Talk:Natascha Kampusch/Archive 1

Online research[edit]

List links to web pages referencing Kampusch and the abduction here - we can use them to build the article over time. For ease of use, please do not sign additions to the list.

Natascha Kampusch took a holiday with her captor
Times Online — Transcript: Natascha Kampusch TV interview
Video of her dungeon cabin by Bundeskriminalamt (Federal Criminal Police Office of Austria)
English translation by International Herald-Tribune of open letter released by Kampusch on 28 August 2006
Draft of the hidden room Kampusch lived in by APA
Draft of the hidden room Kampusch lived in by Federal Criminal Police Office of Austria
Natascha Kampusch passport-photo
Natascha Kampusch - the first photo by NEWS
Transcript of interview with Natascha Kampusch (German)
Video stream. Extract of the interview (German)
From Prisoner to Media Star: How Natascha Kampusch´s helpers try to manage the hype, in: Der Spiegel (English)
A dark mystery The Times Online

Natascha Kampusch says that her kidnaper was part of her life and that she hasn´t missed her youth (Spanish) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.149.186 (talk) 09:16, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Austrian woman vs. Austrian girl[edit]

I changed the wording back to girl from woman due to the following:

both quoted references use girl instead of woman
googling 18-year old girl yields more results than 18-year old woman
the girl article describes girls as young female humans and than later speaks of people aged 18 or under.

As she was abducted as a child, I think the emphasis should be put on her as a girl. And being 18 doesn't make her an adult everywhere, so one can't rely upon linguistic convention, either. nepTune 20:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think to be honest you are denying her her womanhood. She was a little girl when she was abducted, but she's now a young woman. The article should be reworded. It's somewhat jarring to read an encyclopaedia referring to an 18-year-old adult woman as a girl. 86.136.94.95 22:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's even more jarring to read such absurd displays of political correctness. No one can deny anyone her "womanhood" (however you may be defining it), and certainly not by semantics.--RicardoC 22:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth does political correctness have to do with it? She has attained the age of majority and is therefore better described as a woman than as a girl. I am defining "womanhood" in this instance as the state of being an adult female human, which she is. Calling her a girl implies that she isn't an adult. 86.136.94.95 00:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with what is the age of adulthood in Austria; NOT the US or UK or anyplace else? CFLeon 03:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's 18 over most of the world these days; that's not a US or UK thing. The age of majority article has it as 18 in Austria, and if you want more convincing, the Volljährigkeit article in the German Wikipedia agrees, giving some information about how it has been lowered, most recently in 2001 from 19. She is an adult by any reasonable definition and it's belittling and disrespectful for this article to be worded as though she were a child. 86.136.94.95 05:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, though, that as much as I agree with the argument of denying her womanhood (whathever that's supposed to mean) and the age of adulthood in Austria, an Austrian woman reminds rather of someone like, say, Bertha von Suttner, with the make-up and the maturity and all that. And that'd rather be someone contrary to Natascha who - even in the formal tone of an encyclopedia article - is someone whose story and appearance (wish you'd seen the pictures in Austrian media) evoke compassion and condolence. And because woman is soooo stripped of its youthish side, that's something she'll get much more as girl, than as woman. nepTune 06:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I thought I'd made reasonably clear above, "denying her womanhood" means portraying her as something other than an adult female human. There are no doubt sociologists who would have a field day with this exchange and our various ideas about gender roles. You appear to be reluctant to call her a woman because it reminds you of someone "with the make-up and the maturity and all that". I don't think wearing make-up is a sensible or relevant criterion, and as for maturity (certainly an attribute associated with adulthood as opposed to childhood), we have to be careful or we'll find ourselves trying to judge how mature this person is that none of us have ever met. Someone might jump to the conclusion that because she's been kept away from the world all these years she won't have been able to develop into a mature adult, while someone else might take the opposing view that because of what she's had to cope with, she must have vastly more emotional strength and resilience than the average 18-year-old. Why not keep it simple and, in the absence of greater insight into individuals' maturity on our part, use the legal age of majority as the point at which we describe someone as an adult? Who are we to judge how mature she is, and how mature she would need to be for us to call her an adult, if we didn't take account of her actual age? Then we come to what I suspected was the heart of the matter, which is this question of compassion and sympathy. An article written in the style of a tabloid newspaper might call her a girl in order to evoke these feelings ("poor innocent child", etc.), but a respectable encyclopaedia should be neutral and detached, even cold. We are here to describe the facts of the case to the reader. One relevant fact is that there has been an outpouring of sympathy and compassion for Natascha Kampusch, but it's not Wikipedia's job to encourage that by describing this adult woman as a girl so that readers will feel more sorry for her. I think the facts of this case are quite enough to evoke feelings of compassion in just about everyone who hears them. 86.136.94.95 14:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading about this case on the BBC News website, I find one article entitled "Austria girl 'describes kidnap'", with its first line calling her an "Austrian teenager", and another article where a psychologist says she's "obviously a very brave young woman". It seems that people are very keen to make judgements about her maturity and assign various descriptions to her. On the one hand we have the media calling her a girl, and on the other a psychologist (whose opinion I'd put much more stock in if, for example, we didn't know whether she was 17 or 18) calling her a woman. Using the legal age of majority as the point at which someone can be described as a woman rather than a girl, an adult rather than a child, lets Wikipedia out of having to make such a subjective judgement as we would be making if we tried to make assumptions about her maturity. 86.136.94.95 14:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving away slightly from the subject of this particular discussion, I think it's interesting to observe all the assumptions being made about Natascha Kampusch. The BBC article linked above, which comes from their "Magazine" section where human interest is a staple, quotes three psychologists, which seems reasonable, but then the hack inserts their own uninformed POV:

It will be important to re-establish as normal a life with her loved ones as possible. But the life of a 10-year-old, or of an 18-year-old? For her first words to her father - after "I love you" - was "Is my toy car still there?" It had been her favourite plaything.

If, like the author of that article, you want to put forward the view that she's a child, you'd interpret her question to her father accordingly, but if you want to put forward the view that she's grown up over the course of the last eight years, you could certainly interpret it in a variety of other ways that don't just have her as a helpless little girl, with plenty of subtle shades of meaning, intention and humour on her part. The article discusses Stockholm syndrome and the possibility of mixed emotions about the death of the captor, and down in the comments section we have more assumptions being made about what Natascha Kampusch must be thinking, as shown by this comment by someone called Emma-Louise:

That girl was kept in a cellar for 8 years and didn't see her family once because of that man. How can you say it must have been like losing a family member? She must have been glad that he is dead. HE took away most of her life and as far as she was concerned she might as well have been dead.

How are any of these people, whether journalists whipping up an exploitative "let's discuss her emotions in full view of the world" story, or their ignorant readers coming out with angry reactions to talk of real psychological phenomena that may or may not apply in this case, in a position to put words in Natascha Kampusch's mouth or make uninformed assumptions about how she must be feeling? There's something incredibly distasteful and unhealthy about the mass media and the people who are fed information by it without stopping to think about what nonsense is being spouted. If I can make an assumption of my own here, it's that the reality of Natascha Kampusch's development will be considerably more complicated than simple categories like "woman" or "girl" would indicate, but then the media do love painting these things in black and white, so 'stolen childhood' is the chosen theme for this story. 86.136.94.95 15:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it took me quite some time to read all that, and all because I changed "girl" into "woman". I agree wholeheartedly with 86.136.94.95, and that's exactly what made me use the word "woman" in the first place. By the way, the current "teenager" is just as bad because it also heavily connotes immaturity in one way or another. As far as I'm concerned, the only proper criterion to go by is her biological age. An easy way out would be avoiding the term altogether and call her "an Austrian abduction victim who was kidnapped ...", but I'd prefer "woman". In five years' time, given Wikipedia still exists and Natascha Kampus is still alive, will she still be referred to as a girl? Or would that depend on her maturing process? <KF> 22:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in my young 20s and I consider myself a girl. I don't think that the terms "girl" and "woman" necessarily correspond to childhood and adulthood. Most people use girl when referring to any young female at least, say, under the age of 21. I always find it kind of jarring when people call 18 or 19 year olds "women." --Mareimbri 02:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this writer for real? A victim is kidnapped, abused for years, is "denied her childhood" and escapes, and the reaction one reader has is that we refer to her as a girl and not as a woman (or should I say "womyn"?). It reminds me of this Onion parody about teachers worried about the poor grammar in suicide notes. Don't tell me this is the face of feminism today.

As a matter of interest, would you a male in the same position a boy or a man? It is normal, in any formal writing about an over-18 year old, to call them a man or woman. It can look a bit jarring, but it's objective. Rsynnott 10:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I claimed that the wording should be changed back to "girl," I was just making the observation that a female of her age would colloquially be referred to as a girl, and that I don't think that people generally use the legal age of adulthood as the dividing line between using the words "girl" and "woman." Claiming that the use of the word "girl" to describe Kampusch is "denying her her womanhood" is a bit dramatic. --Mareimbri 22:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. For now, call her a teenager. In a year or two, change that description to young woman. As mother of DDs not much older than Natasha Kampusch , I don't see teenager as suggesting immaturity in any negative way. It is neutral and accurate.JeanKorte 19:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, in this context, are DDs?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute does seem to be settled, but for what it's worth, my view is that 'woman' is the correct word to use. When talking about undergraduates, who are typically aged 18 to 21 or 22, we say, in a formal context, men and women. Informally it is, as has been stated, quite strange to call a person of that age a man or woman and I would tend to stick to boys and girls in colloquial use. We also have the terms 'young man' and 'young woman'. I imagine my supervisor, for example, says of me, 'I have a young man who's interested in...', says of a mature student with grey hair, 'I'm teaching a man...', and of an undergraduate, 'he's a clever boy'. The point of all this is that in a technical sense a female human being aged 18 and above is a woman. I think 'teenager' would be wrong. It describes a period of a person's life, from 13 to 19, and we might say, 'Many teenagers enjoy reading Homer', or, 'Gibbon was a rebellious teenager', but not, 'Natascha Kampusch is an Austrian teenager'.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Intentedly"?[edit]

Apparently, as Kampusch told policewoman Sabine Freudenberger, Priklopil had kidnapped her intentedly.

As far as I know, "intentedly" is not a word of English. But what word is meant? The closest thing I can think of is "intentionally", but that's silly because of course the kidnapping was intentional. You can't accidentally kidnap someone. So what is meant? User:Angr 12:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess, I think what was meant is that she was deliberated targeted, and it wasn't a "kidnap a random person". Would that make sense in the context of the reference? (I'm guessing it's the german language one) Regards, MartinRe 13:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will bold and delete until someone clarifies this!! --Slp1 12:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well - he told her "had I not packed you on the day, I would've kidnapped you the next." She was targeted, er hatte es auf Natascha abgesehen as the Austrian newspaper Heute reports today (Heute is, in a very POV manner of speaking, the freebie crap you get every morning when bording a subway train.) I chose intentedly partly because I thought intentionally would be too little - indeed there are no unintentional kidnappings (save for a few very cinematic ideas), and I was looking for an appropriate rendering of absichtlich. And this is where I looked. nepTune 16:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to put this would be "had intended to kidnap her specifically" or something else similar, if she was saying targetted her rather than simply picked up any random child. GracieLizzie 18:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word does exist in English, but it's spelled "intendedly", here is a link to the word in dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=intendedly

Wolfgang Priklopil[edit]

There is now a stub at Wolfgang Priklopil to accept any elaborate Priklopil-specific information, should such here get too long. knoodelhed 05:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Fourniret[edit]

Michel fourniret is a FRENCH serial killer, altough he lived in Belgium and did his most kills in Belgium

Sick edit[edit]

To claim a 10 year old girl had voluntary sexual relations with her kidnapper is nothing less than paedophile apology and must be removed on sight as vandalism and slander of the worst kind from this article. El Rojo 04:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with El Rojo, however, this is original research. We have no sources that tell us that the victim was "forced". The sources specifically mention that according to the victim, the relations were "voluntary". Until the victim admits that she was forced or a prominent psychologist comments on the case, we have to leave this out. Andreas ^(T) 14:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point her claims that it was voluntary may be Stockholm Syndrome-or it may actually have been voluntary. She may simply have been intended to be a slave at first-then, later, sexual relations commenced. I think it was most likely rape though. We'll have to wait and see, but what we do know, is she didn't exactly like it there-she did flee. Umlautbob 18:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that at age 10 she couldn't have legally consented, I think "rape" is an acceptable term.--RicardoC 19:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We can be virtually certain rape occured. As I said above, my guess is if she's saying it was voluntary, it's pure Stockholm Syndrome. Umlautbob 20:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did she have sexual relation with her master? Not at age 10, but at later stage - there is no evidence that Mr. Prokopol ever raped anyone or was a peadophile. He was a kidnapper who was refused ransom, but instead of killing his captor, he held her prisoner and later sex slave. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CommMoas (talk • contribs) .

Er, the age of majority is 18 in Austria. Considering she only turned 18 in February, I would speculate that if sexual contact occurred at all, it occurred prior to her attaining majority. Therefore, considering no one has denied the charges of sexual contact so far, I would say it is quite likely that it did occur.

Double-Er, the age of consent is 14 in Austria. Ages of consent in Europe. Yet, her age has nothing to do with the question whether sexual contact happened consensual or not / or at all. Lightxx 05:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)lightxx[reply]

This makes Priklopil at least rapist, because no one could argue she "consented" in any real legal or moral sense: she was probably underage and was certainly a unwilling prisoner. --saforrest 14:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, please don't include such claims in the article, as it's pure speculation. Until anything is said otherwise, we cannot assume she was either raped or not. -- Northgrove 06:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is "rape". Rape is defined as sex without consent. A 10 year-old person is unable to give consent (usually the age of consent is 16-18, but you weird Euros put it at 14). Therefore, it was rape whether she resisted or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.76.173.7 (talk) 06:15, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Natascha Kampusch article.

Please do not use it as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Andreas ^(T) 20:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restraint needed[edit]

The victim now experiences a second tragedy, namely, that her case is dragged into the public and exploited to satisfy the curiosity of the masses. Therefore, to the benefit of Natascha and in spite of the mandate of Wikipedia to inform, I plead that we should show some restraint in the information we post in WP. In particular, statements like the one I just deleted are not only dubious regarding their truth, but are also detrimental to Natascha who now is trying to get her life back into track. Andreas ^(T) 14:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added back a statement on this topic sourced to a BBC news report. If major news outlets are carrying this information, it will make no difference to Kampusch whether or not Wikipedia includes it.— Matt Crypto 18:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

The layout image of the dungeon, secret room, whatever you wanna call it, has items labeled, but in German. I have very little German, but I could figure most of it. It should probably have an English translation-maybe somebody who can speak German could edit the image.

Probably a waste of time for two reasons: (1) The image has been voted for deletion, and (2) rather sooner than later someone is going to replace it with a version from an English language source. 20:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Přiklopil vs. Priklopil[edit]

All the media is using "Priklopil", no hacek. Indeed, his name is of Czech origin and in Czech language, it is spelled with a hacek, but Wolfgang Priklopil was Austrian and probably had absolutely nothing to do with the Czechs other than the name and some ancestry. Therefore, I think we should use the German spelling, i.e. with no hacek. bogdan 12:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - unless there is a source confirming that he had the hacek as part of his legal name. Generally though, most Austrians do not keep foreign diacritics over generations. ChiLlBeserker 12:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source: passport, but we should use the German spelling, i.e. with no hacek. 80.141.94.200 20:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias Inconsistent with Kampusch's own statements[edit]

I don't have time for a thorough read of this but scanning I'm rather annoyed that people are referring to the "dungeon." Dungeon is a characterization, and has no factual content, it's just trying to sneak in the same sort of polarization that's going on in the media right now where everyone discounts everything this woman says and attributes it to "stockholm syndrom." I've changed dungeon to "room" -- only the media have described the room as a dungeon (and "cramped" they always add), neither Kampusch nor investigators have characterized it as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.242.214.239 (talk • contribs)

I read somewhere that Natascha herself used the word "dungeon" a couple of times. Look up dungeon at dictionary.com, and you'll see that it is not an inaccurate word.

German "Verlies"- dungeon, keep (Langenscheid's German-English Dictionary) was the word used by Kampusch in the interview. She also said that "Raum" - room - was suggested to her by her psychologist Dr. Friedrich. Andreas ^(T) 00:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is - What impression do we give by using one word over another? It isn't about whether Kampusch used the word, or whether she doesn't want it to be used. It's about what an encyclopedic article, that should try to be pretty dispassionate in it's coverage of horrific events, should use to give the most information without being hyperbolic.I'm not sure that this is the time for wordsmithing though. Coming back to it in a month will probably make it much easier to edit the article well. --Siobhan Hansa 01:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to this article?[edit]

When I read it two days ago, it was much more comprehensible. Now it is riddled with grammar and syntax errors. Anchoress 09:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's annoying. I suppose it's because this is a non-anglocentric story, and attracts more edits from people with English as a second language. (I should mention, of course, that there are quite a few non-native English speakers editing on Wikipedia who are more proficient than most native English speakers). — Matt Crypto 16:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what Wikipedia is all about-- making the comprehensible incomprehensible. Please update this article to include recent doubts about the veracity of the kidnapping. Perhaps a note about the fact that Natascha and her kidnapper went skiing in the Alps this winter. Wikicynic 01:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)wikicynic[reply]

There's already a (sourced) note about the ski trip. If you have some reliable sources that provide more than speculation to verify the doubts about the veracity of the kidnap, please provide them. --Siobhan Hansa 15:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnant[edit]

I've removed this:

According to the Swedish Newspaper "Expressen" August 29th Natascha Kampusch is pregnant with her captors baby[1].

This looks like very tabloidy stuff -- we *must* have a reliable source for something like this. — Matt Crypto 15:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is indeed a Swedish tabloid. For the record, they cite The Sun as the source, which indicentally happens to be a tabloid as well. Given neither her or the police have hardly confirmed this, it's quite likely it's a "probability" made up to sell the paper. -- Northgrove 06:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly illegal image[edit]

Statement of Attorney Maria Windhager: Ab dem Zeitpunkt, an dem klar war, dass sie wieder aufgetaucht ist - als die Bilder also nicht mehr quasi als Such- oder Fahndungsbilder dienen konnten - sei eine Veröffentlichung nicht mehr erlaubt gewesen - mögliche Strafen liegen pro Bild und Veröffentlichung über 10.000 Euro.

From the moment that it became clear that N.K reappeared, when the images were no more useful for searching, publication is no more permitted - possible fines can be Eur 10,000 and above [2] Andreas ^(T) 17:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Priklopil's Alibi[edit]

So far only one source has reported that Priklopil had an alibi, while most Austrian newspapers report the opposite. Someone added the information on the missing alibi just before my edit but left the "alleged he had an alibi" part in; I consolidated this a little more and put the statement on the alibi in parentheses. I would even consider removing it altogether.

The sentence "no other investigations are made by police at this place" seems to refer to the police conduncting no further investigations against Priklopil as a suspect; I merged that into the text and added a source for the lack of an alibi and Priklopil's explanation on why he had the minibus.

Is there a public statement that no further investigation was taken? If not, it is speculation as any investigation need not have had public components. It is very difficult to prove a negative. -- Steven Fisher 21:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flip-Flopping between Natascha and Kampusch[edit]

The article flip-flops between her first name or last name or both throughout, shouldn't it be somewhat consistent? Gdavidp1 04:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC):[reply]

Kampucsh has asked not to refer to her by her first name alone[3], so I am going to change the text in nobody objects. Andreas ^(T) 15:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's right according to style guidelines this time, please don't let a person's views decide which style an article is written in, even if it's a victim like Kampusch. Only official guidelines can. -- Northgrove 06:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also my understanding that the WP:MOS says not to use first names only, although I can't find the info right now. Anchoress 15:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevent section is MoS (biographies), Subsequent use of names. In general the style is to use the full name in the article intro and last name subsequently. This also conforms to the way most scholarly works write about their subjects. --Siobhan Hansa 16:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interview payment claims[edit]

In the Interview section is a piece that says "The newspaper Kronen Zeitung and news magazine NEWS have also interviewed Kampusch. The interview was published on September 6, 2006. Both press interviews were given in return for a package including housing support, a long-term job offer, and help with her education.[21]" The current source [4] does not seem to make mention of any payment. Does someone have something that verifies the claim? -- Siobhan Hansa 17:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: derStandard.at -- 80.141.94.49 00:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding this. Unfortunately I'm an ignorant monoglot, so I have to ask - what does this actually say about interviews and payments? And how reliable is derStandard considered to be? --Siobhan Hansa 00:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper "Der Standard" and many other newspapers and in television: "Die junge Frau habe sich für diese beiden Printmedien entschieden, "weil deren Verantwortliche auch soziale Kompetenz gezeigt" hätten, verkündete Kampusch-Medienberater Dietmar Ecker am Montag. ... Die Einkünfte aus den Interviews sollten der Wienerin "einen Start in eine menschenwürdige Zukunft ermöglichen", verlautbarte Ecker offiziell auf seiner Homepage. Auch Ausbildungs- und Wohnungsfragen könnten auf diese Art gelöst werden. Dem Vernehmen nach hat die "Kronen Zeitung" (Note: and NEWS and WAZ) der 18-Jährigen eine Anstellung auf Lebenszeit angeboten."
= in English: Both press interviews were given in return for a package including housing support, a long-term job offer, and help with her education. -- 80.141.121.181 08:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've added it in. --Siobhan Hansa 11:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

After Kampusch's disappearance it emerged that the pair had quarrelled on the morning she was snatched, with Brigitte admitting slapping her daughter across the face. Ludwig Koch, Kampusch's father, even accused his former partner of being involved in his daughter's disappearance, a charge he has since apologised for

This needs sourcing. — Matt Crypto 17:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why?[edit]

The one extremely important piece of information missing in this article is why Wolfgang Priklopil kidnapped her. I think that this is a giant gap in the article. It's important to explain what his motive was when he did something as extreme as kidnapping a girl and keeping her for 8 years.

Secondly, there is no information on what he was doing with her for 8 years. Was she a sex slave or not? These are important and obvious questions that need to be answered. Otherwise, this article doesn't provide us with the most important details.

EvaXephon 19:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that this information is not part of verifiable public human knowledge, in which case we cannot provide it in the article. Feel free to help find any information we can use, though. — Matt Crypto 19:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dito. How are we supposed to give information about things that no living beeing exept for Natascha Kampusch (who made it clear that she is not willing to reveal it to the public) knows? -- Imladros 19:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to these other replies, with "Why?" you may be asking for something that not even Natascha knows. Natascha's memory is what she remembers of what she was told. It's possible that no one living knows the answers to these questions. -- Steven Fisher 20:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright then - I was mainly asking 'why' just to find out whether or not the information was even publically available. Since it's not, I understand. Hopefully we'll be able to learn more in the future. EvaXephon 21:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are all good points but IMHO the article should contain a section entitled "Why" even if it goes on to say that the reasons are unknown (with an explanation about the victim not wanting to talk about it). Just failing to even raise the subject of "why" leaves a gap in the article. Robert Brockway 18:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Profile of Child Kidnapers: As a Public Service This Should Be Included[edit]

What is the profile for people who commit these crimes? Any contributions welcome. Such a profile should be a a part of this site as a public service. **If you can contribute (scientifically based) info pertaning to such a profile, please add it to this section. Sean7phil 20:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to disagree. Wikipedia is not a public service, and it isn't an instruction manual. Anchoress 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, nothing more. Abc30 13:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to do this. You can create an article about child kidnappers though and this will be legitimite information on that page.HichamVanborm 14:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an existing article Child abduction that might be welcome a well sourced section on abductor profiles.

Family[edit]

Does anyone have good sources for basic biographical information? I started the Early years and family section and included the sentence already in the article about the adult sisters and their four children, but i can't find sources and I don't know if they're full sisters, half-sisters etc. Also, I took her place of birth from the passport photo link in external links, but it's a primary source that I don't know anything about the publishing of, so it's not really reliable. Has anyone seen a decent news article that includes this sort of detail? Non of this is negative material, so I'm not sweating havingit out there, but it would be nice to do this properly while there is likely to be more info easily avalable -- Siobhan Hansa 21:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm confused - is Ludwig Koch her natural father or her stepfather? And when the article says "[her] parents separated while she was still a child", does this mean her natural parents? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to User:Fernandicus this reference in the article says that Ludwig Koch was Kmpusch's stepfather. I only say "according to" because I don't speak German, so I can't verify, but I have no reason to doubt Fernandicus. Koch and Sirny split while Kampusch was small. I don't think we know what happened to her birth-father (or even who he was). --Siobhan Hansa 13:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richardrj - Nice clarification. Much better! I changed Natscha to Kampusch in keeping with the manual of style. --Siobhan Hansa 13:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - and I see that the first name/surname issue has been discussed elsewhere on this talk page. Personally I'm not in favour of this, but I won't change it back. I know what the manual of style says, but I think children are a special case and should be referred to by their first names. This is convention not only in popular writing but in all sorts of scholarly biographies as well. I put something on the manual of style's talk page at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Use of surname. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone below has once again referred to Koch as Kampusch's biological father, not her stepfather. Someone else has made this edit, and the very interesting Times article calls him her father as well. Seems we're no nearer discovering whether he is her biological father or not. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Charged?[edit]

There's a reference to her mother being charged, investigated... but then nothing. No follow-up or information about what happened after that. What happened to the poor woman?!

Interviews[edit]

Information: Kampusch was interviewed by state broadcaster ORF, by the newspapers Kronen Zeitung and Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung and news magazine NEWS. The 4 interviews were published on 6 September 2006. Extract:

1.: The video: The 4-Million-Dollar Kampusch's TV interview by ORF by [6]
2.: Interview by NEWS
3.: Interview by Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung
4.: Interview by newspaper Kronen Zeitung
--user 80.141:--- 80.141.94.49 00:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC) and 80.141.98.226 17:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Smith[edit]

Carol Smith is a pseudonym used by the press. The name should be deleted because not encyclopedic. Andreas ^(T) 17:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in "quote marks" to indicate it's a psuedonym. --Siobhan Hansa 17:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

inspired by Marc Dutroux[edit]

There are too many parallels between the two cases to be mere coincidence. The source for this information are the Kampusch-interview and Sabine Dardenne's book respectively.

Both were abducted after a fight with their family, selected as a target as someone with a troubled relationship with their parents.
Still in the van, both told their victim that she was being abducted for cash, and freed as soon as their parents paid.
Both were innitially prohibited from reading news about their abduction. Both were told that their parents had abandoned them and settled with the fact that they had lost their child.
Dutroux's victims where held in a small, uncomfortable, unhygenic, especially built cellar room. Kampusch had a bigger, more comfortable room, but built on the same principle. As if he tried to do things right this time.
Kampusch said that her captors feelings of guilt were apparent through the violent way he tried to hide them. Dutroux was notoriously remorseless. Another hint towards imitation.
Later on, Kampusch would be taken up from the cellar for "bathing". The same reason Dutroux gave, even though Kampusch did not imply that he had sexually molested her on these occasions.

Kampusch was abducted in 1998, the Dutroux abductions were revealed in 1996. Two years to plan and prepare the whole thing. Of course, the abduction of Kampusch went over a much longer period of time, and he took her into public etc., something certainly not on the mind of Dutroux. But I think it is highly propable that Prikopil identified with Dutroux in the beginning, and got his inspiration to commit the crime from the reporting on the Dutroux case.

-Ados 07:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter if it was or was not inspired by previous kidnappings. If it's a citable POV it can go into the article (ie that some people have made this claim), dependent on it being referenced properly (WP:V and WP:RS) and that it states that this is the point of view of a person or people.(AWW). Alun 07:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it's not includable in the article without a prominent reference, but I don't understand how you think the motivation of the abductee is not relevant. -Ados 13:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but anything on the motive or Priklopil's thinking would be mere speculation. Natascha had said nothing about it, or anyone close to her, and they're the only ones who would know. -Hanuab 13:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite know what you are getting at. I think you must mean the motivation of the abducter, the abductee has no motivation, unless you are implying that the abductee somehow wants to be abducted? I will assume that you meant the motivation of the abducter. All we can do here is include verifiable information, that means that all of our sources are at best primary sources, and in a case like this they are usually at best secondary sources. We will never know (or understand) the motivation of Prikopil, and we should never claim to know such a thing, all we can do is repeat the opinions of others when they speculate as to his motivation. If there was some sort of direct evidence that he was inspired by Dutroux, like a diary he had written that claimed this, or a conversation he had with someone claiming this, it would still only represent a secondary source, and we could still only include it as a claim by someone, the difference in this case would be that it could be included as a claim that this was expressed by Prikopil himself, rather than simply speculation. In brief I don't think his motivation is not relevant, I think his motivation is unknowable, and that we can only include published information from reliable sources here, we cannot speculate as to his motivation ourselves, this would constitute original research. Alun 13:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there are Relaible sources that speculate on his motivation, I tend to think this isn't appropriate for this article. Here's how I see it - If Priklopil's motivation were known and not just the subject of speculation, it would be worthy of passing mention. And if Kampusch's life was impacted by that motivation (over and above the physical reality of her abduction and life in captivity) then it would merit further discussion in this article. But this is a biography of Kampusch and should stay focused on her. Priklopil's motivation, especially speculation about it, belongs on Priklopil's article, not Kampusch's. And even then specualtion about motivation on its own is of limited encyclopedic value. --Siobhan Hansa 13:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sound reasoning, I agree. Alun 13:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links section[edit]

This seems to be becoming just a list of news articles on Kampusch and the abduction, most seem to fall outside the external link guidelines. I've been WP:BOLD and just kept the translation of her letter/statement, and the video and image of her room. I do think the other links are useful to have around for development of the article over time. So I'm moving them all to the top of the talk page into an "online research" section. We can add references to Kampusch there and use them to build the article over time. --Siobhan Hansa 12:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After Escape Section[edit]

Currently this section seems to be a place to allow us to talk about speculation. I really don't think the content is encyclopedis at the moment. The popular press musings on Stockhom syndrome in particular seems inappropriate (psychaiatrists who haven't examined Kampusch really aren't reliable sources for a diagnosis), and the Sabine Freudenberger bit seems like a desperate way to get at what everyone thinks but we have no real grounds for putting in an encylopedia yet. Any other thoughts on the section's relevence or how it might be imporved? --Siobhan Hansa 14:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kampusch's hair[edit]

I know we can't speculate in the article itself, but I hope it's OK to do so here. What's the deal with Kampusch wearing hats or bandannas in all her photos? Has her hair suffered in some way from her years in captivity? Or is it just a style choice? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically this talk page is only for discussion related to the developing the article. Few people mind a small amount of deviation (though we must still be respectful of WP:BLP) providing it doesn't get out of hand. On the hair - I'd just assumed she was attempting to make it harder for people to recognize her in public. --Siobhan Hansa 14:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, though I'd imagine it's for the reason Siobhan mentioned, it might be that her hair is quite damaged. Starvation implies a lack of vitamins and minerals as well, and the kind of starvation that would stunt one's growth...

Kampusch's name[edit]

Where does Natascha Kampusch have her last name from? Her mother is Brigitta Sirny, her father or stepfather is Ludwig Koch, and no other parents or stepparents are mentioned.--Niels Ø 17:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Kampusch is the maiden name of her mother. Sirny is the last name of her mothers former husband. Koch is her biological father but was/is not married to her mother therefore she doesn't carry his name. --Asdf01 03:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asdf01, do you have any sources for all that detail? We had a German source that apparently said Koch was Kampusch's stepfather (see#Family). Of course that always flew in the face of what the papers were saying in English, but with the name and an expectation that things would be lost in translation it all just seemed a bit muddy. It would be good to have something clearer that we can reference on the article page. --Siobhan Hansa 13:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kampusch is the maiden name of her mother. Sirny is the last name of her mothers former husband.in: newspaper KURIER 25 September 2006 [7] (Natascha entstammt einer typischen Patchwork-Familie. Ihr Familienname Kampusch ist der Mädchenname ihrer Mutter Brigitta. Deren Familienname Sirny stammt aus deren erster Ehe ...)
Koch is her biological father but is not married to her mother. in: die aktuelle, interview with the father:[8] (Als Sie von ihrer Ex-Lebensgefährtin Brigitta Sirny am 2. März 1998 hörten ...)
and Natascha Kampusch is "Woman of the year", in: newspaper KURIER [9] --- 80.141.93.130 17:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed speculation about sex life[edit]

I tossed out a sentence about what a police officer insinuated about her sex life. It's second hand, violates Natascha Kampuschs privacy and goes against her express wish for discretion. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. --adaxl 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

This article is utterly devoid of images, which seems a bit odd considering the subject matter. A current image of the (now woman) in question has been posted numerous times in recent days (ex. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6192433.stm?lsdd ). Would it be considered legal at this point to post an image of the victim, or is it only legal for official news sources to post images of the victim online? Choeki 15:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that this is mainly a licensing issue. It's not "illegal" to have a photo of Kampusch displayed, but any photo would need to be GFDL, public domain or similarly licensed to meet Wikipedia guidelines. The photos that have been posted so far have been copyrighted and unlicensed. Other editors may have different opinions on the appropriateness of an image, and any particular image that met policy would need to be judged on its own merits as with any article. I do think there is a need to be responsible about what is posted and to weigh the impact of any image on those immediately affected with the value it adds to the article. --Siobhan Hansa 23:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"she commands her advisors as if they were slaves."[edit]

Does anyone else think that looks like some kind of "conclusion", being the last sentence of the article? Looks "funny" to me at least, unless some elaboration was added as to what it's supposed to mean. Just wanted to mention it... 62.16.240.77 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that sentence was removed earlier today. It was the conclusion of one of the journalists who had interviewed her (according to the Mail on Sunday). It seemed quite tabloid-y to me, with no real analysis. -- Siobhan Hansa 00:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new ending (of the article) makes a lot more sense, in my opinion. 62.16.240.77 15:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains a degree of hostility toward the victim. After half a lifetime of having no control over her own life, I'd imagine most people would understand if she has a strong desire to control things, but apparently not! If she DOES command her advisors like they're slaves, it ought to give you an idea of how she was raised by Priklopil, as people treat others as they’ve been treated. And that’s another point—she was essentially RAISED by Priklopil, with minimal if any social contact and a great deal of brainwashing. The article makes it sound like she was consenting because she was saddened by his death. As a formerly abused child, I can tell you, the emotions are complex. You hate them, while at the same time being dependent on them, and being made to feel you’re equally partly responsible. The hostility in this article is unacceptable. However, she behaves today, she was a ten-year-old child when a horrible thing began happening to her. It seems to me that the conclusion of the article is judjing her to not be "victim enough" without taking into account how she MUST be damaged by her captivity. As if they expect her to be properly socialized...

Photo[edit]

There's a photo in this site [10] saying it come from wikipedia!

Good article nomination[edit]

I reviewed this article and placed it's nomination on HOLD. There's a couple small things that should be fixed before being passed as a good article.

There needs to be an image added that doesnt violate fair use policy.
There are a couple minor grammar mistakes.
The Captivity and Escape sections could be cleaned up to make the flow a bit better.

Other than that, it's a pretty good article. 99DBSIMLR 14:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about the grammar? Thanks, Trishm 12:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- There's a few things like the format of the dates, inconsistancies (ie 10-year old and 10 year old).
- There are also some run-on sentences and duplicate information throughout the article. For example, the sentence "The 10-year old Kampusch left her family's residence in Vienna's Donaustadt district on 2 March 1998 for school, but failed to arrive at school or come home." might sound better as something like "Kampusch left her family's residence for school, but failed to arrive".
- The KIDNAPPING, CAPTIVITY, and ESCAPE sections are quite long and have almost too many details.

99DBSIMLR 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me, according to WP:WIAGA, an article doesn't need an image to qualify for GA status. Also, since she seems to be mostly protected from the public, it would be unlikely that anyone would ever get a picture of her. Noble Story 06:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no closure on the GAN by the above, i reviewed the article and have the following comments before it gets to GA.

The lead para needs to be expanded. There is enough data in the body to justify a larger lead section
There is one FACT tag that i noticed towards the end. Resolution is required for the same.

Once these are resolved, i think the article can be given GA status. --Kalyan 05:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps when the lead is being expanded, the word "teenager" may be replaced or the phrasing changed. She'll be 20 fairly soon and I'm not convinced that the word will be promptly changed when is ceases to be accurate. --Peter cohen 00:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA[edit]

The lead has not been expanded as per the request of the person who put this article on hold, and really, it kind of is too short. It looks like it mentions most of the important sections in the article, so it just needs many more of the most important details put in, but as it stands, I really don't think this passes WP:LEAD, and certainly hasn't been improved since the last person to put it on hold over a week ago made their request. Therefore, I have failed this article from the Good Article candidates list. Homestarmy 03:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Birth[edit]

I have reinserted the exact date of birth. I can't see any reason why WP:BLP should forbid that. Kampusch is quite well known around the world. No, due to the many interviews she has given and her mother's book she is not a private person any longer. Btw: It would be ridiculous to mention Wolfgang Priklopil's DOB and eliminate Kampusch's DOB. Kampusch's name is far more familiar than Priklopil's. And let's not forget: Because he had committed suicide Priklopil was never found guilty of any crime. So he would certainly merit more privacy than Kampusch. --Catgut 23:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP does not "forbid" using the exact date of birth but suggests editors "exercise caution with less notable people". Kampusch is a less notable person. The exact date of birth adds no additional insight into the event for which Kampusch came to the public's attention. Since she is not attempting to live in the public eye and will be less able to take the precautions to protect her identity that someone like Cher could, we should take the path that is more considerate to the subject. This is the essence of the BLP policy - living people should be treated with consideration. We can be kind when doing so doesn't compromise the article, and in this case the exact date of birth isn't important to the incident covered. -- SiobhanHansa 19:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. WP:BLP states: "Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published (...)." Kampusch clearly falls into this category, at least in Europe and especially in German speaking countries such as Austria, Switzerland and Germany. You might not know that, but over there she is a very well-known living person. Just say "Kampusch" and virtually everybody will understand to whom you are referring to. Your statement "(...) she ist not attempting to live in the public eye (...)" is incorrect. In the past 12 months she has granted the media numerous interviews, both for newspapers and TV stations. A few months ago Kampusch did a photo shooting for the cover of an Austrian newspaper (combined with an interview). Her date of birth has been widely reported. Kampusch's mother, Brigitte Sirny, has written a book about the case that will be out in a few days ([11]). Of course Sirny has done interviews too, just as Kampusch's father Ludwig Koch did. And finally: this article is a biographical article. It's not just about the abduction and imprisonment, it is about Natascha Kampusch who is not just the more or less anonymous victim of a crime but a media personality in her own right. I respect and support your wish to protect less notable people's identity. But as I have tried to show you Kampusch certainly doesn't fall into this category. And I really can't see any danger of identity fraud (trying this at least in Europe would be ridiculous). So considering these facts maybe you could rethink your position which I have difficulties with in identifying as one that is shared by a majority of the users. --Catgut 00:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about her dob being well known has merit. I haven't seen it around that much in English language publications except when the news first broke, so I don't think of it as being widely distributed (especially since news articles, even with the Internet, have a tendency to become buried over time). I don't think it's the biggest BLP issue - but I don't see what it adds to the article so I'm personally more in favor of keeping it out. There's a lot more in the article over tone that I think is a bigger issue from a BLP perspective, but some of that content adds real information (I'm mulling over how to rewrite without making it into a Hello! magazine piece).

My wish isn't particularly about protecting less notable people's identity. It's about ensuring we edit with consideration for the impact this encyclopedia can have on real people's lives (which is, I believe, the point of the BLP policy). -- SiobhanHansa 08:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kampusch Foundation[edit]

As speculations go her fundraising campaign earned her some >2mio $ (the rights to her TV interviews alone are worth more than 1mio $ [12], which she claimed she would use on helping "physically abused women in Mexico". now almost a year passed and nothing much happened [13] (in German), except for her money-craving attorneys suing the hell out of everybody who dares to write about their client (I'm referring to the discotheque pics here where her attorneys press damage claims against an Austrian newspaper).

as of now (08/07/2007) only some 50k $ (out of at least 1mio $) have been transfered to an account which is said to belong to her foundation.

i think this should be mentioned in the article, given the fact that quite a lot of people actually donated money to this "foundation", and this really smells a little fishy.

btw, i don't know Austrian law, but in the US it would be impossible to sue a newspaper over an article concerning a person of public interest ... i mean it was HER after all who went public with her story and now she acts like she was to pick what and what not to be published about her??? ...

Lightxx 21:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)lightxx[reply]

I dont know much about the foundation (she was askes for it in her last big interview some days ago in Austrian Television, I think you can find her answer in the news).

But about the newspapers, I think you mean the sues against the publishing of photos from her with a young boy at a party in Vienna, where it was said that she is maybe in love with him (which turned out to be false, btw): I totally disagree with you, and lukely the Austrian media has normaly more respect for private life than - for example - the British Yellow Press which finally brought Princess Diana into the grave (at least by taking photos instead of doing first-aid; maybe also more, we will never really know it).

And Natascha Kampusch has not voluntarily chosen to be a "public" person, she was a child that was kidnapped and lukely she could escape. But now she wants (and tries) to live a normal life, and thats one of the reasons why she is giving so few interviews. Only her well-known interviewer from ORF (Christoph Feurstein) got one interview now, one year after her escape, I think that demonstrates that she doesnt count so much about publicity, as she said herself in this interview ("I am not a kind of Paris Hilton"). So medias all over the world should respect her wish, as she mainly wants to live a quite normal life and still suffers from the long time she was kidnapped. -- Rfortner 10:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the book written by her mother is better translated as "desperate years" rather than "frantic years" 89.240.253.197 13:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]