Jump to content

Talk:Linz sisters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unsigned, Undated

[edit]

This article has apparently been deleted before due to lack of supporting links. Firstly, looking through Google's news archives, I'm pretty sure there would have satisfied the "multiple features in credible news media" requirement if an effort had been made to find them. Secondly, even if it did not satisfy this criteria before, the renewed interest sparked by the Fritzl case has generated more than enough news articles to satisfy that notability criteria.

This article should again be deleted!

[edit]

How can I mark this article for deletion? It quotes English language news articles, and articles based on such articles, which are not accurate. All sourced information is a based on sensationalist information, published shortly after the case became public. I cannot find any articles closer to the court case, with the actual charges, or articles containing the judgement.

The case was discussed in the Austrian parliament and the minister of education produced a list of the times the 3 sisters last visited a state school and attended exams:

Oldest child: last exam in school year 1999/2000

Middle child: successful exam in school year 2002/2003 on 6 May 2004

Youngest child: successful school year 2003/2004

see http://www.parlament.gv.at/PG/DE/XXIII/AB/AB_00386/fnameorig_076773.html (in German) - 24 April 2007

How can anyone claim that these children were locked away for seven years from 1998 to 2005??? They were severely neglected but they were not kept prisoners in a "cellar" for 7 years.KathaLu (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right (in your comment about wrong statements in the article) but this is not a reason for deletion but rather more a reason to improve it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing deletion template

[edit]

"quoted sources are not accurate; case of child neglect; no 7 year imprisonment; see TP" The only source given by this editor is here [1] and in French (besides the link above in German) and what "TP" stands for, I have no clue. So I object to the deletion of this article as the editor's reason cannot be followed and confirmed by "non French or German speaking editors.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TP stand for talk page. I also found the court judgement now, obviously in German. No word of imprisonment in it, but severe child neglect. I nominate the article for deletion because there is no case as there is no trace of a court case, let alone judgement to be found by English speaking editors. Show me a source with the judgement or a reference to the court case in English and I accept that this is the case as claimed in this silly piece of a Wiki article.KathaLu (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for enlighten me about TP although for the rest...Umh, you might want to focus on your case which would be applying the best reason for deletion of this article. You might have a case, you might not, but things like that "...let alone judgement to be found by English speaking editors..." won't get you further. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said my piece, I will let this rubbish stand as it is. BTW, the children had some minor linguistic particularities but they did not speak an "almost unintelligible language based on German". All this sensationalist nonsense of the first days was quickly refuted, and yes, I have very reputable sources but all this was not considered exciting and titillating enough to merit translation into English.KathaLu (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here - http://www.land-oberoesterreich.gv.at/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-3DCFCFC3-F5C453D4/ooe/Gramastetten_Berichte_1_3.pdf - is a chronological list of the schooling of the two younger sisters. This is published by a local Austrian government authority. For the linguistically challenged: K.M (Katharina) started school in Gramastetten in November 2001, V.M. (Viktoria) in September 2002. That's 3 resp. 4 years into their alledged 7-year imprisonment. V.M came regularly to school, K.M. only sporadically (on 22 days during first semester). The mother regularly told the authorities, when contacted, that the child was afraid of going to school. In May 2005, the school records for the first time that V.M. is also frequently absent from school and reports to police. Same again in October 2005 which leads to the 2 youngest children being taken from mother. School reports that children took part in school events, were always cleanly dressed and well nourished. Public records also show that the oldest child K.M visited a secondary school in Linz-Auhof in school years 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 although she was frequently absent. KathaLu (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German source for case needed

[edit]

I recently reworded the article using Le Figaro article linked from another Talk page. However I could not find any online reference to the court case that Figaro suggested would start in 2008 April. If anyone has seen it, please give a link or even just quotes in German. I googled for variations on "vernachlässigten Kinder Gramastetten", "Nachlass", "Vernachlässigung Gramastetten", but failed to find anything on this Linz case after 2007. For what it's worth I have no problem with seeing non-English reliable sources (German preferably in this case) being used as cites, as long as some short quote is included in the template to help verifiers. 84user (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Google for "Pöstlingberg" "Mutter"; "verwahrloste Kinder" "Pöstlingberg"; "verwahrloste" "Gramastetten"; and variations thereof and you get hits, even from 2008 with new information. Pöstlingberg is the up-market area where the children lived. As far as I can make out, the court case took place on 6 November 2007; it was annulled upon appeal on 24 April 2008; the court of appeal ruled that there should be new trial but that did not happen; the prosecution was stopped. The mother has recently started a court case for compensation for wrongful imprisonment, see http://ooe.orf.at/stories/326597/; her lawyer has published the decision of the court of appeal on his website, see http://www.ra-blum.com and http://www.ra-blum.com/OGHanonymisiert_20080507143858.pdf, also an article here http://www.austrianlaw.at/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1976; there is no doubt that this is a case of severe neglect - in particular on the social and psychological level - but it is a far cry from "feral children". KathaLu (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Linz sisters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linz_sisters&oldid=1199314304"