Talk:Abner Louima

Broomstick or plunger?

Broomstick? Wasn't it a plunger? --Feitclub 02:38, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it was a plunger - I remember that from reading about the case previously, and checking various sources confirms that it was a plunger. The page now reflects that.

The article currently (2016) states "broom handle". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Schwarz update

According to the Staten Island Advance of December 5, 2019, page A9, Schwarz never left NYC, but when released from prison worked very briefly for Con Edison, which fired him. He then went to work for the NYC Housing Authority as a maintenance worker, with a 2018 income of $114,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1600:4F49:BD40:7EAC:14AC:1995 (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Law and Order

I think there was an episode of Law and Order or Law and Order SVU based on this. Does anyone know for sure?

Resolve this

The article has "Given the size of the precinct in question, it would be unlikely for the officers on duty not to have heard the assault or witnessed Volpe's pride in his actions". This seems to indicate that they later said they heard nothing, so that someone must be lying, Louima or the other officers. But the article does not mention their statement. This must be resolved, either by mentioning their statement, or by removing the sentence about the size of the precinct. PhS 13:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The wording of this article as of 9 September 2006 reads as biased. All actions taken by Volpe and the other accused officers are referred to as "alleged," which is properly appropriate to cases where charges have been filed but no ruling has been handed down; in this instance the accused officers were either found guilty in trial or pleaded guilty and allocuted the details of their crimes. Neither Volpe nor his co-defendants chose to plead under the Alford doctrine, which further diminishes the likelihood of the legal finding of guilt not reflecting true culpability. Moreover, the reference to Sean Hannity's statements and actions is not rebutted in the article with consideration of whether injuries of the severity Louima was treated for could have been caused by consensual sexual activity, "rough" or otherwise (though a reasonable person, per the legal standard, might infer that multiple surgeries would be unlikely to be needed following consensual sex). Finally, the omission, from an article whose subject is Abner Louima and which focusses on his police-brutality complaints against Volpe and the NYPD, of the circumstances of Louima's arrest -- that a police officer had been assaulted, that other NYPD officers were angry about that assault, that Louima was mistaken for a suspect in that assault, and that he was later found to have had nothing to do with said assault -- is simply not appropriate.

(I wish I had time to run down sources and fact-check my details -- all of this is from memory of following the cases at the time -- but I don't even have time to look up the password or even which email address is associated with my login [theJack]. I haven't had time for real editing in too long. Like graffitied articles, however, this is something I just can't let stand. Thanks in advance to anyone who follows up the POV-tagging.) —The Jack [not logged in] 69.183.245.211 23:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the improper "alleged" qualifiers from the article; they were all added by a single unexplained edit[1] that also changed one instance of "Louima" to "the perp." Postdlf 23:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned it up and added links/sources

I cleaned it up, expanded on the role of Charles Schwarz, added the links and citations. Its all very well documented still since it happened in the Internet era. There is still a lot of work needed to be done. We need further bio info on Louima, what he was doing and the circumstances surrounding his arrest. Also, the external links need to be converted to references. There is no reason that this entry be stub quality for long. All it needs a bit of further work. --Eqdoktor 10:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. With that in mind, I've converted the cites to refs. And also I deleted some refs, since the news organ of a political party, namely the cites from the Revolutionary Communist Party's "Revolutionary Worker" and the website of the World Socialist Party are not appropriate Wiki sources, as besides having a stated political bias, verge on conspiracy theory (the latter also features an article on its site about how the Amadou Diallo trial was rigged. I am sure better citation can be found for these facts, but I'm late for work so someone else is going to have to do the digging.

Also, I had to save once before finishing completely to prevent further edit conflicts, as it seems I am editing at the same time as User:Eqdoktor. Ford MF 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Heheh, you're either a VERY fast typer or your using some sort of script to convert all these external references. While I was staring at the screen wondering how to convert all the links manually, you got it all finished. I bow to your Wikipedia kung-fu. Is there an automated script to convert external links? Anyways go right ahead :) I am going off to take a break. :) --Eqdoktor 18:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is a script to automatically convert cites to refs, I'm gonna be seriously pissed! It's a royal pain in the ass to do it manually. I'm just a fast typer, I guess. Ford MF 19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

On a serious matter, why do you think that we can't cite WSWS.ORG as a reliable news source? The link you cite (on the conspirational bent of WSWS.org) that the Diallo trial was rigged happens to be an editorial, not a news item. Obviously anyone taking a citation from an editorial is going to encounter problem. On the other hand, how is news cited from a socialist website any different from news cited from Fox News, Washington Times or the Wall Street Journal? All rather right wing sources but accepted on Wikipedia as "good" references as contrasted to the left leaning WSWS.org website. Fact is fact is fact - whether derived from a left leaning newspaper/website or a right leaning conservative one. --Eqdoktor 21:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

All the news sources you list can credibly be called "slanted", fair enough, however the Socialist and Revolutionary Worker are not primarily the products of news and media organizations, they are the publishing arms of active political parties. I wouldn't consider them appropriate sources any more than the Daily U.S. Democrat or The Libertarian Gazette (not that those exist, I'm just saying). I have no problem with reputable left-leaning sources, the Village Voice or the Nation, for example. I have a problem with explicitly political organization-dispatches being used as news sources. Ford MF 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding that, I've replaced the Socialist Worker ref you put in with one from CNN.com that cites the same facts of Volpe's threatening Louima's life. Hope this doesn't offend. Ford MF 21:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

None, whatsoever. Your reasoning is very sensible. I have finally cleaned up the last stubborn citation required tag. The details of Abner Louima's life when he was arrested is pretty hard to coax out online. The most decent reference I can find is a print article in the New York Times newspaper. The reference note cites the print edition of the newspaper. Dedicated researchers can buy the complete text of the article from the NYT paysite. The article is also referenced in the this law school document (the external reference link) as footnote #27. Looks like this article has come a long way from a stub 24 hrs ago... :) --Eqdoktor 06:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And so it has! I reckon we should pat one another on the back now. Ford MF 02:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

McAlary's Pulitzer Prize-winning columns...

This would probably be a good series of links to add to this. It's all of the columns Mike McAlary wrote when he broke the story of Louima's abuse. You can see them here - NYDN

A better example?

"Public condemnation of the attack was not universal. Fox News pundit Sean Hannity was one of Louima's biggest critics during the trial, charging that he had fabricated the rape — calling him "lying Louima" — and using interviews with people alleging Louima had past sexual relationships with men to bolster the claim that he had sustained his injuries during a "gay sex act." Hannity stopped using the "lying Louima" epithet after Volpe confessed to sodomizing Louima with the help of another officer."

Can someone find more examples of critics? --68.161.185.91 (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does this article state 'Abner Louima (b. 1966 in Thomassin, Haiti) was the Haitian immigrant who was...?' This seems to imply that he is no longer alive. Shouldn't it read 'IS the Haitian immigrant...?' Grandma Roses (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abner Louima. 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/20080517144517/http://www.courttv.com/legaldocs/newsmakers/louima.html to http://www.courttv.com/legaldocs/newsmakers/louima.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060916211529/http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj/articles/dlj48p1157.htm to http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj/articles/dlj48p1157.htm

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

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) 20:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible error/clarification

Sentence in Aftermath:

"Louima has since participated in anti-police brutality protests with Al Sharpton, notably over the shooting of Sean Bell in November 2006, and on August 9, 2007, exactly 10 years after his attack."

Sentence reads that Aug. 9, 2007 is 10 years after Bell Shooting (Nov. 25, 2006) which is incorrect or that Louima participated in three protests? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.40.166 (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

How will Volpe pay his fine?

They gonna take it out his commissary or what? PrimeGoat (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)