Talk:Natascha Kampusch

Recent developments

BBC interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7376667.stm Good information to update with, too.Sturmde (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone who can read German may be more up to date on events and able to update the article. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.213.117 (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This article in the Times of London says he "laid his head on the tracks", rather than "stepped in front of a train". [6] 69.203.73.99 (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed two bits

I removed these two paragraphs:

New developments challenged the Austrian government in February 2008. Politicians of the conservative Austrian People's Party (ÖVP) threatened to break up the newly formed SPÖ - ÖVP ("red - black") coalition government. Kampusch said that she had lost confidence in Austrian justice. Revelation of mistakes in the interior ministry's investigation of her kidnapping came to light.

It's cited and all, but it's not clear what it really has to do with Kampusch; it reads more like political grandstanding of some sort.

On 27 April 2008, Elisabeth Fritzl was alleged to have been held in captivity in Austria by her father, Joseph Fritzl, since 1984 when she was 11 years old. She was allegedly held in a cellar and sexually abused. She gave birth to seven children during that time, allegedly fathered by her father.

I replaced this with a simple "See also: Elisabeth Fritzl". It would also make sense to insert a single sentence along the lines of "The case is similar to that of Elisabeth Fritzl". —Steve Summit (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why the first paragraph was put back? I agree that it doesn't seem to belong in the article and should be removed. Totorotroll (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

References

Removed another bit

I removed this paragraph sourced to two ghastly stories in The Sun, one of which had the charming headline "Cellar girl had romp with perv." We are not a tabloid rag - we can do better than this. I'm not sure that this sort of leak belongs here at all since it seems to be grossly invasive of the poor woman's privacy; certainly it doesn't belong unless it's being discussed by more respectable sources than The Sun. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I'd appreciate opinions on merging the articles Natascha Kampusch and Wolfgang Priklopil into a single article on the abduction, like on the German Wikipedia (de:Entführung von Natascha Kampusch ~ "Abduction of Natascha Kampusch"). The main rationale is that both the victim and the perpetrator are notable only for this single incident. Dorftrottel (harass) 10:44, April 28, 2008

• Comment

They already were together for far too long; let's keep them as far apart as possible forever

I would agree in saying that Priklopil would only be notable for one event. However, I think Kampusch has stayed in the public eye somewhat, even after the initial reports died away. That's especially true if she's going to do a TV show. Noble Story (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Good point about Kampusch. As an alternative, we could have one article about Natascha Kampusch, and one about the abduction (incorporating the material on Priklopil). Dorftrottel (criticise) 12:52, April 28, 2008

• Comment We have articles about all sorts of criminals, so there also should be one about Priklopil. What he did was quite singular, and although he is known only for committing this crime, he is nevertheless known internationally. Whether we like it or not, there is some fame attached to him, and so he deserves his article. Furthermore I would strongly reject the idea of sort of 'reuniting' Kampusch and Priklopil again, this time in an article. And Noble Story has already outlined the reason for an article solely on Kampusch. And from what I understand from watching BBC and CNN, Kampusch has offered her help for the victims of this recent crime in Austria (the one, where the grandfather put his daughter in a cellar). Kampusch definitely has her own life now. I cannot comment on the solution found by the German Wikipedia, as I don't understand it. Only this: If there is that much material about the case, then maybe an article focusing on the abduction alone is a viable solution. So basically I'd favor the current situation, or maybe three articles on Kampushc, Priklopil, and the abduction, but definitely not the single article solution. --Catgut (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Where is the encyclopedic advantage in having the meagre material about him (which nobody proposes to delete btw) in a separate article over putting it into a section in a larger article about the thing he is notable for (about which we do not currently have an article). With regard to: I would strongly reject the idea of sort of 'reuniting' Kampusch and Priklopil again, this time in an article. — Inhowfar is your concern an enyclopedic one? Look at it this way: Natascha Kampusch is far more notable than Priklopil, and currently, the article about her is actually an article about her and about the abduction. We should (this is just another way to see my proposal) move the material about the abduction into a separate article, and imo additionally merge and redirect the Priklopil article there. Dorftrottel (warn) 16:39, April 29, 2008

• I don't think Wikipedia is, as you put it, about encyclopedic advantage. To me this term is quite vague. Wikipedia has a number of guidelines and rules, and they define what could be perceived as encyclopedic in our context. Again, Priklopil is notable as he committed a crime that has earned him notoriety around the world. He fits perfectly into the Austrian section of Category:Criminals by nationality. That's how we use to do it here. I wouldn't consider it especially helpful if there was an article Abduction of Natascha Kampusch, as I haven't found any similar example. Let's take Patty Hearst. You can find the details about her kidnapping in the article. Let me also refer to Category:Hostages. So there is Priklopil who merits an article and fits into the respective category, and there is this article about Kampusch. What else do we need? There is nothing that couldn't be expressed in the existing articles, and they both fit into Wikipedia's scheme. Obviously the German Wikipedia has followed a rather different path, but their way of handling this case hasn't got anything to do with how we do our business. And right now I'd consider it more important to concentrate our efforts on making Natascha Kampusch become a good article again. --Catgut (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• All decisions regarding articles, without exception, are made from the encyclopedic point of view. Btw, here are some counter examples: Tacoma Mall shooting, Westroads Mall shooting, Trolley Square shooting, Northern Illinois University shooting, Capitol Hill massacre. That's how we do it here. Also, you do of course realise that the overwhelming majority of the articles included in Category:Austrian criminals are biographies of Nazi criminals? So how does that make Priklopil fit in there? I'm not quite following your reasoning so far. Dorftrottel (warn) 20:22, April 29, 2008

• I fail to understand your reference to WP:ENC, as this is not a policy or guideline nor any other sort of rule (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines). The examples cited by you involve several victims, and several criminals whose particular (non-)notability obviously has not lead to specific articles. You may change that, if you like to! Category:Austrian criminals belongs to the bigger Category:Criminals by nationality, and this speaks for itself. Whether the people covered by Category:Criminals by nationality had certain political views or not, worked for certain political organizations or totalitarian systems or not, is unimportant. They just fit into the respective categories. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Categorization and Help:Category for further information about this subject! --Catgut (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am trying to change it - beginning right here. I cited WP:ENC because I felt your reasoning was not entirely motivated by encyclopedic purposes, and in fact you said so yourself. You seem a bit unsure about how Wikipedia works. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 21:51, April 29, 2008

• Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines as well as the talkheader, and refrain from ad hominem remarks. Thank you. --Catgut (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Honour to whom honour is due. Dorftrottel (complain) 23:46, April 29, 2008 (struck by author)
• Catgut, in my opinion, you started with subtle ad hominem remarks when you said "That's how we use to do it here", I responded to what I perceived as a condescending tone in that. Sorry if I overreacted, but combined with what I think are at best marginal arguments of yours, it got me upset. I hate to swim upstream to do the simple and straightforward best for the encyclopedia, which in this case is to re-arrange the articles. To me, your main argument to not change the articles still boils down to your "I would strongly reject the idea of sort of 'reuniting' Kampusch and Priklopil again, this time in an article", which —I hope you see— is grossly beside the point. Moreover, you said I wouldn't consider it especially helpful if there was an article Abduction of Natascha Kampusch, as I haven't found any similar example — to which I didn't initially respond because I wasn't sure how to: There are many articles about abductions, see e.g. Kidnapping of Alan Johnston, Abduction of Rahma el-Dennaoui, Abduction of Jakub Fiszman, Kidnapping of Kim Dae-jung. Also, Patty Hearst is not a valid example, because she had a far more active part in the developments surrounding her abduction. Now, is there anything I haven't debunked and refuted? Dorftrottel (troll) 09:24, April 30, 2008

Merge to Kamplush - as he's now dead, he's hardly likely to do any more. The article therefore will always remain a stub, and contain much information already in the Kamplush article. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

hi, i think it's poiontless merging them! priklopil is a person, and as an infamous person he is recognised and should have his own page. im aware it will not be exstended because he's dead but still to this day people in austria are investigating the realtions between him and kampuschs parents. he might aswell have his own page and natascha has hers.;(criticise)

These two cases have nothing to do with each other, other than coming from Austria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.93.150.190 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 30 April 2008

Which two cases? Dorftrottel (bait) 23:53, April 30, 2008

Outrageous wiki is falling apart into a circus with all the merging. Keep the articles. Special:Contributions/75.51.71.228|75.51.71.228]] (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

i agree, stop merging it all why can't they have there own articals?;(agrees)

How is rearranging articles 'Wikipedia falling apart'? Note that we're not talking about deleting anthing, only about reorganising. Dorftrottel (criticise) 07:17, May 2, 2008

Merge I just read the Fritzl incest case, and I skimmed over the German article about the Natascha case, and I agree that (also per WP:BLP1E) Dorftrottel's proposal is the way to go. Redirects solve some of the concerns expressed above. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I can't tell how much weight/significance Natascha having her own talkshow will have in the end, so I also agree with Noble Story that having an article about Natascha and one for her abduction should be considered (this is some crystal-balling though). My point earlier was more that Priklopil should not keep his own article as such. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge as per nomination. Nothing in the discussion above demonstrated that there Priklopil was famous for anything other than the crime or otherwise required an own article. Averell (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Translation of "Verzweifelte Jahre"

I don't think "Frantic Years" works as a translation of 'Verzweifelte Jahre'. "Verzweifelt" is usually translated as "desperate". "Frantic" does not describe suffering, but unthinking haste. I've had a look around, and I couldn't find an English language version of the book, so I'm aiming for a really tight translation of the German title. I'm changing it to "Desperate years". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.242.97 (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, desperate comes a lot closer. Dorftrottel (ask) 16:32, May 2, 2008

Stockholm syndrome

This readdition has been previously removed as speculation - it's still speculation. None of the citations state she has been diagnosed with Stockholm Syndrome (in fact the only citation that even mentions the syndrome carefully makes indirect insinuations instead of any direct claim) and the use of them in the manner in which they have been written up is a speculative synthesis of ideas. Even a newspaper article that proposes it would have to be taken as speculation unless there is an actual diagnosis from a trained psychiatrist who has examined her. We're an encyclopedia - not a magazine desperate for content. If an editor thinks there is important factual content from the articles used as citations here then perhaps they could write something using them that is encyclopedic.

Speculation like this is way too gossipy to be appropriate and unless there are better citations stating she has been diagnosed I propose redeleting. -- SiobhanHansa 21:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Since no editors have provided any counter argument or evidence I have redeleted. -- SiobhanHansa 13:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations are up on top of that you removed information that was cited. Keep per citations. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you quote the bits from the citations (with the link to the actual citation so we can tell which one you're referring to - because I'm not sure what you mean by "Citations are up on top of that") that support the contention she suffered from Stockholm syndrome. Because all I'm finding are insinuations by unqualified commentators - and that isn't encyclopedic.

For instance of the 5 articles used as citations in the section:

• This does not assert she had it or even that anyone has said she has it, let alone a pshychiatrist who has actually examined her. It just mentions Stockholm syndrome in a sort of "guilt by association".
• This one only mentions Stockholm syndrome in the sentence "Vienna Syndrome, it seems, is even more weird than Stockholm Syndrome" in which the reporter appears to be trying to make a joke about how Kampusch appears to have resisted Prikopil.
• This doesn't mention the syndrome at all.
• Neither does this one.
• Nor does this.

The text uses things she has said in articles in support of the claim although the articles themselves do not make the claim - this is original synthesis and not allowed. This is a biography of a living person and claims about medical conditions should not stay without excellent sources that speak to both the factualness of the issue and its importance to the article. -- SiobhanHansa 17:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please note this is a shared ip,

First You are correct in WP:SYNTH so i replaced the citation with a scientific journal.

Secondly Just because certain articles did not mention it does not mean it is not true. There are plenty of citation that suggest stockholm syndrome may be plusible. (Many more articles exist Google it before removing information)

Third you removed more than just that line regarding stockholm syndrome. In fact you removed anything that suggested that there was an attraction between the captor and the victim. Why?

Fourth The information there was NOT written by me. It was removed by a vandal IP.

WP policy shows that this discuss is over. Reason for removal was due to lack of citation. Citation provided. Case closed

63.76.234.250 (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

1) That is not a scientific journal. It's a piece by Julia Layton who "holds a B.A. in English literature from Duke University and a M.F.A. in creative writing from the University of Miami" for a lay website. While the author states "By most experts' accounts, Kampusch is in a traumatized state and appears to be suffering from Stockholm syndrome." she does not identify these experts. There is one link to a news article that makes a claim about Kampusch and Stockholm syndrome - there is no indication that those claims are made by experts or that it includes "most experts". If we can get references that do identify experts who have examined Kampusch that make the claim she suffers from Stockholm syndrome we should be able to include the claim in the article. However this citation is not a reliable source for this claim in this article.

2)The onus is on editors to include appropriate citations with the content they wish to keep. And in biographies of living people cases their is an onus to first remove inappropriately sourced content and find good sources before re-including. I have looked and I have not found any sources I think are appropriate to both support the fact that notable people have made the claim or that they have done so in a way that makes it a significant issue to put in the article. Idle speculation to sell newspapers is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article unless it becomes something more than that.

3)I removed the whole paragraph because the way it was written the quotes in the middle were used in a context to simply support the synthesis that she had Stockholm syndrome. If I had simply removed the start and end sentences (that specifically mention the syndrome) there would have been two out of context quotes floating in the article - not something that I believe would add to the article. Out of context quotes do not make good content. If we can find good quotes to support the Stokholm Syndrome claim those middle sentences have to go anyway - because they're the major bit of original synthesis - there's nothing in either article that links those aprticular comments to Stockholm syndrome only the the way we use them in the article makes the connection.

If you think there is an appropriate way to write something well sourced about Kampusch's feelings for Priklopil please go ahead and do so - though you should also be careful not to create a new original synthesis.

4)Regardless of who originally wrote it or removed it our BLP policy requires much better sourcing for these types of claims and the edits need to stay out of the article until those sources are provided.

-- SiobhanHansa 19:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This citations are more than enough per wikipedia reliable sources. The article makes a direct reference and cites sources. Please see WP:3RR which you have violated i have asked for an admin's opinion. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not reverted more than 3 times in a 24 hour period - though any edit war is bad. However this is a BLP case so I have persisted in removing the information instead of only addressing concerns here. 3RR does not apply when, in good faith, a person reverts to remove content they believe to be in violation of WP:BLP - as I do here.

Could you quote which bit of which article you believe is appropriate to support the paragraph? Because (as I think I made clear above) I strongly disagree that the citations included met WP:RS for the claims made or due weight - not one of them was by an expert in psychiatry for instance let alone someone who'd actually examined Kampusch.

If you could highlight the bits you think are most pertinent we may be able to craft wording that we can both support.

I'm also going to post at the biography of living people noticeboard to try and get some third opinions since we don't seem to be getting any other editors here. -- SiobhanHansa 21:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added news citation per your request from ABC News. This passes all forms of verifiable sources. I'm not sure why you didnt just google it instead of removing pertinent information. If you want more notable sources [7] here is another one. 71.248.231.160 (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] I have edited the text so that it is clear that the speculation as cited is from newspapers. I have also removed the original synthesis that quotes from different articles supported the theory. Those quotes may be appropriate elsewhere but they are not in that context. And I removed the sentence about her denial since the actual citation dod not include it. If we cna find that citation we could consider restoring the denial.

I still do not think the text that is supported by citations is particularly insightful or encyclopedic and think given its speculative nature it fails our due weight criteria. As I said before I have searched for sources and cannot find ones that I think make this suitable for inclusion in the article. -- SiobhanHansa 22:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove information that has been cited seriously see WP:Vandalism. From now on get another editor edit out "this inappropriate information" because i am seeing bias in your edits. 71.248.231.160 (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to the Vandalism insinuation - Removing content with policy and guidelines reasons is not vandalism - and calling someone a vandal for doing so is not an assumption of god faith. My "bias" is towards trying to get an encyclopedic article that isn't full of crappy speculation That's one that is fully supported by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I may not always be perfect at it and I welcome a discussion of the issues. But merely adding one poor source on top of another does address the issues of WP:SYNTH or WP:UNDUE. -- SiobhanHansa 22:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you trying to destroy this article and vandalize it. I'm adding citations per wikipedia policy. Nothing is speculation the article stated it happened. If it is we can say it is and not remove information. The citation say she paid her respects. Your edits are clearly bias. I dont mean to sound harsh. I will report this issue to an admin if you remove any information with out discussion. I read those policies. The first citation was WP:SYNTH you are correct. That citations has been remove and replaced with fair citation. These citations are not SYNTH you and I both know that. These citations are also not VP:UNDUE. Please discuss why it is. What in the article is bias? AND I did assume good faith but instead of discussing information you insistently removed information. First with reason but now they are baseless. Please get an outside opinion. 71.248.231.160 (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The point of WP:SYNTH isn't that the citation itself is a synthesis (some of them are - but that just makes them inappropriate sources) - it's the use of quotes taken out of context. I explained here (in 3), several hours ago, about the inappropriateness of using the quotes from articles that do not mention Stockholm syndrome to support a suggestion that she has Stockholm syndrome. And I am continuing to revert because this is a BLP issue and in such cases it is not appropriate to leave in poorly sourced or other inappropriate content until a consensus is reached - it needs to be taken out and a consensus reached as to what is appropriate. And hence I will remove it again. I am happy to continue discussing the issue but do not feel we can leave in the synthesis until agreement is reached. As I mentioned above I already sought third opinions on WP:BLPN. Hopefully other editors will turn up soon. I would like to find something we can both be comfortable with - I have asked you previously to point out what bits of the citations you are using you think are important to highlight in the article so we can build something.

I have already explained why the paragraphs as added seem to me to be undue weight - they are passing speculation by people without psychiatric training and who have not examined Kampusch. The fact that there has been speculation could be appropriate if it was significant (for instance, if the speculation lead to changes in something related to the case). It's possible further references can be found that make the case the speculation was significant and worthy of mention and I left in that speculation in my last edit with a message here about discussing the weight issue. -- SiobhanHansa 23:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right she did not deny the hypothesis. Once again you removed more information than needed. By the way what is the cause of your bias? Clearly you are not editing with NPOV intentions (which you have not denied). In fact only after i proved WP:Veriability did you even keep the stockholm syndrome in. You also did no research. In fact you have attempted to remove any evidence that shows Kampusch had an attraction toward her captor why? My citations pass WP:Verability your opinions hold no one ground against facts from reliable sources. WP:RS states:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made"

My sources include BBC and ABC News.

The ABC citation states that an expert suggested that she had Stockholm Syndrome and gave the name of the doctor who might i add has a wikipedia article himself. You have not read the article. I am reporting this edit war to admins and also I am going to say for 3 party opinions. Secondly I read all your citations on WP rules I do not see how my article falls into poor sources. 71.248.231.160 (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you quote the bit from the article where the expert directly states he thinks she has stockholm? Because as I read it Albow talks about Stockholm's and he talks about Kampusch but there's no direct quote where he says she's suffering from Stockholm.

You have failed to respond to my point about it being an inappropriate synthesis. While there is a lot wrong with the section the main reason I do not think it can stay on the page as it is is because of the synthesis. The out of context use of quotes from Kampusch to bolster the claim of Stockholm syndrome is totally at odds with our policy. Those quotes would only be appropriate in the paragraph if they were used by the psychiatrist as evidence of the syndrome and then we might say something along the lines of Dr. soandso has speculated that Kampusch suffered from Stockholm syndrome citing her saying x y and z about Priklopil. But us choosing the quotes to indicate what the speculation is based on is original synthesis.

Any particular website/journal/book etc. is not either a good source or a bad one - it depends on how it is used. So a blog by a political pundit, for example, could be a great source for citing quotes by that pundit but a poor one for citing a general consensus view of the political cause they stand for. Newspapers can be good sources for quotes too - but they are generally poor at providing accurate summaries of technical, scientific and medical issues. And opinion pieces in news media are no more reliable than opinion pieces published elsewhere. Note that in our verifiability policy newspapers come at the bottom of the ranked list in terms of reliability. In this case I have said that the sources you are adding are poor mainly because they have failed to fully back up what is written in the text - though a couple of them now back up part of the text to some extent. Never-the-less you restore the text without editing it and simply add more sources - you don't correct the text to reflect the sources you have found accurately - so they tend to be poor sources for what is actually written in the Wikipedia article. Another (perhaps better) way to look at it is that the text in the Wikipedia article poorly reflects the sources. My editing of the text about speculation to say "in news media" was an attempt to do that (our policies and guidelines state that simply saying something has been been said is not a great idea we should say "who" =- since there were multiple citations I took the common element - that they all appeared in news media the intention was to clarify for the reader what sort of speculation this was (i.e. not in say psychiatry journals or text books). We could hash out different wording if you think the emphasis is wrong.

I don't see how a statement from me about my bias helps this discussion in any way - you have stated quite clearly that you think I'm biased, it seems unlikely such a statement will make you feel any better. But since you continue to ask - I deny a bias in terms of wanting to see this article lean pro- or anti-Kampusch. My intent here is to help create an encyclopedic article that covers the substantial issues (whether I agree with them or not), not one that lists every unsubstantiated thing that has been said. I could similarly ask you - what's your bias - what are you actually trying to achieve? You ignore all my questions aimed at trying to work out a version that would be acceptable to both of us. What's with that? -- SiobhanHansa 15:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Why dont you quote from WP:BLN where the violation occured. I will personally remove it out if I agree with you. Another option you have is to bring a past example where a notable reliable source has been denied as a citation. That is not too much to ask. 71.248.231.160 (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The bit of the biographies of living people policy that I believe applies here (in terms needing to remove the content from the article until an appropriate consensus is reached) is:

"Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to...No original research...Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

The no original research policy is the one that contains WP:SYNTH - it states "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in a way that constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research" [my emphasis]. The use of the quotes from Kampusch in a manner to bolster the speculation about Stockholm syndrome is not supported by the references the quotes came from and so is an inappropriate synthesis.

There may be wording we can develop that would be acceptable. But it needs hashing out first and posting once it's been decided on. I have kept asking questions about which bits of the sources you think are most important to the article here in an attempt to get us collaborating on text we could put in - but you have ignored those questions so I'm not sure how else to move forward. -- SiobhanHansa 15:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• Response This is going to be my last edit I am assuming good faith. After this if you do not agree on my editor get an outside editor to remove the statement if you somehow do find someone to agree with you. I assure 99% of editors will agree with me esp since this makes her case unique. I will find 1000 more editors to agree with me. You quotation are complete irrelevant to the debate at hand. I am rving your edit. By the way I have not violated WP:3RR. I have not rved your edits in fact I was readding information with changed citations per your request. It is so obvious to any editor that these source I have cited is not Original Research.

Secondly you did not removed the citations regarding Stockholm Syndrome which was the object of controversy. Instead you removed information that quotes what she said and what she did. How is that original research? What else you don't understand is that OR does not apply in this situation. It applied to articles such as the Vienna article which is removed. I see you have edited WP for a long time I dont see how no one brought this case up to you before. I am going to take citations from the articles I cited. First one is from: http://a.abcnews.com/GMA/story?id=2379231&page=1

• "I mourn for him in a certain way," Kampusch, 18, said of Priklopil in a statement read by a psychologist on Monday.

"In my eyes, his death wasn't necessary," she said, speaking of his suicide following her escape.

Dr. Frank Ochberg, who was credited with defining Stockholm Syndrome in the 1970s, said it developed when "positive feelings form [between] hostage to hostage-taker, reflected back from taker to hostage. And both of them against outsiders. It's automatic. It's unconscious." "

• "Experts said she might have been bound emotionally and chose to continue living with him out of irrational affection.

Stockholm Syndrome is a coping mechanism, said forensic psychiatrist Keith Ablow on "Good Morning America."

"There is a phenomenon in psychology called identification with the aggressor," Ablow said.

"When you're powerless, your mind allows you to adopt an affiliation with the person who holds the keys."

"It's unbearable to think your life could be threatened at any time," he said. "So what you tell yourself unconsciously is, 'It's not like that. I'm part of the group that's holding me.'"

Second source is from [8]

it says:

• "My youth was very different. But I was also spared a lot of things – I did not start smoking or drinking and I did not hang out in bad company." By most experts' accounts, Kampusch is in a traumatized state and appears to be suffering from Stockholm syndrome."

Then third quotation is important information that can not be removed it is from: [9]

• "Police spokesman Helmut Greiner told AFP news agency: "Ms Kampusch bade her farewell to Mr Priklopil [on Thursday] at the morgue... she was there all alone and lit a candle."

Are you suggesting that it is suggesting that the the author made that up?71.248.231.160 (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the article about Natascha Kampusch not the article on Stockholm syndrome. If you feel our explaination of stockholm syndrome is not adequate, then please edit the stockholm syndrome article, not this article. It is not necessary to explain to editors what stockholm syndrome is since it's none of our concern in editing this article. If you are using your understanding of stockhol syndrome to add information to the article to prove she has stockholm syndrome then you are indeed guilty of OR and should stop. In terms of the quotes you are adding, they may or may not belong in the article, but definitely not in an attempt to prove (or disprove) she has stockholm syndrome Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That has already been fixed. They are in two separate paragraphs. 71.248.231.160 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Television hostess?

Well, albeit she had hosted a short-lived interview series on private television network called Puls 4 in 2009 (?), she should much rather be described as a news personality (or the like) than a TV host. Off-the-air (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Photo

Can anyone come up with a better photo for this article than the headline from a Norwegian tabloid? There are plenty of photos of her in existence, though I don't know which ones are available for use. A Norwegian tabloid is inappropriate for an English-language wikipedia in any event (although it is just a picture). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.101.135 (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail article

It would be good to find a better source for the information about PETA than the Daily Mail article with its sensationalist content. I propose deleting this reference. Totorotroll (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Natascha Kampusch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060901102957/http://www.kurier.at:80/nachrichten/chronik/25514.php to http://www.kurier.at/nachrichten/chronik/25514.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Natascha Kampusch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110615175158/http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article4044283.ece?print=yes to http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article4044283.ece?print=yes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

Request received to merge articles: Wolfgang Přiklopil and Natascha Kampusch; dated April 2016. Discussion here. Richard3120 (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Already done by User:The Legendary Ranger. See diff. Looks like talk pages still need to be tagged for attribution though. I will do it now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Tagged for attribution. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Natascha Kampusch. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.zimbio.com/Natascha+Kampusch/articles/NV7dX5IdzuH/N+Irish+actress+play+Natascha+Kampusch+movie
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/688Ynv8tb?url=http://www.austriantimes.at/news/Panorama/2009-07-30/15162/Kampusch_to_auction_off_horror_house_items to http://www.austriantimes.at/news/Panorama/2009-07-30/15162/Kampusch_to_auction_off_horror_house_items

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) 00:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Natascha Kampusch. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070319182548/http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2362765.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2362765.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061012223116/http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=928 to http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=928
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830212216/http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1222032.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1222032.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061008134748/http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article1446532.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article1446532.ece

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) 01:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Was She Sexually Abused Or Not?!

This article is a joke. How can someone write so much about a kidnap case and miss the vital above information?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.5.181.215 (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The last 2 links are about the Fritzl case, though Natascha Kampusch was also raped. 108.207.32.117 (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

She declines to talk about whether she was raped or not, which, by the way, is her right. The only source of such a claim is the movie 3096 days, which is possibly not accurate, the local.at article which does not cite its sources and the opinion of people who think it was just not possible, that she wasn't raped, as if there was some law of physics dictating that. 87.191.32.2 (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Category:Rape in Austria

It's hard to imagine that she wasn't molested by her captor in all those years. And yet there is not even the slightest hint anywhere in the article. I have therefore removed Category:Rape in Austria. Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The "Controversy" section

Just read both paragraphs of this section, and try to make any sense of them. It's inconsequential, non-sequitur stuff that makes no sense. What point is it trying to make. It's so confused. 2601:600:A480:4C20:8081:A1FC:C065:42B (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)