Talk:Fritzl case

NPOV?

This article is hardly neutral at present is it? 194.189.32.65 (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to specific areas of concern? Harry the Dog WOOF 12:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Two problems

I've got two problems with this article. A) It has no pictures. B) The title is oversimplified... Josef Fritzl family incest case would be more appropriate. --Tocino 06:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

These issues have been discussed at length if you go back through the talk archives. Basically, it is because of WP:BLP (especially with an ongoing court case) and respecting the victims' privacy. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when does WP have a policy that requires it to "respect victims' privacy"? And would that really stop us from adding a few pictures of the house, Josef, or Amstetten? --Tocino 18:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read the TP archives before responding further. You will see that the debate has already been had. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not at least call it Austrian Fritzl Case so as if someone else is named Fritzl, it'll be more distinguishing. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's quite unlikely going to happen. And if it is, we can deal with it then. --Conti|✉ 15:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple spelling error in the subheading "Elisabeth Fritzl and her family", second last paragraph. Elisabeth is spelt incorrectly as Elizabeth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.212.42 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Robert Ackermann

This removed section is a blatant violation of policy. It contains, for example, speculation into Fritzl's state of mind. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Section restored again. The "speculation" is sourced here. As for BLP, one could argue that Fritzl has become famous enough thanks to media coverage that WP:WELLKNOWN applies in his case. Disagreeing with either of these points does not a "blatant policy violation" make. I do not take kindly to being reverted on talk pages and request that you do not do so again. Thank you. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but no. No one can possible tell us what Fritzl is thinking or feeling except Fritzl himself, directly or through a spokesperson. Anything else is speculation and is a violation of WP:BLP. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a talk page that is devoted to discussing aspects of the article. Normally, all comments are treated as a "brainstorming" where all discourse is considered valid. There are only a few reasons to remove other's comments in a talk page and these would be violations of the Wikipedia dictums or the five pillars, most everything including irreverency is acceptable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. It is one of the principal "dictums" and we should always err on the side of caution. This was more than brainstorming to improve the article. It made comments about one of the living subjects, and as such were unacceptable. A contribution that said "Should we say something about his possible move" would be fine. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur, but in re-reading the submission, it concerned a speculative notion that had some validity and WP:BLP may have been enacted a bit too quickly as it may never have been acceptable in the article but as you say, can be approached from the standpoint, of quering "does this work...?" FWiW, I do appreciate your tireless vandal-fighting but remember if all you have is a hammer, everything can look like a nail, (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

Very true. But rather than continuing to discuss it here User:Cosmic Latte has taken it to ANI, so we'll see what the result is there. If there is consensus that the edit doesn't violate WP:BLP by including speculation about a living person (and even sourced speculation is still just that), then I will go along with that. But right now, all we have is an agressive editor restoring a questionable edit with minimal dicussion. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If there were a talk page for the talk page, I would have brought it there instead. But, as if removing good-faith talk page contributions weren't obstinant enough, doing so without an edit summary is an excellent way to indicate "minimal discussion" as one's intent. At least a summary of "hang on, I'll explain on the talk page momentarily" would have been splendid. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me but most if not all of my edits today in response to you have had very full ledit summaries. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I misread. I noticed the lack of an edit summary on the reversion immediately following my statement that I don't appreciate being reverted on talk pages, and found that in-line with the allegations that were being made at AN3, but I didn't see the comment added at the bottom of that diff. I apologize for that. But the fact remains that I don't appreciate being reverted on talk pages, which is nonetheless what happened. It seems to contradict WP:AGF. Josef Fritzl is not, I presume, editing this page. And most of us, I presume, have not imprisoned family members in our basements. Better to err, I think, on the side of being overly courteous to fellow editors than on the side of being overly pedantic about BLP. Especially on talk pages, where we're dealing with fellow editors more emphatically than on article space, where we're dealing more directly with the subject matter. Perhaps it was overkill to bring an ongoing AN3 issue to ANI, and I apologze if that is the case, but the removal of good-faith talk page material is a sensitive issue, toward which people can be expected to respond in sensitive ways. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, removing a WP:BLP violation (or possible violation) requires no prior discussion. Indeed, it must be done immediately. The reversion can subsequently be discussed (as we are doing now). But as you have seen here and elsewhere, there is little doubt that this material should have been removed. Talk pages should not be used as a way of introducing material that would not be suitable in the article. So the same rules about deletion apply to them as well. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] By the way, what piqued my interest in this whole thing was this, the reversion of an anon editor's contribution, removed both without an edit summary and with a minor-edit designation. While I disagree with the anon's suggestion, I disagree even more strongly with any moves that could alienate new, good-faith contributors. So, while I may have overreacted to the reverting of my restoration of the material, I think I have some degree of justification in reacting against the reverting of the anon editor's original addition of that material. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I explained on my subsequent edit. Marking it as minor was an error. It's easy to click the box by mistake when reaching for the Save Page button. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia article for Robert Ackermann or even a deleted one. Googling the name tells the person's story. Nothing actually says Robert Ackermann killed a pedophile and it even says Robert Ackermann was 19 when he did the crime. Googling "Robert Ackermann" and then the word pedophile only finds one news link, this http://www.austriantimes.at/index.php?id=9632 and it purely talks about the Fritzl and basically all the stuff that the BLP issue centered around. It is a newspaper, though, and a reliable source. Well whatever this means for BLP, you be the judge. Though I must mention google isn't that reliable if you google "Austrian pedophile", well see where it says "Did you mean".

In addition, is this BLP issue to protect Fritzl? Or is it to protect Ackerman? This must be clarified. As the reason for blanking is unclear. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to any living person who is mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia. Part of it is avoiding speculation. If that speculation is false, Wikipedia could be sued. If you say someone believes or thinks something, you have to have incontrovertible evidence that they do (their own writings or a public statement for example). Also, in this case, we need to be extra vigilant as there are ongoing court proceedings which could be jeopardised. I think I have been perfectly clear in what the issues are, as others have agreed. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well the stuff about Ackerma and Friztl was only in that one news article. The news article didn't get its claims from Friztl, Ackerman, or anyone important. The news article interviewed an anonymous prison guard who said all that. So to be purely factual would read, "The Austrian times stated that an anonymous prison guard stated that X, Y, Z." Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, which brings us to the issue of verifiability. Harry the Dog WOOF 22:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe it, all three of you are playing nice. Was it really only a matter of shouting so hard at each other that nobody heard anything? FWiW Well, here's another fine mess you've gotten me into. Oliver Hardy to Stan Laurel on many occasions, delivered with a perplexed look. 22:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

None of my comments have been reverted here for a while. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Good in keeping with BLP

Now about every newspaper calls Fritzl a pedophile and well this is untrue because the first rape charge was a 24 year old woman and the sexual abuse with his daughter didn't start until she reached puberty and he didn't imprison her until she was 18 and it continued until she was 42. Thus, he was never a pedophile. Well I text-searched the article for "pedo" and "paedo" and none was found. So this article is doing a good job with BLP. I see no mention of that he's not a pedophile on the talk pages so I wanted to bring it up here. The newspapers have called him every name in the book, too. Well I just want to point out in the future that calling him a pedophile would be incorrect. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Likely just a "catch-all" description because journalists assumed that his daughter would have been underage. FWiW MSM has been known to make mistakes, LOL. Bzuk (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

He's virtually a saint! I know, you're just a watchman on the wall of journalistic integrity, but this seems like an odd thing to be concerned about (that perhaps, later on, Wikipedia might do him some small injustice). If the injustice hasn't been committed, what's the point of bringing up that it might be? Just hang on a tick: you don't need to be so gung-ho about putting up a defence against a possible allegation. I can't understand the motivation: it just seems like you're using this page as a forum for defending him against the accustations made by other media. But this is wikipedia, not other media. A defence of Fritzl against other media seems out of place here; and, being (arguably, although I imagine not too controversially) a waste of time in any forum, it certainly seems like a waste of time in this.

Media intrusion, legal protection

Nearly every juicy detail that is reported in the UK press and published online finds its way into Wikipedia. What does not get reported is this for example: on 13 February 2009, the lawyers of Elisabeth Fritzl, Ms Plaz and Mr Herbst, stated "on behalf of their client and her children, that the persistent attempts by media representatives to come into contact with her and / or her children was an intolerable interference in their lives in freedom. Ms Fritzl and her children do not wish to have any contact with the press. They do not give interviews, they do not grant permission to publish images and / or content concerning their persons."

This statement was issued after The Sun had published a recent photo of Ms Fritzl and one of her children, taken without their permission, as well as an article with many details of their new life in their new home. Tellingly perhaps, The Sun did not publish the photo or the article online. This particular edition of The Sun was not delivered to Germany or Austria. The Sun editors knew that they were acting against the law in Austria but confident that the persons concerned do not have the money, energy or wherewithal to sue them before a UK court. The same applies to editors of Wikipedia.--KathaLu (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know what Austrian law covers this. For example, in the UK, it is not illegal to take pictures of people in public places. Through no fault of their own they have become figures about whom the public has an interest, and that has to be balanced with their right to lead as normal a life as possible. But if Elisabeth and her children venture out in public and someone recognises them, takes a photo and publishes it, is that really illegal in Austria? I am not advocating intrusion into their lives, just interested to know. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

IANAL but I think it is safe to say that people like the Fritzls have basically no chance to have their privacy protected. Rosemarie Fritzl has recently won 3 court cases against 2 Austrian newspapers and the German Spiegel magazine but she has been awarded only modest sums in the region of a few thousands pounds each. The media have appealed and there will be no final decision before autumn 2009. It concerns a publication of May 2008! As far as I understand it, the court decides in each case whether something is news worthy or an infringement on an individual's privacy. In any case, the maximum fine, if awarded, is 20.000 Euro for media misdemeanors under Austrian law. The courts only take into account how many people read the newspaper in question in Austria.KathaLu (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring

I finally made a first attempt at restructuring and streamlining the article. I am pleased with the summary, it is now more concise. Not sure about the use of tenses. I think the main bulk of the article could do with more streamlining, regrouping and sorting of information.KathaLu (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Australia

Edits such as this aren't the least bit entertaining and I can't understand why anyone would want to make them, but by no means is this the first time I have seen such an edit, either on this article or in other articles that refer to the case. Is there some connection to Australia that I'm missing, or do a bunch of vandals just happen to share the same non-sense of humour? Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's vandals. Especially since they usually only change the visible text, but the link still leads to Austria. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh well. By the way, Harry, I'm sorry for getting so worked up about that Ackermann/BLP issue a while back. You've done an excellent job maintaining the integrity of this article, and I misinterpreted things and overreacted. Please accept my sincere apologies. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

How he pleaded

I am noting this for later reference when the brouhaha about the trial has died down and it becomes clearer what is essential for reporting about the case and what not. This is how he pleaded (not sure how to translate it all correctly):

   * Blutschande: Schuldig
   * Nötigung durch Fallen: Schuldig (Nicht Nötigung durch Drohungen!)
   * Freiheitsentziehung der Kinder: Schuldig
   * Sexualdelikte: Teilweise schuldig
   * Sklaverei: Nicht schuldig
   * Mord durch Unterlassung: Nicht schuldig

Incest: guilty

Coercion: partially guilty

Deprivation of liberty/false imprisonment of the children: guilty

Sexual offences: partially guilty

Slavery/enslavement: not guilty

Murder (by neglicence?): not guilty KathaLu (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

How can he be partially guilty? What is the literal translation of the second one? :) PS. I've tagged the article. Thanks Dvmedis (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The literal translation, as I currently understand it, would be "coercion by trapping: guilty (not coercion by threats!)". As to the sexual offences, I'm not sure how his lawyer will plead and what exactly the accusations are and whether it will make a difference in the end. KathaLu (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Further clarification: The judge asked: "Coercion and severe coercion?" and then apparently explained whether he told his daughter and her children that the dungeon was secured by high tension wires and gas traps (to which he pleaded guilty) and whether he had said that he would kill all of them if they told the truth after their liberation (to which replied: "No, I did not say that").KathaLu (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

At the beginning of the third day, he pleaded guilty to all six charges. When the judge asked him why he had changed his mind, he referred to the video statements of his daughter which had been screend the day before. Strictly personal POV: I can't help feeling that this is something he had planned with or been advised by his lawyer long before the trial had started .... 08:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)KathaLu (talk)

Images

In http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090316/ap_on_re_eu/eu_austria_fritzl_trial at http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Josef-Fritzl/photo//090316/481/c5b55338b0e948c78a7bd0c55eeb92ce//s:/ap/20090316/ap_on_re_eu/eu_austria_fritzl_trial;_ylt=A2KIKurXjb5JoyEB.WZbbBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTFhbmk0YzAzBHBvcwM4BHNlYwN5bl9yX2p1bXBfcGhvdG8Ec2xrA2RlZmVuZGFudGpvcw-- there's a cool pic of tons and tons of police in black looking all serious like a scifi movie about the future combined with some guy with these glasses and hair in the background that also looks like he's in a movie about the future and the lighting is also like it's from a movie about the future plus how everyone is standing. Cool pic. Source is "(AP Photo/Helmut Fohringer, Pool)". Be nice if someone could figure out how wikipedia could use it. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this looks like a great photo. It shows Fritzl holding a binder in front of his face in the courtroom. Does someone skilled with Wiki images want to add this picture? --Pstanton (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed link to Linz sisters

I removed this link because it is irrelevant. The Wiki article is inaccurate (and I regret that I started to edit it!). I think we discussed it before and I researched it before. The sister were severely neglected by their mother and kept in the house but not all of them for 7 years. Two of them were even hospitalized for a short while during this time. KathaLu (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.lefigaro.fr/lefigaromagazine/2007/02/23/01006-20070223ARTMAG90382-la_mre_de_toutes_les_horreurs.php (detailed and more accurate, well researched, however in French) KathaLu (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I nominated the Linz sisters article for deletion (see more info on TP). KathaLu (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed plea

On BBC Breakfast News a few minutes ago, they announced that Fritzl changed his pleas to guilty on all charges. I'll try and get a reference to it quickly. Can someone change the main article please? Intendent (talk/contribs) 08:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7949967.stm -- Here's a reference (sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't know how to shorten it or whatever). Intendent (talk/contribs) 08:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that: I've put it in. Rothorpe (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Kurier article about Elisabeth in court

http://www.kurier.at/nachrichten/303957.php (in German) where the Kurier gloats about the worldwide interest their story has found.

The Kurier newspaper published an article on the morning of 18 March 09, according to which unnamed sources had told them that Elisabeth had been present at the trial of her father. Within hours, the story line was picked up and republished in various forms worldwide. As we have seen so often, the unnamed sources were quickly dropped from the reporting and the Kurier's story was presented as fact, in a variety of "reliable sources". And it was presented, within hours, as a fact in the Wikipedia article, complete with references to said reliable sources.

It seems quite likely that she was present but, to date, this is based on information from anonymous persons. I have modified the Wiki article accordingly.

This is something to bear in mind by all those editors who rely mainly on the "breaking story" version of current events.KathaLu (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Fritzl family tree

• Josef Fritzl (born 1935), married wife Rosemarie Fritzl (born 1939):
  • Unknow name daughter
  • Unknow name daughter
  • Unknow name son
  • Daughter Elizabeth Fritzl (born 1966)
    • Daughter Kerstin (born 1988) kept in cellar
    • Son Stefan (born 1989) kept in cellar
    • Daughter Lisa (born 1993) moved upstairs
    • Daughter Monika (born 1994) moved upstairs
    • Son Alexander (twin) (born 1996) moved upstairs
    • Unknow name son (twin) (born 1996) died
    • Son Felix (born 2002) kept in cellar
  • Unknow name daughter
  • Unknow name son
  • Unknow name daughter

Estonia54 (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Cf. here. --212.203.105.100 (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Change of plea

I'm confused. First the media reports him changing his plea to guilty, then the media reports the jury as finding him guilty? In English-speaking countries, if you change your plea to guilty, and the judge accepts your change of plea, then the jury is dismissed as no longer needed, and never delivers a verdict... so, did the judge not accept his plea? or did he not really change his plea? or is the Austrian system just plain different? I'd be pleased if someone (esp. someone who knows the Austrian legal system) could explain it to me. --SJK (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A Wikipedia Talk Page is not a forum or a bulleting board. You may ask questions relating to the article but other issues you may raise at topical websites to be found outside of Wikipedia.

Tovojolo (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure I'm not the only person confused by this, and if someone can find information which explains the confusion, then that information should be added to the article. So my question IS relating to the article. --SJK (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is self-evident that legal systems are not the same world-wide and in particular not the same as in the US and UK, and this does notneed further explanation in THIS article. KathaLu (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be a useful addition to the article. Most readers I guess would not be familiar with the Austrian legal system, so it would improve their understanding of the case if there could be added some brief discussion of how the Austrian legal system works (it doesn't necessarily need to be in this article, it could be a link from this article to another article which does so) --SJK (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll think about it if no one else volunteers. There is some minute information about the differences of jury trials between common law systems (US, UK) and civil law systems (Austria, most of Europe) on Wiki. This latter day pleading guilty episode was written up big in the newspapers but if you look at the exchange between Fritzl and the judge that followed this "confession" and at the prosecutor's closing remarks in greater detail, it does not sound as if it was such a big deal. For those who can read German and would like to check up on more details which you will only find in Austrian newspapers and Austrian sources: please note that you will not find many such articles about the trial if you search for "Fritzl". You need to search for "Josef F." to find such information. KathaLu (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That's absolutely untrue. All major German language media, even ORF, use Fritzl. "Josef F." is something invented by the German language Wikipedia (to be precise: a few couple of administrators there). Johnny from Bronx (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how talking about it on English Wikipedia is going to change anything on German Wikipedia. Every language Wikipedia is autonomous. You need to raise this issue with German Wikipedia. Tovojolo (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no influence over the German Wikipedia, and dozens of editors seems to have raised the issue countless times since the case surfaced. As the German Wikipedia does not adhere to some of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, including the conensus principle, things are unlikely to change, as one or two administators are allowed to enforce their opinion even against a consensus. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Something weird is happening at the German Wikipedia

I would like to draw attention to the rather weird situation at the German Wikipedia. The German Wikipedia must be the only publication in the entire world not to mention the Fritzl name and insist on "Josef F.", as the name is massively used by the world press, including the German-language press. All other Wikipedia editions do also mention the name, many of them use it as the article title (including the English one). It is argued that most people in the world know the case as the Fritzl case, but the German Wikipedia use an obscure title which no one know the case as and doesn't even have a redirect, and people over there have told that they were only able to find the article by looking up the English one. There seems to be strong opposition to the anonymization, but the administrators of the German Wikipedia have enforced the anonymization, to the extent that they even use a spam filter to prevent people from writing the name at talk pages.

As if this wasn't enough: One day after Josef Fritzl was sentenced to life in a heavily publicized trial, the German article has not been updated, despite many calls to do so (it is, of course, protected, as is usual practice at that project), as administrators are claiming "Wikipedia is not a news portal" and so forth. As I see it, the German article is systematically obstructed by administrators of that project, for some strange reason. It certainly smells real bad.

Now, many observers (in the press) during the recent trial have noted that Austria is a country unable to deal with history, a country where things are swept under the carpet. Apparently, this applies to the German Wikipedia (as opposed to all the other Wikipedia editions) as well. I see a clear parallell to the irrational behaviour at the German Wikipedia. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comments don't belong here. Are you trying to drum up support for your POV concerning the German language Wikipedia article? BTW, your claims are not correct, Austrian media have increasingly used "Josef F." in their publications concerning the trial. This shift from their earlier reporting cannot have gone unnoticed for anyone who has followed the case through the eyes of the Austrian newspapers. Two other point: 1. This being an Austrian case, I assume that there is a higher than average proportion of Austrian German language editors who work on the German language Wiki article so their editing may prevail. 2. If you had cared to look you may note that the English language article on the Sheffield incest case makes no mention of the name of the convicted criminal or the names of his victims. KathaLu (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In my point of view, the German language pre-trial version of the Fritzl case was excellently written, as an encyclopedic article, both in style and content. KathaLu (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The German article would be classified as a stub/cleanup candidate in the English Wikipedia. The strong attempts to censor obvious information at a Wikimedia project, which is not censored here (or at any other projects), is interesting information. It is certainly a paradox that even the title of this article is censored in the German project. One has to wonder why it is so important for a few persons with admin privileges at the German WP to protect Josef Fritzl, as the entire world, including the German-speaking, not only know his name, but know the case per se as the Fritzl case (how many people would refer to the Natascha Kampusch case as the "criminal case of Strasshof"?). PS: You are completely wrong, even ORF use the name, and the German Wikipedia isn't a Wikipedia for Austria in any event, all major German-language media are using the name as the name of the case. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to take this to the TP to which this issue belongs. You obviously have problems with the concept of "Opferschutz" (principle of victim protection) which seems to be important to the current majority of the editors of the article in question. Unlike the UK (see Sheffield incest case), Austria does not give its courts the power to protect the victims of an accused or convicted criminal to the extent that his name cannot be revealed publicly but that does not mean that anyone, including Wikipedia editors, MUST reveal it because you want it to be so. KathaLu (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of revealing anything, it's a question of suppressing truth (facts that everyone already knows, like the earth is not flat) and obstructing Wikipedia principles at an article linked from this one. It is relevant to draw attention to what is happening to the sister article in another language of this article. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There are 398,000 Google hits for "Josef F". If that's not notoriety I don't know what is. Enter "Josef F." into the German language search field and you get the Wiki article. So don't get so worked up about it and don't underestimate the smartness of German speakers. Wiki is an encyclopedia. In 10 years time, most German speakers will not know who Fritzl was but everyone will know what "Josef F." stands for. So what if they use Josef F. and we use Fritzl. KathaLu (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that as we speak, most interwiki links (including the interwiki link to this one) have been removed from the German counterpart of this article. Even obstruction of the interwiki system is employed by German Wikipedia administrators in order to censor information, it seems (is it at all tolerable that a Wikimedia project removes valid interwiki links?). Johnny from Bronx (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Words from Germany: Some of the users and administrators refer to the German/Austrian personality rights / Persönlichkeitsrecht and victim protection, which is - of course - nonsense, because the victims changed their identity and Fritzl himself is a public figure. Gosh, German bureaucracy sucks. --ChrisHamburg (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly, these people have sysop-rights so they can force their absurd point of view... And so they even can censor the interwiki links that contain "Fritzl"... Chaddy (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Power is always in the hands of the worst. --88.153.11.65 (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Short explanation: the victims have sued several media for infringement of their personality rights. (See i.e. Spiegel Online, if you speak German.) According to those familiar with Austrian law (I’m not), there seem to be actual grounds for this lawsuit, as the interests of the victims usually outweigh the public’s information interest. (See ruling of the Austrian supreme court, 3.4, 3.5)

Since deWP adheres to German/Austrian/Swiss laws (not sure if this is an actual obligation forced by foundation policy or not, nevertheless the general adherence is rather undisputed) every reference to the name has thus been removed. Obviously, not everyone agrees with the decision—it does seem absurd, quite frankly, but legal practice isn’t exactly known for being overtly down-to-earth, either. Personally, I’m not involved (yet?) and not really sure where I stand in this.

Whether or not it is a necessity to drag this particular dispute and admin bashing to other projects is however an entirely different matter…

Hope this sheds some light on the weirdness at hand. Kind regards, —mnh·∇· (sysop on de) · 19:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see http://diegalerie.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/josef-fritzls-angehoerige-klagen-der-spiegel-verurteilt/ for more detailed information on current court cases - note that what counts for the Austrian court is the distribution of the media in Austria. This explains in part why German and Austrian media have increasingly started to use "Josef F." while foreign media, in particular the British press, have not done so. But these are, in essence, editorial decisions. KathaLu (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And the final point is: Austrian and German law is (of course) not the same as American law (and vise versa), so we shall respect and not compare (as it doesn't belong here anyway).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

So all major German and Austrian media, even ORF, are criminals, then? It's absolutely nonsense that Austrian or German law doesn't permit Josef Fritzl to be named. In any event, only American law is relevant to Wikipedia, which happens to be an American encyclopedia, published by an American foundation and hosted in America. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't take my comment out of context and furthermore, German law is applied to what is published at the German WP and suggesting that (all editors) of the media over there are criminals is your (very wrong) interpretation of my comment. Hush hush, back to your blog or forum.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No (personal) intent in this direction from my side. It was (IMO) rather a mild response with some humoresque touch after you called my input "nonsense". Apologies if you took it the wrong way. Still, I would like to see a response from you to my comment on the subject.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And to show you my good faith I striked out the comment in question.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I remind you all that this talk page is for discussion for the improvement of Fritzl case and not German WP. If you have issues with the way that the German WP is ran, please take it there. If this continues I will bring it to the attention of appropriate administrators. Jenuk1985 | Talk 07:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This case involves the English Wikipedia and this article specifically as well as the Germans first removed the interwiki link to this article and now are mass-creating useless redirects at other projects in order to circumvent the correct interwikis and censor other projects. Alas, it's not possible to discuss anything at the German Wikipedia, it isn't even allowed to mention the name of this article. The German obstruction of the interwiki system clearly involves other projects. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A Reminder

Please remember that a Wikipedia Talk Page is not a forum and neither is it a bulletin board. The only issues that may be raised here are those relating directly to the article.

You are free to raise any other issues at any website, forum, bulletin board or blog to be found outside of Wikipedia.

Tovojolo (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this but a Wikipedia Talk Page is not a forum nor a bulletin board and is in no way, shape or form, a discussion forum.

Tovojolo (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Josef F.'s surname

The Austrian Right prohibits to use the Surname of Josef F. The German Article de:Kriminalfall von Amstetten also uses only the Name "Josef F." So please correct this Article. --86.33.137.94 (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a consensus among the editors of the English language Wiki article to use "Fritzl". Your description of the legal situation is not correct. Editorial decisions of other language version are not relevant to this TP. I consider this discussion as closed. KathaLu (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus among the editors of the German Wiki, there is only a consensus among the admins. --88.153.11.65 (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only among some admins (not all) but also among some users. Chaddy (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what the "Austrian Right" does, but Austrian law certainly does not prohibit mentioning the name of a convicted criminal. I happen to know this because I've bothered to simply ask an Austrian expert and friend of mine. I guess the whole discussion about omitting or not Fritzl's surname had its origin in confusing Austrian with German law. In Germany it is generally not allowed to identify a convicted criminal as this could undermine his or her later efforts to reintegrate into society. Yet there is an exception, as the surnames of criminals who've gained a certain national or international notoriety may nevertheless be mentioned. See German Wiki articles on several German terrorists and killers who are still alive. The thing is, the German Wiki is very German and not very much Austrian, and about two thirds of their administrators are German, and that's the reason for their confusion. In any case we're right in mentioning Josef Fritzl's name, even according to Austrian law, although we don't have to adhere to Austria's laws. --Catgut (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Austrian law does prohibit mentioning JF's surname, at least it's stricter than German law in this point. And, please, don't confuse the policy of media with actual law. Of course, there is confusion, but this confusion does not touch upon what you are speculating. --Man77^talk 15:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but you're wrong. Austrian law does not prohibit mentioning Fritzl's name. Whoever brought this up on the German Wiki should better check his sources. I understand it's not allowed to mention the names of victims, but as we all know by now they have since changed their names. Anyway this whole issue is of no relevance to our Wiki and the article. Thankfully, I might add. --Catgut (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue also includes the relatives of JF who still have the name, as for instance his wife. --Man77^talk 14:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, the names of victims and or relatives should or must not be mentioned. This of course doesn't include Josef Fritzl, and it is of course not prohibited to mention the name Fritzl as there is a number of people in Austria going by the name of Fritzl. Josef Fritzl's name was not to be mentioned before the judgment, as he was still considered a defendant. Now that he's a convicted criminal his name is not taboo anymore. --Catgut (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just ignore the german Wikipedia, they make a fool of themselves. Sefki (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

When does a criminal case stop?

I don't know which of them I would consider the worst offenders, Alan Hall, Roger Boyes, or Bojan Pancesvski ... Boyes's recent piece in The Times is the most hypocritical and sanctimonious piece of journalism I have seen in a long time. He describes the place and the house where the victims live and asks "What does Ms Fritzl, 42, fear in her new existence?" He does not give the answer but it is a no-brainer: you and your ilk and your employers/client newspapers and your readers. So the name of the new location is now also available on line, against the wishes of those concerned and the pleas of Austrian authorities, and the speculation and indiscretion of the current lives of the victims does not stop. Question: Is this still to be considered vital information for a Wiki article on the Fritzl crim case?KathaLu (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO no, at least regarding exposing her location right here (although it might be in a source). There is some protection and the main one would be WP:BLP. You might want to look this up as it protects against potential harm of living persons. Any violation of this policy should be reverted immediately and is a serious (and blockable) offense.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, criminal cases (and articles in general) don't "stop" at the English WP and neither on other WP's but you should know this ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Prevention

Is it appropriate to add a section dealing with prevention of this crime?

• Austrian laws and habits protecting the criminals.
  • The criminal record of rapist JF was erased after 20 yrs so that it was not even available to authorities.
  • Over emphasizing privacy in all the course of investigation so that possible errors of authorities could not be spotted.
• Failing at investigating a missing person for 24 yrs.
  • The missing EF case was simply closed after some years
  • Even when new clues arrived as letters by JF police did not trace the letters to find EF.
    • The letters clued that EF was living in an Austrain city, in a non-existant religious sect.
  • JF was not regarded as suspect in missing girl.
• Missing to genetically identify father and mother of found children claimed to be EF's child's.

--Nevit (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Austurian laws" - I think this was just a typo but please don´t mix up Asturia und Austria... Chaddy (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Murder by negligence?

Fritzl wasn´t accused of murder by negligence, but of murder by omission. The difference in Austrian law is that "Fahrlässige Tötung" (murder by negligence) means that the delinquent didn´t consider the necessary diligence (he didn´t intend to do so, but it happened because of his carelessness) and that "Mord durch Unterlassung" (murder by omission) affords a certain Recklessness (criminal) (if the culprit holds the action´s success severely for possible and resigns himself to it). See: German Wikipedia article 193.170.52.132 (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right but I think these concepts are difficult to translate. There is murder, homicide, murder 1st degree, murder 2nd degree etc. etc. I preferred "neglect" instead of "neglicence" because it was used in some articles of the better UK broadsheets and I felt it was closer to the Austrian meaning but it got changed in the article. Perhaps "neglect" catches the element of "not helping on purpose" better than "negligence" which is closer to carelessness? KathaLu (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning of the Fritzl name in Austria

Some people claim it is "illegal" to mention the Fritzl name in Austria. I suppose the state-run Austrian Broadcasting (ORF) are criminals, because they mention the Fritzl name on 2 470 pages on their website[1]. Every large German and Austrian newspaper, TV channel etc. does not only mention the Fritzl name, but use the name extensively. Are they all criminals? Why are the authorities not doing anything, then?

The article Wer ist Josef Fritzl? (ORF) claim that all of Austria and the whole world are asking themselves: Who is Josef Fritzl?. Not "who is Josef F?". I doubt many people have ever heard of this "Josef F." and would easily confuse him with Kafka's "Josef K."

It should be noted that the victims have already changed their name. So not mentioning the Fritzl name is obviously done to protect Josef Fritzl (who else?). Johnny from Bronx (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki/redirect disputes

This is only marginally related to this article: the interwiki link from the German language version of the Fritzl case to all other language versions, including the English version (this "Fritzl case" article), are systematically deleted from the German wiki article (reason given: the links contain the full surname of Fritzl, the German article uses only F.). It does seem over the top. Where on Wikipedia - other than the German TP for the Fritzl article - can one bring such issues to the attention of a wider audience, in particular administrators?KathaLu (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is more likely a case for meta: or the WMF. Problem is, it is believed to be not within the (Austrian) laws if the name is mentioned (because it's the surname of the victims, too), while other users think this is not a serious problem. I suggest an lawyers expertise, but someone has to pay for it. --32X (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the German Wikipedia and interwikis

Should we change the de. interwiki link to "de:Fritzl-Fall" to make it clear that it is unacceptable that the German Wikipedia censor the title of this article and the correct en. interwiki link? They have no right to interfere with titles used at other projects (like removing or manipulating interwikis, including mass creation of spam redirects at other projects in order to circumvent the correct interwikis). A reaction from other projects seems to be necessary. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, article space isn't the place to protest decisions made by other wikis (or other Wikipedians). --Conti|✉ 17:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and the German Wikipedia should not use the article space to protest title decisions made by other Wikipedias. Something ought to be done about the rogue behaviour of the German project, though. Obstruction of interwikis should not be tolerated. Currently most interwikis (all perfectly valid) are removed altogether from the German counterpart of this article and a wrong en. interwiki is used, this article is not and will never be called "Josef K.". Johnny from Bronx (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Then discuss it over there, not here. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the German censorship of the English Wikipedia is a matter of interest for the English Wikipedia. This case has also been discussed ad nauseum at the German project, but they have problems with rogue admins and doesn't follow consensus or other basic Wikipedia principles (Unacceptable wording removed. --User:Conti). Johnny from Bronx (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the last part of your comment, since comparisons like that are simply unacceptable. Don't do it again, or you'll end up being blocked. Anyhow, this talk page is for discussing this article, not its content, or the German Wikipedia version of it. If you think that there's a general problem at the German Wikipedia that can't be solved there, the meta wiki might be the best place to raise your concerns. --Conti|✉ 00:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack, I didn't name any particular users, only a particular project, and it was an accurate description of some aspects of that project. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Has to be discussed at meta. meta:Wikimedia_Forum#Censorship_of_Josef_Fritzl.27s_name_at_dewiki Computerjoe's talk 13:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Photos

Please note that no Fair Use photos of either Josef Fritzl or Elisabeth Fritzl are permitted in this article, WP:BLP, WP:FU, WP:NFCC.

Tovojolo (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Says who? Smells wiki-lawyering. No GFDL licensed photo will ever be available, it's impossible to get a photo with the most desired license. The Austrian police photo is de facto in the public domain. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Says WP:BLP, WP:FU, WP:NFCC. If you disagree, take it up on the Talk Pages of those Policy articles and get a Wikipedia-wide consensus to change policy.

Tovojolo (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo has just been re-added. Is the above still the case? Harry the Dog WOOF 15:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Here on the English WP we have not to obey Austrian or German law. We simply have to go by American law, only! Being sarcastic, I could argue to check every edit and image included here with every single law of every single country in the whole world, right? I thought this issue was settled by seems like I celebrated too soon and I'm really starting to get hard feelings about the German WP (which I consider responsible for all of this ... you know...).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is not any country's law but international copyright law. We should not be using any text or image that we don't have the rights to use. Harry the Dog WOOF 06:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

To clarify:So with other words we cannot include pictures that are not of (US) American origin even when there is no free image replacement available? Just want to get it right in the future. Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically yes, since Wikipedia is hosted in the US, we can't use any image for which the original creator of the image has not given explicit consent (usually by licensing it under Creative Commons) or for which a "fair use" argument cannot be made. (It doesn't matter the nationality of the copyright holder.) Fair use includes things like an image of a product or a logo to illustrate an article about a product or company for example. As an aside though, US libel law is not the only one that Wikipedia needs to adhere to. Because Wikipedia is "published" (i.e. can be viewed) in almost every country, an aggrieved person could sue in any country if the court accepts the suit. It would not odd for a UK resident to sue in a UK court. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and enlighten me about "fair use" images. I had it wrong (in part). Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(FYI) Redirect for discussion

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Josef_F. and state your opinion.Thanks,--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Nazi stormtrooper father

I removed the claim about Fritzl's father, probably for the second or third time. Very little has been published about his father and indeed his parents, other than Fritzl's own descriptions of his mother. It is not even certain what his parents names are, as the versions "Josef and Maria" and "Rosa and Franz" are floating around.

The Sun spotted, in the early days, a war memorial in Amstetten. You find these memorials in every town and village in Western and Central Europe. They were erected after WWI. After WWII, the names of the dead soldiers of WWII were added.

The Sun detected the "carved image of a Nazi storm trooper" - in all likelihood, it is the carved image of a WWI soldier but why quibble over such trivial details - on this particular memorial, and the name Franz Fritzl. The Sun never claimed that this was Fritzl's father but the link was made, and soon someone must have duly started to propagate insinuation as fact. It should not be propagated by Wikipedia. KathaLu (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Italicization of name redirected here

In my reading of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting), the user Bob Cooper III (talk)'s italicization of the names of articles which are redirects to this article is not in keeping with the Manual of Style. Users can see immediately when they search for one of those names that they have been redirected to this article. I am reverting his edit. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fritzl bio infobox

While I agree that some kind of project-wide guideline regarding bio infoboxes in "event" articles would help guide us here (and, to this end, I've just now started the discussion "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes#Should there be a project-wide policy wrt bio infoboxes in "event" articles?"), in the meantime, according to my interpretation of existing guidelines, the Fritz bio infobox seems informative to the reader and an improvement to the encyclopedia (especially per the foundational guideline of WP:Preserve, that, at least in my reading, would seem to nudge us to keep a detailed summary box about Fritzl despite his separate Wikipedia biography not being in existence). ↜Just M E here , now 18:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Some news story. I don't know where to put it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/17/australia-fritzl-rape Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a link to the WP article on this in the "see also". That's where it belongs. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Josef Fritzl article?

Why is there no Josef Fritzl article on wikipedia? I thought I saw one here a year or so ago. 86.44.57.55 (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Fritzl_case#Josef_Fritzl does look like an article in itself - was it merged from Josef Fritzl ?I think it should be split. Is he not notable enough in himself, or is it that his notability stems only from this case? ☭ мдснєтє тдлк^ЅТЦФФ 18:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wife's Involvement?

In the article, it says things like "After Elisabeth's disappearance, her mother filed a missing person report" and "One child died shortly after birth, and three – Lisa, Monika and Alexander – were removed from the cellar as infants to live with Fritzl and his wife." I think the article is unclear (and I'm still not sure, myself) about whether the wife was knowingly involved or if she was completely unaware of what her husband was doing. Would be nice if someone could clarify. Soave (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit: it is eventually revealed that she wasn't involved, but not until the Discovery section. Soave (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Finance

The financial side seems to have been over-looked. Fritzl seems to have been well financed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.170.125 (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

14 March or 16 March?

In two places I read that the trial started on March 16th. But in the list of key events, it's written that Fritzl pleaded guilty on March 14th, after four days of trial. It doesn't make sense. Calle Widmann (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Josef Fritzl - separate article

I think that Josef Fritzl deserves to have separate article about him. What would you say about splitting this article? Ojinek (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

BLP issues

Please comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Fritzl_case

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

30 November or 9 April?

Topmost summary lists Josef Fritzl's birthday 9 April 1935, whereas "Josef Fritzl > Biography" section names birthday as 30 November 1935. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.149.100.10 (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation Links

Just noting that some of the citations link to pages on The Times website that simply redirect to the homepage. I'm not sure if that means the articles don't exist or if it's some sort of design flaw of the website, but it might be worth looking into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.60.84 (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Birthdates

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1162591/I-realised-cruel-I-Fritzl-finally-cracks-brave-daughter-faces-court.html This article shows that Kerstin was born in 1988, not 1989 and the twins were born in April instead of May. Rpg789 (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't change the article based on one not very reliable source when all the others say 1989 and May. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 October 2012

Suggested change from: Elisabeth helped Fritzl carry Kerstin out of the dungeon and saw the outside world to: Elisabeth helped Fritzl carry Kerstin out of the dungeon and she saw the outside world 2001:980:540C:1:216:76FF:FE91:2064 (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)