Talk:Peter Stumpp/Archive 1

Archive 1

NPOV

Um, you realize that all these claims of killings, incest, etc., were admitted under TORTURE, right? That this was a witchcraft trial, and, like most witchcraft trials, the accused sung like a canary and admitted whatever lunacy the torturers told them to...? So writing the article as if all of these claims were 100% real is a little, well... reckless and misleading, wouldn't you say? DreamGuy 07:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

i'd say so.

Dude. He's been dead 500 years. I understand that there's a group of Murderer Groupies that pop in to EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE about murderers ON WIKIPEDIA to defend the murderer in question, but can't you at least confine yourself to Mumia Abu Jamal, The Night Stalker, or the West Memphis Three, like everyone else? Seriously, at this point, who gives a damn if he did it or not? We might as well be debating whether Brutus actually stabbed Caesar.

Dude. It's not about defending this person, it's about a realistic account of history. If you let history be told by the people of the time, you'll have a very skewed view of reality. Witchcraft/werewolf trials were often used as a political tool, or as a means to keep women and troublemakers in place. It's possible that this man did commit ALL those crimes, but it's highly unlikely. If he did anything at all, it was likely exaggerated into something monstruous and outlandish, to suit the nature of those times. It is *important* to note this in an encyclopedia. Otherwise we'll have articles claiming the world is flat with sea monsters guarding its edges; after all, people believe that in the past. 190.194.216.151 (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the claims are irresponsibly worded, but that's a relatively easily fixed problem. I'm more worried that the article is unverified; I'll upgrade the tag. Melchoir 00:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In the German Wikipedia they say that it might have been a political trial in the course of the Counter-Reformation and reestablishment of Catholic faith.

Hi, it's me who is responsible for the above-mentioned addition to the German page. I have done a lot of research into the case as I live near Bedburg and I have also published some stuff on the case. First: How does the author of this page know Stubbe's exact year of birth? Unfortunately all church registers were destroyed some three hundred years ago. Second: Stubbe is reported to have confessed without being tortured, but he was put to the rack and confronted with the instruments of torture, which I consider a special kind of torture, though not a physical one. Human rights activists may know what I mean. Third point: All people who wrote on the case ignored the fact that the Rhine district had suffered from a most brutal civil war caused by an abortive attempt to turn the Catholic Electorate of Cologne into a Protestant territory. In the years between 1582 and 1589 the population had been subject to raids by regular armies (both friend and foe), maroding soldiers and eventually by the plague. So we may assume that the crimes that Peter Stubbe and his family were accused of could as well be ascribed to bands of soldiers or street-robbers. Some of the crimes Stubbe was supposed to have committed sound rather like tales that were still told at the beginning of the last century. His alleged incestuous relationship with his daughter could not have been hidden to the villagers. (And what about his seuxual relation with a succubus that is reported to have lasted for more than 25 years? Where does the author of this article have the information that Stubbe had sex with lots of women? Our source knows of only two - his daughter and his "gossip".) Another point: Why should people of the highest social ranks have gathered at a dreary country-town and watch the execution of a werewolf and two witches, unless this trial had been of special importance? Considering the fact that a) Bedburg had been strongly Protestant for a couple of years and that b) the town and the neighbouring villages had just been handed over the a staunch Catholic count by the Arch-Bishop and Elector of Cologne it is reasonable to speculate about a non-witchcraft background of the affair. I know that the scarcety of documentary evidence is a problem, but reading the existing sources with the usual set of critical questions in mind can yield some interesting results for the sceptical historian. By the way, the first and the second weblinks are - to say the best - highly superficial and bear no resemblance to the original text, which is found on the third website. Relying on Brad Steiger's Werewolf Book is a dangerous affair, if you want to use the stuff for a website that is intended to be more than a joke.

(Peter Kremer, May 1st 2006)

Peter, I would agree that the links were bad, so i removed them. The German link was completely pointless so that's gone too. But, honestly, some of the comments you make above do not make any sense whatsoever. "Why should people of the highest social ranks have gathered at a dreary country-town and watch the execution of a werewolf and two witches, unless this trial had been of special importance?" Uh, yeah, the mere fact that it was an alleged wereworlf and witch is already special importance! Not like a trial like this happened every weekend, I mean, come on.

I think I will need to go through your edits with a fine tooth comb here, because we haveto follow the Wikipedia:No original research policy, which prohibits people with coming up with conclusions on their own and entering them into the article. You seem to be citing yourself as an expert for the info you are putting in, and that's a major no no here. DreamGuy 22:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would have to disagree with you DreamGuy -- the aristocracy, thoughout history, have been hesitant to mingle with the commoners. This is a practice that stretches back at least as far as Egypt and the pharoahs, who would not allow themselves to venture outside amongst the masses very often so that when they did, it would inspire a sense of awe.

To a lesser degree, this is seen in European history. Kings, queens and the aristocracy would refuse to even be seen near the "lesser" individuals.

Heck, look at world leaders today: when was the last time you saw President Bush, Koffi Annan, or Stephen Harper just appear in some backwater hick town, no matter what the occassion. I would say Peter's comments, if not properly backed by citations are at the very least logical.

"You seem to be citing yourself as an expert for the info you are putting in, and that's a major no no here" Uh, no. Wrong, DreamGuy. VERY wrong. Inserting stuff that is POV and/or uncited, including "original research" is a "no no" here. Merely being an expert on a subject you're editing the article for is NOT verboten in any way, shape or form, and if it were, Wikipedia would be worthless. Because, let's face it, technically an "expert" can be considered someone who is merely experienced with something... which would mean someone who has read all the Harry Potter books can't write about Harry Potter, someone who's been to WorldCon every year since it started couldn't write about WorldCon, etc., not to mention taking it to the other extreme, by your logic a Nobel Prize-winning physicist could not correct a mistake in a physics article. For that matter, by that logic only people who aren't fluent in a language could write articles about that language or that define terms from it!

Personally, I think you just caught the merest whiff of original research and got a little worried - which, you know, understandable. But what you should have done was link the (new?) fellow, expert Wikipedian to the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. And while I don't think you've gone there yet, DreamGuy, please keep Wikipedia:Civility in mind, all right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Runa27 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

I have to agree with DreamGuy. It doesn't matter how long he's been dead - that doesn't allow us to write misleading information. It's not about whether we want to "defend" him, it's about writing accurate information. As for "We might as well be debating whether Brutus actually stabbed Caesar." - if people were suggesting we wrote historically dubious information on that, then that would also be bad.

Are we to suppose that "It is impossible to determine whether Stumpp really" was a werewolf, or had slept with a succubus, since those were also his crimes? Would we write similar information on an article of someone who was burned as a with - "It is impossible to determine whether X was really a witch, and really cast spells and flew on broomsticks"?

And if you say "who gives a damn if he did it or not", then exactly - why is the article speculating on whether he did the crimes or not? Mdwh (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the cite I just added, he confessed under the threat of torture, not actual torture.--Auric (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Being racked not torture?

"After being stretched on the rack, but before actual torture commenced, he confessed . . .".

Being stretched on the rack is most assuredly torture. The author must have had something in mind, based on the cited source, so I hesitate to change it to "After being stretched on the rack, he confessed . . .". Urgos (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

well, whoever wrote this was just trying to savour the topic. also going on about how this execution was among the "most brutal on record" and how the trial was "one of the most lurid and famous". The article should just be copy-edited for tone. And for historical perspective. This is all based on a 1590 pamphlet. You cannot just take these at face value (there were also "UFO-battles"). Perhaps base the article on the actual literature cited. The popular interst in this pamphlet in particular is apparently due to Summers. So perhaps distinguish an appreciation of the historical evidence from a discussion of the role of this case in modern werewolfiana due to Summers. --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Execution section

I removed the claim that Stumpp's daughter and mistress were raped and burned alive. There is no source for this information that doesn't seem to come back to this article, and the claim was added by an ip that has been associated with vandalism on other articles.Ms408 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Breaking Wheel illustration caption refers to missing hand but both hands are present

Hi there, it seems like there have been some nasty fights on this page and I am not trying to start another one, I don't have a wikipedia account, I'm just a researcher who wandered by and noticed something. The caption for the woodcut of the breaking wheel states: "In each of these three depictions we can see that Stumpp’s left hand is missing, presumably pointing to the fact that the werewolf had its left forepaw cut off." Zooming it on the illustration you can see both of Peter's hands are tied to the breaking wheel and both hands are present. Here's an Imgur upload where I've highlighted both hands in red: https://imgur.com/a/cxnKvn5

Thank you for your consideration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.192.210 (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)