simply had no idea what happened but need to stablize the situation. Even the accounts of court execution and imprisonment are supposedly less than rigorous in their accounts in a truly tabliod manner.
- So basically fact-wise she existed and shortly after her general husband died, her property was transferred to male relatives. She most probably died not too long afterward. Rumor spread that the transfer was expedited for the reasons given in the legend. End of facts.
69.23.120.164 10:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
"Torture" section plagiarized?
This section bears remarkable similarities to parts of the text at http://www.abacom.com/~jkrause/bathory.html.
- True, text the author himself calls "creative nonfiction" and "fiction" in his disclaimer. Not a valid source for anything, isn`t it? Taken together, doesn`t that qualify the corresponding paragraph to be deleted? (I`m new to Wiki, could anybody else comment?) --Sam195 05:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Village of Čachtice
The name of the village in Hungarian is Csejte, see [2]. This is correct in the Čachtice Castle article.
Plagiarism and/or storytelling?
This article reads very much like a vignette out of some novelty book of famous vampires. The way in which facts are presented is not only POV-ridden but goal-driven; the author is clearly trying to evoke delicious horror and explicitly points out irony in the subject's life and fate. I'm not sure of the best way to clean this up, or indeed the best template to apply (I don't see a "this article may be plagiarized" template), so I'm putting up the Noncompliant tag and letting someone in the know handle it.
Half the article focuses on the legends and trashy stories about her while the other half does a good job putting her real motives and the real motives for punishing her in perspective relative to the political situations in Transylvania and Royal Hungary at the time. I am not sure if it is anything more than a conspiracy theory to suggest it was Basta who killed her husband. More likely he died in battle with the Turks. But besides that and the part about her fondling her victims' genitilia, this is not a bad article. Not much is really known about this case, and most of it is supposition and speculation based on her life and times. As much as a fan as I am of McNally and Florescu's work there is yet to be a book written about this bizarre and fascinating caseShield2 06:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
genealogy
What was her relationship to the king of Poland and various princes of Transylvania? She seems to be of an age to be a daughter of Christopher Báthory, but was she? Or was she more distantly related? john k 17:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That family tree is unusual because it is formatted backwards. George and Anna were her parents, and it reads from Erzsebet to her anscestors, not her descendants. Christopher Bathory was her uncle, as was King Stephen Bathory of Poland. Her parents were cousinsShield2 07:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Backwards? No, it's a perfectly reasonable way to show a family tree. - Nunh-huh 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose. But I could see how John Kenney was confused about it and others might be as well. It looks like a good family tree to me thoughShield2 05:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC) It is backwards, in that readers of English expect things to begin in the left and proceed to the right, along the direction of reading. E.g.: English-using comics and scientific graphs. It should be expected that many would be confused. Smajie 22:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It is backwards, in that readers of English expect things to begin in the left and proceed to the right, along the direction of reading. E.g.: English-using comics and scientific graphs. This family tree, however, proceeds chronologically in the opposite direction. It should be expected that many would be confused. Smajie 22:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It's just fine anyone with half a brain can figure out that two people have a child not the otherway around John Doe or Jane Doe 17:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, sorry, but have you really made an honest effort? The Báthory family are high nobility and their genealogy is extremely well documented and not very hard to find. Get the names correct and consistent. It's written "Báthory", with an accent on the 'a' and a 'y' at the end. The "-y" ending implies nobility. You've also dropped most accents, and switch between Hungarian and English versions of names. Plus more subtle inconsistencies like using the variant "Drágfi" instead of "Drágffy" but "Bánffy" instead of "Bánfi". (Which also have the Serbo-Croatian versions "Dragović" and "Banović" respectively) Also "Warday" is German spelling of "Várday" (or "Várdai"). I have doubts about the credibility of your source here: Why assume they can keep their facts straight when they can't keep the names in order? Don't rely on random websites when there are plenty of better alternatives. --BluePlatypus 02:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Her parents weren't cousins. The family tree can be found here.[3] --87.97.37.5 22:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Something I Thought I Heard About Her.
I thought I read somewhere, that actually she was a medicine women with advanced techniques, and she was only killed because people thought her treatments were some sort of evil torture. Has anybody else heard that? Where did I hear that? Did I hear that on this site?--Mullon 02:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- OMG, someone blatantly picking up the concept of Dr. Quinn medicine woman and confusing it with reality. Nice alternative universe science fiction fantasy idea though. No, the simplest and most logical conspiracy is that they simply needed to quickly put the properties into the hands of male relatives loyal to the Hapsburgs and the war against the Turks - without upsetting her uncle by ignoring legal niceties. 69.23.120.164 11:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It's one theory proposed by a Hungarian revisionist. From what I have seen about this case, it is not a very likely one. There's always some nut who comes along and says the most foul, guilty-as-sin criminal in the world was framed. Still, many people say the "Blood Countess" was unfairly imprisoned by the Habsburgs. She did not get much of a trial at all. This is one of the most bizarre cases in history. My view is that the stories about her bathing in blood her likely spread to cover up their own complicity and inaction for many years. As for her real motives, that is still a mystery. You really have to look at what was going on in her time (i.e. the Ottoman Wars, and to make matters worse Hungary still had a fuedal system during the Renaissance). I tend to think she really was what we'd call a psychopath, but not like the kind she is commonly portrayed as. More like one who seemed normal and perhaps even welcome for a time in a brutal and cutthroat environment until even the people around her had finally had enough, like a mobster who's more interested in having people "whacked" than making money.Shield2 03:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- The stories about bathing in blood didn't come until a long. long tim after, so it couldn't have been spread by family members. And certainly with all the false withcraft accusations running aroud the world back thenmaking up the most outrageous accusations, it's certainly understandable why some people would think it was all just as ridiculous as the Salem witch trials etc. DreamGuy 11:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the blood baths were likely a later local embellishment for young children and visitors. Probably also an faulty effort to understand why so many victims and to visualize what so many victims might be like. Just like the old war stories that say the streets of Jeruselum ran ankle deep in blood when the Crusaders entered -- it is not likely to be literally true. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interestingly enough it is wrong to assume that witchcraft trials were always false accusations in all places at all times - or that someone pointed the finger at some else. In this backward region of the world there were more self-advertised witches than you might think. Think of were Baba Yaga is a popular kid's story for thousands of years. Why do you think the Gypsies (Roma) originate from here?
- Maybe the folk truthfully practicing witchcraft didn't really get results from the devil but merely psychotropic plant extracts. But nevertheless, the point is many folk particularly in this region either believed they were practicing witchcraft or like Vlad Tepis advertised that they did. Why? To intimidate enemies and gain psychological power over reluctant allies, many witches in this region and time weren't suggesting they practiced advanced medicine for the public good but rather advertised services and self-focus attainment of power and punishment of enemies. And the psychological terror tactics are still used by Hell and Brimstone preachers and so-called voodoo cults -- regardless of the reality of the metaphysical aspects. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh my, here we have nonsene being replaced by lesser nonsense. The facts are quite simple: yes, she did kill and torture all these girls. Her power and social standing protected her for a while but not in the end. She was arrested and not put on trial only to protect her family's name and to avoid a confiscation of her propert. She was not imprisoned by "the Habsburgs" but by the Palatin of Hungary in cooperation with her son and sons-in-law. The Habsburg Emperor pressed the Palatin to proceed along normal lines of justice (which would have resulted in her execution, confiscation of property etc.) BTW, there is no indication that Elizabeth and her husband were illoyal to the Habsburgs (though her father definitely was). She was definitely was not a medicine woman, nor a witch, nor a victim of political machinations. Str1977 (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- First my point about the property was emphasis on being in MALE relatives hands. Her husband was dead by the time actual investigation began. Female rulers in 1600s Central Europe weren't a commonly accepted thing. Her sons were known directly to the Hapsburgs from what I read. Thus properties in the hands of "loyal male relatives" would be the solution most acceptable to all parties -- family allies and the Hapsburgs.
- Also as far whether she or her husband were disloyal, the point was not that there was any proof of disloyalty. What a modern concept. The standard assumption for most of history has been loyalty through family first, unless you were a direct personal friend -- which is why so many peace treaties were consummated via marriage. So her disloyal father and a lack of personal friendship would mean...she would be assumed untrustworthy. Plus the Hapsburgs were considered paranoid even within their own time frame. The Hapsburg rule tended to be "do unto others BEFORE they can do unto you" and "better a mistake with your neck than mine". Of course in the context of the times where the ambitious, intriguing aspects of Machiavelli were the educated political standard -- that might well have been quite a healthy survival tactic for the very rich and powerful Hapsburgs. They really did have lots of enemies and people who wanted a piece of what they had. Concepts of justice and restraint of government and fiscal power are actually very new. Though the Magna Carta kicked things off in England, it took until just a couple decades ago to spread to most the world including Central European countries. In Central Europe the power of nobility was still mainly limited by the Church and local King.
Again the key legal point in the pursuit of EB was that she started killing lesser noble women and people of political important.
- Also interpreting what the Hapsburgs wanted done can not be taken as simply as you say -- since intrigue and double meanings were commonly associated with how they exerted their power. That is the request for her trial and execution may well have been a threat with an actual desire for some sort unofficial bargain. The fact that the Hapsburgs did not vigorously protest the outcome is usually interpreted as they got what they really wanted.
- My point on witchcraft was that it might scientifically be defined as "psychological warfare of terror" or "spiritual intimidation". Now combine that with trials and investigations which were often very confused back then except as to verdict and punishment. All of which means maybe she was guilty of something beyond simple sociopathic insanity and murder -- or maybe not. The deaths are almost certainly true as local gossip would have undermined a totally false political accusation. But the motivation and details of the crimes are most likely unrecoverable and truly unimportant at this date. She is long dead and defaming her name won't harm her. But proving anyone's reputation can be whitewashed in the future might set a bad precedent for those megalomaniacs whose morality is only constrained by how history might remember them.
- Pure speculation on maybe why she MIGHT have been using psychological warfare type "witchcraft"? Perhaps she was having local political trouble with her husband away and later dead. Local mayors or nobles might have been trying to take charge. She might have decided to take a Vlad Tepis approach of scaring her enemies with ruthless gruesome murders of personal servants and claiming power outside the male governed church. Even though legend says it took the murder of noble women to finally force action against her; that might have been last ditch escalation as murdering servants became ineffective in making local politicians fearful. But most likely after her husband died it was only a matter of time before outsiders would remove a woman from power.
69.23.124.142 (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Elizabeth Báthory/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
|---|---|
| I just have an offhand comment to make. It is cited and recognized in several books that not only was her husband "aware" of her actions, he taught her several of her techniques. It mentioned the freezing of the victims but did not go so far as to say that in the dead of winter that she AND her husband would take peasants outside, strip them of clothing and poor, chilled water on them until they froze to death. Also, in the summer when it was warm, they would immobilize a victim and coat her with a sticky substance, sometimes honey and leave her in the heat of the day and watch as she was ravaged by animals and insects. I must also comment that (and perhaps I missed it) it was not mentioned of the mental illness that ran rampant in her family, the fact that she had epilepsy and also the question of whether or not she was, on any level, mentally handicapped, seeing as in these times inbreeding was not uncommon. Just a few thoughts.
---SMW0 This is a letter perfect example of what Wiki calls Original Research, aka OR. Not one reference, not one, just a mass of unproven and unprovable assertion. Timothy Perper (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC) | |
Last edited at 14:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)