Talk:Marc Dutroux/Archive 1

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)

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.""


 * 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)

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)

Number of victims, redux
The infobox says four, but the article states five -- repeating unaddressed matter from THREE YEARS AGO. Wikipedia really is falling apart. 218.103.114.186 (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2013 (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)


 * Phonetically, a Fleming might hear "Château des Namurois", pronounced in the muddy Walloon accent, as that. It translates as the "country house of the people from Namur" which isn't too helpful, but might possibly be identified from the Fourniret crcle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.26.28.44 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2014 (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)


 * The Louf testimony did not stand alone, though. The Parliamentary enquiry turned around the events of the Gendarmerie's 1995 search of Dutroux' house, when Julie Lejeune and Mélissa Russo were still alive in the cachette. The police were supposedly searching the house for hidden children, but when they heard childrens voices in the cellar, which to anyone of normal intelligence should have set every alarm bell ringing, the team leader yelled "shut up", subsequently claiming he thought they were voices from children in the street. In interrogation before the Parliamentary enquiry, he showed considerable accumen, so the only conclusion is that he knew they were there. The children were not found, and died of starvation.
 * The relevance of this is that the team doing the search were Dutroux' "handlers" as a snitch in the car-theft ring. Three of them at least were also members of the Abraxas sect, a sub-cult of Aleister Crowley's Ordo Templis Orientalis, a cult which is at the centre of modern satanism. In addition, when Dutroux' lieutenant Marc Weinstein's house was searched, a list of innocents required for satanic feastdays was also found. I have discussed this with the head of the Belgian CID investigation team and it is not the nonsense it at first seems: pursuit of these circles has led to a number of paedophilic circles being rounded up across the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.26.28.44 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2014 (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)
 * To that you must add Sabine and Laetitia who were found alive, and the rider of "at least" as other cases have been set aside, in addition to the X dossiers, and the incidents around the Ixelles Gendarmerie HQ and the Dolo, which may or may not extend to Loubna ben-Aisa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.26.28.44 (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Dardenne's interview?
Any linkable source on Dardenne's 2003 observation that Dutroux acted alone? --Tlatosmd 12:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC) The interests in the population of "ka-ka" is not over. Business with Dutroux dirt Stories leuft well. "HUMO" Journal demand for a "M.D. Article" minimum € 3.50. A, US publisher looking for a reporter for the instalation into Dutroux - cell in prisonJean Marc Connerotte (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Marc Dutroux. 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/20040311052235/http://www.just.fgov.be:80/proces-arlon/en/arlon-trial.html to http://www.just.fgov.be/proces-arlon/en/arlon-trial.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060107144312/http://www.crimelibrary.com:80/serial_killers/predators/dutroux/evil_1.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/dutroux/evil_1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205201327/http://www.unhchr.ch:80/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/6643e3a189372013c12566080033e53e?Opendocument to http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/6643e3a189372013c12566080033e53e?Opendocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

German wiki
The German wiki states, that 27 people who knew details and wanted to tell them at the trial "mysteriously" died! --84.75.31.22 15:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not entirely correct. The wiki states that, in a documentary about the case, there were in total 27 persons who wanted to testify. The German Staatsanwalt Hubert Massa committed suicide in circumstances that were never fully explained. It cannot be ruled out that the witnesses were silenced (i.e. killed, but that is speculation). JHvW 16:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Serial killer
Pay attention, he is absolutely not a serial killer. He doesn't correspond to the definition of a serial killer (different modus opperandi...) 20:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1989 (talk • contribs)


 * If the convictions of Dutroux are correct, he would not be a serial killer but a spree killer. Most of his victims were women, but some of consentual age, so naming him a paedophile (a peadophile is judged to predate on prepubescents) is also not correct. He is clearly a psychopath who has shown behaviour which can be categorised as sexual predation. Some of the deaths were not premeditated but the result of neglect, so IMHO there is no intent, so even calling him a spree killer might not be correct. Although what Dutroux has done is sickening, he must be labelled a criminal and not a serial killer. Also there is no consensus about the number of victims, so I have changed the infobox. JHvW 11:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Pedophile?
The pedophile category does not seem appropriate or needs proper source, main article does not say that anywhere. Sadist kidnapper, child molester and killer is something different than a pedophile. Richiez (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you read my commentary above you will see that I agree. Most of his victims were women, but some of consentual age, so naming him a pedophile (a pedophile is judged to predate on prepubescents) is not correct. The article also states that he is a psychopath, with which I agree. Unfortunately I do not agree with labelling him a killer, IMHO the evidence is too flimsy (even though the courts see this differently). He may be a sadist, he has definitely shown an ability for cruelty, but what I know of the case, he seems to be a (violent) misogynist. JHvW 13:58, 24 October 2017 (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)


 * Michel Nihoul first came to notoriety in the late 1960s and early 1970s as the organiser of some very sordid orgies undertaken by Belgian high society: it is said that the then Prince Albert, who was King during much of the Dutroux investigation, was a participant, although the absolute proof seems to be missing. That in and of itself was always seen to be a cover-up: this level of basic immorality in Belgian social circles has recently been castigated in the TV whodunnit Salamander. The country remains most determinedly feudal, and the impossibility of acting against certain individuals is written throughout the Constitution, for example in the way political "big beasts" are placed beyond the reach of the electorate by being put at the head of their party's Electoral Lists, under their PR voting system.
 * In 2004 Nihoul was found guilty of criminal association with Dutroux, serving less than a year, but charges against him of involvement in the child abduction, sequestration and murders were dropped. But as | this Guardian article shows, things are not always as they seem in Belgium. Even the lawyer supposedly representing the victims and families, Victor Hissel, has since been found to be a paedophile. Nihoul himself has acted against those arguing the existence of a paedophilic network in the X files, and also against the Chair of the Parliamentary Enquiry into the corruption behind the murders, who is defending himself in a counter-suit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.26.28.44 (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above stated opinion is not only incorrect but also possibly libelous. King Albert is named, but it is also stated that there is no proof (so naming a person is incorrect). Also a reference is made to a Belgian TV series. Salamander is a drama series, by nature not evidence, so whatever opinion is expressed, it remains uncertain wether it is valid. The link is dead and as far as I know Victor Hissel has been convicted of the possesion of child-pornography, something which he has denied fervently. Victor Hissel was given a prison sentence and was barred from practicing law for 6 months. Punishment enough IMHO. As far as I am aware Hissel represented the parents of two victims in the Dutroux case, to their satisfaction. There is also a mention of the X-files, with which some might not be familiar. People following the case have been divided into "beleviers" and "non-believers" of a cover-up (referring to the TV series The X-Files and because one of the witnesses who claimed that there was a conspiracy was named witness X1), this point of view has been rejected by the courts. Nihoul sued Marc Verwilghen for defamation of character, the courts however did not agree. JHvW 17:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The penultimate sentence in the paragraph above is unclear. Logically, the "because" in the parenthetical should provide a reason for the statement before the parenthetical but seems instead to be a reason *in addition to* said statement why the investigation is referred to as the X-files. In the statement following the parenthetical and comma, it's not clear what "this point of view" refers to. Logically, it should refer to the first statement (that people following the case have been divided into "believers" and "non-believers"), but why or how a court could reject such a characterization is unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeltommo (talk • contribs) 03:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong link?
I suspect that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Lippens_(businessman) should have been linked instead of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Lippens_(politician). The latter died in 1956. Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Alexandre_of_Belgium could be linked where mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:37BE:1880:48F0:ECB0:A67B:81C (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia at its worst
Early November somebody has started to rework this article and the result is a total disaster: all the fringe theories about Marc Dutroux are shown as true or potentially true. Most of it is based on outdated sources from the late 1990ies or early 2000. I can't believe it is still possible to write today such a BS in a WP article. We got the X files that have been proven empty, the "weird deaths" of potential witnesses, which are based on nothing serious, and so on. Even the assassination of Andre Cools and the suicide of Alain Van der Biest find a place in this story. As a matter of fact, Sabine Dardenne, one of the two girls who survived and was detained during 12 weeks by Dutroux, has always explained that Dutroux is the only man she has seen after her abduction and that Dutroux is the only one who raped her. But this is probably a to simple fact for those who want to hunt pedophile rings everywhere. As a matter of fact there is no need to look for a conspiracy. The incompetence of the Belgian judicial institutions and of the Belgian gendarmerie fully explain how this could happen. This being said I am seriously considering to bring this article back to the state in which it was before 1st November 2019. --Lebob (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Please tell me you are kidding regarding the "there is no conspiracy" matter...? You are deluded... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.176.50 (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Nobody could prove there is any reason to believe in a conspiracy. In the worst case scenario there might have been some cover up actions to hide the incompetency of the Belgian police and justice authorities, but nothing else. As I said, Sabine Dardenne has been kept in Dutroux's dungeon for 12 weeks and she has only seen Dutroux. So where is the pedophiles rings in this story? --Lebob (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I have reverted to the version at the end of October 2019.  Toddy1 (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Please note that WP:EXTRAORDINARY says that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". Toddy1 (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing this. The version you have reverted was far from being based on "multiple high-quality sources". --Lebob (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I merely picked the version immediately before the edits that you complained about. If you know a better version, then revert to that one.  Or alternatively make improvements.  Any exceptional claim requires much higher levels of verifiability than unexceptional claims.  Toddy1 (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am fine with what you did. It was my intention to do that as well. --Lebob (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I was planning to read this article yesterday morning, but when I came to it, most had been deleted. I’m not sure why you say it hasn’t been sourced properly? All of what you deleted, I’m pretty sure, had been sourced yet some of the article you left hasn’t even been referenced. TagPro129 (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, rather than deleting something which, according to you doesn’t have enough reliable sources, why didn’t you find more reliable sources to back the information up? Or, if you didn’t want to do that, you could have just tagged it saying that it needed more sources because it is an “exceptional claim”. TagPro129 (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read Wikipedia policies such as Biographies of living persons and Verifiability. These have links to other pages that will help explain things.  Toddy1 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not sufficient to add an edit-summary saying "sorry but citations were added everywhere. They are sometimes in French, Dutch or German as this is dealing with a case in Belgium. But everything is indeed sourced". You need to add the citations. Citations in French, Dutch or German are all acceptable in English language Wikipedia. Note that the citation template has places for the real title of articles cited and a translated title. You are encouraged to use both fields. Toddy1 (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the relevance of most of the cited sources? This is just a collection of conspiracy theories about the Dutroux case, which have all been disregarded during the police and justice investigation or during Dutroux's trial. For instance, in the list of "suspect" death of "potential" witnesses, the section names Philippe Deleuze, but the [ https://www.lesoir.be/art/%252Fjustice-dossier-d-escroquerie-l-ex-avocate-de-nihoul-ir_t-20020124-Z0LEVX.html article] cited as source does not even say that he was an "acquaintance of Michel Nihoul". He knew Annie Bouty because they had the same profession (they were both lawyers) but the cited article says nowhere he knew personally Nihoul. Those are personal and baseless conclusions of the person who wrote that part of the section, and thus this is original research.
 * Furthermore I also noticed that many of the sources cited in that article are relatively old, more than 10, 15 or even 20 years ago and relay many of the phantasmagories that were going in part of the press and within the public at that time. But nothing in those idioties has ever been proved. In other words, under its current form this article is totally inaccurate to say the least as it is an amalgam of all the conspiracy theories that have been surrounding this case over more than 20 years. This is giving way too much importance to baseless fringe theories. As I said, this is WP at its worst. --Lebob (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like you have some bias issues yourself Lebob. "Idioties"? Really. This is not a WP:FORUM. If reliable sources state something it doesn't matter how old are they. If there are new developments then the procedure is to replace the old info with the new one. But if there are no reliable sources that contradict or update the info of old reliable sources, they shouldn't be deleted, even if you believe they are idiocies or phantasmagories of the press or the public, which is your personal opinion. Only reason to delete the info that come to mind right now is if it doesn't meet WP:EXTRAORDINARY or if the info doesn't reflect the sources accurately, as stated above.--Thinker78 (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The section called The X files is a complete breach of policy WP:UNDUE - it has 20 lines giving the minority viewpoint that these were valid, without mentioning that "the conventional wisdom is that the witnesses were either deranged or were recounting fantasies. It was... false-memory syndrome." - see The New York Times article of 16 December 1999 (a book review by Barry James), which is extensively used as a source. Toddy1 (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Toddy1, you wrote "conventional wisdom is that the witnesses were either deranged or were recounting fantasies". You would need to provide multiple, independent, reliable sources for those assertions per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. --Thinker78 (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry Thinker78, but the sentence cited by Toddy1 is extracted from this article used at least 10 times in this article. Therefore if you think you can use it to sustain other points in this article, then you have to accept this statement too, even if it does not fit with your beliefs. Or to remove from the article every part that is sourced on this article if you think it is not a reliable source. I will come back later on to your previous message. --Lebob (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought it was their personal opinion. But if it was "conventional wisdom" surely more independent reliable sources can be found regarding the claim. I don't know what you believe is WP:EXTRAORDINARY as well, I guess it's your prerrogative to hold some text to that standard and further edits/discussions would work on consensus. Thinker78 (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Reporting of cover-up allegation is too incomplete
It's not clear to what kind of cover-up is referred; however, apparently there have been a number of articles in magazines that reported on it, so it should be possible (if someone has access to at least ome of them!) to give that information in the article. See: http://www.lifeonchildreninthemix.com/BELGIUM.html In particular perhaps the book "The X-Dossiers"? Harald88 (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The dossiers were split in two, that with tangible immediate victims sufficient to ensure his imprisonment, and the extended "B" dossier, which has never been investigated, let alone brought to trial. The body of Mananya Thumpong was placed in the garden of the examining magistrate in charge of the Dutroux case, Michel Bourlet, by the French paedophile Michel Fourniret, in an attempt to discredit him. That establishes a corroboration to the suspicion that Dutroux was headed towards Fourniret's house to take refuge when he escaped in 1998. Then there is the link between the Westende campsite An and Eefje were in and Dutroux' father's house, which backs onto it, and thence into the Boulogne child murders. I have worked with the Supreme Court judge who heard Dutroux' final appeal, and the CID chief in charge of the case, and there is more out there that will never be disclosed by the Belgian authorities. Dutroux has always claimed he was working to order, and I rather believe him: the fact the authorities have covered up at least one other death, not part of the X files, for certain shows there's more to this than meets the eye. Even a psychopath needs a reason to work to the pattern he worked to. I have the X-Dossiers book, but I would prefer to focus for the moment on the cases which have been proved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.26.28.44 (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I did add everything. I see you're retired. But in case you join again please help me to keep the info up -- Sparrow (麻雀)     🐧   21:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Content of the article
Dear fellow editors, I urge everyone who thinks that what I added to the article is disputed to look through the sources themselves. Please DO read the sources first (even though some of them might be in French, German and Dutch- there is google translate and translation tools to help with that). I do please urge you to do so. Please don't remove anything before making an informed decision and looking at all the information. Countless young children and women were definitely sexually assaulted by Dutroux and his co- conspiritors. Most of them- especially the ones who died later- could have totally been saved, had the police and justice system worked. And this HAS to be known. The dead witnesses need to be listed. The failures of the police need to be listed and all of the allegations made by the Belgium public of a cover- up. 300.000 people marched through the streets when judge Connerotte was removed from the case. 300.000 Belgians! Spontaneously. This is how angry people in Belgium were about this. I know that this is not known outside of Belgium. But please- if you have Belgian friends, that are old enough to remember- ask them about the case. They'll tell you that no one there believes the story that was propagated internationally. It would be great to receive further info on why the "disputed content" note needs to head the article. Because I put so much effort in sourcing every single thing that I wrote in the article reliably. -- Sparrow (麻雀)     🐧   05:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I did read through wp:extraordinary, and I think that this is detrimental to any attempt to cover corruption or cover-ups. In their very nature those types of stories are not covered by several mainstream sources. However in Belgium the cover-up was covered by countless mainstream sources. So I think that in this case the article still stands. Even with the horrendous wp policy that makes it impossible apparently to write about cover- ups and corruption especially when those are ungoing. Ridiculous.-- Sparrow (麻雀)     🐧   08:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, and unfortunately for you, I am Belgian and old enough to remember very well this case. This is why I can tell you that under its current form a substantial part of this article is complete BS. Starting with the idea that "Countless young children and women were definitely sexually assaulted by Dutroux and his co- conspiritors". In fact most of Dutroux's victims were clearly identified and they were not "countless", even if a single victim is always one victim too much. Despite years of investigations no one could ever show the beginning of an evidence holding water that there was a pedophile ring around Dutroux. On the contrary, the testimony of Sabine Dardenne is very clear: after her kidnapping and during the 12 weeks she was kept by Dutroux in his dungeon the only person she has seen and who raped her was Dutroux. You went so far as to completely (and conveniently for your activist POV?) forget to mention this in the article. Furthermore Judge Connerotte was not removed from his position of examining magistrate by a decision falling ex nihilo as one could think be reading your version but after a ruling of the Court of Cassation, which is the highest judiciary instance in Belgium (the equivalent of the Supreme Court in the USA). Even though the Belgian might have found that shocking at that time most of the law specialists in Belgium had to acknowledge that the ruling was perfectly in line with the principles of Belgian laws applicable to a case of an investigating judge being not neutral. Again I observe that the section devoted to the removal of Connerotte from the case does not even bother to explain why and by whom he was removed from the case. As I acknowledged before there has been some cover-up in this case, but contrary to what you say, not to cover a ring of wealthy and powerful pedophiles around Dutroux but to hide the incompetency of the gendarmerie and of the Liege Parquet. This is what made the Belgian very angry and has also led to the disbandment of the gendarmerie at the end of the 1990ies. I also notice that many of the sources put forward in this article are completely outdated (published sometime years before Dutroux's trial) or just relay with too much complacency the conspiracy theories around this case. This is notably why the list of dead "witnesses", which strangely enough does not name Bernard Weinstein, should be completely removed from the article as it does not add anything to the story but is part of the conspiracies theories. Finally explaining about the Belgian that "They'll tell you that no one there believes the story that was propagated internationally" makes me think that you have not so many Belgian friends and that most of them probably belong to the narrow circles of people who still believe the conspiracy theory that Dutroux, in fact a nobody with no relations, was acting for the account of a ring of wealthy and powerful pedophiles. As a conclusion I think that if you started to contribute to WP to lead a crusade against pedophilia (as one could think from your user page), which by itself is certainly not dishonorable, you might be contributing to Wikipedia for the wrong reasons. In particular if this has as result to spread conspiracy and fringe theories that have been refuted since long time. Because WP is not the place to do that. --Lebob (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You say <> .. how many was it, which WP:RS did say it was definitively 11 and not more? I also remember that time and viewing from a neighbouring country I do certainly remember that media and people were at the very least very sceptical about the official results of the investigation. Quite possible there was never a pedophile ring coverup but the media coverage back then did suggest otherwise. Whether sources are "completely outdated" can't be judged by publication date only, if the sources were considered WP:RS at time of publication they should stay. If later sources of at least comparable quality came to a different conclusion it should be also reported. It is the Telegraph article from 2001 that says "The claims by Paul Marchal, father of An Marchal, who was 17 when she disappeared in 1995, echo what many Belgians now privately believe: that Dutroux and his paedophile ring had connections with high-ranking members of the establishment in Belgium.". Did the Telegraph report it wrong? Did the Belgians change their mind after an exhaustive investigation? If so, it would be important to add to the article. If it is a conspiracy theory, it is a very good one. Richiez (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Pay attention to mechanics
Crash course in mechanics:

Spelling: just double check names Capitalization Quotation marks: punctuation goes inside the quotation marks Possessives: you have to use apostrophes Quotes
 * Michel Lelièvre, not "Lièvre"
 * Anne Thily, not "Thilly"
 * Jean-Marc Connerotte, not "Connerottes"
 * "Judge" should be capitalized if it is followed by a name (example: Judge Connerotte)
 * Jean-Claude Van Espen: Van should be capitalized
 * Suspects "received some serious protection."
 * They took control of the "key institutions of the country."[45]
 * They led a cult called "Abrasax," which allegedly performed human sacrifices.
 * Connerotte's, not "Connerottes"
 * the victims' families, not "the victims families"
 * Dutroux's, not "Dutrouxs," not "Dutroux"
 * Van Espen's, not "Van Espens"
 * Quotes shouldn't be italicized or preceded by a colon (unless the quote follows a complete sentence)
 * Use single quotations inside double quotations for a quote within a quote (example: Frenkiel stated, "When I first met Nihoul, he told me 'I am the monster of Belgium.'")
 * Just don't do whatever this is: ‘’"to spare them the fate of An and Eefje."’’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblioklept (talk • contribs) 01:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP style is to use logical quotation, putting punctuation outside the quotation marks, unless the punctuation is part of the quote itself. See WP:LQ. — howcheng  {chat} 06:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

crimes against accomplices?

 * Dutroux was convicted in 1989 for the abduction and rape of five young girls (with his then-wife Michelle Martin) and other accomplices.

He raped other accomplices without his wife? I re-punctuated the sentence to mean what I think was more likely intended. —Tamfang (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)