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 (UTC)

Repetitive

This article has too many section headers, and the reason for that is that the same information is repeated over and over again. Examples of this include:

• 3.4 Failure to review video tapes confiscated from Dutroux and 4.6 Promotion of René Michaux, who failed to save Julie and Mélissa: same information about mishandling of video tapes
• 3.6 Failure to analyse DNA from basement dungeon and 4.4 Failure to test hairs in the dungeon for DNA evidence: these sections are about the exact same thing, and 3.6 only includes one sentence
• 4.4 Failure to test hairs in the dungeon for DNA evidence and 4.16 The Abrasax sect with members working at the police force in Charleroi: the entirety of 4.16 is repeated word for word from 4.4
• 3.1 Failure to follow up on letter of Dutroux's mother warning of kidnapped girls being held at his house and 3.2 Failure to rescue Mélissa and Julie: the lack of action regarding Dutroux's mother's warning is a contributing factor to the failure to rescue the girls
• 3.7 Inquiry into officer De Baets handling of the police investigation, 4.5 Removal of police officers from the case, and 4.7 Arrests of law enforcement personnel believed to be connected to Dutroux: all discuss suspicions that law enforcement was mishandling the investigation
• 2 Crimes after release and 3.3 Dutroux arrest on car theft charges: word for word repetition describing car theft and the murder of Weinstein (additionally, the title of 3.3 is misleading, as the section majorly focuses of Weinstein's murder)
• 3.5 Escape of Dutroux in 1998 and 5 Parliamentary investigation and escape from custody: the headers of these sections suggest that both will discuss Dutroux's escape from custody; however, 5 doesn't mention it at all
• 4.1 Judge Jean-Marc Connerottes removal from the case and 4.3 Claims by the victims families: both discuss how the victims' families reacted to the removal of Judge Connerotte (additionally, 4.1 contains a lot of information that isn't about his removal from the case; in fact, it doesn't even mention the actual reason that he was removed)
• 3.8 Failure to properly investigate leads to Slovakia and Czech Republic and 4.1 Judge Jean-Marc Connerottes removal from the case: same information about potential trafficking operation involving Slovakia
• 4.1 Judge Jean-Marc Connerottes removal from the case and 7.5 Michel Nihoul: same statement that Nihoul is the "brains" behind the child kidnapping operation

This constant repetition makes the article extremely confusing and way too long. Biblioklept (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the article is way too long. 86.45.47.123 (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is the picture the pencil sketch when actual pictures are available?

Due to the availability of better pictures more in line with the general style of depicting people like this on Wikipedia, I think it's a little odd that we aren't using at least his mugshot. I would propose that we use that instead of the pencil sketch; I wouldn't be against using it elsewhere in the article, but using it as the title picture seems wrong. Golden Oreole (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 159.196.171.118 (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It's most likely a licensing issue. See: WP:IUP

The sketch looks like the only image of him on Wikimedia Commons so it's probably just a matter of there not being any public domain or acceptably licensed images of him available. Slidinghorn (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is there (at least some) substantiated information under the heading 'conspiracy theories'

That seems leading to say the least Blex-max (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I have amended this for NPOV reasons. 159.196.171.118 (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)