Talk:Fritzl case/Archive 2

Why address?

Is there ANY point in revealing the address - street and number - of the Fritzl home (other than you read it somewhere in a newspaper)? Perhaps to give even more people the chance to go there and gawp at it, as so many already do? Is this relevant information for an article in an ENCYCLOPEDIA? I suggest to remove it.--Kathlutz (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's as relevant as stating that Fred West committed his crimes at 25 Cromwell Street in Gloucester. HtD (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the address, as it's totally irrelevant. --Conti|✉ 14:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have re added it while the matter is under discussion. It is only one person's opinion that it is "totally irrelevant", and there is plenty of precedence as noted above. HtD (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Conti. As to HtD's reply, no, and for the following reasons: 1. Two wrongs don't make a right. 2. The house in 25 Cromwell Street was demolished in 1996. I would also think that the stream of thrill seeking tourists in Gloucester is low these days. 3. The Amstetten case is top news, sensational news, I think it would befit editors to exercise care (which is NOT the same as censoring).--Kathlutz (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information. We do not usually include personal information like that, and there needs to be a clear consensus to do so. It's on you to show that there is one, not the other way around. Fred West is an entirely different case, since 25 Cromwell Street doesn't exist anymore. --Conti|✉ 14:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no harm in including it as there is no possibility of the family returning there. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If the information is included, the consensus is needed to remove it. WP:BLP really doesn't apply in this case. The property, how it was built etc. is as notable as the perpetrator, as it was in the Fred West case. The property is a major element in the story. The police have just held a lengthy news conference, the main purpose of which was to give a great dela of detail about the property and its history. I am more concerned that the hospital to which the victims have been taken is identified. HtD (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"If the information is included, the consensus is needed to remove it." I'm sorry, but that's simply wrong when it comes to WP:BLP related issues. Currently, there's not even a citation for the address; that alone warrants a removal. What exactly do we gain from mentioning the address, anyhow? What's the encyclopaedic value? I just don't see it.

I don't dispute that the property itself is notable, so to speak, but its address is not. I haven't checked yet, but I'm quite sure that the police didn't mention the address in their news conference, either. --Conti|✉ 15:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point that WP:BLP does not apply in this case. Josef Fritzl will never return to live at that address, and the family will receive new identities and be relocated. How can naming their former address violate WP:BLP? What specific part are you referring to? Certainly not privacy? It is a notable address in and of itself, just as 25 Cromwell Street is. It is mentioned in several refs, and I will attach one of them to the actual address if need be. HtD (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you actually care to read the Wikipedia policy on living persons: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". [...] material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with strict adherence to our content policies." How do you know who is going to live in the house, will own it etc. There are 6 other grown up children, and presumably their spouses and children, involved in all this. Some media say that one of the sons lives there. It's a multi appartment house. Mercifully, the Austrian authorities seem to have managed to keep them out of the limelight for the time being. The exact address adds no useful information about the property. Information about the size, dimensions etc. can be easily found in the many newspaper references attached to the article. You seem to operate under the misapprehension that everything that's published in a newspaper can/should/is useful to be published in Wikipedia. --Kathlutz (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And exactly what harm can come to Josef Fritzl, his wife or his children from having the address on the Wikipedia page? (Fritzl's photo is a far greater invasion of privacy.) The house is now a crime scene, and as such notable. It has already been said that the extended family will be given new identities and relocated, so they will not come back to live in the house (which is currently empty). Wikipedia should be as complete as possible, and since no harm can come to the subjects of this article by listing the address, it should be listed. As I said, these concerns would be much more credible if they were focussed on the fact that the hospital where the children currently are is identified. That, surely, is an invasion of their privacy. HtD (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be hell bent on keeping street name AND number in this article. Let me just add that you did NOT reference what Polzer said in today's press conference. You referenced what some journalist put together in his article about the press conference. I just did a quick search in Google news about the press conference and the last three days. The street and the number are mentioned several times in UK or English language press reports but not in German and Austrian press reports. No idea why this is the case. Maybe they are more aware of the fact that, as the Austrian authorities have said, more and more tourists are descending on the house "where they indulge in what I call catastrophe tourism", as the deputy mayor of Amstetten, Ursula Puchebner, called it, and how their way of reporting can aggravate this situation.--Kathlutz (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I can just see no valid reason to remove it from the article when it has been widely reported, is verifiable and cannot possibly do any harm to those involved in this case. Wikipedia should not be censored. HtD (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed per BLP, re-adding it is subject to 3rr, while its removal is NOT. Living people live there, hence BLP applies. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Living people don't live there. It is a crime scene and has been evacuated. WP:BLP does not apply. It's pointless for WP to censor the address when it has been widely publicised and is verifiable. HtD (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But, eventually, people will move back in there, right? --Conti|✉ 12:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The house is HUGE. I am not sure how many flats it has (yes, Wikipedia says 8, in addition the Fritzl's living quarters but I am suspicious of Wikipedia on current affairs). We only hear about some 100 former lodgers over the course of 20 odd years. Are there any current lodgers?--Kathlutz (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If there are current lodgers, as long as we don't name them (unless they name themselves of course) then simply mentioning the address is not a violation of WP:BLP. WP:BLP would come in to play if the article were to say for example, "Hans Schmidt, of 1 Main Street..." and there were no encyclopaedic reason to reveal his address. To mention a person's address for no valid reason when it is not otherwise known would be contrary to WP:BLP. This address - note I am not using the TP as a sneaky way of introducing it! :-) - is notable in its own right as a crime scene, and there is no reason apart from censorship for it not to be mentioned. WP:BLP does not apply, so people will have to come up with a better reason for leaving it out than that.

As Kathlutz herself notes, the police are mentioning the address openly, and even she states what it is further down the page! :-)

Who knows whether people will live there again. WP:Crystal. No one lives there now, and I don't think many people would want to. It could well be demolished. HtD (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

References

If you add a reference then please ensure the format of the reference is as per WP:CITET.

I have had to correct references many times.

Tovojolo (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Address of crime scene and BLP

Do not re-add this per BLP without consensus. I feel this may violate BLP, and consensus is required to readd this information. Please post reasons to add it here for the community to decide. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Leonard, as a show of good faith I would suggest you add the specific reasons why you think adding the address contravenes WP:BLP "I feel this may violate BLP..." really isn't good enough, especially when all the reasons why it doesn't have already been stated and are stated again below. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Already done below. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has been had Leonard, just like it was being had when you unilaterally decided to move the page. You have not said what the BLP issues are, just that it vaguely contravenes. I have shown how it doesn't. A quote:

"If there are current lodgers, as long as we don't name them (unless they name themselves of course) then simply mentioning the address is not a violation of WP:BLP. WP:BLP would come in to play if the article were to say for example, "Hans Schmidt, of 1 Main Street..." and there were no encyclopaedic reason to reveal his address. To mention a person's address for no valid reason when it is not otherwise known would be contrary to WP:BLP. This address - note I am not using the TP as a sneaky way of introducing it! :-) - is notable in its own right as a crime scene, and there is no reason apart from censorship for it not to be mentioned. WP:BLP does not apply, so people will have to come up with a better reason for leaving it out than that.

As Kathlutz herself notes, the police are mentioning the address openly, and even she states what it is further down the page! :-)"

The police themselves have released this information, the crime scene itself is a major part of the story, no individual is being identified by adding the address. The address was there from the start and consensus is needed to remove it as clearly no BLP issues are involved. 16:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

1. The information is not encyclopediac.
2. There are people living there; whether others (tabloids, police) are reporting it does not mean we do. The press and police may routinely say the name of raped children, for example, but we do not hurt little children who were raped here.
3. Our readers gain no benefit from this information. We are not a guide to go gawk at a crime scene.
4. The information is trivial and of no lasting educational value.
5. We aren't the New York Post or the Daily Mail or whatever tabloid.
6. We do no harm. Everything else but NPOV goes secondary to that.

Basically, I can't see a value to having this information under BLP. As the weight is on removal of BLP-violation (or possibly!) violating information is removal, I will again remove this information, and you may not re-add it without a consensus here. Please don't, I don't want to have to 3rr report you. If a legitimate consensus here can demonstrate why it should be added here I will leave it be. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've full protected this for a week to allow discussion to take place and protect well-intentioned contributors from a block for edit-warring. --John (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, John. Now we all have time to concentrate on improving the substance of the article and the references. I agree that the information about the exact address is trivial, of no lasting educational value, and that Wikipedia is not a guide to gawk at a crime scene. Articles should be informative, succinct, not crammed with trivial tidbits. HtD, as I understand it, "notable" means "worthy of note", not widely known or easily found on the net.--Kathlutz (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a week may be too long, especially since there are likely to be new developments in this case almost daily. That said, I think full protection was a great idea. It would have been a real shame to see either HtD or L.Cohen get blocked for 3RR, since both are obviously well-established good faith contributors. How about if we turn the full protection off once we reach a consensus though, huh?

And regarding that... The address has been so widely disclosed, I don't see a huge BLP concern with including it, but I am really, really, really, really puzzled as to what the big deal is about why we want to include it. It doesn't illuminate the issue or in any way enhance readers understanding of the topic. I just don't get it. If there were even the slightest legitimate encyclopedic value of including the address, I'd say go for it. But since there is none, none at all that I can say, I would say to leave it off. It has zero benefit, and might have non-zero harm. That's as far as we need to take the equation, in my opinion. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the Fred West article should not be used as precedent for including addresses. First of all, the article is terrible (I just tagged it for cleanup). Secondly, the house has been demolished already so there is no possible way this could affect anyone ever. Thirdly, I can see no encyclopedic value for including the addresses there either, so I went ahead and removed it anyway. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

...and that is my point, too. Lets say I could find the home address of Paris Hilton, Mariah Carey, or the street address of George W. Bush's ranch in Texas--I could probably easily do so in a WP:RS. What is encyclopediac about adding it to their articles? It has to be an extremely, extremely famous home to merit that coverage. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well there Leonard gets to the nub of it! WP:BLP is designed to prevent such addresses becoming known as attached to those individuals. To say "Mariah Carey, who lives at 20550 Hollywood Blvd..." would be a breach of WP:BLP in most cases. In this case, no individual is being identified as belonging to that address simply by its being included here. No less than the police have already announced that this is the address where the Fritzl's live(d). This home is notable enough that the police spent the better part of a lengthy news conference describing not only the dungeon but the whole house and its history. Surely, all other things being equal (and I contend that they are) Wikipedia should be as complete and accurate as possible. Either this article becomes a complete encyclopaedic record, like the Fred West article or there is little point to Wikipedia. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You can remove the protection. I won't re add the address unless there is consensus, but I do think that we have to be careful of simply crying WP:BLP on articles like this without extremely good reason. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how the address would make the article more "complete and accurate." To be a complete encyclopedia does not require a mention of all information related to the subject. For instance, if we found that Fritzl liked to wear blue shirts on Thursdays, there would be no BLP concerns with adding that information, but it would be rather silly to add it to the article, because there is no encyclopedic value.

So the question that needs to be answered is, what encyclopedic value is served by including the address? If we cannot answer this question, then there is nothing to differentiate it from the blue-shirts-on-Thursdays hypothetical. The only purpose I can see is if catastrophe tourists wanted to visit the house, and Wikipedia is not in the business of providing that type of information.

Can you tell me another purpose to have the information, beyond just vague assertions of "completeness"? How does it help the reader to understand the Fritzl case? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A number of thoughts:

1. According to this recent article about the concerns of the residents of the road which is linked with the Ipswich murders, the home of the murderer of the Soham girls has also been demolished. The residents of the road in Ipswich want to have the name of their road changed because they feel affected by the stigma attached to it. I notice that "5 College Close" is included in the Soham murders article while the address of the house of the kidnapper is omitted from the Kampusch article.

2. In the Soham case, because of the movements of the girls during the day, the position of the house was of interest, especially while the police was investigating and trying to find the girls. Does not apply here. The exact location of the Fritzl house is immaterial - everything happened inside the house. Knowing where the house is does not help to understand what happened.

3. Also, who lived in these houses at the time of the crime being committed? In Soham, the murderer and his partner. In Amstetten, it's the home or parental home of quite a number of living persons who did not commit a crime, such as wife Rosemarie and her children and in particular Elisabeth's teenage children who grew up upstairs. Is that not a strong BLP interest?--Kathlutz (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

HdT, you say that "his home is notable enough that the police spent the better part of a lengthy news conference describing not only the dungeon but the whole house and its history". You misunderstand the situation. They are actually eager not to reveal too much information about the house (reasons given was privacy of the persons who lived in the basement, another one the fact that Fritzl is the owner of the house). What they explained in great detail during the press conference was aimed at understanding how Fritzl could create and conceal the dungeon.--Kathlutz (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it depends if you believe that the location of a crime is important. The house I believe is notable/notorious in its own right. Of course the police don't want to give too many details of how they lived in the dungeon; that would be a gross invasion of privacy. But Kathlutz, you make my argument for me. While they withhold that information - as well as the colour of Josef Fritzl's pyjamas :-) - they speak openly about the address. They obviously have very clear guidelines when it comes to privacy issues surrounding the house, and withholding the address is clearly not necessary for privacy reasons as far as the police are concerned.

So whatever other valid reasons people may have for objecting to the address being included, let's knock this WP:BLP non-issue on the head. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets wait and see what other users have to say about knocking the BLP 'non issue' in the head before we re-add contentious BLP-content. :) Or in stupid terms, we have 1 in favor, several against; but lets see how it plays out. The next 15 people to weigh in may say "readd it", or they may not. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That's not how consensus works! :-). The fact is that this information was on the article for days until you spotted it and cried WP:BLP (the same way you took it upon yourself to move the article despite growing consensus that we should wait, and that the name you moved it to was not the best one). So I think you need to take a step back here. What you did was uncreate a consensus that existed to have the address on the article for what I see as very flimsy reasons. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and I saw no consensus that we should include it. I began attempting to remove it per BLP 72~ hours ago, and other users also have done so. Consensus currently does not equal any sort of threshold to include it, and since it is contentious BLP material, it must stay out unless there is valid consensus to include it. That is how consensus works. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But first we have to agree that it's a WP:BLP violation. I see a lot of opinion that we shouldn't include the address for a variety of reasons, but I see to my mind no arguments that it is BLP that haven't been refuted. Even the police (who are guarding the family's privacy very closely) don't think that anyone's privacy s being compromised by talking openly about the address. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Regarding point #3 above -- don't forget that also a number of lodgers apparently lived there.

Regarding the lengthy police conference -- agree with Kathlutz, and just to expound on that, many details on the "whole house and its history" are relevant and should be included in the article. You don't need the address, though, to talk about the legitimate additions that Fritzl added that would later help facilitate the dungeon. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted to semi-protection as it seems the edit war has been resolved for the moment. --John (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's try again for consensus on the address

Now that things have calmed down, let's analyse where we are on this and see if we can get a consensus. (Note that WP:CONSENSUS does not involve "counting votes" but working together for a solution that all editors can live with. It also does not involve one editor declaring what the consensus is or is not, and demanding that everyone abide by that.)

The address was on the article for several days before anyone objected to it. Therefore, it could be assumed that consensus existed to include it. That consensus was challenged (which is a valid procedure) by one editor claiming WP:BLP issues.

On the issue of WP:BLP, I have not seen anyone but Lawrence Cohen argue this in a specific way. In fact, other contributors (e.g. Jaysweet) have said that there probably aren't WP:BLP issues. My feeling on this is that there aren't, and the arguments don't convince me. Apart from the fact that I believe the policy is being twisted in this case (no individual's address is being improperly revealed, which is what the policy is designed to prevent), if the police, who are the most jealous guardians of the family's privacy (along with the medical staff) feel there are no privacy issues about openly mentioning the address, I don't see how, logically, we can argue that there are any privacy issues about mentioning it on Wikipedia.

The notability issues are more valid. My thoughts on this is that one of the longest paragraphs in the article (if not the longest) goes into great detail about the property. The property and its layout are a major part of the story. The very length of the paragraph suggests notability to me. It seems a bit silly, all other things being equal, to talk at length about the property but not state where it is, especially when that information can easily be discovered in the references attached to the article.

I am open to persuasion, but given the above I can see no compelling reason to leave the address out. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I questioned the need to include the address before it was questioned because of WP:BLP issues. I have not seen the address in any of the police press releases. The head of the Lower Austria criminal investigation department, Franz Polzer, starts a recent press conference, where he explains many technical details about the construction of the dungeon, by saying something like "Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentleman, I am going to talk about the house which you all know, of course, it's the house in [mentions the address]" but I can't check it anymore because it is now cut out of the video on the BBC website.

How 4 people lived/were kept in such a confined underground space if of general interest. Where it's exact location is, is of no encyclopedic interest and may impinge on the protection of the privacy of living persons. No one has been convicted in this case.

But if the police are openly naming the property, there can be no legal reason preventing them from doing so. And therefore no legal reason preventing WP from doing so. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"if the police, who are the most jealous guardians of the family's privacy" - erm, if you think the Austrian police force is considered as beyond reproach in this respect, you are mistaken. See media reports.

Point me to a couple (I can read German). Harry the Dog WOOF 13:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As usual, I can't find the stuff I read somewhere, lol. But here is one http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=3323836 even if it may not convince you.--Kathlutz (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I see there (translated by me) "He 'is surprised' by the way the police are dealing with the media: "some are not exercising restraint in their comments." Is that a fair translation? In which case, it backs up what you say. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, correct.--Kathlutz (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What this article needs, is not the address, but a shorter written description of the construction and layout of the dungeon and an (ideally 3 dimensional) visualisation of the dungeon.--Kathlutz (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

First and most importantly, you are wrong on what consensus means. It is absolutely positively not something "all editors can live with". If that was the case anyone could filibuster any policy change or content change forever and ever. Wikipedia would be absolutely useless if that were the case. Thankfully, it is not. Consensus is what most users prefer to do under policy. If a minority of users is shunted off because of consensus, that is what it is.

Second, BLP absolutely applies as just discussed yesterday. Having the same conversation again and again with a different colored wrapper on it does not change the conversation from what it is. The information of the address is not encyclopediac. There are people living there; whether others (tabloids, police) are reporting it does not mean we do. The press and police may routinely say the name of raped children, for example, but we do not hurt little children who were raped here. Our readers gain no benefit from this information. We are not a guide to go gawk at a crime scene. The information is trivial and of no lasting educational value. We aren't the New York Post or the Daily Mail or whatever tabloid. We do no harm. Everything else but NPOV goes secondary to that.

Again, though: consensus does mean not one has to lose, or everyone has to be happy. People "lose" all the time on Wikipedia. We're not here to please each other; we're here to write an encyclopedia of encyclopediac information that is utterly compliant with both NPOV and BLP. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the entire debate yet, but I immediately wanted to clear up a misconception HtD has about many opinion. He asserts that I have said there "probably aren't any BLP issues." Not true. I believe there are mild BLP issues. This is still an address where people live, possibly even some people tangentially connected with the case (e.g. the lodgers might eventually be witnesses, etc.) So there are definitely BLP issues surrounding this, no doubt about it.

Now, as has been pointed out, the address has been widely disclosed in the media, so in many ways the damage has already been done. If that had not been the case, if the address was still a secret and some amateur sleuth put it on Wikipedia before the world knew about it, then this would be a severe BLP issue, and we might even be looking at WP:OVERSIGHT to make sure the address can't even be seen in the edit history.

The fact that I don't think it's that kind of BLP issue doesn't mean that I don't think it's still a BLP issue. To repeat my simply calculus from yesterday: Inclusion of the address has no encyclopedic benefit, and a non-zero probably of harm to living persons (by further publicizing the address where potential witnesses may reside). To me, the discussion begins and ends there, unless someone can provide a tangible benefit to the article of including the address. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as consensus goes, yes, sometimes not everyone is happy. But ideally we should be able to discuss it until, even if not happy, all editor's can live with the consensus, but where that is not possible, an obvious consensus should not be blocked by one editor.

Sorry Jaysweet, I took "I don't see a huge BLP concern with including it..." as you saying in essence there was no BLP concern. Sorry if I got that wrong.

As I say, the notability issues that are being raised are valid ones, and maybe some new editors can have input on those. If you really believe that the BLP issues are valid, then I suggest that you delete every reference that mentions the address (and all references to it on this talk page). Otherwise, I do have a hard time taking those complaints seriously. Does anyone have time to do that? Harry the Dog WOOF 13:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, I am really not trying to be difficult, but I really don't understand what you are saying here:

The press and police may routinely say the name of raped children, for example,
but we do not hurt little children who were raped here. Our readers gain no
benefit from this information.

We do name the child who we know was the subject of incest, as well as the other children involved. Are you saying that those names should be removed? To me, having their names in the article is potentially a far greater BLP problem than listing the address of the property. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

HtD, I understand you argument above (references on this talk page etc.) as saying if a piece of information is easily available, if people can easily get at it, if it's only one click away from the article (click to a referenced news article, click to the talk page) then it deserves to be in the article.--Kathlutz (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that in the case of very serious BLP concerns, the article should not link to those sources in the first place. If we are serious about not making it easy for people to find the address for an important reason such as BLP concerns, then we should be making it as hard as possible, in this case by not using sources that include the address. Whether it is on the page or in a link from the page, if there are BLP concerns they apply equally I should have thought. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In the end, it has to be an editorial decision. I was intrigued to discover that the Standard, a major Austrian newspaper, does not print the name of the family, they write Josef F., even today. As a reason they say the don't print the names of supposed perpetrators because it would reveal the names of the victims, too. No mention of the road or the number, obviously.--Kathlutz (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well as as been pointed out before, naming Josef and the others is not a problem, as they will receive new identities and be relocated. Divulging those new identities and whereabouts would definitely be a breach of WP:BLP Harry the Dog WOOF 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to take up more space but you make it sound all very easy. There are three teenagers involved who would have to give up all their friends, their whole social net. It's monstrous. I personally doubt that it will happen. I doubt that the house will be demolished. Apparently, there are 10 flats in the house. Are they all empty? Just wondering.--Kathlutz (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think "giving up family and friends" etc. is a huge issue. People move to new places all the time, and start again completely. It is the only way that they will remain out of the public eye. Of course, it will be entirely up to them, but if they choose to give up their right to privacy in the full knowledge that there is media interest in them (as Natasha Kampusch has done), that is their choice.

Sure, when you are a teenager and have just learnt that your grandfather is your father and has raped your mother for 24 years and she hasn't seen the sunlight during all that time, it's no big deal to cope with the minor trauma of leaving your school, your friends, your sports club, your music band behind you for good. I am impressed that major Austrian newspapers, Die Presse, Der Standard, Kurier don't use the full family name, just "Josef F." because the name of the perpetrator is the same name as the victims'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathlutz (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that anyone in Amstetten, certainly anyone who knows the family, would be in any doubt that, for example, "Lisa F." is Lisa Fritzl? The only possible way to protect her privacy is to change her identity and move her to somewhere she was not previously knownOf course, she could choose to remain in Amstetten, and to go to the same school etc. But if she did that, she would have to expect some level of public interest in her. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, the house is a crime scene, so there is no one living there. I can't see anyone wanting to live at such a notorious address in the future either. But again, if someone does choose to live there, they do so in the full knowledge of the history of the house and the media interest in it. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so as not to take up any more time, if the consensus is to leave out the address for whatever reason, we should do that, at least for now. (As has been said, consensus can change, and only four or five of the thousands editors have expressed themselves). Certainly if the house is demolished (as it could very well be) then any potential arguments for protecting people who live there will no longer exist, and we should look at it again. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A drawing of the cellar in the Kurier newspaper here is labelled "street" and "street" on the two sides where the property borders a street. That should be proof that it is obviously possible to inform readers without naming the street ;-).--Kathlutz (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but my point remains this whole thing is silly. By not naming the address on the article, we will not stop anyone who really wants to go and gawp atthe house. They will be on their way to Amstetten and I am sure they will have no difficulty finding the place. There are reasons for naming the address and reasons for not naming. I am well known for my efforts to ensure that WP:BLP is adhered to on articles like The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, so I know a thing or two about the policy. Normally, I would be with Lawrence in ensuring that it is adhered to. But when someone suddenly insists it applies on the article (without noting that the same info is on the talk page and removing it there) I really do have a hard time taking the objections seriously. If you are going to invoke WP:BLP you have to ve entorely consistent. Harry the Dog WOOF 05:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the WP:BLP argument, taken on its own, may have some weaknesses. The following is some additional information/thoughts. The (currently prevailing) editors of the German language version don't use the family name, only the abbreviation "F.", and there is obviously no mention of the address. I was also at first surprised to see that the BLP rules are not uniform across languages. There's a separate section on "crimes" in German - is there one in WP:BLP in the English version? Interestingly, it says that in many jurisdictions, convicted perpetrators have a right to be eventually reintegrated into society after release from prison and having their full name printed in the media can harm this right. They refer to a high court ruling which says that printing the full name in the media is ok while the case is coming to light and there is a trial but no longer ok after the end of the trial and once the public has been sufficiently informed. Of course, this was long before the internet. Anyway, and this ties in with the encyclopedic value and the fact that WP is not a newspaper, these BLP rules say that when retrieving personal data and related information from the press, Wiki editors should examine their long term relevance. In my opinion, there is often too much emphasis on "if it's in a valid source, I can put it in Wiki". Just in case someone misunderstands me, I am NOT saying that the Fritzl name should not be used but think that other personal information should be used with care. I am also NOT saying that rules should be the same across language, and I am NOT saying that one language version is better than another. --Kathlutz (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. I can use my experience with the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann article as a reference point. There, the name of the crime victim is used in the title of the article (as opposed to here, where it was unilaterally changed by one editor despite growing consensus that we should wait). The names of the parents and the people they were eating with that night are included, even their occupations (which it could be argued have little relevance to the topic). The town where they live is mentioned, but of course not their address, because it is not the crime scene and they currently live there and have not indicated they are planning to move (unlike the Fritzl family who the authorities say will be relocated).

I argued early on that we should be careful about mentioning Josef's earlier legal problems for the reasons you state, but the consensus was that they should be included. To me, that is far more "tabloidy" than simply mentioning the address of the crime scene when it is widely known and not in dispute.

So yes, personal data (birthdates, occupations, favourite colour, address - even full names) should be included only if relevant. But stating an address in isolation does not reveal personal data about the people who live there. If we were to say, "10 Hauptstrasse, where Johann Schmidt and Annalise Meisel live" (and those two had no connection with the crime) then that would be improperly revealing personal information. But to say "10 Hauptstrasse was the scene of the crime" is certainly acceptable, and similar wording is used in many articles across Wikipedia. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I have moved some of the older and resolved topics (43 headings!) to the Archive as this page was getting unwieldy. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nazism

This is a discussion that's appeared before, and not something I felt was especially relevant to the article. However, supposedly Fritzl is now blaming the Nazis for his crimes, so I thought I'd open the topic back up. Has it gained enough new relevance to be included in the article?--Redirectorial (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's rather thin to say the least. I for one am not seeing the connection between nazism and incest/locking up your daughter for 20+ years. I'd go with mentioning that he talked about it, but refrain from drawing any conclusions whatsoever. Personally, I'd prefer waiting to see if further information becomes available before adding it. But that's just my opinion of course. TerminusEst (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No. As far as I can see (and I am pretty sure of it), that's what the Telegraph says, not Fritzl. His lawyer has forwarded statements to the Austrian News magazine, parts of are online. It's long and some of his reasoning sounds monstrous. The Telegraph article is a summary of it. But the Nazis are not mentioned. The only thing remotely connected to this is "Meine Mama war eine starke Frau", so Josef F., "sie hat mich zu Disziplin, Ordnung und Fleiß erzogen, mir eine gute Schul- und Berufsausbildung ermöglicht." - My mum was a strong woman, she taught me discipline, orderliness and diligence (which you could paraphrase as “a high regard for decency and uprightness”) and enabled me to have a good education. I strongly suspect that The Telegraph turned this into "Hitler’s Germany had instilled in me “a high regard for decency and uprightness”" and you will read it in many more sources tomorrow. Let's wait at least until we see the original quote in his own language.--Kathlutz (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, too late, the "Nazi times" have already arrived.--Kathlutz (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, this is something that should be discussed here. Having had a quick look around, I believe Kathlutz is absolutely right. No Austrian news reports referencing nazism seem to pop up here, they all seem to be English. I smell bias. TerminusEst (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's wait until the whole interview becomes available before "Nazi times" is removed from the Wiki article. IF he made a direct unambiguous reference then the blow up in the German and Austrian press should be huge :-).--Kathlutz (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Kathlutz's suggestion to wait before making a final decision. Tomorrow, there should be a lot of commentary on these letters.

For today, I thought the Telegraph's actual quote of Fritzl was "Hitler's Germany." If we just replaced the words "Nazi times" with "Hitler's Germany," I think that conveys pretty much the same thing, but since we are repeating Fritzl's actual words (or at least the English translation of them) then it's hard to argue there is bias there.

I may just be bold and make the change right now... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As you can see the quote in the referenced article is "the emphasis on discipline in Nazi times, when he grew up, might have influenced him", which is different from the Telegraph's "Hitler's Germany". There are so many ways to paraphrase something. Maybe he just said "in those days when education was more strict", like old people in any country do ... This is exciting :-). --Kathlutz (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, be bold! Harry the Dog WOOF 16:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking this is not a quote at all, but rather some deductive reasoning on behalf of the journalist. In any case, I find it pretty strange that Austrian news agencies don't seem to be mentioning Hitler or nazism at all, should it be an actual (translated) quote. TerminusEst (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to the wording in the referenced Reuters article, not to the Telegraph article mentioned here on the TP.--Kathlutz (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph puts quotation marks around a number of phrases, given as (translated) quotes but not around "Hitler's Germany".--Kathlutz (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I got it backwards. Whoops! So much for boldness ;D --Jaysweet (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Jaysweet. "Hitler made me do it" must be such a tempting headline but even the Sun didn't go that far. They write "Revealing he grew up under the Nazis, Fritzl says he was instilled with a respect for authority". Wow, he managed to keep it secret until today that he was born in 1935 and was a child in Austria throughout the years 1938-1945!--Kathlutz (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Sun went that far this morning. That is exactly their headline! Harry the Dog WOOF 07:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

He did say: "Ich bin in der Nazi-Zeit aufgewachsen [...]", so the Reuter translation "the emphasis on discipline in Nazi times, when he grew up, might have influenced him" is pretty close, I'd think. Nazi period, Nazi era is close, the Telegraph's "Hitler's Germany" less so. If anything, it would have been Hitler's Austria. --Kathlutz (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Article thoughts

The article (since so many are watching it so diligently) is actually turning out very decently now. I'd go so far as to say with additional clean up/copyediting/grammar work, a proper build out of the lead (I can take a poke at that this weekend maybe) and an expansion of each sub-section under Fritzl_incest_case#Background that this could be shoo-in for Good Article status. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It might be good to have a thorough go through on WP:BLP and general taste issues. For example, is it really necessary to state that Kerstin has lost all her teeth? Harry the Dog WOOF 18:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important to leave the fact that Kerstin lost her teeth in the article, as it shows just how abused and neglected they were in the dungeon. --semi138 (talk) • contribs)

Can we please refactor this poor header? To many of us it reads like thoughts on 8th August 2008, and it left me confused. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone find information about Josef and Rosemarie's biological children? I read the names in one article but I have read through so many now, that I can not place which one it was. Rosemarie and Josef had 7 biological children: 5 adult females (including Elisabeth) and 2 adult males. I think this information should be included, if anyone happens upon it..--semi138 (talk) • contribs)

Unless it is determined that they are directly connected to the case in some way, the children that Fritzl had with Rosmarie should not be included in the article, apart from the biographical information relating to Fritzl. No further details should be revealed unless they choose to go public. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So, it is okay to name a 5 year old boy, Felix, who was involved since he was part of the underground "family" plus the minor children of Elisabeth's who were supposedly left on Josef and Rosemarie's doorstep and were part of the upstairs "family" but not Rosemarie and Josef's adult children? I am confused by the logic. I have seen articles with the names of at least 4 of Rosemarie and Josef's biological children. I think they are important to the article to give a full biography. But, we can sit it out and wait if/until more of them speak out before adding them. .--semi138 (talk) • contribs)

The children born by Elisabeth are an essential part of the story ... and the crimes committed by their father. The names of the children of Rosemarie - other than Elisabeth - what would they add to the article at this point in time, other than fill yet more space?--Kathlutz (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct. This article is about the case. It's not a biographical article. Therefore, anything that does not relate directly to the case should not be in the article. There are no claims that Elisabeth's brothers and sisters were involved in any way, so they should not be mentioned. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. It would probably be fine to say "Josef had x daughters and x sons by his wife, etc." along those lines for general completeness. We don't need more than that, at all. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I just read last night that Austrian authorities changed all the names of everyone involved, besides Rosemarie. They changed Elisabeth and all her kids names. As well as, Josef and Rosemarie's adult children. I will add that to the biography later on when I have time to edit and add a reference link. .--semi138 (talk) • contribs) 12:47, 11 May 2008

It may well be that you read that last night but it'd better be in a highly reliable source because if not I will remove it.--Kathlutz (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. It is already in the Wiki article, I have read so many news articles, I had forgotten where I read that article originally. It was from here that I read it. All it says is that the children/siblings of Elisabeth have had their names changed by Austrian authorities. You can edit it and change it, if you wish. I have not edited or touched this article at all and I don't plan on it now even if I find "reliable", good biographical information, as I see how hostile some people are in regards to edits. .--semi138 (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't detected any hostility to editing, Semi138 (talk • contribs). I personally feel some aversion against sloppy information retrieval and sloppy reading. As to the name change - Fact 1: Wiki article says currently that "The authorities proposed changing the names not only of Elisabeth and her six children, but also Elisabeth’s adult brothers and sisters" - not that they have done so, as you claim to have read. Fact 2: Reference source is the Philippine Daily Inquirer of 29 April. Fact 3: If you researched reporting carefully and compared reference sources, which is a Sisyphean task, you would find that some official person, named Lenze, mentioned the possibility of a name change in a TV interview on that very day, 29 April. He said (my translation): "We will have to acquaint ourselves with the thought that we will have to grant a name change" (for members of the family if that's what they want).--Kathlutz (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

improved citations

I pointed out that the "He carried the remote with him at all times." is incorrectly cited in section ORF May 3 above. I cannot fix this as I am an IP number.

The Daily Mail cite used simply does not mention remotes at all. Please could someone rewrite the sentences as follows to use an existing BBC cite and a new German cite (look at the source code):

It was located behind a shelf filled with paint in Fritzl's basement workshop, protected by an electronic code known only to Fritzl, which he entered using a remote. He always took the remote with him when he left the dungeon.

I rephrased the last sentence above to match the German text. There is no mention that JF carried it with him at all times.

The existing BBC cite url is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7371959.stm, titled "Profile", and has "They say he locked the sliding reinforced concrete door with a secret remote control, and hid it behind shelves in his cellar workshop."

The German Welt Online source has the caption "Die grausame Tat ist kaum zu fassen: Die Tür zu den Räumen habe nur mit einer Fernbedienung und einer Kombination von Schaltern geöffnet werden können, erzählte seine Tochter Elisabeth später bei der Polizei. Die Fernbedienung habe er immer mitgenommen, wenn er das Verlies verließ."

The German text implies that the daughter told the police this. The BBC text "and hid it behind shelves ..." can only have come from the police as the daughter would not see this.

(Notes)

-84.223.78.86 (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

::I've made some changes, based on the police press conference with extensive explanations about the cellar layout. Here is another questionable statement from the Daily Mail: [...] that poisonous gas canisters were also part of the security system, the police took Fritzl to the cellar door when they first entered the cellar. Sounds weird that they had no other means than taking him there. I can't find it in other sources.

Doors - description needed

The description of the system of doors needs to be improved. I cannot find an accurate description in English at the moment. There were two very heavy doors. One door, weighing around 500 kg, was no longer used. The other one, around 250-300 kg, was probably the door secured by an electronic look and operated by remote control, but I need to check. Mr Polzer from the police said in a very recent press conference that you had to pass in total through 8 locked doors to reach the rooms where EF and children were held. The majority had "modern cylinder locks". Let's get this right.--Kathlutz (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As to the 8 locked doors - this includes the doors of 5 rooms in the cellar but outside the "dungeon". You had to cross these rooms - all of them had locked doors - to get to the first of several consecutive doors which were part of the dungeon. The 500 kg door, which was the initial point of access to the dungeon part, was no longer in use as it was too heavy and had sort of sunk into the floor so that it could no longer be opened.--Kathlutz (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a description of the doors. Needs checking for style and grammar. Before you change the content, be aware that earlier reports, written before the detailed press conference (5 May), may not be correct. See also summary on this TP - ORF 5 May. --Kathlutz (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Tense

To answer Kathlutz: Generally speaking, everything in an encyclopaedic article should be in the past tense. Exceptions of course are made for current events etc. (It would be foolish to say at this point that George Bush was US President from 2001 to 2008 for example.) But where something can be put in the past tense and still make sense, it should be. So in this article, there is no problem with saying the doors had good locks etc. They may well still have good locks, but it is the fact that they had them for the past 24 years that is encyclopaedic. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, HtD. And please tell me if there's a problem with my direct contributions to the article as I am not a native speaker. Most of the stuff that I have contributed about the cellar is directly taken from the English translation of a Spiegel article (German equiv. of Times magazine) and from the BBC video of the Austrian press conference (English interpretation). I am aware that both have some linguistic shortcomings, for different reasons.--Kathlutz (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Time frame or Time line ?

I think Time frame sounds better than Time line and is more accurate.

Any thoughts ?

Tovojolo (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeline is technically more accurate and what most people would expect from reading that section, based on the title. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was about to change it from "Time frame" to "Timeline" but found it's protected, so I came to this page to request someone else do it. For the record, I also think "Timeline" is more accurate in this context, so can someone change "Time frame" to "Timeline" please? Thanks--86.145.248.3 (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Done :) Tovojolo (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--217.44.174.185 (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Motivation

The Motivation paragraph is the weakest in the article. I feel that just by quoting Fritzl ad verbatim there is a violation of WP:Neutrality as only his efforts at self-justification are reported. I suggest it be re-written with only an outline of his views and a summary of critical reaction for and against what he said.

Tovojolo (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had a stab at rewriting it. If anyone thinks I have taken out too much, then it can be re added. I think what is there gives his side without over self-justification and going into too much detail that could violate the privacy of the children. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

He did not make the statements to the police, he made them directly to his lawyer so I am not sure that "leaked" is the right word.--Kathlutz (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Normally lawyer/client conversations are confidential. It's unclear whether Fritzl intended it to be made public or not. The lawyer doesn't seem to be saying he was instructed to make it public. So given the uncertainty, a different word could be better. But what? Harry the Dog WOOF 21:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

:Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOT but we are an encyclopedia, that means we must display a healthy level of scepticism over what is quoted. We cannot report ad verbatim, we must write in an analytical manner. I have started on the paragraph to display that level of critical enquiry but there is still a lot to do. Tovojolo (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

He can have his say, just as anyone else involved in the case can. We should quote factually and avoid speculation, POV and analysis. Just the facts. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Spiegel uses "fed to". The original "related to" or perhaps "transmitted to" are more neutral. It's intentional, there is no doubt. The "Fritzl speaks" article in the Austrian magazine is long but it's not online. The quotes you can currently read are only their teasers which are online. I can't link to them, they are a slideshow - go to News magazine and click on the puzzle image.--Kathlutz (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Or turn it around and say "obtained by..." That is more neutral. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Broadsheet Frankfurter Rundschau: "F.'s lawyer Rudolf Mayer allowed News Magazin to have a look at the minutes of his talks with his client". The ÖRAK (an Austrian lawyer association) president Gerhard Benn-Ibler states that it is legitimate that Mayer forwards/makes public a copy of talks with his client if his clients has given his agreement - see here--Kathlutz (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. What I was saying was that I wasn't clear whether Fritzl had given his agreement or not. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

News Magazin who published the quotes says Fritzl has given his agreement - see [here].--Kathlutz (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The references you supply are great for all those who know German :). The rest of us, however, will have to rely on translations so the copy will only be as good as the translator's skill with all the contingent risk of bias. Tovojolo (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, and it annoys me no end ;-).The problem is not necessarily the translations, I think it's more the editors who just put stuff together, fill in gaps wrongly because no one will bother to check it, and then it gets taken over by others and spread over the whole world. The Austrian media are closest to the events and most familiar with procedures, and the Austrian magazine that received the quotes directly from the lawyer knows better what's going on than an editor in say Australia or India. Even the Guardian wrongly claims that " Josef Fritzl's frank confession to Austrian prosecutors, passed to the media at his request, gives a glimpse into the dark impulses that drove his actions". The Guardian must have failed to take note of the fact that the prosecutors haven't interviewed Fritzl about the crimes themselves yet.--Kathlutz (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding this reversion [1] that was made with reference to this section, I cannot see how WP:NOT a newspaper justifies the removal of this information, nor privacy concerns. Motivation is a central theme, and should be documented, as said above, the fact it is himself saying it is irrelevant. If no-one bar the original reverter Tovojolo objects or expands further, I will be reverting again. MickMacNee (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• And edit summaries of "Restore Josef Fritzl's statement" are not helpful, it implies the whole section was removed. MickMacNee (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the section as it stands now is fine. People can go to the reference if they want the whole story. I don't think we need details of the rapes etc. in the article. We need to protect the victims' privacy as well. I think the main points of his statement should be included and that's it. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no privacy concerns here. What is the concern exactly? If anything you are doing harm by making it ambiguous as to whether it was rape or a consensual relationship, and excluding any possible rational explanation of the imprisonment, falling back on the Nazi comments. The removal makes no sense to me, and exlcudes vital aspects of the motivation to both a)imprison, and b)rape, and is bordering now on being merely an excuse section and not an explanation of the facts. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added it as no detailed case is being made to remove it. In regards privacy, a) I don't see what the objection is, and b) there is far more detail that could be regarded personal elsewhere in the article. This information gives vital background info about his apparent motives, beyond 'the Nazis made me do it'. MickMacNee (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't have a chance to respond yet. I really don't think we need details of the rapes (e.g. the pain etc.) Also, Frtzl's description of her bahaviour is non-encyclopaedic, and again, an invasion of her privacy. Without being able to hear from Elisabeth on these matters, we should not be presenting one version. I will remove it again. There is only one editor saying it should be added. 10:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that not every detail of Fritzl's/his lawyer's version of events and motives should be added at this point because it is one-sided, not neutral and aimed at changing the view the public has of him (in the lawyer's words); may be ok as far as it refers to him only; it is not ok when he makes claims about Elisabeth and others.--Kathlutz (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, referring to the disputed phrases (and here I go again), while he did "set her on a path of an apprenticeship as a waitress", that was BEFORE the imprisonment. She had finished her apprenticeship by that time. The Fritzl quotes are listed one after the other in one of the referenced sources but they are taken out of context, the questions of the lawyer and much of what Fritzl said are missing, so beware how you write this up. The whole "lawyer interview" is not available online, the best I could find is here (in German).--Kathlutz (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian has a list of translated quotes, longer and more detailed, without additional padding and a clearer representation of the context in which they were made.--Kathlutz (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add more from this long lawyer exposé, then make a good editorial selection from the quotes. What's less voyeuristic and more encyclopedic, what helps the reader's understanding of the case: that he says he knew that it hurt his daughter "what I did to her" (i.e. rape) or that, after having imprisoned her, "I got into a vicious circle from which, at one point, there was no escape" (my translation from direct Fritzl quote in BZ). Why chose the first and leave out the latter?--Kathlutz (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/09/joseffritzl.austria1

But it's referenced!

Fritzl's published interview with his lawyer made the headlines yesterday. Today, longer excerpts have become available online in Austrian papers but I doubt that it will make it into of the international press. It's a splendid example of how the angle of interpretation ('reporting') changes from source to source:

1. The lawyer asks him about claims made by his neighbours that he was a brutal despot in his family. He replies that decency and good manners had always been important to him. This attitude stems from the fact that he is part of an 'old generation' who was educated differently than today, he states. He goes on to say that he grew up in the nazi era where obedience and strictness were important and he "probably absorbed some of it". But he emphasis that he is not a "beast". [all in German]

2. Reuters paraphrases and sums it up in English as: "He suggested that the emphasis on discipline in the Nazi era, during which he grew up, might have influenced his views about decency and good manners." This is close and that's how it is rendered in the Wiki article at the moment.

3. The Telegraph titles in big letters "Nazis were to blame", and beneath it in smaller print: "Josef Fritzl has blamed the Nazis for fostering the twisted morality which led him to imprison his daughter in a cellar for 24 years" and also mentions Hitler's Germany somewhere along the lines. It lead him to imprison his daughter? That's not what he said or meant. And he didn't mention Hitler's Germany.

4. It is summed up on the TP as "Fritzl is now blaming the Nazis for his crimes" - so now not only the (initial) imprisonment but all the other crimes are included.

5. And so the Australien The Age ad libs as follows: "The 73-year-old said Hitler's Germany had instilled control and the respect of authority in him, which pushed him to imprison his daughter Elisabeth under his family home in Amstetten, west of Vienna, and father her seven children, one of whom died."

And exactly this The age article is now a referenced source for the Wiki article on Fritzl!

Beware of your sources! --Kathlutz (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that this highlights how important it is for this article to have a regular editor who speaks German and who is on top of the German-language press, so thank you again Kathlutz and have another barnstar. My feeling based on my knowledge of German (by no means fluent), my reading of the German sources and what I have seen so far of your analysis of them, is that we can trust you to reword anything that you feel is wrongly translated in the article. What I would suggest if you do that is that you put the original German source as a ref along with the closest English translation that you can find (for example as is currently the case on the bit about his properties at the moment refs 4 and 5). Refs BTW don't have to be online, although it's better if they are. Then if anybody changes it back to the mistranslated version, you can explain on the talk page. I know this is a lot to ask of you, and I will try to help as best I can, but I do think it's important for the quality of the article. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :-) but while there are translation errors (for a variety of reasons) and I am happy to point them out when I see them, the problem is not so much the translation but rather what newspaper editors do with it. The quotes in the Telegraph are correct, they just added their headlines and padded the quotes with some POV text of their own, and added material from other articles, and presumably then the Australian The Age condensed this mixture from the Telegraph to a "He said ..." article, instead of basing their article on more direct sources, say Reuters or a correspondent in Vienna. So this is an appeal to look at several independent English language sources, instead of just taking what can be found in a single one. I am new to Wiki and understand the importance of being neutral but surely there must be also some principle of sound editorial judgement, i.e. don't take anything if it sounds odd, check it out carefully, isn't there?--Kathlutz (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well have a look at WP:SOURCE. Obviously primary sources are preferable. In newspapers, if we stick to direct quotes rather than interpretation we are usually safe. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"It's not what he meant" is not our decision ever to make re a source. If several sources take a given interpretation of what someone meant but one takes an alternative interpretation, and we dispute internally, we should go with what the clear and obvious majority of sources or authorities say at all times with no exceptions. We are never, ever, never allowed to go down that original research route. When in doubt, go with the majority of the sources. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

True, but what do we do when the source is not in English, but is in the original language of what was said, and an editor who speaks the original language says that the English sources are not accurate? Harry the Dog WOOF 16:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith, and trust them, generally. If some still disagree, then bring in more German speakers. Not like we have a shortage of them. :) Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I wasn't clear. I was talking about what Kathlutz is describing. The Deutsch Zeitung says that Josef Fritzl said X, but an English news agency mistranslates and says he said Y, and that is picked up by all the English sources that we normally rely on. Surely the German source is the most reliable, even if many can't read it? Harry the Dog WOOF 16:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If thats the case, since BLP issues are involved, someone should post this to the BLPN (link to that post from here, please!) asking for a couple German editors (no offense to Kathlutz) to form a quick consensus on the matter. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a dispute here, I posted my initial message as an example about how content and context morphs from one (English) source to another (English) source, in this case Reuters->Telegraph->The Age. It was easy to spot because it happened in less than 24 hours after the publication of the interview in an Austrian magazine. It's much harder to separate the chaff from the wheat when a week or two weeks have elapsed.--Kathlutz (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Names again - Naming convention

I changed "Christine R" - a sister in law and a very minor figure, so far - to "Christine" and removed the name of a tenant who claims to have heard noises coming from the basement. Not for BLP reasons but to make it better reading and more like an encyclopedia. "Christine R." and "Alfred Dubanovsky" lends an air of authenticity that may be appropriate for current news but is not necessary here.--Kathlutz (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

== Odd! paragraph missing ==

I edited "Life in the cellar", didn't mean to delete the second paragraph ("hot plates, glue etc.). It's gone from the article but still shows up when I click on edit. Strange.--Kathlutz (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

:I am also inclined to take out the names of the children and the wife from the introduction, leaving only Josef Fritzl and Elisabeth Fritzl - exclusively for readability reasons. It would condense it to the essence of the case for the reader. But I am not bold enough.--Kathlutz (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Intro makes good reading now.