Talk:Marc Dutroux

Comment

Is this NPOV? -- Zoe

I think so. Patrick 03:51 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

Should we be listing the names and ages of the abductees? Isn't that a violation of the COPPA? -- Gamera2 02:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. We could possibly remove the names of the survivors. I doubt there's much reason for the dead, though. Evercat 02:53, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Aren't they all over 18 now? It's not illegal to discuss what happened to people who are now adults when they were not adults. At least one of the two survivors has also given a media interview as well. --Delirium 06:23, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

I think you meant over 13, as the COPPA only extends to 13 and younger. Also, with such a high-profile case, their ages and names would inevitably be released, and the majority of them are already dead. ugen64 01:56, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

My main concern was for the survivors. I just wanted to make sure there weren't alot of other people that felt we were overstepping any bounds or whatnot. -- Gamera2 10:27, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Does COPPA even apply here? --Charles A. L. 16:19, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

From section 1032.2.A - (The term operator) "means any person who operates a website located on the Internet or an online service and who collects or maintains personal information from or about the users of or visitors to such website or online service, or on whose behalf such information is collected or maintained, where such website or online service is operated for commercial purposes, including any person offering products or services for sale through that website or online service, involving commerce "

From Section 1032.2.B - "does not include any nonprofit entity that would otherwise be exempt from coverage under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45)."

So The answer to that question would be no. Never hurts to check. And, like I said, it was just a moral concern of mine. I doubt very much anyone would be truly offended or bothered, but I wanted to make sure it had the full blessing of the community. Gamera2 00:01, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a difficult issue, but I think in a case like this where the information is public knowledge, it wouldn't really make sense to conceal it. The court case specifically charges him with killing these girls by name, for example, while in cases where privacy is a overbearing concern, typically the names of the victims aren't released to the press, or the press is asked not to print them, which I don't think has happened here. The fact that one of the victims has given media interviews, and the parents have held public fund-raising dinners and gone on television, indicates that privacy isn't a major issue in this particular case as well (as far as I can tell). --Delirium 01:57, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, now that you mention it, I find it similar to the survivors of Columbine (especially those who gave public interviews on the news). ugen64 02:45, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

This case happened in Belgium. COPPA is a United States law with no applicability to Belgian citizens. I don't believe it would apply even if a victim possessed United States citizenship if the crime happened in a place where the United States has no legal jurisdiction, such as Belgium.--unsigned

COPPA has nothing to do with this. COPPA is about: 1.) preventing deceptive methods of collecting information from minors online, including making clear to parents/guardians how & what information is collected, how it's used and providing the collected information to parents on request; 2.) safeguarding the collected information to protect its security/confidentiality/integrity. It says nothing about re-publicizing information about minors not collected online. The purpose of COPPA is to make it safe for children to participate in online websites/forums/chatrooms. This has absolutely no bearing on the information in this article, even if the children were still children.

If there is a missing girl and their name and age are broadcasted on TV, you don't need to get parental permission in order to repost that information on a website. Likewise, COPPA says nothing about whether an internet journalist can write a minor's name and age when reporting on a crime. Unless you get that information from the child themself via an IM chat/email/website, COPPA doesn't come into play. In the U.S. certain states have passed laws that forbid the release of the names of minors who were the victims of rape. However, even in these cases the supreme court has ultimately decided that the violated the constitution. --subversive.sound 12:52, April 14, 2011

Pedophilia?

From the section "Pedophilia?" of this article, I understand that Dutroux is not really a pedophile, but rather an antisocial psychopath. The article should not be placed in the category Pedophile, even if the media characterized him as a pedophile. --Edcolins 08:02, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Edcolins. Another thing is that the original sentence have been changed from

Even though the media often characterizes Dutroux as a pedophile, he is not. Both years before and during this tragic case, all 4 psychiatrists and a psychologist that have evaluated Dutroux, have found that he is not a pedophile, but antisocial (psychopath)

to

The media has characterized Dutroux as a pedophile. The four psychiatrists and a psychologist who have evaluated Dutroux have said that he is, rather, an antisocial psychopath:

a) Antisocial psychopath - if one is a psychopath one is also antisocial. That's why psychopath was in brackets. To explain what antisocial was.

b) The experts did not say, that he is rather a psychopath than a pedophile. They said he is not a pedophile, but an antisocial and dangerous person. I have two sources on this. Danish national television and Danish Pedophile Association.

wildt 4. jul 2004, 11:57 (UTC)

Do you have more info on the Danish Pedophile Association? I'm trying to keep the article from getting deleted. I'm particularly looking for information on the court case.--Gbleem 01:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

German wiki

german wiki states, that 27 people ho knew details and wanted to tell them at the trial "mysteriously" died! --84.75.31.22 15:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Dardenne's interview?

Any linkable source on Dardenne's 2003 observation that Dutroux acted alone? --Tlatosmd 12:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback's changes

Will, in what way is it a "paedophile whitewash" (whatever that is or you think it is) to revert your changes if even people buying into the conspiracy theories around Dutroux and trying to fight child abuse affirm that paedophilia "is not the problem" (and that the real problem is using the enhancing word 'paedophile' upon him, his case or any likewise cases while both he and his case are undeserving of it)? Liz Kelly: Confronting An Atrocity: The Dutroux Case published on CWASU: Child & Woman Abuse Studies website (see p. 7, "Naming the problem") --Tlatosmd 12:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fredrick, the same question goes out to you as another vandal. Both of you happen to have absolutely no sources backing you up. Furthermore, it's ridicilous that giving an exact date could be reverted as a "whitewash" for anything. Your mere choice of language in your edit summaries sound paranoiac, to say the least, as if there would be a lecherous folk devil out to rape you.

A reliable news source on the tapes found in his homes would be acceptable, while there is no way at all to evidence "paedophile rings" other than public activist organizations, but it would be fairly easy in comparison to evidence child-prostitution rings or anything of that sort.

I'm quoting Jimbo for you here:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

—Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16). ""Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html. Retrieved 2006-06-11. 

Do you two realize that, in case we'd take Jimbo seriously here, that the Dutroux article would be fairly empty? --Tlatosmd 13:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all a general comment on the state of this article, it's seriously lacking. There's much better information elsewhere, or should I say pretty much anywhere on the web about this case and I would suggest that the readers look there instead, unless some serious work is done about it here in wikipedia.

Secondly I find Tlatosmd's tone and edits very unsatisfactory. His reply to "the vandal" is full of ad hominems and weasel words: "buying into", "conspiracy theories", "paranoiac (sic)" "folk devil out to rape you" and all that. It's also trash talk and doesn't get the article anywhere. I looked over the edits expecting that "the vandal" had at some point wrecked the article. But the only two changes I read where one about semantics, where pedophilia is interchanged with child prostitution, and one where user Tlatosmd added a "two months after his arrest" clause before the white march. I will revert to these changes by the aforementioned "vandals". And since no one is bothering argumenting on any of the changes they propose I will go first.

The "two months after..." in that place in the sentece has to go because it is a weazel phrase aiming at separating the two events in time (dutroux affair and the white march) and augmented by the later part of the sentence mentioning that "in which demands were made for reforms of Belgium's police and justice system.", it seems as if the march was addressing larger issues in Belgium's policies and was removed in time from the affair at hand. Whilst in actuality it had everything to do with the pedophilia case. If someone wants to restructure the sentences to include the "two months" piece of information sens the weasel structure they are welcome.

I am also going to revert back to the original pedophilia instead of child prostitution. The arguments I ve read so far against it are ludicrous: "if even people buying into the conspiracy theories around Dutroux and trying to fight child abuse affirm that paedophilia "is not the problem" (and that the real problem is using the enhancing word 'paedophile' upon him, his case or any likewise cases while both he and his case are undeserving of it)" In what sense is pedophilia NOT the problem? This comment is outrageous. Sexual abuse of a child by an adult, known as pedophilia (and not child prostitution which is a horrible offense, but an adjunct) is a crime of the worst imaginable sort. Furthermore child abuse wans in comparison to pedophilia, because abuse has a whole spectrum from moderate to intense, and pedophilia lies on the far side of this spectrum in the form of the worst type of physical, mental, sexual, and spiritual types of abuses. I shudder to think in what sense the fellow wikipedian is referring to the word pedophilia as "an enhancing word", and I feel it is beyond me to comment on that.

Lastly, I am going to revert child prostitution to pedophile ring. It doesn't take a linguist to understand that child prostitution refers to a type of prostitution involving children, and undermines that the nature of the offense is not the financial transaction involved for copulation (prostitution) out of which one type is that of a child and an adult, but rather the crime and psychopathology of an adult abusing a child sexually, irrespectably of whatever financial gains are involved. To put it even more succinctly outrage against dutroux wasn't because he was out to make money out of these poor children, that was by and large irrelevant in view of the much more hideous offense that of abusing them sexually. An adult prostitute is in some parts of the world legal, and an adult prostitute even if illegal has a certain measure of choice, experience and a mature psyche, a child does not, and needless to say is far more vulnerable. These two types of "prostitution" cannot in any sense by equated my the same word. More so when we are not allegedly dealing here with brothels and the underage sex industry (and the poverty of course) rampant and overt in places such as some parts of Asia, but that of abducting, "smuggling", and covertly channeling minors to pedophiliac adults.

Lastly but very importantly I have to say that just because a stronger more powerful pedophile is imposing his perverted sexual abuse on a child, a child should not be labeled as a prostitute. He is the pedophile for sure, but the child is not automatically a prostitute because someone might have made money out of their abuse. Prostitutes sell their bodies for sex and, like I said, they might do so intentional out of their own free will, but a child is always victimized. Labeling the victim as a prostitute is adding insult to injury.

All that might be sadly disappointing to the blooming community of pedophiles that have found their ways to wikipedia as well, but these are the hard facts. 84.254.51.226 11:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a warning is in order?

concerning the outside link "Beyond the Dutroux Affair by Project for the Exposure of Hidden Institutions", this page contains edited pictures of child pornography that the vast majority of people would find disturbing, plus im curious as to the legality of these photots, edited though they may be. perhaps some sort of warning as to its content? i know i would have appreciated it. thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiler Grogan (talk • contribs) 22:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I went to the website and the top of the article has this warning: "Warning: The information in this article is not suited for anyone below the age of 18, as it involves extreme sexual violence against children. A certain amount of normally-illegal visual evidence (it is censored) has been included." I think that is sufficient. --*momoricks* (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nihoul

The Trial section of the article makes reference to someone by the name of Nihoul being tried as an accomplish in the case. However this person is not mentioned in the earlier sections of the article, he/she is not given a first name and nowhere is their role in the crimes discussed. Could someone please add this information to the article or at least find a source that contains this information, thank you.

On a side note the footnote for the Telegraph links to their homepage not a copy of the relevant article.SkorponokX (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not gonna do it right now, but the article on www.crimelibrary.com has all the information we need concerning Dutroux's accomplices. If nobody else fills in the blanks, I suppose I will this weekend.Evil bacteria (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Restore ref, deleted see also

I have restored a ref. related to the page and deleted an unrelated see also. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have to watch the "see also" section, as people use it to include a lot of irrelevant junk.Makewater (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Chateau Des Amerois?

At one point in the evidence of Dutroux's living victims , a place called Chateau des Amerois was mentioned has a meeting place. I done a search and Wikpedia has no page on this Chateau des Amerois. Can a page specifically be created for this castle/area please? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.25.117 (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Satanic ritual allegations

Please note that the one sentence statement made under this section summarizes the allegations of ONE of more than 560 witnesses in the Dutroux-case (cf. the wikipedia pages on the Dutroux-case in other languages.) Considering the source of this claim is Witness X1 also known as Regina Louf, it is important to at least provide a bit more background so as to contextualize the information. Her testimony, it should be mentioned, has been very controversial. It should be noted that the source used here comes from a very politically tinted website. It is important to include this information, so as to provide the whole picture. G1820 (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Regina Louf witness x1 was declared mad by the establishment but the experts on the field recognised that she in fact is not mad at all and that her statements are solid. Witness x3 and x1 have given testimony. Bodily mutilations coinsist with witnesstatements. Due to her statement the body of another victim of these satanic rituals was located. In the Zandvoortcatalogue around 90000 children's faces were on display to potential buyers. A small part of this catalogue ended in the hands of a reporter and thus came to the attention of the public. Over 80 parents had the chance to regognise their own children from these photo's before the police confiscated them and they were not shown to parents seeking their kids again. The 80 parents were fibbed off by the police. Each individual was seperately told that in fact that particular photo was that of another kid and a policeman in Holland had attached a name to the photo and it was not their child's name. This information however proved false as the policeman in question stated there were no such names, as given by the police in Belgium and France, in the file. This is not from a political tinted source, this is straight from parents and victims. This information can be found in the documentary Le fichier de la Honte on french television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.90.0 (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Number of victims?

The infobox says four, but the article states five - the four girls and Weinstein, the supposed accomplice, who he confessed to killing and was later found guilty of doing so. Am I missing something? 72.237.78.7 (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)