Talk:Kaspar Hauser

message: I removed this part, which is effectively pro-homepathic POV and mostly irrelevant to the article. It is also possibly a copyvio but google search pointed only to restricted pages. - Skysmith 12:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong with pro-homeopathic? It was a part of history and they seem to have done well-documented experiments on him. 73.92.21.24 (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-homeopathic tractate removed 

message: I've heard that the letter Kaspar carried was addressed to 'The Captain of the 4th Esgataron of the Shwolishay regiment'.  What does that mean?   Is it simply the same thing said in the article only in another language, or is it total nonsense?
---Daimetreya 23:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Esgataron/Eskataron is a distorted version of the French 'Escadron' (=squadron). Shwolishay should really be Schwolische, which is a distorted version of 'Cheveaulègers', another German military word coming from French, it means light cavalry. So it's the same thing as the one in the article, only in the German of the early 19th century. SáT 23:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Esgataron of the Shwolishay regiment? 

message: I noticed this article in the Feral Child category, but I really don't think it applies.  He wasn't found in the wild and seems to have had at least basic communication skills?  (My own analysis-- which has no place in the article, of course-- makes me suspect that he was retarded or afflicted with some kind of Pervasive Development Disorder and was raised in a box to hide the "shame") CatherS 08:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Is it permissible to just take out the link, or do we have to do something else to make sure it's not included? FlaviaR (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good question-- I think we should punt and ask for help.  I'm noticing it's not just WP that has him classed as feral, thought a website called feralchildren.com isn't necessarily a valid source.  I'm invoking the helpme template on my talk page, will report back. CatherS (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Admin agreed-- I have removed the category. CatherS (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's usually counted among lists of feral children, just as Genie is. There's certainly a distinction between those and ones in the wild, but this would be better added as a note than they be excluded. Note that Genie's article is in fact called Genie (feral child). Salopian (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the article on Feral children, you will see that they define a Feral Child as any child who is raised largely in isolation from other human beings, which is why Genie counts as a Feral child, and why Hauser's story, if true, would qualify him as a Feral child (BTW Hauser does not seem to have been retarded or developmentally disabled, as he was able to be educated enough to hold a civil service job). --KEVP  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.12.24.120 (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Feral Child?

message: I have removed the following bolded section from the article. It doesn't seem to make sense.
"This certainly was a grievous loss to him — although Feuerbach had apparently stopped believing in Hauser; at least he had written a note (to be found in his legacy) which read: "Caspar Hauser is a smart scheming codger, a rogue, a good-for-nothing that ought to be killed."
So Feuerbach was in support of Hauser because he was a liar? I think whoever put that in the article misread the meaning of smart as used in that translation - or, perhaps, misread the context. Feuerbach was clearly not complimenting Hauser. - Yggdriedi (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feuerbach used to believe in Hauser's story and helped him a lot, but he changed his mind by the end of his life. Being disappointed and feeling deceived, he wrote that note, which was found in his legacy; but he didn't openly break with him. Hauser had more serious trouble with schoolmaster Meyer, and that's why Feuerbach's death was a grievous loss to him. He was now alone with Meyer whom he had never liked.--Luchresi (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rogue codger

message: Hi.I wanted to see if how the name is pronunced? HAWZER or HAWSER?Bbadree (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "s" is voiced. But "Hau" is pronounced roughly like English "how", not like "haw". I think "Howzer" or "Houzer" would be good transcriptions.--Luchresi (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: This phrase is used in the first paragraph of the section entitled 'Vestner Gate Tower': is this a current idiom in the United States? I ask this question in good faith, as it would be seen as pretty offensive and not at all appropriate here in the United Kingdom.  If it's an acceptable term in the States, I'll let it stand: if not, could someone suggest a less controversial substitute?  Dom Kaos (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Mentally retarded"

message: A point that, if I’m not mistaken (if I am, sorry!), is not explained in the article, but seems very important to me: how did all the fuss begin?
I mean: a poor boy is found, with the letters and all the rest. People begin to wonder: who is he? That’s only natural!
But then somebody begins to say that he is, or may be, or might possibly be..., the hereditary prince of Baden: why? with what evidence?
It seems ridiculous to discuss whether he was or wasn’t a prince, when we’ve never heard one single piece of evidence.
Is it a sort of urban legend?
(I’m not saying that he wasn’t a prince of Baden. I’m just asking: why did people begin to think that he might be a prince? The article doesn’t answer this question; and it should, of course.) Tom Hope
:The circumstances of Hauser's supposed imprisonment and the alleged attacks led people to think that he was someone of great importance, and the rumours about his Baden princedom were used for propaganda purposes by various political enemies of the grand-ducal House. But the precise origins of the legend are unknown. In any case: "The silly fairytale, which to this day moves many pens and has found much belief, was fully disproved in Otto Mittelstädt's book on Kaspar Hauser and his Baden Princedom (Heidelberg 1876)", as historian Fritz Trautz put it (see: ).--Luchresi (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, it is true: "The fable about a Prince of Baden had not a single shred of evidence in its favour" (Andrew Lang, see ). "Abject credulity, love of mystery, love of scandal, and political passions", as Lang goes on to say, produced the myth.--Luchresi (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And once again you've missed the point.  You're very good at delineating your references here, on the discussion page.  But if you are going to nearly completely replace an existing article with a creation of your own, you need to be explaining all this where it actually counts, in the article.  If you had, people wouldn't still be asking these questions.  Simply listing your sources is meaningless if you aren't going to explain the arguments they present against the veracity of the Hauser legend.  And stating that "it is true" that there is no supporting evidence to Hauser's claims or the claims made for him by paraphrasing Lang and citing him doesn't mean that it is true.  Lang was expressing an opinion.  Where is the evidence he used as the basis for it?  All you've said is that "it's true because Andrew Lang said so."  That's not proof, and it doesn't prove that Lang was stating anything other than his opinion.  Listing sources isn't enough; you need to summarize in the article what these sources are saying, and why they say it.  Otherwise, your statements in the article are as meaningless as your own original research. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong. The article does outline the most important arguments against the veracity of the Hauser legend, and the references are given.--Luchresi (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: How did the “prince legend” begin?

message: The opening paragraph states that "A now discredited theory linked him with the princely House of Baden."
Since when is the theory discredited? The DNA evidence makes it possible that he is the prince, and the "official documentation" can hardly be enough to completely discredit it. I saw a 2002 documentary, and it didn't discredit the theory. User:Lord Xavius 17:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The documents and the other sources led the historians (those teaching history at universities) to regard the theory as refuted. WP follows the scholarly literature, and the 2002 "documentary" (in fact a TV mystery series) is not a scholarly source.--Luchresi (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong Luchresi, the whole evidence that Kaspar Hauser is not of House of Baden is based on the blood stain found on his underwear which has been prooven that it is not infact Kaspar's blood. And the "2002 documentary" as you call it didn't do these tests themselves but instead got forensics from University of Münster to verify the samples. And they could not approve or disapprove the connection between Hauser and House of Baden and therefore the myth remains and will remain until House of Baden lets scientists test the corpses of Stéphanie de Beauharnais and the infant that is or is not her son.--Adriatic_HR (talk) 9:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it has not been proven that the blood found on Hauser's underwear is not his own, but it doesn't even matter. The legend has long been disproved, the evidence is based on written sources. The relevant literature is of course the one written by professional historians. Forensics is just an ancillary science in this case. The historians are convinced that the hereditary prince died in 1812, and have been long before the DNA analyses started. See, to mention just one more example, Lore Schwarzmaier's essay: Der badische Hof unter Großherzog Leopold und die Kaspar-Hauser-Affäre: Eine neue Quelle in den Aufzeichnungen des Markgrafen Wilhelm von Baden. Zeitschrift zur Geschichte des Oberrheins 134, 1986, pp. 245–262. Fritz Trautz, who held a chair in history at the University of Mannheim, is already quoted in the article: "The silly fairytale [i.e. the prince legend] … was fully disproved in Otto Mittelstädt's book." If you believe to know better than Professor Trautz, you might try to get a chair in history yourself and write peer-reviewed articles on Kaspar Hauser, so that we can quote them on Wikipedia. Have a look at WP:V.--Luchresi (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If the House of Baden were truly innocent, they would easily allow all the necessary tests to stop the rumours. BTW: too biased editors should be banned from the article editing. 94.25.166.112 (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "A now discredited theory"

message: As much as Houser's story is believed to be fake, as it is, Was it Houser who made it up? It might have been to hide something dark, or maybe his parents didn't want him to squeal on them. My story would go somewhat like this:
Kasper House lived in a big house. His parents had done commited a crime and knew that he might tell somebody, so they kept him in a small, dark celler where they gave him food and drink. When he was 16, his parents gave him freedom of some kind. They may have drugged him to get to the city, and told him what to say, but years later, he may have said something he wasn't supposed to, so he had to die. 
Suppose his father was a doctor, for instance. I don't know about the 19th century, but disection was banned, and he had to find a body. Maybe young Kasper was a truthful person, who hated lying. Maybe he accidentally saw what his father was doing, and his father felt that he had to do it. 
What do you think happened to him?
--115.130.35.85 (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Kasper Houser Mystery - was it fake? 

message: I get the distinct impression from looking at this article, and the contributions made to it by one or two users - and the nature of their contribution history to other articles - that it is being regarded as something of a personal issue. 
Is it that certain editors feel the need to defend the House of Baden? Or is it just that certain editors feel strongly about conspiracy theories? I dont know. But whichever it is, I think a few steps need to be taken back from the article and a more objective point of view given.
Consequently, I have made some edits to that effect. More need to be made. Please leave these more NPOV edits in place. Wembwandt (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that "certain editors" feel the need to use scholarly publications and to weight differing opinions according to their importance.--Luchresi (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to this article 

message: It's not a fair representation of the scholarly literature to give the last word to that Bartsch et al. paper. They don't cite any professional historian, not one, just popular and esoteric books on the case. There's nothing new in their paper; other physicians had uttered similar opinions before, and others had disagreed. The historians (like Ivo Striedinger and Fritz Trautz) all knew that, and still they firmly concluded that Hauser stabbed himself in an attempt to revive public interest in his story. Leonhard has no doubts either.--Luchresi (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "The last word"? Then move it to the beginning of the section, if you like. The point is, opinions differ in this case, yet you insist that yours to be the first, last, and only word, and actively suppress contrary evidence to support your position. For the life of me I can't see why you've amplified a reasonable conclusion that Hauser was likely shamming into a monomaniacal obsession to suppress the remaining uncertainty and demonstrable differences of opinion that do indeed exist. Very strange. In any case, inclusion of a paper by forensic pathologists accepted by a respected peer-reviewed journal of forensic pathology is eminently fair. Indeed preferring the opinion of an historian to that of a forensic pathologist in a question of forensic pathology is irrational. Speaking purely from academic perspective, that is. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not irrational. Forensics is an ancillary science in this case. The historians did consider all the material available, including the forensic evidence. Bartsch er al. make totally uninformed statements on the non-forensic evidence, and they use sources that don't even match the standards of WP. It's unfortunate that such a bad paper is used here, just because it has been accepted by a medical journal. It's the same game that creationists like to play: googling for the abstract of that one paper that seems to support their view and has been published in a serious journal. Bartsch et al.'s statements are ambiguous and inconclusive anyway.--Luchresi (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  How bizarre! Bartsch is a modern forensic analysis of existing data, evaluated by other respected forensic scientists before publication. It's only "bad" in that it doesn't unreservedly support the conclusion you prefer, which derives from your own evident lack of a WP:NPOV (or perhaps an undisclosed WP:COI) than to any deficiency in the paper. (In English, "bad" in this context would mean that the evidence or analysis is somehow deficient, not that the paper is somehow making the "wrong" point.) An historian is no better qualified than a layman to evaluate the science of an analysis such as this, and in any case Striedinger and Trautz wrote 30 and 70 years, respectively, before this study was published. PCR hadn't even been invented yet, and the techniques of Bartsch et al. to determine whether the trajectory of the weapon was consistent with Hauser's range of motion weren't yet available. A modern forensic analysis is in many ways superior to an autopsy by a general surgeon of 180 years ago or an analysis by a general physician of 80 years ago, let alone a critique by an historian of 40 years past, and publication in a peer-reviewed journal is at least assurance that many professionals skilled in the field have read the analysis with the opportunity to comment on any deficiencies it might have had. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

text:  Your non sequitur introduction of creationism as a straw man is either intellectually dishonest, or betrays an inability to reason and argue logically. Likewise your remarks on Bartsch reveal that you either didn't read (or perhaps understand) the paper before disparaging it, or have chosen to willfully misrepresent it; neither is worthy of a scholar with true respect for historiography. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  whether the trajectory of the weapon was consistent with Hauser's range of motion - and the answer is yes.--Luchresi (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the answer was "maybe" - maybe so if he was more limber than most, maybe not otherwise. Hence the conclusion that neither suicide nor murder could be conclusively ruled out. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight 

message: There's nothing wrong with Schreibmüller's article. He cites Striedinger and other historians (and physicians as well). He is himself cited and accepted by Lore Schwarzmaier in a scholarly article in a professional historians' journal (Lore Schwarzmaier: Der badische Hof unter Großherzog Leopold und die Kaspar-Hauser-Affäre: Eine neue Quelle in den Aufzeichnungen des Markgrafen Wilhelm von Baden. Zeitschrift zur Geschichte des Oberrheins 134, 1986, pp. 245–262; she quotes the 1983 version of Schreibmüllers Bilanz.)--Luchresi (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Schreibmuller is a minor academic with an almost non-existent publication record. His magnum opus, his only publication of note really, is the 44 page tract (his doctoral thesis?) that you so copiously cite. It was extremely weak support for the sweeping conclusion that "[t]he story about Hauser's alleged incarceration is nowadays widely seen as incompatible with modern medical knowledge of hospitalism," particularly since your "medical" authority Spitz was a psychoanalyst who last practiced medicine per se in 1910, and Leonhard (1970) hardly represents "modern medical knowledge" of the physiological and psychosocial effects of isolation. Consequently, I struck this, and left Schreibmuller to support what he could reasonably support in the article. I'd still prefer to see secondary sources replace this tertiary source, particularly since you're using it for some particularly garish quotes. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Schreibmüller's article was also published in 91. Jahrbuch des Historischen Vereins für Mittelfranken, Ansbach 1982/83, pp. 129–172. That's a scholarly publication. (Have a look at this page: . The current chief editor is Georg Seiderer who is a professor for Bavarian and Franconian history at the University of Erlangen-Nürnberg.) The article is a "secondary source". By the way, Schreibmüller is (or was) a judge.--Luchresi (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schreibmüller 

message: The 1830 portrait of Hauser might be used to better purpose next to the (idealized) portrait of his supposed mother Stephanie to permit the reader to look for a family resemblance. That would overcrowd the section with pictures, but does the portrait of Luise really help the article?
Perhaps someone (yes, I mean you, Luchresi, since you have a particular interest in this aspect of the narrative) could flesh out Luise's alleged motive and the ghost story with detail and references. I'm particularly confused why Luise, whose sons were ineligible to inherit their father's titles until 1817, would kidnap the baby in 1812. I'm also interested to learn who she was disguising herself from. Surely it wasn't from the child. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're beginning to realize that the story doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense because it is nonsense. I cannot explain to you why she kidnapped the child because she didn't kidnap the child. I cannot explain to you why she disguised herself as a ghost because she didn't disguise herself as a ghost. I cannot explain to you why Hauser was murdered because he was not murdered. Got it?--Luchresi (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

text: As to the pictures: I thought it was visually appealing to place the two women - antagonists according to the legend - on either side of the text.--Luchresi (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portraits of  Kaspar, Stephanie, and Luise 

message: This article flows pretty well right now and I didn't really see any good place to interrupt it with an annotation about the Kaspar Hauser syndrome of growth retardtion. So I put in a See also section with a reference to support the assertion of existance of such a syndrome. Trouble is that Wikipedia gives an error message if such references are placed after the reflist template. So I moved the See also section above the reflist template and footnotes section, where it now sticks out nearly but not quite as badly as if I'd stuck it into the article. I'll look at it later on to see if it can be rememdied, but if someone else wants to write it into the article feel free.Trilobitealive (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: See also section

message: The article is mixing facts and speculations.
The authors have selected "reliable" sources (i.e. authors  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.188.178.42 (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The authors have selected reliable sources (i. e. peer-reviewed papers by professors in history). Selecting reliable sources and preferring them to occult trash by no means violates our NPOV-policy.--Luchresi (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I recall reading an entry on Kaspar Hauser (in a Rigby publication?) saying that when he sat with his leg extended there were no hollows in the backs of his knees; that they were flush with the ground. Is this in any other consulted source? MartinSFSA (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaspar's knees 

message: I read a theory about Kaspar in a book called Seriously weird true stories (). The theory was that ouruniverce is in the cantre of mirror images of our past and future, if you climbed through to oone of the mirror images, you could travel through time, but when you came back you would write in mirror writing. So Kaspar may have been a time traveller!213.233.148.30 (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The Paralell univerce theory

message: www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/secretsoc_20cennitury/secretsoc_20century04.htm#CHAPTER 11  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.116.229 (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  the best explanation!  is here  

message: The date of birth listed is that of the prince whom he was theorized to be, but that theory, like others, is discredited.  I will be changing the date of birth to unknown.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Birth 

message: Hello Wikipedia! In my opinion, the article about Kaspar Hauser is one of the WORST articles in the English Wikipedia. It is extremely one-sided and presents an interesting story from one specific perspective. I can say this because articles about KH in other languages contain different sources and different data presented. For example, in the Russian article, on the contrary, everything agrees in favor of the statement that Kaspar Hauser was the Prince of Baden.
Consider this a violation of the protocol or way of communicating on Wikipedia, but after doing a little analysis, I came to the conclusion that the article, compiled in the 2000s, presents the opinion of the user Luchresi, who selected only those statements and only those sources that fit his vision of the situation.
I believe that for the principles of neutrality, the article needs to be expanded and rewritten, adding counter-arguments to the fact that Kaspar Hauser is a rogue and a fraudster. KerreRen (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You are free to write that information into the article yourself, citing your sources. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tendentious and extremely outdated article 

message: I take exception with the two paragraphs in this section.  They are so badly written as to not even make sense and each sentence seems to contradict itself.  For starters, "According to contemporary rumours, probably current as early as 1829..."  It's currently 2024, so "current as early as 1829" is nonsense.  Anyway, there are no "current" rumors.  Rumors are gossip; any conversations at this point are based on evidence. There are no fishwives gossiping over their laundry baskets or merchants arguing over mugs of ale about this story.  Continuing on, it claims the prince died then immediately says he was switched with a dying infant.  I think I finally figured out what the writer was trying to convey, but it's out of order and consequently illogical.  I don't have enough interest to muddle through someone else's poor writing here, but I did remove the "in fact" that followed in the same sentence as "according to rumours".  You can't have both. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumours