Talk:Fritzl case/Archive 1

Picture of the hospital

This foto placed on this articles doesn't show the hospital from Amstetten, but is the hospital in Mauer, where the other people of the family is placed now. -- 212.88.172.4 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC) de:User:Karl Gruber

Where do I find pictures of Elisabeth Fritzl? 24.84.42.207 (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask, why are none of the children showing signs of a disability? I always thought that incest causes disability, maybe not in every case, but isn't there a much increased chance? 92.232.121.101 (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read one of the children has a heart condition, not sure which. And the daughter whose sickness brought the whole thing to light has kidney failure, although it's not clear if that's due to medical neglect in the dungeon or maybe related to inbreeding.Fletcher (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the other children might have health problems or disabilities, although as noted above such results are not universal in cases of incest, they merely occur more frequently in children born of incestuous relationships that they do in the general population. The daughter who has been held under the ground is currently in hospital; the two boys may well have congenital health problems: as neither had (it seems) ever seen a doctor until a few days ago it is hard to know. Equally, neither of them will have had the opportunity to do any sort of normal "cardio" exercise (running, jumping, climbing, swimming, etc), and some problems might not be unmasked in those circumstances. They will doubtless have health problems, though, as a result of their life-long incarceration, quite apart from any issues arising from their parentage. 4 May 2008

Photo

Restored request for photo. Elisabeth's photo is all over the internet, including here, so there is no reason why it shouldn't be on this article as well if a properly licensed photo becomes available. Once Elisabeth learns to use the internet she will see her photo everywhere. She will not be any more traumatised by seeing it on this article. HtD (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Where do you suppose we are going to get a freely-licenced photo? Elisabeth Fritzl is not a celebrity someone can snap at a public appearance. Rovaniemi-5 (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

She may well make public appearances, as Natascha Kampusch has. Also, an existing photo might be released into the public domain. We don't know yet, but if possible, there is no reason why a photo shouldn't be used. HtD (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

further it has been made clear that the family needs privatcy. For that a foto will be contraproductive. (User:flmanuel) 16:14 29. April 2008(GMT +1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.122.102.162 (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, there are photos of Elisabeth and her parents everywhere. Omitting photos from a Wikipedia article will not help protect their privacy. HtD (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

But it will show Wikipedia's respect for her privacy and set an example of the high standards to which we, as Wikipedians, should hold ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.218.4.213 (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia be censored? There are photos of victims of other crimes all over WP, including the Soham murders victims. WP's role is to present all the verifiable information available on subjects that are deemed notable. If a photo is available, it should be included. HtD (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This rhetorical question puts a false argument. Respect for privacy has nothing to do with censorship, but with control of the quality of the content. Otto (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not addressing the points he made. (Jmrepetto (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

Take a picture yourself or find one that is either public domain or fair use, and it will be posted. Otherwise there are legal ramnifications preventing just that. So far, all the pictures published on the web have been copyrighted by news agencies.–Mwimmer (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Take a picture yourself or find one that is either public domain or fair use.."

Yes, that is what I am saying, such a photo may become available, and it should be added when it is. The photo on the Soham murders page is a fair use image. Look at the rational for the use of that photo. I am sure a similar fair use reasons could be given for eventually using the widely circulated photo of Elisabeth before her imprisonment. That would not compromise her privacy as it does not show what she looks like now.

Wikipedia does not allow images of living people if there is a possibility that a free image could be produced in future. It allows pictures of Soham victims because they are dead, and a free image is therefore never going to be available. I'm not entirely in agreement with this policy, but that is the policy.--Redirectorial (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone add a picture of the house and the celler, it would help in undertanding the whole situation. (86.108.105.19 (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

Renaming

The AfD discussion was useful in that it highlighted the possible need to rename/merge this article. What do others think? The title on German Wikipedia is "The Amsetten Incest Case", but that may be because they are still not fully naming the protagonists, despite the fact that their identities are widely known. Spanish and Swedish WP go with "Elisabeth Fritzl", and Danish and Dutch WP with "Joseph Fritzl". An option would be "The Fritzl case" or "The Fritzl incest case", which would allow for separate articles on individuals in the future if that becomes necessary. One thing we can count on is that in the coming weeks and months, much more will come to light, both about the case and the individuals, including more about their personal backgrounds. HtD (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely this should be renamed. Elisabeth Fritzl is not the only victim in this case, there are also several children we don't have articles on, and of course the accused. We'd also be wrong to create individual articles on each of the people involved in the case, given the duplication of content that would be required. Much better to move this article to "Fritzl abuse case" (incest is not the only crime alleged here; the imprisonment of three children and their mother for years is at least as much what this is about) and document the whole case in this article instead of having it as a biography that in actual fact talks about the lives of several people. Rovaniemi-5 (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I like and support the idea of renaming. Generally, we don't name articles after perpetrators - but there's more than one victim here over a series of years. The media will settle down in the next few weeks as to what they are going to call it, I suggest we wait as well until we rename. Rgds,Trident13 (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with renaming, but it would be wise to wait until a more appropriate name presents itself. There's no doubt that the pivotal characters in the story are EF and her father; so the current name is as good as any suggested so far. Once the 'dust settles', it will likely be a no brainer. but to change and maybe need to change again would not be helpful. - Heenan73 (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more sense if the article name changed to something like Amstetten abuse scandal as it's much more than just one person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mika2008 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Three children were raised for their entire lives in a dungeon - this is in no way an incidental part of the story. The article covers the whole affair, it should not masquerade as a biography of either Elisabeth or Joseph Fritzl. Natascha Kampusch is a bit different because she was the only person held. In this case there were several captives and it makes little sense to privilege the mother over the children in naming this article. 79.68.150.243 (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest to wait if the case receives a common name form the media. It will still take some time to figure out what they call it! [user:flmanuel]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.122.102.162 (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's best to rename the article to Josef Fritzl instead after one of the victims. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No i think the case will have a name. like abuse case of amstetten or something like that. further the Kampusch case also is named after the victim! --80.122.102.162 (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Renaming makes a lot of sense. Naming this article after the main victim seems unjust to me. First of all, it's not just her, but all her children too. Second, if anyone's privacy needs protection here, it is she and the other victims. I think the article should be named either after her father or preferably just "Amstetten Incest Case".–Mwimmer (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Elisabeth Fritzl → Josef Fritzl — There is more than just one victim of this case and Josef is who most of the attention is focused on. Instead of having a long title like "2008 Incest case in Lower Austria", we can have a short and sweet title because readers are more likely to type in "Josef Fritzl" than the aformentioned title. —Tocino (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Second. That is the name I entered to see what info Wiki had on the case (Jmrepetto (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support I am the petitioner. --Tocino 17:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Move to "Amsetten incest case" None of the people involved are currently notable outside this case, none of their names should be used as the article title. -Neitherday (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer aren't known for anything other than their murders. I am certain that Josef Fritzl will live in infamy with the likes of those two. --Tocino 17:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Support moving to "Amstetten incest case" The victims should be given a little consideration.--Roland (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See above. There has been discussion on this and the consensus so far is that a name change is necessary, but that we should wait. If it is not appropriate to name this article after one protagonist, it surely can't be appropriate to name it after another. HtD (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support alternate name "Amsetten incest case" given above. This is more about the case than the primary victim and should help avoid some BLP problems. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm for renaming it to Josef Fritzl... that's what I typed in to find the article. --bodnotbod (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support for moving it to Amsetten incest case. D.M.N. (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support moving to Josef Fritzl* at least for now until a name is given to the incident in general by the media. I typed Josef Fritzl to find this article.

• Support, either new suggestion is better than the current name. –Zinjixmaggir 22:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose move to Josef Fritzl; Support move to Amstetten incest case. This is, or should be, a page on the whole situation not a bio article. Moving it from being a bio on one person to a bio on another hardly helps. BlueValour (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support alternate Amsetten incest case move. --Adxp (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support renaming, e.g. as The Fritzl case, as this covers everybody involved (so far).--Noe (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I think it's pretty well agreed that "Elisabeth Fritzl" is the wrong name, and "Amsetten incest case" is a title that has very little precedent on Wikipedia, plus, remember that the incest is still only alleged.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 03:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Not only that, but incest is only one of the crimes alleged, and perhaps not even the most serious one compared to 24 years of rape, imprisonment etc. HtD (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This article should be named "Josef Fritlz". If you put your political correctness aside, you'll see he is the center figure of all this. Not his daughter, not his family, but him. Just an observation and please spare me the "See WP:WHATEVER" garbage. (Jmrepetto (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
• Oppose any move for the moment. No hurry. Wait for the dust to settle. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support 1) Elisabeth is the main, but not the only victim; 2) if anyone's privacy rights need protection, it's she. I think there should be a page about the case (which is more than just an incest case - kidnapping, wrongful detention, continued sexual abuse - if you can read the German discussion page, do that, I think it's been helpful), so maybe "Amstetten Abuse Case", and then one page about Josef, there are more and more reports about his personality. But please move this article away from Elisabeth's name.––Mwimmer (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The authorities have said that they plan to change the identities not only of Elisabeth but her children and siblings and their families as well. Therefore, the objections to using Elisabeth's identity as the name of the article have less force it seems to me. The main thing that cannot be done, if it ever became known, would be to reveal her new identity. But to refer to her by an identity she will no longer be using, in the historic context, will in no way invade her future privacy. She will be "somebody else". HtD (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support renaming, e.g. as Fritzl Dungeon Case or Amstetten Dungeon Case. What makes this case (sadly) unique is not the rape and incest as such but the imprisonment and total isolation of 4 people, for 24 years, 19 year, 18 years and 5 years, respectively, with the 3 children even being born in captivity, plus the 3 other children who were kept captive from birth until they were 9 months, 10 months and 15 months old.--Kathlutz (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Clearly neither The Amstetten incest case nor Joseph Fritzl are going to achieve consensus, so I suggest going back to The Fritzl case as the name. This avoids the name of any individual family member as well as not including the whole town in this tragedy (it is not the fault of the residents of Amstetten that these alleged crimes happened there, and we didn't name the Madeleine McCann article "The Disappearance of Madeleiene McCann in Praia da Luz" for example). It also doesn't focus on just one of the many alleged crimes. I think that this compromise would do for now, and if there is a need to rename it something else in future (or create spin-off articles) that always remains a possibility. HtD (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose any move for now. Wait for the dust to settle. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support, Not the most exciting name, but better than the current one. Not sure why we need a new survey, though. There was really only one oppose vote in the previous survey. --Redirectorial (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I just want to say that I think it was totally wrong that one user took it upon himself to change the page name without any regard whatsoever for the views of others as expressed here on the Talk Page. Wikipedia is supposed to be ruled by consensus not diktat. Tovojolo (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose : As per Kittybrewster's argument above. Renaming should wait until the case details are out in the open. TerminusEst (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Bit late! :-) HtD (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Allegedly

Is there really need for all the "allegedly"-s and "supposedly"-s in this article? Hasn't Fritzl confessed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.150.112 (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because he has not been found guilty in a court of law. Until such time, he is presumed innocent. A confession can always be retracted. HtD (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I agree, I understand the need to be impartial until verdict, however the word 'allegedly' is used far too many times, we need synonyms or the sentences need rephrasing to prevent the use of 'allegedly' over and over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.189.2 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If the father, the daughter and the police agrees he's kept her captive for 24 years, do we need "allegedly"? Of course, we only know from the media who know from the police that the father has said that... etc. But if no-one is on record saying that he didn't, I don't see why we should consider it an allegation only.--Noe (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My response above is quite clear. Until he is officially found guilty, it is an allegation. Remember, the police acknowledge that he talked without his lawyer present. That is always questionable. Once he speaks to his lawyers the confession might be retracted and he could claim it was not properly given for any number of reasons and plead not guilty. Until he is found guilty by a court, these remain allegations. HtD (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As I predicted, attorneys have become involved! Josef Fritzl's lawyer makes it quite clear that he disputes many of the allegations. The only one where we can now safely removed "alleged" is regarding his fatherhood of the children. HtD (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree that overuse of 'allegedly' jars given the admitted main facts. But I respect the legal nicety of his not having been found guilty. How about synonyms 'apparently', 'seemingly', 'supposed' just to make it readable? Earthlyreason (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Or "The police/authorities etc. claim..." HtD (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove the names?

The German version of this article has removed all identifying information of the parties involved, and is currently going through the deletion process. Our deletion vote resulted in a keep, but would it be prudent to remove the names of the victims and perpetrator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redirectorial (talk • contribs) 12:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? HtD (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, if the BBC names the accused and victims so should wikipedia, besides censoring the names of the individuals seems like an unreasonable action considering the the main victim is in her 40s and the accused is also an adult, the names of the others involved (children?) is the only thing that could be questioned if published, but that also seems pointless to censor Thisglad (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the children, particularly those locked in the basement, were just as much victims as anybody else. Would obscuring their identities really be so unreasonable?--Redirectorial (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If precedence is anything to go by, all the victims will be relocated and given new identities anyway. In any event, their identities are so widely known that not including them in the Wikipedia entry would not serve the purpose of protecting their identities. HtD (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Times allegation

Is anyone else uncomfortable with the allegations by The Times that have just been added? For one thing, there is a discrepancy, because the headline talks about a sex offence and the body about arson, so I don't think it's a reliable source. Bearing WP:BLP in mind, such a serious allegation should be supported by more than just speculation in a newspaper. I haven't removed it because I think other opinions are needed. HtD (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The earlier sex offense is being widely reported in German language media, although details are spotty at present. Also, more than one article mentions that he was twice under suspicion of arson, but that there were no charges. Twalls (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Another Times article says there were actual convictions [1]Twalls (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The offense is said to have occurred in Linz in 1969, but the conviction was expunged from his record and not readily verifiable. Police say they will have to search other records to determine this. According to some reports, certain residents of Amstetten had heard Fritzl went to jail for raping a woman sometime in the past. Twalls (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's expunged, it cannot be brought up and should not be part of the article. HtD (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You may be confusing cognizable evidence in a legal proceeding and Wikipedia articles. Of course it can be brought up, if it happened. Twalls (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Fritzl could sue anyone who mentions a conviction that is spent. HtD (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? HtD (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

considering his current predicament, I don't think that would be a likely scenario, but in any case if the event occurred and there is a reliable source it should be mentioned and even if you are pardoned of a crime (there is no evidence that he was pardoned of any prior crimes) I fail to see how any law prevents publication of knowledge of the crime committed Thisglad (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Because a conviction is a conviction. A spent conviction is a spent conviction. They don't evaporate afterwards. See, e.g. Jeffrey Archer. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

They don't "evaporate" but there are laws against referring to them in most jurisdiction, especially when court cases may be pending. HtD (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, it could lead to him being unable to get a fair trial. In most jurisdictions (I am not sure about Austria) there are sub-judice laws, and one stipulation is that previous spent convictions cannot usually be mentioned in case they prejudice an eventual trial. HtD (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Der alte Fritzl can sue me if he wants to for mentioning his prior convictions or jail time; it won't stick. In my understanding, there is no such sub-judice restriction in the state of Florida (which Wikipedia is governed by, legally) on non-parties to the case under judgement. Twalls (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you could be sued in any country that Wikipedia is published in! But the point is not so much that, but ensuring that the chance of justice is not denied to the victims because of a technicality because sub-judice hads been breached. It's exactly the kind of thing that gets guilty people off. HtD (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You make an interesting point. It might be instructive to look at similar cases and whether that has been an issue. Twalls (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

changed a line

I changed one of the last lines which stated "his children are also his grandchildren". Seeing as his daughter is clearly not one of his grandchildren that sounded odd to me, so I changed it to "his grandchildren are also his children" which I feel is more true seeing as, assuming this is his only children, all of his grandchildren are,in fact, also his children. Herotastic (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And Elizabeth is also half-sibling to her children. Is this line necessary at all? It's enough information that he is the father of the children. Anything more is trivia, or worse, voyeurism. 202.7.183.131 (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering also why we need that statement. It's surely obvious enough that the readers could figure it out for themselves? Ashton1983 (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

External links

Do we really need all these links to various media reports? Surely if a report is relevant it will be quoted in the article and referenced. It seems a bit pointless to have a growing list of links that say pretty much the same thing as each other and the article. HtD (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I vote for deletion of all external links. Especially the one (joseffritzl.org) that seem to be a designed moneymaker (ads) for a third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.11.59.125 (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted them once before (and they were re-added). I've deleted them again. If there is a need for these articles to be linked to or referenced, they should be used as references, not as external links. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The Sun: WP:RS?

I don't really think The Sun can be considered a fully-reliable source, especially as it is a tabloid, and especially as this is currently a developing event. Opinions? D.M.N. (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that to use it as a reference for something where there is no WP:BLP issue involved is just about OK. The quote about the tenant hearing knocking for example is OK I think. The knocking could have been anything; the statement in the article that relies on the Sun makes no accusation. If The Sun is the only source for a serious allegation, I think it should not be used. Even "exclusives" eventually get reported elsewhere. HtD (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've seen blatantly incorrect information in The Sun before -- sometimes stuff they would have known was false if they'd spent five seconds Googling it, or even typed it into the search bar of Snopes.com. I wouldn't trust The Sun to tell my what color the sky was. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

In which case, why don't we just remove all global NewsCorp sources! Much as though like all media agencies they can on occasions go outside the edge, they are a newspaper which takes less complaints/flack from the Press Complaints Commission than many of their white-top counterparts, and are the most read newspaper in the UK. This unspecific issue looks like a white wash comment over NewsCorp-owned sources. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many NewsCorp sources far more reliable than the Sun. I suspect they receive less complaints at least partly because nobody takes their stories seriously in the first place.--Redirectorial (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Renamed

Per BLP. We will cover the event, not the person, in the case of victims notable for one thing in their life. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I object in the strongest possible terms to the current name. Incest is only one of the crimes alleged; there are many others, some of which people might consider more serious. I agree that the names of the protagonists should be removed, but we should not have a name that includes only part of the story. HtD (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fritzl Amstetten case? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, because there is also no need to tarnish the whole town. I think The Fritzl case is the only suggestion that hasn't had a serious objection raised to it. It would do for now. They will have their identities changed anyway. HtD (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish people would check talk pages before renaming! As others have said in the debate above (which unfortunately was coming to a consensus until Lawrence Cohen moved it without input to or apparent review of the discussion), leave it as is until the dust settles. Any renaming/moving/shifting now would be pointless. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Incest is no longer merely alleged. DNA testing has been completed. Even his lawyer has conceded incest has been confirmed, while saying the other charges are unproven. In this case, scientific testing trumps a court of law. I'd stick with the current title, as it is more descriptive of the actual subject.--Redirectorial (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and "alleged" has been removed regarding the incest. But what does that have to do with the renaming? HtD (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

While Lawrence Cohen did rename without consultation, I'd say that this is a better name than what we were headed towards because it better describes the case. Especially now that the incest has been confirmed.--Redirectorial (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it describes one aspect of the case. If people are concerned about the victim's feelings upon seeing her name as the title of the article, what about how she would feel to see only one part of her allegations in the title? Are the other things that she says happened to her not at least as important to her, if not more? HtD (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The other aspects, as has been pointed out throughout this talk page, are still only "alleged". If you wish to rename the article following trial, we can always discuss it.--Redirectorial (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So are we going to rename the article each time a new aspect is proved, and have the whole list, like a sensational tabloid headline? No! Better to leave them all out and be as non-sensational as possible - even if that does make for a bland title. HtD (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was something like adding imprisonment to the title, if you want. Over-descriptiveness is just as bad an option. What I'm not in favor of is selecting the blandest title possible for the sake of selecting the blandest title possible, at the expense of a useful title.--Redirectorial (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Bland? We are an encyclopedia not a tabloid newspaper. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It makes much more sense to name the article Elizabeth Fritzl, as we do with Natascha Kampusch. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I don't see a problem at all with the current title. Yesterday, when it was Elizabeth Fritzl, I found that confusing, it felt a little victims'-rights-y (this is an encyclopedia article, not a memorial page), and as other have said, it raised WP:BLP concerns.

I suppose Fritzl incest and rape case would be alright. Fritzl incest, rape, and imprisonment case is too long and awkward, The Fritzl case is too undescriptive (and anyway, it sounds like a Sherlock Holmes novel rather than a heinous crime), and Fritzl rape case or Fritzl imprisonment case don't really capture the nature of the crime here.

If we are going to name it after a person, I think it has to be Josef Fritzl, in my opinion. Although, Speedo-wearing incest rape dungeon guy would work too.... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does it have to be "descriptive"? I think in a case like this, the less sensational the better. HtD (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict again)

Regarding Exploding Boy's comment, there are several differences between this and the Kampusch case that I think should dissuade us from using Elizabeth Fritzl as the article title:

• There were at least three other victims (the basement children), and as many as six or even thirteen other victims depending on how you look at it (the other three "upstairs" children of Elizabeth, and the wife and other legitimate children may even be considered victims if it turns out they really were duped this whole time).
• In the Kampusch case, whatsisname threw himself in front of a train the same day the story broke, so he wasn't part of the story. Natascha really was the only person notable in this case.
• Kampusch later gave interviews and stuff, made charitable donations with the proceeds, and is now launching a website, making her notable in her own right. If at a later date, Elizabeth Fritzl becomes a notable public figure, that might change things, but for now she is the silent victim of a terrible crime.

I just don't think we can make an apples-to-apples comparison in setting precedent. The current name is better. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

HtD has a point. My main thinking is to try to keep it from being confusing. I suppose The Fritzl case is not absolutely horrible.. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Most users have preveously agreed that Elisabeth's name should not be the title, so I am glad it's gone. I guess Fritzl incest case will do until a better title has been established through the media & the consent on this page.––Mwimmer (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding sensationalism: I don't think we should shy away from calling a spade a spade just because there is an unpleasant word. We should pick the best title for the subject that we can.--Redirectorial (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Under that criterion, the "best" title would be a laundry list of every proven charge, which would be absolutely ridiculous. But if you set the precedent of including once crime, you will have to eventually include them all. HtD (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Good move, Lawrence, you beat me to it. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagee with the "include one crime, include them all" logic. That said, this title is not perfect.

To be honest, it is beginning to look like the title will need to be changed at some point to Josef Fritzl. He raped a woman awhile back, and now it is looking like he may have raped and killed that other girl a couple decades ago. So at some point, there will need to be a Josef Fritzl article, since he is now notable for more than one event. I suppose this case might still have its own article, but I am not sure that would ever be necessary (and it certainly isn't now).

I recognize some of my above comments are a bit WP:CRYSTAL-esque, so I'm not suggesting we act on it now. But I betcha it will need to be named after Josef soon enough. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose the title Josef as the article because of the others seriously affected byt he case such as his daughter and her 7 children, this is why it needs to be a "case" article. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so how do we decide which of dozens of crimes that may well have been committed here are included? I think Josef Fritzl would be acceptable, since there is precedence for people like Dahmer and Ian Brady having articles. But in fact, I think this article will eventually go far beyond the crimes, their perpetrator and the victims. This is a major event in Austria and it will have major effects on the country which will need to be reflected in the article. HtD (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just brainstorming here... what if, instead of listing a crime, we use a descriptor that captures the nature of the case (to avoid confusion) but does not mention a crime, e.g. Fritzl dungeon case. See here for an example of it being called this (and actually, that was the first link I got when I Googled for "Fritzl") --Jaysweet (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would find that acceptable. Descriptive, but not overly sensational. HtD (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The naming I moved it to is neutral and descriptive. People will likely search for the name first, and then the "major" component of this that the media is pouncing on, the incest. We are not doing an article on the victim herself, as we don't do articles on living victims of crimes unless they choose to make themselves public. I did simple math and Fritzl + incest + case = Fritzl incest case. It's neutral, non-sensational/tabloid, and accurately sums up the state of affairs on 4/30/08. We can always rename it later if the media starts collectively referring to it as something else. This is similar to the renaming of Megan Meier to Megan Meier suicide controversy. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I strongly disagree for the reasons I already stated. I also disagree, as others do, about the way this was done, unlaterally, by someone who seems to have had no involvement in the article and who appears not even to have read the article or talk pages before acting. HtD (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If anything, Fritzl abduction case (or similar) is a much better title. Incest is far from the only factor for one thing, and 8 people were involved, but only one of them was subjected to incest last I heard. Besides which, "rape" would be a better description than "incest" anyway. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The things that make this case extraordinary are the period of abduction, the fact that three children were hidden throughout their lives, the planning and the failure of the community to notice. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I second Jaysweet's suggested "Fritzl dungeon case", which was my thought before I even read his comment. I agree with comments that "incest case" places too narrow a focus on one aspect of the case (I'd say the rape and imprisonment are far more egregious and notable than incest). And I agree with Exploding Boy that I have only heard of Elisabeth being victim of rape, although I would not be at all surprised if this jackass raped his other children as well. "Fritzl abduction case" also works, but to me, "abduction" connotes being taken away to some other place; what is odd about this case is the crime took place in the victims' home, and of course Elisabeth's children were born into confinement, so they were not actually abducted. Fletcher (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Fritzl dungeon case" gets around 30 google hits. The current name is more widely recognizable.--122.109.134.161 (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

How about Fritzl OMG WTF case? Seriously, though, it's mighty hard to capture even a fraction of what makes this case so shocking with only a single word. I really am beginning to feel, despite my earlier suggestion of Fritzl dungeon case, that Josef Fritzl is the best thing to do. Yes, there are many other people involved. But none of them chose this, so Fritzl really is the public figure here.

There is wide precedent among Wikipedia for naming the article about a series of crimes perpetrated by a single individual after the perpetrator. See Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, Marc Dutroux, Arthur Shawcross for examples. Or, if you object that they are all convicted killers and Fritzl is not (yet, anyway) accused of murder, therefore it is apples and oranges, I'd point to Michael and Sharen Gravelle, which was not named the Gravelle foster care case, but rather after the perpetrators. (On a personal note, I think the Gravelles were probably mostly well-intentioned despite the horrible things they did, unlike this Fritzl nut, but I digress)

I don't see that we are dishonoring the victims by naming it after Josef; rather, I think it would be rather cruel to associate their names with a horrible thing they did not choose. This article is about the crimes, not about the victims, and unless an accomplice is unearthed, the perpetrator of and central figure in those crimes is Josef Fritzl. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I am beginning to agree with Jaysweet. Especially as it is emerging that Josef's crimes may go back a long way, he, in his own right, is becoming not only notable but notorious in the same way as Jeffrey Dahmer and Fred West. HtD (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There may be WP:Bio issues with naming the article Josef Fritzl. He has no notability outside this admittedly heinous case, which is why we renamed this article from Elisabeth Fritzl in the first place. I've got a feeling the Gravelle article might have WP:bio problems too.--Redirectorial (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, specifically WP:ONEEVENT says cover the event, not the person.

I think it is inevitable that this`article will eventually be named "Josef Fritzl". The article is increasingly focused on him and this focus will only be sharpened if one of the children dies and he is charged with "Murder by Negligence". Tovojolo (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That is possible, but I can make an argument the other way. Jaysweet gives some examples of articles named after the criminal, but: Fritzl is not an iconic maniac like Charles Manson; Fritzl's crime left survivors who have their own stories, and whose lives may continue to generate coverage; and the nature of Fritzl's crime is notable in a horrific sort of way (it doesn't make sense to have articles on each rape/killing of a child, as that event is common of serial killers, but dungeon imprisonment seems to be a much rarer event, and this one seems the worst of its kind). The psychological challenges faced by Elisabeth and her children are also notable, but might be off-topic in an article about Josef Fritzl. --Fletcher (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Dungeon imprisonment is not as rare as one might think, as I am finding out... apparently some guy just a couple hours from where I live had women locked up in his basement from like the late 90s until 2004, and it didn't get enough news coverage that either I or my wife had heard of it. Of course, now the local news stations are rehashing it because of the Fritzl case.

Anyway, that aside, I think we are right on the threshold of WP:ONEEVENT. If any of these other related allegations start to be actively investigated by the police, then I think we have no choice but to have an article Josef Fritzl.

Regarding the objection that Charles Manson is an iconic killer who left no survivors (although, arguably some members of the Manson family could be termed "survivors" I suppose, but again I digress..) -- I bet I can find more examples that are more analogous to the Fritzl case (e.g. Marc Dutroux). Should I bother digging them up, or are we ignoring precedent per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It could be argued that if other charges outside the scope of this case are laid, we should probably start a separate article for Josef Fritzl. As Fletcher said, there are aspects of this case that are notable, but probably would become off-topic once we changed the article to being about Fritzl. The case has a significance in and of itself.--Redirectorial (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we had pretty much decided that the case is Josef Fritzl and Joseph Fritzl is the case. HtD (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply name the title the "Fritzl Abuse Case", as the abuse was systemic, multi-faceted and included more than incest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.141.108 (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Front page news?!

Why does this topic not get a mention on Wikipedia's home page news section? Surely it is one of the more noteworthy events that has happened recently? This is a dispicable act (the sad case itself, not the front page thing) and surely deserves a mention. 86.147.244.121 (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Added. 27 April. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the IP editor means the Main Page of the encyclopaedia. HtD (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and to answer 86.147.244.121: You are complaining in the wrong place. It's pretty random what the In the News section chooses to cover... --Jaysweet (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Something unclear

I don't understand how this could happen :

"Kerstin fell unconscious outside her grandparents' home" "Accompanying Kerstin was a note written by her mother asking for help."

How is that that Kerstin was outside? Kromsson (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats what all the sources are reporting, so presumably some of them were let out at times? This would be a good point to cover from sourcing if someone sees information. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 21:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It could have been so that Fritzl brought Kerstin up from the cellar and had her outside. From there, he may have gone up and told his wife that Kerstin had been dropped off there outside in that state with the note. He then apparently called for the ambulance. It's also unclear at which point the boys were freed. One article said the cops were the first outside faces they saw; did he leave them inside the cellar when he took Elisabeth to the hospital or did he take them with him? The news articles so far are unclear on that point. In any case, we can improve the article as more details emerge. Twalls (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Very good article now

Hello! I just wanted to say that this is already a very good article. (Comparing to the article at German Wikipedia whereas they still f**k around creating one.)

So thanks! --WG18 (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Germans don't write, they delete. 85.1.144.59 (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Stub reinserted. - Kittybrewster ☎ 15:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Upload of a weekly journal cover

Hi there! Just a question: Is it allowed to upload a cover of a weekly journal on en.wikipedia? Would it be fair use? --WG18 (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. HtD (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

These events did not happen in Australia

I am not sure whether someone deliberately changed this article, but the events did not happen in Australia. They took place in Austria. There is even a map of Australia in the article. This should be changed ASAP. Oriorc (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I saw it on the BBC website that it was in Australia. BBC does not lie. 72.72.16.74 (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just plain vandalism/hooliganism, a typical phenomenon encountered every day on Wikipedia. Given its frequency from different IPs, and topicality of the article generating a lot of visits, it's likely copycat vandalism. I'm OK with the protection of the page.

Nonetheless, some geographically challenged people do confuse the two countries. This may even be what the vandals are making fun of. When I spent a summer in Austria (no, not in Amstetten) a friend's parents sent him a letter, properly addressed. It took about six weeks to get there, as it was first sent by the US Postal Service to Australia. Twalls (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a longer semi here

Major BLP issues, ongoing vandalism, major huge news story just underway internationally. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Full lock for vandalism?

This is completely unnecessary, merely give it semi and block the semi-proof vandals accounts. What is so difficult about that? Please let us unlock and revert, block and ignore the vandals. Nothing more disheartening than to see a vandal rebuke everyone's editing privileges, it merely encourages them. Thanks, SqueakBox01:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to semi-protection.--Patrick (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed the semi-protection template to be small. I am not sure if I am supposed to do this as a non-admin. But in any case, this is such a big story, the Wikipedia page must be getting hundreds of thousands of hits per day, and it's embarrassing to the project to have such a prominent protection tag. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional categories needed

{{editprotected}} Please add:- Category:Lower Austria, Category:2008 in Austria, Category:2008 crimes. BlueValour (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done I didn't make any changes, but it looks like someone else already did. --CapitalR (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo 2

Shouldn't we add a profile photo of Josef Fritzl? If not please someone tell me why... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MightySaiyan (talk • contribs) 16:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a freely licenced one, by all means add it. But all the photos in circulation at the moment are copyright and can't be used. HtD (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening

This needs rewriting, it gets the chronology completely mixed up. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Think it's OK now. HtD (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Similar cases section could get out of hand

Similar case Genie (feral child) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.59.141 (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I see the point of this section -- a lot of the media is comparing this to the Natascha Kampusch (sp?) case, as well as other cases. However, we can't just add any case that has any kind of similarity, or it will turn into an entire category in and of itself.

What if we make the requirement that to go in the similar cases section, you need to have a citation showing a reliable source comparing the two cases? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Another idea perhaps would be to limit it to cases occurring in Austria, and if we were to expand that cases in the European union. This is an and not an or to JS'as suggestion. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I almost suggested limiting it to cases in Austria. That may still be a good idea. My reservations are that a) I sort feel like that would be unfairly picking on Austria, heh (even though I do personally think there are systemic issues that may contribute to this sort of thing going undetected for so long, but that's neither here nor there), and b) that could still leave open the door to listing just about every case of rape or imprisonment ever to have occurred in Austria.

Just some thoughts. In any case, I don't think the Genie (feral child) addition, as suggested previously, is appropriate for inclusion. The only similarity is child imprisonment, and, unfortunately, that happens all the time. The motivations, circumstances, outcome, and geographical location of the Genie case were all entirely different. (On a side note, reading about the Genie case really depressed the hell out of me, heh)

The Maria K thing is sourced, but I have some concerns about it (more on that later)

Marc Dutroux was Belgian, and it didn't involve family members, so I don't see how this has much to do with anything

On the flip side of this, a couple of news outlets (I'd have to dig up the link, but I have it in my e-mail) have mentioned a recent case, also in Austria, where this woman, unidentified except that she is a middle-aged lawyer, had gone through a nasty divorce, got custody of her daughters, then had a complete mental breakdown and kept them locked in a dark room for several years. Sounds like the kids might have been (mentally) worse off even than Fritzl's basement family. I'll dig that up when I get a chance... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the Dutroux link as irrelevant, and added a blurb about the Austrian lawyer who locked up her daughters, along with a citation demonstrating that a reliable source has compared it to the Fritzl case. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I just added a case of a french woman who had 6 children from her father - who tortured and raped her. I didn't see this before. I'll try to look for source comparing the two cases. Kromsson (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I just added a link to the previously existing (English) Wikipedia article about John Jamelske. I acknowledge that I have not yet searched for and inserted a reference to external media that cites Jamelske and Fritzl in the same article. I submit that if there is already a Wikipedia article about a kidnapper who hid his victim(s) in a bunker; -- and the victims survived to tell their story; -- then the existence of the article should be sufficient cause for inclusion in the "Similar cases" part of the Fritzl article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publius3 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Citing only Austrian cases sends the message that this kind of crime is special to Austria, whereas similar cases have been reported all over the world, but not publicized in the same way as the Austrian cases. I would suggest that either no such section is included, referring to the appropriate category, or cases in other countries are also included. The latter will result in a list of about a dozen cases that are documented in English Wikipedia that would then also have to include the same list. The page is protected for now, but I would suggest that a sentence is entered at the top of the Similar Cases section that clarifies the rationale of the section such as "This case has been compared to similar cases that occurred in Austria listed below. There are many similar crimes that have been committed all over the world". In any case, the title of the section sould read "Selected similar cases".  Andreas  ^(T) 17:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any references other than the reference to the Kampusch case, no matter how many times they may be cited in the media. I have now done some more research on both the Linz lawyer and Maria K and I am happy to provide it although most of it is in German. Current summaries in the press, be it Austrian or Australian, are off the mark. Maria K was not locked into a box for 9 years, she was locked into a coffin like box during the night for 4 years and repeatedly locked first into the toilet, later into a shed in the garden but not continuously. The Linz children were not locked away for 7 years, they lived with a mother diagnosed as paranoid-schizophrenic who gradually cut off their social contacts over a period of 4 years and made them stay in a neglected household but not by physically locking them away.--Kathlutz (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Only one child walks with hunch

Due to the low ceilings, the older children walk with a permanent hunch

I think that should read:

Due to the low ceilings, the oldest child, Stefan, walks with a permanent hunch

Or preferably, rewritten completely to match the Telepgraph and Times sources. The Telegraph cite does not state how the oldest walks, instead it uses "cramped physical posture". The imprisoned children where 19 (taken to hospital unconscious, therefore not walking), 18 (Stefan) and 5 (Felix) years old. The other three (about 15, 14, and 12 years old) were left on the doorstep when babies. Neither news source indicates how those walk. -84.222.3.119 (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done HtD (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That was quick, thanks. -84.222.3.119 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

public appeal source

Austrian police started an appeal via a public media campaign to find the missing mother

If it helps for citing, here is a video archive of the Austrian ORF news channel broadcast of 21 April, starting at 3 minutes 10 seconds with newscaster Robert Ziegler (in German). It shows the clinic where Kerstin was brought and the clinic leader Albert Reiter describing her condition and the need to find her mother. At 4:26 the video shows the outside of the Fritzl house, and later a reporter says that her father (Josef) had looked for Kerstin several times without success, and that there were rumours (no sources though) involving a cult, possibly satanic. Here is the link:

mms://mediasrv.kabsi.at/noe_heute_archiv/noeheute_2008-04-21.wmv -84.222.3.119 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems ORF has video archives for each day, so here is a summary for the days following from 19 April.

• ( http://mediasrv.kabsi.at/noe_heute_archiv/noeheute_2008-04-19.wmv ) ORF 19 April news report (German, at 5 minutes 20 seconds) has the public appeal for Elisabeth Fritzl to contact the hospital urgently at Anstetten where her daughter is seriously ill.

• ( mms://mediasrv.kabsi.at/noe_heute_archiv/noeheute_2008-04-20.wmv ) ORF 20 April news report has no mention of Fritzl.

• ( mms://mediasrv.kabsi.at/noe_heute_archiv/noeheute_2008-04-21.wmv ) ORF 21 April news report summarised above.

• ( mms://mediasrv.kabsi.at/noe_heute_archiv/noeheute_2008-04-22.wmv ) ORF 22 April report starts at 2 minutes 40 seconds with: the mother's last official records were from 1984 and no official records found for Kerstin; the clinic said Kerstin's condition was poor but stablised, the three children by the grandparents were in goood health; the Landeskriminalamt had taken up the case where a reporter stated that they believed the mother had two other children, 6 and 17 years old; one of the mother's letters stated "Do not look for me, as it will be pointless, and it would increase the suffering/risk to myself and my children" (my translation).

-84.222.3.119 (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• ( [2] [3] [4] [5] ) ORF 23 April until 26 April news reports have no mention.

• ( http://mediasrv.kabsi.at/noe_heute_archiv/noeheute_2008-04-27.wmv ) ORF 27 April news report leads with the Fritzl case starting 2 minutes 40 seconds: the case shocks all Austria; A 73 year old man's arrest yesterday evening showing photograph with black rectangle obscuring the eyes; that the 5 and 18 year old were released from the cellar the night before; police state Elisabeth's statements were absolutely credible; awaiting results for DNA tests, but police believe the arrested will be the father of the seven born in the cellar. I stopped making notes at 10 minutes, but ORF continued reporting repeating that Kerstin was found unconscious outside the building with a letter (near or on her person).

(I have added more to the summary list above) -84.222.19.101 (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have put the first original Public News Broadcast (19 April) into the External links. As that was the first public appeal, it is the one with the greatest historical importance. People can find the other links here. Tovojolo (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Note in pocket?

I have read elsewhere that there was an appeal for the "missing person" Elisabeth rather than her putting a note in her sick child's pocket as this article says, i have tried looking at the reference and can't find where it explains this. The letter would have been a really clever plan, i would like to read the full explanation if someone can cite it?84.9.145.186 (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(Telegraph source found, see below.-84.222.19.101 (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)) I agree, the BBC cite ([6]) does not support this. I did find this (ORF news report of 21 April - I also linked it above) states "next to the unconscious Kerstin lay a letter from the mother asking that Kerstin be cared for" (my translation, I used "Kerstin" for "the woman" to avoid confusion, listen to the video from 4 minutes 30 seconds). However there was no mention of it being in a pocket. Furthermore that BBC cite added to the second sentence (below) does not support it all:

In Kerstin's pocket was a note written by her mother asking for help. Fritzl arrived at the hospital and discussed Kerstin's condition and the mother's note with Dr. Albert Reiter

I searched further sources for that second sentence: [7], and [8], but to no avail.

I suggest someone (who understands German in order to verify) could change it to read as follows

Near to Kerstin was a note written by her mother asking that Kerstin be helped. Fritzl arrived at the hospital and discussed Kerstin's condition and the mother's note with Dr. Albert Reiter.

(Notes)

PS: If anyone wants a related source, this ORF news report 19 April (German, at 5 minutes 20 seconds) has the public appeal for Elisabeth Fritzl to contact the hospital at Anstetten. -84.222.19.101 (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, regarding the pocket I just found this Telegraph source by Nick Allen: "Elisabeth then secreted a note in her daughter’s pocket which made doctors suspicious and they called police." It is unclear whether this note is the same as mentioned in ORF's or whether there was a letter next to Kerstin and also a note. -84.222.19.101 (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy between BBC World news and SBS

In a report on SBS World news 2/5/08 http://video.sbs.com.au/player/news/index.php?chid=12 Alfred Dubanovsky is seen to make a remark which I have not been able to find in the original BBC article, nor elswhere http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7377344.stm

He refers to a conversation they had about taking holidays in Thailand. Fritzl was quoted as saying "We must protect our children, that's why we have to lock them away."

It is a strange thing that the BBC article is otherwise apparently identical. The SBS version is one which I suspect many of you researching this may not have seen and I believe the remark is significant. Any comments? (Mlsdakljnxo (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

Interwiki

Please change the interwiki for the Dutch Wikipedia to nl:Fritzl-incestzaak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.121.140 (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! (But not by me.) Kromsson (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I did it, :) Tovojolo (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Kerstin Fritzlar?

Is this name in the photo of the hospital a typo? I assume it is, since Austria uses standard European naming conventions of absolute heritability without modification, but I just thought I'd check. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 22:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Similar cases

There are dozens of similar cases in the literature. It seems that only the cases that happen in Austria get worldwide attention. I suggest to have a category:Children kept in captivity.  Andreas  ^(T) 20:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we please have a consensus on this?

I would suggest that a case is only similar if it involves the lengthy imprisonment of a child (perhaps also with sexual abuse involved) and:

1. It happened in Austria, or

2. There is a reliable source that draws a comparison or link between the similar case and this case.

Otherwise the list could wind up being longer than the article! HtD (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the list of "similar" cases should be strictly limited - but certainly not to cases in Austria, even if that's the current fashion of some reporters from the English speaking world. I have removed "Maria K" as she was not locked away continuously for 9 years (see for example Wiener Zeitung of 25 August 2006 and many others), even if it sounds like that in current articles - sloppy journalism. I have added Kaspar (Caspar) Hauser again because the Kaspar Hauser syndrome gets mentioned in connection with the Fritzl case. I am happy to add a reference to yet another newspaper article but don't consider it necessary. The list of footnotes is way too long.--Kathlutz (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting only cases in Austria. Point 2 takes care of that. But unless we have some (strict) limit any child who was ever imprisoned and sexually abused anywhere in the world would make the list and (sadly) it would be endless. So Austrian cases for a start, then other cases only if they are really related and relevant. HtD (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is idiotic. The Kaspar Hauser reference was removed again although it was supported by two links to relevant WIKIPEDIA articles. It wasn't original research! I think some people misunderstand this source business. Just because you read something yesterday in a badly researched newspaper doesn't make it useful for a Wikipedia article. "Find a source to support what you say?" Sheesh. Well, here are newspaper articles that mention Fritzl and Kasper Hauser in one article if that's what you want. Take your pick:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/josef-fritzl-the-making-of-a-monster-820370.html - Josef Fritzl: The making of a monster

http://www.20min.ch/news/dossier/amstetten/story/10138793 - Inzest-Opfer für ihr Leben gezeichnet

http://www.euronews.net/index.php?page=info&article=484214&lng=3 - Fotos der Opfer von Amstetten veröffentlicht

http://www.nachrichten.at/kultur/676970?PHPSESSID=06bb0b408308be104a12e7d3f0859146 - Ein Medien-Fressen

and many more.

I am not reinstating the Kaspar Hauser reference again but wonder what factual and useful Wikipedia information is supposed to be - only what was printed in a newspaper and regurgited here? There are so many mistakes in this Fritzl Incest Case article that are taken directly from an (English speaking) newspaper. For example, Fritzl owned land and had to tend to it? Where does that come from? Probably a bad translation of "Grundstücke" or "Immobilien". He owned property, real estate, not land he to tend to. And so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathlutz (talk • contribs) 08:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, I thnk you'll find the Kaspar hauser reference is there! HtD (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree about "land". Have changed to "property". HtD (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Maria K. - There is little information on the net because the case is so old. Newspaper articles from 2007 and earlier write that she was abused by her foster parents for 9 years; repeatedly locked into a wooden box; kept in a wooden box by her adoptive parents during 4 years; abused by her adoptive mother from 1992 until 1996 and regularly locked into a wooden box. Just because one newspaper wrote yesterday that she was kept in a box for 9 years (continuously), and half a million other newspapers copied it, doesn't make it factual.--Kathlutz (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's what the refs uniformly say, so without a cite to the contrary, it is all we have to go by. In any event, comparisons are being drawn in the media between the two cases, which is one of the criteria for incllusion. HtD (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And who decides that these sources (yesterday's newspaper) are reliable, without checking independent other sources? Are they more reliable than for example these: http://orf.at/060904-3490/?href=http%3A%2F%2Forf.at%2F060904-3490%2F3491txt_story.html - Interview with psychiatrist Ernst Berger, one of several experts responsible for the psychological care of N. Kampusch and a therapist for Maria K. who was "kept in a box for 4 years by her adoptive parents".

http://www.falter.at/web/print/detail.php?id=336&sub_id=153 Interview from 2006 with psychiatrist Paulus Hochgatterer who was also involved in caring for Maria K. "who was abused by her adoptive mother from 1992 until 1996 and was regularly locked away in a wooden box". --Kathlutz (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We decide by discussion and reaching a consensus. As I said, if you have better references to bring to the discussion, you are free to do that. We can then make an informed decision about what belongs and what doesn't (like we did on the "land" issue). But the fact remains that the Maria K case meets the two proposed criteria for inclusion - it happened in Austria and has been compared to this case (including the ORF link you cite). HtD (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to limiting it to Austria. If the exact same thing happened in France it would be hugely pertinent. There could however be a category Category:Child abuse in Austria. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we are saying "limit it to Austria". The problem is that any child abduction/imprisonment case (of which there are thousands) could be considered a "similar" case. So where do we draw the line? Austria is one criterion, but I agree it should be broader than that. So how do we open it out enough but so that we don't have a list of 1000 "similar" cases? HtD (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd think that interviews with psychiatrists who actually treated Maria K and contain (as is the case in one of two articles quotes above) a direct quote from them were pretty good and reliable references but I realize that there is a language barrier here. --Kathlutz (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The "similar cases" entry about the lawyer from Linz is also irrelevant, btw. I researched a considerable number of articles in Austrian media, in particular the less sensational ones written around the time of the court trial. The children were not looked into a cellar but they did stay in the house most of the time which was filthy and neglected. The mother was mentally ill. It was a very severe case of child neglect and emotional/psychological abuse. I suggest that all "similar cases" are removed, with the exception of a reference to Kampusch. --Kathlutz (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need a list of similar cases at all in this article? It seems to me to be simply an encouragement to prurience or depravity — harsh words, but still. This case is in fact unique, as is every other similar case. After all, if you look up an article on "Chicago", you don't expect to find a list of "similar cities"; if you look up "Winston Churchill" you don't expect to see a list of "similar politicians". If a list of similar cases is wanted, perhaps there ought to be a separate article about prominent cases of false imprisonment or prolonged incest. 8 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.85.147 (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Similar cases/Linz lawyer

In addition to my previous comments about the Linz lawyer Ingrid L.: The statement "from the ages of seven, 11, and 13 for seven years up to 2005", as claimed in the ("referenced") Wikipedia article, is factually wrong. Here is one of the original court documents (in German), which at least I would consider as a highly reliable primary source: www.ris2.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20070709_OGH0002_0130OS00079_07B0000_000.rtf, according to which the severe physical and emotional neglect and the severe social isolation of the 3 daughters, including denial of contact to their father, covered the following periods:

Oldest daughter (born 20 July 1986): beginning of 2000 until 17 March 2006

Middle daughter (born 20 September 1988): beginning of 2001 until 24 October 2005 (less than 5 years)

Youngest daughter (born 11 December 1991): autumn of 2001 until 24 October 2005 (4 years)

The two younger children were removed by the authorities from their mother's care in October 2005 and moved to therapy center. The oldest daughter remained with the mother until she was arrested on 18 March 2006 (again, according to the above mentioned court paper).

It's a very sad case but other than the fact that it's a very sad case of child neglect and child abuse that took place in Austria and made the headlines in Austria last year, I see no more relevance to the Fritzl case than many other abuse cases. BTW, the parents were divorced in 1999 and the mother was arrested in 2006, hence probably the journo's quick but wrong claim of 7 years. --Kathlutz (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bild (German equivalent of The Sun)/alleged escape in 1994

Is there any reliable source for the alleged escape of Elisabeth on Christmas eve 1994? If not remove it from the article. The credibility of the German Bild is the same as the credibility of the British Sun newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathlutz (talk • contribs) 13:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bild appears to be the only source. With only one source, and it having a dubious reputation, I would not want to include this. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hospital

Deleted information about the hospital where the children are being treated per WP:BLP. HtD (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Similar cases / Japanese schoolgirl Fusako Sano

Having now read the discussion above I understand why my addition of the Japanese schoolgirl case - Fusako Sano - was removed. However given the similarities it is likely to be only a matter of time before some journalist makes the comparison, so I've put it here for the time being. Testbed (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How useful, thank you: I checked Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and it includes the sentence: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. Also, this is the Talk page, which would seem to be the right place. Testbed (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I misunderstood that "I put it here," I thought you meant you put it back in the article (which would have been inappropriate as per WP:CRYSTAL). I see now you meant that you put it here as in the Talk page. That's fine, and I agree with you that the comparison might be made in the future. My bad. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

New details on cellar construction

Since I can't edit, I thought I'd put the links here. There's a lot of new information.[9][10] [11]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.133.98 (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"She told police that Mr Fritzl forced her to help drag a 270kg concrete and steel door into position to seal the dungeon. It was only when it was in place that she discovered she had helped to build her own prison. Mr Fritzl finally agreed to expand the cellar - again with Elisabeth's help - after she had given birth to two of his children. He forced her to dig out the chambers by hand, working for hours at a time. The process took nearly a decade." OMG, just where do they get this from? This is totally different from what I read in German/Austrian sources, this cannot be explained with insufficient linguistic capabilities, surely? Mr. Polzer from the police said that Fritzl made use of pre-existing cavities when he extended the cellar but they are not yet quite sure how he proceeded in detail. And there was no "Bodenaushub" (digging up soil and removing it), again according to Mr. Polzer. But if it can be referenced in just one newspaper it must be factual and good enough for Wikipedia. --Kathlutz (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the video link to Mr Polzer's statement at the press conference [12] - for once a primary source! So he did indeed refer to the [the address] ... but please please also note that he says that there is no indication at all that any digging took place or that soil was extracted during the extension works.--Kathlutz (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I used the content of the police press conference of 5 May where the building process is explained in great detail for an update. I did not update the stuff on the 8 doors and their locks for gaining access to the dungeon - it's seems rather confusing and complicated.--Kathlutz (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nazi porn

Editors, before you include more psychobabble and Third Reich references in the article please read A nose for Nazis - The British media reaction to the horrific Fritzl case in Austria has been underpinned by naked national chauvinism in the Guardian. Tony Paterson's article in the Independent, "Josef Fritzl, The making of a monster", used as a reference, contains plain speculation, psychobabble, based on the claims of one of Fritzl's sister in laws about his childhood. The doctors who, according to Paterson, have already provided "an initial assessment of Fritzl's personality" have not met or interviewed Fritzl, they just speculate about him. Not a good source. --Kathlutz (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. HtD (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC) (p.s. you are allowed to add or remove stuff where you are not going against consensus!)

Consensus? What if it's referenced? Take this example: the Wiki article says that "extra rooms [were] carved out by hand". The footnote leads to the Daily Mail where we learn that Fritzl "dug out much of the basement with his bare hands". I find nothing of the sort in German language reports. Where does it come from? One can only speculate. The Austrian sources (Mr Polzer from the police) says that Fritzl did the building work "eigenhändig". Literally "own handed". But it doesn't translate as "with his bare hands" or "with his hands", it means that he did it on his own, without the help of other people.

I have deleted an entry which is a liberal interpretation of an "Netindia123.com" article which itself is a liberal interpretation of an article in The Sun which itself ... Can we stick to mainstream quality newspapers, please, at least until the dust has settled? To quote WP:RS: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press.--Kathlutz (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So what is the consens on "growing up in 6 years"? This is what the referenced article says: "Fritzl was born in 1935 and would have been 4 years old at the start of the Second World War. [...] when the war ended, he would, as a 9-year-old, have experienced first hand the invasion of Austria by the Soviet Red Army in 1945. Reports in the Austrian media have claimed that as a child he "suffered badly" during this post-war occupation which was notorious for the high incidence of rape perpetrated by Russian soldiers on civilian German and Austrian women'". One Wiki editor shortened this to "Josef Fritzl grew up in what was then the Nazi-controlled Third Reich." Is this accurate information? Relevant information? And yes, people suffered during the first post-war years, primarily because there was no food and no work. And hey, a local historian told The Sun that the RAF bombed the rail lines in Amstetten. Why not mentioned that, too - maybe that's what turned him into a monster. --Kathlutz (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh! What I meant was that you, Kathlutz, are allowed to make changes to the article rather tjan just moaning on the TP all the time. Be bold! If someone objects strongly to your change they will revert it and then discussion can take place on reaching a consensus. If they don't, consensus is assumed. You don't need to discuss every change! Use the effort to make the article better! If you find yourself editing the talk page more than the article, you probably don't have the right balance. HtD (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone made a change to it, then I modified it, then someone changed it back to the original. So I did try!--Kathlutz (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember, were those swastikas or stars of david I saw pasted up at the top of the back wall in that little shop of horrors? --79.71.205.2 (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither by the looks of it! I think it means the children were Freemasons! The lengths people will go to.... HtD (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Josef Fritzl is Jewish is entirely irrelevant to the article. I would strongly oppose any Jewish references in the article. Tovojolo (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't even matter whether it's relevant, because inferring his religion from what appears to be a star of David in one of the prisoners' bedrooms would be original research. FWIW, I noticed it too when I saw that pic, but it doesn't matter.

If a reliable source says he is Jewish, then we can have the debate about whether to include the information at that point. Right now, there is no debate. (and actually, I think the fact that no mainstream news source has bothered to mention his religion is because, as Tovojolo said, it's not really relevant. It's not like one religion has less of a prohibition on dungeon incest rape than another religion...)

Getting back to the subject about the Independent article about Fritzl's upbringing... I think it is okay as long as it is clear that his sister-in-law is claiming this. It may give insight into his background (I mean, if he was beaten daily by his mother in Nazi-controlled Austria, do you think that might just maybe have an influence on a person's personality when they grow up?), so it's worthy of inclusion, but since it's not established fact yet we need to be clear about who is claiming what. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose if he were a Branch Davidian (another explanation for the six-pointed star) and that turned out to be the reason why he committed these acts, then it would be relevant. Otherwise, not. HtD (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He's Roman Catholic, like the majority of the Austrian population. It has been mentioned in mainstream media. I consider it irrelevant. I think UNLESS there is solid pyschological/psychiatric evidence WHAT made him what he is we should refrain from including any type of speculation, even when it can be referenced to a journalist writing his piece. Receiving corporal punishment from mum, being a 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 year old in Nazi Austria, or growing up with Roman Catholicism - hm, one wonders which one would be the best contender to turn out a sexual offender ... --Kathlutz (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You are joking about the stickers, right? They break my heart. Whether intentional or not, the ones in the bedroom near the ceiling (sky) look like stars and the one on the water boiler (heat) looks like a sun. I cannot imagine what a life like that must have been like.--Kathlutz (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Josef Fritzl grew up in the Nazi-controlled Third Reich.

This sentence "Josef Fritzl (born 9 April 1935 in Amstetten) grew up in what was then the Nazi-controlled Third Reich." is absurd and weasely since there is no connection drawn to the Nazi-era. Half of Europe (if not more) "grew up" in this era. I tried to edit this to what amount of his childhood was under Nazi rule, but User:Tovojolo reverted in this edit calling it "clumsy wording". I won't get into an edit war, but this is wrong regardless of what The Independent says. --SVTCobra (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but of course, whenever something bad happens in Austria it's always because of the Nazis... *rolls eyes* I am in favour of deleting this statement because: a) It's self evident. He grew up in Austria. During the period 1938-1945. Well of course it was bloody Nazi-controlled. Do we really need to insult the reader's intelligence in this way? b) The fact that he lived through the Third Reich as a kid is not relevant to this case. Giving this fact undue weight makes the reader think that there is a connection between the evil of the Nazis and the evil of Fritzl's child abuse. Which there isn't. This in an encyclopedia, not The Sun --Cambrasa confab 01:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not the one who changed your edit, if you go and check the edit history, you will see that your entry was edited out by someone else, here and it was that entry I replaced because of its "clumsy wording". :) Tovojolo (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This "encyclopedia article" cites an article in the Sun as a source. Really. (And see a section below.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Financial situation for the family

The following might be a relevant addition. If not to avoid speculation that "at least the familys financial siauation is good":

The Fritzl family may face bancrupcy as authorities investigating his property investments have found over €2.2 million in mortgages, causing at least one local bank to request immediate return of over €1 million. Charities and authorities are working finding solutions for providing financial aid. [13]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallion (talk • contribs) 05:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not vitamin D deficient, can walk and talk

Could someone please correct the entry about "Elisabeth and her children". At yesterday's press conference, Dr Bernhard Kipplinger, the head of the clinic, who treats the family, "denied earlier reports that the children were having difficulties walking and speaking, or that they suffered from Vitamin D deficiency. See Telegraph. Needs rewriting - I am not a native English speaker and not confident in major rewriting.--Kathlutz (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Digging by hand/Automatic translation pitfalls

HtD, I promise this will be my last long winded comment on the talk page. I mentioned before that I am puzzled by details I read in UK newspapers that are not mentioned anywhere in German/Austrian sources and even contradict them. I just realized that Wikipedia editors use Google's automatic translation tool for translating articles in German into English and I would not be surprised if news agencies and reporters use it too. This sentence

"Er gehe davon aus, dass Joseph Fritzl das verschachtelte Verlies eigenhändig gebaut habe" means: "He assumes that Joseph Fritzl built the complicated dungeon on his own, without help from others".

but the automatic translation says: "He assume that the nested Joseph Fritzl dungeon built by hand."

Oh boy. That explains a lot.--Kathlutz (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the same problem arose with the land/property one! HtD (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That certainly explains what I've been seeing when reading the UK based sources compared to listening to the actual German-speaking Austrian sources. I am the anon that put the summaries of the ORF reports above, and would like to emphasize I use my own knowledge of German (not fluent) and never use automatic translators. Please could wikipedia editors with German knowledge confirm the following. The Telegraph states a letter was secreted in Kerstin's pocket, and yet no German sources make any mention of this (including the doctor's verbal summary). That sentence in the article remains uncited because although I found the Telegraph source I had and still have serious doubts as to its veracity. At best it should be rewritten as "The Telegraph states". I also wonder about what other statements are dubious. Comments? -84.223.78.86 (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A press release issued by the Austrian police on 27 April 2008, mentions the handwritten letter that Kerstin had with her. In it, her mother Elisabeth asks for help for the sick Kerstin. There is no indication that it was secreted into her pocket (and no reason for it, either). As you already suspected, I think, a reporter/editor may have just heard or read the "asked for help" bit and turned it into a story about the mother asking for help for herself.--Kathlutz (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked about dubious statements. I am suspicious of Elisabeth helping Fritzl drag a 270kg concrete and steel door into position to seal the dungeon but don't have the time to research it. It seems that she was asked to help him carry a door into the cellar and he then imprisoned her but 270 kg? Plus there are so many heavy doors in the stories, ranging from 270 kg to 300 kg to 500 kg ... I remember having read some time ago about one heavy concrete door and how he managed to get it in place. I don't much about doors but it seems that you place these door frames first and THEN fill them with concrete - if so he could have done it himself. It is entirely possible, though, that his captivated children helped with building and renovation work. We know nothing about the social interactions between these people over such extremely long period of times and under such extremely abnormal circumstances.--Kathlutz (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

British redtops and other tabloids as sources

There's what seems to me an extraordinary dependency in this article on the kind of British tabloids that fish and chips come wrapped in: seven references to an article in the Daily Mail, one to an article in the Sun, one to an article in the Daily Express, one to an article in the Mirror. (And I may have missed more besides.)

Such sources are OK for such claims as that this or that celeb or columnist had been quoted as saying, or had said, such-and-such to the tabloid itself. I see no reason to depend on any of these for assertions of fact about this matter, which is somewhat more serious than (say) Michael Jackson's nose or Jordan's tits.

Am I overlooking some pressing reason for why something calling itself an encyclopedia should depend on sources such as these? -- Hoary (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally the Mail and the Express are OK, but not so much the redtops. Personally, as long as there are no WP:BLP issues involved, I see no problem using The Sun or The Mirror if they are reporting something exclusively (e.g. an exclusive interview, such as the quote from The Sun in the article). But most "exclusive" things get picked up elsewhere eventually, so if the ref can be changed because the story has been picked up elsewhere, it should be. HtD (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside what you write about the Mail and the Diana Express, you seem to be making two assumptions that seem strange to me: first, that the Mirror and Sun are credible (at least until something better comes along); and secondly that this "encyclopedia" has to be bang up to date. If the "exclusive" content of this fish-and-ship-wrapping is significant and is picked up later by what are normally taken to be credible sources, why not wait till it's picked up later by those credible sources? Or is Wikipedia a newspaper, or do I misunderstand you? -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hoary, I agree, both about the sources and that it's better to wait. I also wish editors would check several sources before they add something. I've replaced the reference to the Sun article with a reference to BBC news. I also removed comments about plumbers and Fritzl's son having supposedly access to the cellar, for the following reasons: it's redundant information as the police have not commented on this, have emphasised that DNA material indicates that there were no accomplices and say that it's entirely possible that anyone who was in the known part of the cellar (for example heating inspectors) were not aware of the dungeon part.--Kathlutz (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that if there is something that can add encyclopaedic value to the article and it happens to be carried exclusively in the Sun, then there is no reason why it shouldn't be included. But you do need to be selective. If the Sun were to carry an exclusive quoting someone as saying that Fritzl used to bite the head off hamsters, I would be very wary! But if someone talks to the Sun as in this instance about their actions (or lack of them), I don't think we should leave it out just because we don't like the messenger. It is actually pretty significant that noises were heard by at least one resident of the house. I agree though that we don't need to rush things. Many of the problems that Kathlutz has pointed out are the result of the media going quickly and mistranslating things. HtD (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that it's OK to cite the Sun if that rag claims to be quoting somebody directly, and if what the person is saying sounds plausible. You're assuming here that the Sun does a conscientious job of quoting people. But I see no reason to make this assumption. See the en:WP article about this Murdoch organ. -- Hoary (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If there was another contradictory reference I would choose it over the Sun's version of events, but I think where it's non-controversial and not WP:BLP related then it can be considered, but discretion should be used. The Sun can and does quote people accurately, as the BBC reference proves. HtD (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course the Sun can and often does quote people accurately. And of course papers such as the NYT occasionally quote people inaccurately. But we assume that the NYT is accurate. Why assume the same of the Sun? You say above that we don't need to rush things; why not simply remove everything sourced to the Sun? -- Hoary (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything left that is sourced to the Sun? No, I am saying use common sense, not knee-jerk "never quote the Sun". A far better policy is not to quote papers like the Sun except in very, very exceptional circumstances. From WP:SOURCE: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." (my emphasis). Sometimes, it;'s not possible, and discretion needs to be used on whether to use a source that is less than ideal in such cases. HtD (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's not possible to rely on sources that are, well, reliable.

If some C-list celeb's plastic surgery is deemed encyclopedic, then rags such as the Sun might be the only sources there are for it, because other papers are uninterested and devote their pages to other material. Meanwhile, this story has had plenty of exposure in newspapers designed at least as much to inform as to titillate.

There are seven links to a note citing the Mail (whose main headline as I write is TomKat and the Beckhams turn on some old-fashioned glamour -- but was it TOO old for Posh?). In the space of a few lines, the Mail's top page now touts stories about "incest monster Josef Fritzl", "monstrous father", "monster Fritzl", and "sex dungeon monster Fritzl". Is this rag to be taken seriously? -- Hoary (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it's not possible, on very rare occasions, and WP policy allows for those. And sometimes you need to look past the messenger and the way the message is expressed, because there may be something worthwhile there. HtD (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, yes, but in this case, we have more than enough sources, so we really, really don't need to rely on tabloid sources. --Conti|✉ 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A simple search of Google News on the key words that are being quoted should turn up sources other than tabloids in most cases. Is Hoary volunteering? :-) HtD (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If other sources are not available, a good aid is adding "According to The Sun..." or "In an article called "incest monster Josef Fritzl," Daily Mail reported..." --Kizor 22:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A few of the Daily Mail references have now died a natural death or are replaced by other references. The references are an odd concoction ... the "Philippine Daily Inquirer"??? Since Hoary hasn't volunteered so far, I tried to do my bit but you see what can happen ... I am captivated. Thanks, Tovojolo :-).--Kathlutz (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't that long ago that I found references in Swedish and Polish for an American web celebrity. Isn't the Internet grand? --Kizor 01:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Maria K case?

I can't find any sources for the "similar" Maria K case that do not appear to derive from the "In Austria, no one can hear you scream" article. Every Google or Google News hit I get that is relevant is just the same text. Would be nice if we had an independent source? Especially since the article in question, while from a mostly reliable source, is a bit inflammatory.. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned this earlier and expressed my concerns. There's a little bit more information on Google in German - this one (from 2006) seems the most reliable: http://www.falter.at/web/print/detail.php?id=336&sub_id=153 Interview from 2006 with psychiatrist Paulus Hochgatterer who was also involved in caring for Maria K. "who was abused by her adoptive mother from 1992 until 1996 and was regularly locked away in a wooden box". It's not clear to me yet where this box was, possible in a garden shed or garden.--Kathlutz (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)-

Proposal to delete section "Similar cases"

I propose to remove the section "Similar cases" altogether and include a link to Children kept in captivity which links to Kaspar Hauser, Natascha Kampusch, Linz Sisters (=Linz lawyer Ingrid L.), Fusako Sano and Viktor Mokhov. I am not sure which is the best way to do it, where to put it and how to name it, please help. Maybe some other title like "long term captivity". It will exclude the Maria K. case but that case is badly documented anyway and possible not particularly relevant.--Kathlutz (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree to delete but I am not sure I 100% agree about what should go in its place. I definitely think the "See also" section should include Natascha Kampusch, as dozens of mainstream sources have compared the two cases. Children kept in captivity makes sense as well in a "See also" section, but it is coming up as a redlink for me. Are you suggesting we create it? Or was there a typo? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a category, and I think I fixed the link.--Kathlutz (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Works for me! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is already an established place for categories in Wikipedia, at the bottom of the page. Talk page discussions cannot override WP:MOS Tovojolo (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo of hospital

As long as we are discussing WP:BLP issues, I feel that showing the current location of Elisabeth and her children is not right (definitely don't want gawpers showing up at the hospital), so I have removed it yet again. If there is a consensus to return it then it can be restored. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The hospital serves Amstetten and Mauer, which is why it's on the other language sites for this story, like the German one (I think they would know, no?)--RobNS 20:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The photo is NOT in the German Wikipedia article about the case. It illustrates the German and English articles about the Austrian town of Amstetten. The photo serves as a placeholder for the media because they don't have photos of Elisabeth and her children (yet).--Kathlutz (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup references

Somebody might like to add {{cleanup-link rot}} and/or convert the bare URLs references to proper citations. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Further question: is it necessary to name the authors of newspaper articles in the footnotes?--Kathlutz (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If they have a byline then yes, it is usally included in the footnote as author=Joe Bloggs. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It does clutter up the footnote list but I guess there is a Wiki rule somewhere?--Kathlutz (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is proper to credit people for their work when citing them. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)