Talk:International child abduction in Japan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Law (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Japan (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 13:27, July 23, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Asian Americans (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Asian Americans (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Seal of Japanese Government[edit]

I really do not see why this seal have to be here. Usually, the photo in the intro must represent the issue. I would think the photos of abducted children, which are released for fair use would be more appropriate. Should the seal of U.S. government put on anything which is remotely related, such as Iraq war? Vapour (talk)

Iraq war is about a war. That is a completely specious example. This article is about international relations and Japan. You'll note that the use of the seal is consistent in International child abduction in Mexico and International child abduction in Brazil. If you have a better image, by all means use it, but if not, this image is much better than none.--Cybermud (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of images you should not remove the image I added for domestic violence saying it is not ideal unless you have a better one. A, less than ideal, image is oftentimes the best image that is available for use in WP articles.--Cybermud (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As of Mexican and Brazilian article, it is pretty obvious that it was you who added it so it add very little to validity of your argument. As of analogy about war, Iraq war is about war between Iraq and U.S. which had direct confrontation. International child abduction is, as you say, about child abduction between Japanese and non Japanese couple. Japanese government has not abducted any of these children, though many LBP seems to feel that way. Placing this photo at the introduction add to the impression that it is Japanese government's responsibility, which bias the article in favour of LBP perspective. I'm proposing to remove the photo not because it is not the best one or less relevant but because it is inappropriate.
I don't think I added the seal to the article on Brazil, but I really don't remember or care to check. Again, this is an article about Japan and a Japan image is an appropriate one. Perhaps this one is better? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Itsukushima_torii_angle.jpg It's definitely prettier, and doesn't give the impression that it's "Japan's government's responsibility" (even though it obviously is, or do you think the Australian gov't is responsible for Japanese foreign policy?) Going back to the Iraq war, that's a conflict between two countries, not a conflict between the US and the rest of the world. A better example would International child abduction in the United States. That article should definitely have an image representing the United States if you care to create it, otherwise I'm planning to get to it eventually.--Cybermud (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

UKCrown reference[edit]

What is this reference all about?[1]

This reference doesn't support any of the wild claims that are attributed to it such as "For example, in U.K. no prosecution occurs for an offence of kidnapping if it was committed against a child under the age of 16 by a person "connected with" the child."

I am removing this poor reference and all the things falsely attributed to it.--Cybermud (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

More misused references[edit]

The following statement:

Different nations treat child abduction in different ways. Historically, violation of family court ruling has often been handled by civil rather than criminal law. In common law countries, parental abduction is defined as "the taking, retention or concealment of a child by a parent, other family member, or their agent, in derogation of the custody rights, including visitation rights, or another parent or family member"[2]

Is not contained anywhere in the provided (and linked above) reference. It is a completely gross mis-attribution to use an article on parental kidnapping laws in the US to make broad claims about the entire history of parental kidnapping worldwide. This is particularly true when the broadly generalized claim isn't even true, or at least supported by the reference, for the United States. I have removed this unsupported material and the useless reference that supposedly cites it.

--Cybermud (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Another perverted reference[edit]

The statement:

Merle H. Weiner in Fordham Law Review pointed out that there was widespread media attention in late 1970s and early 1980s about international child abduction where typical abductor was foreign non-custodial male who abduct children from primary care giver, usually American mother. According to Weiner, this stereotype dominated both the drafting of The Hague Convention and U.S. Congressional Proceeding for ratification [3]

I have highlighted the false section. Professor Weiner in no uncertain terms did not claim that the Hague Conference had a stereotypical image of ICA in mind during the drafting of the convention to the effect that the "typical abductor was foreign non-custodial male who abduct children from primary care giver." What the Weiner paper actually says is:

"the Report of the Special Commission, written by Elisa Perez-Vera, suggests that the drafters were guided by no set image of abduction. The Special Commission's Report stated, 'We dare not advance ideas on the possible psychological motivations leading to 'abduction'; this remains an obscure domain for the jurist.'"

--Cybermud (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding to the above are additional gross generalizations of media and government perceptions in the United States as being the worldwide perceptions and assumptions on the Abduction Convention.--Cybermud (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And another (this one less egregious but illustrative)[edit]

The statement:

The Special Commission of the Hague Convention stated in its report that 2/3 of the abductions are committed by mothers who are primary caretakers and that this is "giving rise to issues which had not been foreseen by the drafters of the Convention["http://www.pact-online.org/pdf/concl28sc5_e.pdf]

Is a POV variant (in line w/ vapours other edits) of the actual statement:

the trend already noticed by the Fourth Special Commission in 2001 that approximately 2/3 of the taking parents were primary caretakers, mostly mothers, had confirmed itself, giving rise to issues which had not been foreseen by the drafters of the Convention of the Convention.

--Cybermud (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Building on the above POV pushing (all abductors are abused mothers, Japan is being honorable by protecting them from the evil abuse Hague Convention), I also removed the uncited statement:

When the mother is abductor, the children did not see the act as abduction but still felt emotional and psychological stress due to the subsequent legal entanglement.

When Vapour re-added it he changed the form of it to:

However, the report also noted that, when it was primary caregiver who flee with children, children did not see the incident as abduction

Which I am somewhat ok with (besides there being a crap reference for it and bad grammar) if not for the snarky edit summary of:

Abduction by primary caregiver being less deterimental is no brainer. Sure LBP won't like it but this isn't an advocacy site for LBP

Which makes the intellectually dishonest claim that what is being re-added is the sexist POV drivel I removed.--Cybermud (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Multiple new opinions needed regarding WP:UNDUE & WP:NPOV[edit]

Presently there are only two active editors in this article's talk page, one has accused the other of violating WP:NPOV in the past, while the other has accused the other of violating WP:CIVIL. These accusations related to the discussion of one editor that may or may not be editing while maintaining a neutral POV and attempting put push an agenda. Please review this article to provide additional opinions so that a consensus can be reached as to the nature of this article and whether WP:UNDUE is in fact in play here, and if so how this should be remedied. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Where exactly the issues of POV and UNDUE are not clear to the uninitiated, so it would be helpful to amend the RfC request with more information. I read this version of the article to look for User:Cybermud's accusation against User:Vapour "POV pushing (all abductors are abused mothers, Japan is being honorable by protecting them from the evil abuse Hague Convention)". I did not get the sense that the domestic violence section was undue. First of all, coverage in some way is necessary since domestic violence seems to be the main Japanese argument against adopting the convention. The section was thoughtful and balanced in its coverage, with the exception of the quote by the Australian official, which only reiterated the domestic violence argument in a more forceful, potentially upsetting way. I think that quotes like that should be avoided in general, with the arguments paraphrased in a neutral tone and counterarguments interspersed in between them. That is what was done for most of the section. Quigley (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I am an editor of this page. Not sure which of the "only two" you are calling me (maybe i'm not considered "active") I haven't read the article for a while; though I think I've mostly kept up with its edits. When I last left it I would have said the NPOV tag was mostly not needed. I would be willing to offer an opinion on the NPOV tag and whether anything was UNDUE if there were a discussion on why either of those things is being claimed in the first place. If I have to read the article again without that context, I'm afraid I'm too busy at the moment. If there's no one advocating for the tag to be there it should be removed.--Cybermud (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I began this rfc due to your interactions with Vapour, as during that time you two appeared to be the only active editors in this article, and although I made contributions to this page I was in a wikibreak, so was not involved. I was under the impression that the NPOV tag was based upon the edit conflict betweem yourself and Vapour; but if memory serves me, the tag originates from the beginning of the major expansion of the article back at the end of 2009. If present active editors, have reviewed the article and have found that the article is written in a manor that keeps with WP:NEU, then by all means the tag should be removed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I support removing the tag. It predates my involvement with this article, though I think it was there appropriately when I first came to it as domestic violence histrionics were in every single section and the whole thing read like a justification for Japan's stance on the Hague Convention and issue of ICA.--Cybermud (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Website comment section as reference[edit]

I have flagged a statement quoted from an online discussion page, even if posted on a news website, as a dubious as the source falls well outside of WP:RS, as it falls under WP:SPS. I am not removing this section until there is a consensus to that effect, however the wait of that material definitely is called into question based on its source. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a better source, not directly supporting the quote is this Law Review paper hosted by the University of Houston's Houston Journal of International Law. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


Franchesca Miyara's name seems to have changed to Franchesca Miyara Yang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.112.4.38 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Kidnapping False Imprisonment". The Crown Prosecution Service. Retrieved 28 October 2009. 
  2. ^ Patricia M. Hoff (December 2000). "Parental Kidnapping: Prevention and Remedies". Center on Children and the Law. American Bar Association. Retrieved 28 October 2009. 
  3. ^ Merle H. Weiner (2000). "International child abduction and the escape from domestic violence". Fordham Law Review;. Retrieved 24 October 2009.