Talk:Natascha Kampusch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Natascha Kampusch article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Natascha Kampusch was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: June 29, 2007
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] removed two bits

I removed these two paragraphs:

New developments[1][2] 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.[3] 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. [4][5]

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)

[edit] 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. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 20:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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 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)
  • 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
  • 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)

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. 75.51.71.228 (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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