Talk:Abbott v. Abbott

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal 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.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

NPOV Dispute - section "History"[edit]

This section of the article clearly violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy in a number of ways. In particular it contains a variety of claims without substantiation nor citation, and which have nothing to do with the US Supreme Court case the article is intended to describe. In no way could this be described as unbiased editorship. D435fg (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have similar problems with the section and removed the uncited parts. Some of it still may be relevant (if the father abducted his child indeed -I suppose an article on the judgement can be found in a reliable source- and the observatory handed out visa (as it said) ec), but should only be added with sources. We should take extra care (on both sides) as it regards living persons... L.tak (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abbott v. Abbott. 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/20120218030634/http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-14/us/us_scotus-child-custody_1_custody-fight-federal-courts-child-abduction?_s=PM:US to http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-14/us/us_scotus-child-custody_1_custody-fight-federal-courts-child-abduction?_s=PM:US

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 09:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]