Talk:International child abduction in Brazil

Article specific to Brazil

This article is to address the need for a specific article on child abduction to Brazil to avoid adding extended details on Brazil in the main Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction article. It is an international law stub and needs substantial work.--Cybermud (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps anyone who has experience and knowledge of this subject could add to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dikaiosynenemesis (talk • contribs) 19:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is not specific to Brazil but to International Child Abduction in Brazil. Brazil has become a country that is ignoring it's obligations under the International Treaties the country has signed. Brazil is now considered a preferred destination for child abductors, even for those who are not from Brazil. It was a good idea to create this page to explain and document the crimes that Brazil is committing by assisting those who chose to kidnap children to Brazil. All information relevant to this issue should be admitted in this page, including information about Brazil's culture and politics. And of course all cases mentioned in this page should stay in this page as they provide good examples to the behavior of the Brazilian government in this cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatufim-org (talk • contribs) 12:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Title could be clearer?

I'm not spun up on legal/custodial issues, so when I read the title (perusing WP:UNCAT for uncategorised articles) I thought the article would be about kidnapping children for ransom, abuse, murder, etc. Instead it turns out it's about parental custodial battles that cross international lines. It's still certainly a notable subject, but is there a more broadly understandable term for the title that makes it clear that these are custodial cases? MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what can be more 'broadly understandable'. The competent national and international authorities all recognize 'parental custodial battles that cross international lines' as international child abduction; that is what it is called in international law and in the law of all countries that are members of the UN. This is not in dispute and a quick google of the term will clarify matters. Dikaiosynenemesis (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The term "International Child Abduction" is the correct term, legally and phenomenologically. This term originates from the session of the Hague Convention on Private International Law that led to the "Hague Convention on International Child Abduction" although the text of the Convention itself never uses the word "abduction" and defines key provisions in terms of "illegal removal" or "retention." Any other name would be inferior and less correct.--Cybermud (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Rescinded. On closer look, it appears that you are right, and that is the recognised legal term. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

To MatthewVanitas: I would recommend you stop deleting the entries other people are making to this article as you are, based on your above comment, obviously not competent in this topic and you obviously do not understand the issues involved. International Parental Abduction is not an international custody battle. A custody battle is done in divorce court, family court, a civil court, a local court. But an International Parental Abduction case is done in a Federal Court in the country where the children have been abducted to. All that Brazil has to do in this cases is to return the abducted children to the country from where they were taken and let the divorce court in those jurisdictions handle the custody issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatufim-org (talk • contribs) 12:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue of whether extensive case studies should be included is not a technical issue related to ICA. It's a basic knowledge-management issue related to noting unencyclopedic content and subjective slant. If I see an article for "Church of Foo" which includes a 30-name list of deacons with links to a church website, and statements such as "the truest inheritor of the traditions of His Holiness So-and-So", I don't need to be a theological expert on Fooian religion to know that the material is inappropriate and needs to be removed. The case studies do not contribute to a general understanding of the subject (which the remaining material does quite well), were very subjectively phrased to support "left behind parents" in the United States, and generally contained footnotes to news articles covering non-notable events, and more inappropriately to sites such as "bringSeanhome.com" or whatnot which have a clear advocacy objective, vice footnotes to neutral sources addressing the larger issue of ICA and Brazil. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

To MatthewVanitas, once again, go and work on a different page, you do not even understand what is the issue in this article. You are just bothering the rest of us, and no one agrees with you. Deleting almost the entire article was stupid and irresponsible. You sound like a Brazilian nationalist and an advocate of Brazil, who is trying to hide Brazil's criminal behavior and responsibility in this cases. The cases do not reflect support for the LBPs but illustrate the patterns of non-compliance exhibited by Brazil when dealing with cases of children who were parentally abducted to Brazil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatufim-org (talk • contribs) 14:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a Brazilian advocate; feel free to glance at my Contribution history and note that I have almost no involvement whatsoever in Brazilian topics. I found this article because the originator failed to categorise it and it dropped to WP:UNCAT where I was doing maintenance work. Since failure to categorise is a common mistake of new editors, WP:UNCAT is an important place to watch for articles which have non-encyclopedic content. I noted such content while categorising, and am trying to address this. Again, quoting a reputable source that says "the following cases exhibit a pattern of noncompliance" is perfectly legitimate. Saying "here are a bunch of article I found which I see as exhibiting a pattern" is WP:SYNTHESIS and not what Wikipedia does. This article is concerning not because it criticises Brazil, but because it presents solely one side of an argument for which there are presumably multiple sides. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

To MatthewVanitas, what do you mean the other side? do you mean the abducting parent? because that is not the other side. You are getting confused. The other side would be to give some examples of cases where Brazil has returned abducted children. But Brazil has never returned any abducted children under the Hague Convention! And this is precisely the problem and the reason this article is being written. Even Brazilian officials agree with this, so there is no other side, this is a fact, an absolute truth, like 1=1, what would be "the other side" according to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatufim-org (talk • contribs) 19:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability, POV and SOAPBOX

Parents of children abducted to Brazil should not be editing or including details on their own children's abductions. This seriously runs afoul of WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP and also, generally, WP:N and risks this article on an important topic being marked for deletion. I will gladly concede that there are few more knowledgeable on the subject than those who have experienced the article's topic first hand but such persons are not permitted to add content about themsevles or their own children and need to take care that they are objective when editing the article generally. Please help create a good encyclopedic and referential article on the topic and not use the article as a platform to publicize the abduction of your children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by } Cybermud (talk • contribs) 23:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with this in principle. Having said that, however, we cannot know whether people who have had their children abducted to Brazil have contributed to this article since it is a virtual arena and it would appear that the style of the article conforms to requirements in that it is written in the 3rd person and is 'encyclopaediac'. If someone who has worked on a similar article could do a cleanup and edit of it, it would be helpful. However, as far as I can see, most of what has been written here is sourced and referenced (although there may be a bit too much dependence on the BSH site. More is needed on SEDH and the AGU (Brazilian Solicitor General)and the legal aspects of their involvement. Dikaiosynenemesis (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

When the registered username of the editor matches the name of the abduction case they're editing it's a pretty good indication they are editing their own information. Additionally, the WP:N must be considered, and, more importantly Wikipedia's policies related to information on living persons WP:LP Undoubtedly child abduction in Brazil is a noteworthy enough topic for an article, but the article is including extended details on many individual cases. Some of these may not meet the Notability requirements or the standards of verifiability for information related to living persons. References should point to credible news articles, websites or publications, not personal websites, blogs or forum posts written by victimized parents (particularly when referencing information on that parent's own abduction case.)--Cybermud (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Done a little work to remove some POV from the intro, and to remove some completely unnecessary summaries of international law (given that the laws are covered quite thoroughly in their own wiki-links and are not exclusive to this article). However, there's still tons of POV terminology like "heartbreaking", and a general very strong implication that Brazil as a country is misbehaving. There is some good data from news sites, but also too much recourse to advocacy groups' sites. Also the massive list of case studies is really not very encyclopedic. I'd suggest removing all the advocacy stuff, the OR, and the case studies (also a major BLP concern) and then seeing how we look. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why the Notability tag was removed. The article title may be noteworthy but over 50% of the article is dedicated to individual cases, many of which do not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Given the current content of the article a better title for it would be "Children internationally abducted to Brazil." --Cybermud (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As I mention below, we could remove all the case-studies and actually have a decent article. That's my vote. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

To MatthewVanitas, removing the cases was a bad idea. Not only did you remove the cases, but you also deleted the article almost entirely. I recommend you stop working on this article as you are obviously exhibiting a behavior of ignoring the facts about what Brazil is doing in these cases. Brazil's corruption and politics also play a significant role in Brazil's behavior in these cases.

In regards to the case studies, all cases are relevant and should be mentioned, but all emotional comments in those cases should be removed, leaving only the relevant facts such as dates and the Brazilian response in each of those cases. Today there are thousands of parentally abducted children in Brazil from all over the world, so the cases mentioned are just a few of them, and those cases illustrate the fact that Brazil's official policy is to never return any abducted children, and this makes Brazil unique for those countries which have signed the Hague Convention.

I can return the case studies and other important information which was removed by MatthewVanitas and modify the information so it's in an acceptable format leaving only the relevant facts which have a good source of reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatufim-org (talk • contribs) 13:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if the biased language is removed, an extensive list of case studies, which do not cumulatively add to an understanding of the topic, aren't encyclopedic content. I could definitely see summarizing a few key cases, especially those that had specific legal/policy outcomes, but listing out a couple dozen seems excessive, and suspect since many appear to be cases where including them here is done more for the sake of advocacy than information. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

To MatthewVanitas, there is no biased language. All is factual. This is not an extensive list of cases, these are just a few cases of the thousands of children now abducted in Brazil. First, everything you deleted must be placed back. Second, I will read everything and trim the cases and information that is not factual or verifiable, or that is emotional in nature. I need a few days to do this. Then review it again and tell me what you think. Your solution of deleting everything completely is obviously not a good solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatufim-org (talk • contribs) 20:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Terms like "frustrating", phrases like "not only" are NPOV. "Sanchez’s story is familiar;" is weasel words. Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

Propose removing case studies (summarise some key ones into a couple paragraphs?)

The sections on individual alleged or resolved abductions is way too granular to an encyclopedia article, and also has some disturbing WP:BLP implications, particularly on the unresolved cases where calling it an "abduction" may be premature. Plus lots of tone and POV issues. I suggest that all of the individual studies be removed, though maybe a few of them can be summarised into a paragraph or two, providing WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS can be avoided. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the case studies stay for the time being while the WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESISand WP:BLPare resolved. Perhaps alternative sources to the advocacy and campaign group ones could be used; a scan of the Brazilian media shows up plenty of verifiable information. Re: [[WP:BLP], an investigation of these cases will show that they are all classed as child abduction in international law. That is the accepted term and probably the weakest one that can be applied - even though some commentators may prefer to term it kidnapping.

Also, this has now been accepted as a notifiable topic so the tag probably needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.42.24.246 (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not even just the OR/SYNTH/BLP issues, I just think that a list of 15 examples that make up the vast bulk of the article isn't particularly germane to an encyclopedic discussion of the overall issue. The actual meat of the article is far outweighed by a bunch of examples, which don't all necessarily add to a greater understanding of the issue. Then we have all the other issues on top of that, so I'm just not seeing the utility. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A username which is identical to an advocacy group continues to add case studies of a very slanted nature, clearly WP:SOAPBOX, topped off recently with an emotionally-laden photo of a child and an airplane, which appears to have nothing to do with Brazil. I've decided to WP:BEBOLD and remove the soapboxing case studies while retaining factual, reputable information on the overall state of ICA as regards Brazil. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

To MatthewVanitas, your initial comment reflects, once again, your ignorance on this topic. All the cases mentioned have been classified as International Abduction cases, and are being dealt as such by the Brazilian Federal Courts. All cases mentioned are also being followed by law enforcement agencies in Brazil and elsewhere. So stop destroying the work that others, who are much more competent than you in this subject are doing, and work on other pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatufim-org (talk • contribs) 14:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that the cases aren't ICA cases; I noted that an extensive list of lengthy descriptions is not constructive in the article. And I further noted that the presentation of such cases had a clear bias to proving a claim that Brazil is not meeting it's international obligations on ICA. It is completely legitimate to say "XYZ legal authority has stated that Brazil isn't cooperating." It is not legitimate to say: "here are a bunch of examples, so I conclude Brazil is not meeting its obligations." Harping on my not being initially familiar with the technical term "ICA" (which I inquired about and became better informed) has nothing to do with my ability to note non-encyclopedic content, and use of Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX to raise awareness for a cause vice actually providing neutral information. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

To MatthewVanitas, you did say that ICA cases are not ICA cases by using words such as "alleged" and "premature". While some of the lengthy descriptions in the cases may have to be shortened, this does not justify deleting almost the entire article. This article is not a SOAPBOX, BLP, OR, or SYNTHESIS. Finally, it is not a claim but a proven fact that Brazil is not complying with its international obligations under the Hague Convention. Once again, go and work on a different page, here you are bothering and destroying other people's work. If you have any SPECIFIC comments about what can be done to improve the "encyclopedic content" of the article, please give us your comments, but do not delete all our work simply because you don't understand the issues involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatufim-org (talk • contribs) 14:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is not an issue of familiarity with the topic, it is an issue of materials being used to draw conclusion independent of the conclusions drawn by recognised authorities. Wikipedia is not a place to present one's own research on a topic, or to publicise issues for advocacy purposes. I'd be 100% fine with "The US State Department has made XYZ case a primary issue during the January conference on ICA and Brazil". What's not okay is to say "Here's a case that happened, I/we/people emotionally involved in this case think it's a great example of how Brazil is not cooperating." My specic recommendation, as listed above, is that individual case studies not be included unless a recognized authority has used them in its own stated analysis of the issue. The rest of the article is great, good info, but needs more coverage from the Brazilian side. Brazil presumably has its own take on the matter, otherwise they'd be doing more about it, yes? It's not for us to speculate as to Brazil's motives, but instead to collect stated information by official or academic parties as to Brazil's role in the issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

To MatthewVanitas, no conclusions are being drawn from the examples presented. The US State Dept has stated that Brazil is not compliant. The examples given illustrate this conclusion. The cases given cannot be removed, but all the emotional wording can be removed. You obviously did not read what you deleted because several Brazilian officials were quoted in the article. All cases mentioned are being handled by a Brazilian Federal Court, and the results given have been reached by the various Brazilian Judges handling these cases. Brazil agrees that there is a problem, they do not deny it. But again, deleting the entire article, which obviously you did not read in its entirety, is not a good solution. I will put all the info back, and review it, removing any emotional, non-factual or non-verifiable information. Give me about a week or so, then send me your comments. Is this OK with you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatufim-org (talk • contribs) 20:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with Hatufim-org in that, for the time being at least, the case studies should remain while he works on them. There may, though, be an argument for saying that they could be combined into a single section or a series of sections dealing with features/ strategies/ modus operandi/ legal arguments etc etc. The source issue is a moot point - there may be too much reliance on advocacy-group sources (even if these advocacy groups do themselves refer back to other sources)but there are several solid academic, public and journalistic sources in previous edits (BBC, Cardiff University Law School, US State Dept etc) as well which MatthewVanitas simply deleted. I would agree that the picture of the kid and the aeroplane is a bit emotive. At the risk of sounding a bit facetious here, the previous debate above about names matching those of interested parties and advocacy groups is a non-starter. I could sign myself Mr Goldman, Mr Weinstein, Mr Bordaty, Mr Vanitas or Mr Hatufim or whatever and it would be no more than a handle. In short, this is a virtual space, we can call ourselves what we want and for whatever reason but, in the interests of being good netizens and Wikipedians we should all probably tread carefully with this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.105.64.158 (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Similar articles that can be used as a model for this article

There are 2 other similar articles that can be used as a model for building this article, these are: International child abduction in Japan and International child abduction in Mexico --Hatufim-org (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Both those articles are very poor models; the Japan article has numerous warning templates as to its low quality, and the Mexico article is packed with excess information better covered in internal or external links, including huge "drop boxes" with multi-paragraphy citations from non-compliance reports, as well as (just as in Brazil) original research in the form of a "corruption" section which does not at all address corruption's effects on ICA in Mexico, but instead exists to state a case that Mexico is a corrupt country. Both of those articles need extensive work, and the use of the "child sadly looking at airplane" photo (completely unrelated to the specific topic at hand) is again manipulative and unencyclopedic. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually that photo graced the cover of the US State Dept's Compliance report on the operation of the central international treaty on ICA. It's also been featured in a number of articles on the topic. Perhaps it would be better if you limited your contributions to copy editing? This article has a problem with biased editors and biased language that needs to be addressed but your taking an equal opposite biased view against them in some effort to balance them out is equally nonconstructive, particularly since you are demonstrating a remarkable ignorance of the topic -- which at least the biased authors are not impeded by. See my additional comments below on your "corruption is original research" campaign.--Cybermud (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

At the time of my above comment I thought you were referring to the photo that is in the ICA in Mexico article. I see that a cropped version of that photo has been added to this article with the claim that it is "personal work." Inproper attribution of the photo (an issue in and of itself) no doubt led to your comment.--Cybermud (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: the corruption comment. I've trawled through some previous edits and found one that was put on this page. I believe it is of direct relevance to this issue and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.105.64.172 (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The relevance of corruption in Brazil (which is certainly present) to ICA is not established within the references of that section. If you were an academic or journalist writing a paper about ICA in Brazil, you could definitely use that information to make an informed assumption about the linkages between Brazilian corruption and ICA. But that is not what we do on Wikipedia. This isn't a place to present your personal research or advocacy, it's a place to compile summaries of finished, published, reputable opinions and analysis. Clearly I'm outnumbered in this discussion since this issue is appearing to draw those with vested interests in the topic, so I'll go consult with some other uninvolved editors, as I have serious concerns about the soapboxing issue in the three ICA articles mentioned here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Role of Corruption in Child Abduction in Brazil" section has to go

The section has no clear connection to ICA, and its inclusion implies a link between Brazil's corruption and Brazil's ICA compliance which is not stated by any of the references. This is therefore original research. The article has quite a few very good sections towards the beginning which need only some Brazilian counter-arguments to balance them out, but the Corruption section is simply WP:OR and should not be included. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a clear and obvious link between judicial corruption and ICA and this is clearly shown in the compilation of this section. The cumulative evidence shows the link here. I started out by conceding some of MatthewVanitas's points, but his pompous and patronising comments about peoples' professional backgrounds do not help and nor do comments like 'this is not what we do on Wikipedia' or running to daddy to compain that some nasty boys are ganging up on him. Once again, yes - some postings need to tone down the emotiveness and time is needed to reedit the case-study section, but please stop picking holes in every single bit that people contribute here otherwise you're simply going to lose the argument completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.42.24.246 (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No need to be personally snide; it's a legitimate issue that this and the other two ICA articles are being run by people with axes to grind. Again, this is using Wikipedia to preach "Brazil is terrible and stealing children" instead of an actual neutral, unemotional layout of reputable research and official statements on the topic. You can call it pompous, but I'm in the awkward position of apparently being the only person here not emotionally invested in the ICA issue, so the target of resentment when I point out that the article has to meet WP standards of neutrality regardless of individual motives. I get the same blowback on religious articles where people get upset because neutral editors won't let them put "my subsect of this religion is the most correctest on the planet, and our theologians are smarter than any man who ever lived and were born literate and speaking fluently". If people can't write neutrally, neutral editors have to get involved, and neutral editors aren't going to show up here unless by happenstance (as did I), or the article is brought to the POV noticeboard. Otherwise, as is the case now, the editig body will be composed of people with vested interest in one side of the topic.

So far "poking holes in everything, I've explicitly said that the first few sections look really good, needing only some outlay of Brazilian counterarguments. It's the OR and case-studies section that drag down the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but saying that corruption is related to legal issues is just par for the course. The topic of international child abduction takes a cross-section of a wide swath of subjects with law being a very prominent one. Where are earth would you get the idea that corruption and the practical application of law are separable topics or that suggesting they are interrelated is "original research"? There are many issues with this article but a section on corruption is not one of them. Law and corruption are heavily interrelated throughout almost of all of Central and South America. It's one thing to be an "unbiased editor." It's quite another to be an editor that is wholly ignorant of the subject matter. I am not familiar with the specific content in the corruption section but I am sure that such a section plays an important role in this article.--Cybermud (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Corruption cannot be separated from this issue; the US State Dept has pointed it out and so has Cardiff Law School in the UK, where an expert on ICA pointed out that it was corruption in the Brazilian judicial system that was a major stumbling block in Hague cases. The examples that are listed in this section are perfectly valid. It would be good if MatthewVanitas could find some counter arguments from the Brazilian side, but he seems only to want to pull the article to bits without actually doing anything constructive. As for the straw man argument that he uses to try and draw comparisons between the motivations behind this article and those of religious groups, well I rest my case. I think he's shot himself in the foot with that one. As for 'reputable research' and 'official statements', it seems to me that that is what this article already consists of on the whole. Once again, I concede that one of the photos is emotive and should probably be removed and that alternatives to the advocacy group sources should be used instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.105.66.151 (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

After another reading of the article, I would say that Fox News is probably not a very trustworthy source to use since that network is notorious for its pro-US bias, and neither is the video clip from Brazilian TV which shows an incredibly biased, uncritical and nationalistic interview with Birotte's former wife...although it might count as redressing the balance in MatthewVanitas's eyes and could, perhaps, be left in for that reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.105.66.151 (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, the official gov't statements, press analysis of the overall issue, int'l policy documents, etc. are the good parts of the article and I haven't objected to those. My objection is just that the case studies don't really add much (especially relative to their bulk), there's not much coverage of Brazil's perspective, and I'm still not seeing how the Corruption section isn't original research. The section strongly implies a link (which likely exists) between Brazilian corruption and ICA, but the sources given't don't mention ICA. If there is a correction, how hard can it be to find a reputable source verifying a link exists? Further, again, the tone needs improving. Note:

<quote>Brazil remains a country of the haves and the have-nots, with extremes of wealth distribution and inequalities. According to a 2008 BBC report, the rich have benefited the most while the country's new-found wealth has not trickled down to the poor.[14] It is to the richer sectors of Brazilian society that children are invariably abducted and it is in these sectors that abducting parents have access to the corrupt networks and are able to employ the jeitinho to greater effect.</quote>

The first part has no immediate bearing on the issue, and the issue of wealth overall hasn't been shown as applicable to the article. The second sentence is unsourced, and a pretty major condemning statement. I'm not against the article, I think the coverage from official sources is good, but I think there's a lot of inappropriate material. "Why don't you go work on something else?" or "You don't know about the topic" are red herrings here, and again ones I'm used to seeing on articles where POV is an issue and editors don't want an articles biases criticised. If material is biased or unhelpful, it should be removed, and that's a pretty straightforward task. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I haven't seen that wealth is highly related to this issue. No such inference can be made from the referenced material nor does my knowledge of the topic suggest that weatlh plays any greater role here than in any other arena where it makes some more equal than others. It may be anecdotally interesting that income disparities are one of the contributing factors to corruption but it's the level of corruption itself and how it relates to ICA that are relevant here. Saying that most abductors are wealthy is a questionable assertion in itself but drawing conclusions from it would be OR. It's just as likely that poor people abduct less because they have less of a promising home to abduct to in Brazil. Reading the corruption section it is clear that no attempt has been made to clarify why corruption is even an important factor in ICA in Brazil and I can see why MatthewVanitas thought it should be removed. This section should be fixed. Having an unbiased editor look at this article is needed and has helped a great deal already. Disparaging comments and suggestions to leave the article alone are not helpful (my own such comment included.)--Cybermud (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There is now more text on this discussion page than there is in the article itself. Talk about the tail wagging the dog!MatthewVanitas, you didn't even think this was a noteworthy topic to start with, then you chopped and changed it from a standpoint of ignorance, each time coming up with a new objection and even, absurdly and hilariously, pointing out at one stage that it was "too U.S. focused". Now you are backtracking and saying you are not against the article. I am sure you now know enough about this topic to go and find some quotes from other sources to redress the balance and correct what you see as biased.

Re: corruption and ICA, if you actually bothered to read the sources you'd see references to Brazilian state and federal judges passing cases up and SEDH running awareness raising training on Hague for the Brazilian judiciary and running to the State Dept to try and limit the damage, you'd see the extreme trading of favors that went on in the Goldman case and the fact that the Brazilian side were CORRUPT lawyers - fact. You'd see the involvement of a corrupt lawyer who was actually a family member in the Rezende-Boyle case. As far as the quote on social class that you dragged up is concerned, the only case in which the abducting mother was not from the elites or upper-middle-classes of Brazilian society was the Zanger case and that case involved a degree of judicial corruption and ineptness as well. Do the editors a favor, if you are so bothered about this and, instead of just cutting, go and find some balanced evidence from the other side. We'd all like to see it and you'll be doing everyone a service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.42.24.244 (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio

The bulk of the article is a copyvio of [1]. Ad such I have removed that material. If the original authors wish to release it under the appropriate license then WP:OTRS should be contacted to confirm. Rich Farmbrough, 18:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

I undid your removal. The page [2] is copying Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not copying it. The owner of that page is actually an editor on this one (which is a separate issue, but it remains the case that there is no copyright violation.--Cybermud (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)--Cybermud (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Cybermud. Rich Farmbrough, 13:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC).

I have left a note with hatufim about acknowledging WP. Rich Farmbrough, 15:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC).

A link was placed at http://www.hatufim.org/brazil.php to this page, but was later removed as both pages have been significantly modified, and are now completely different. Only the cases remained, which some people here want to remove. By trying to make the page here look "balanced" it has been made inaccurate. Brazil does not return abducted children, period. --Hatufim-org (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Nevertheless, a link was place at http://www.hatufim.org/brazil.php to this page, as an external link at the bottom of the page.--Hatufim-org (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it is possible to link to an older version of the page, random example 3 May. Rich Farmbrough, 17:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC).

Regarding: By trying to make the page here look "balanced" it has been made inaccurate. Brazil does not return abducted children, period.

Again, this comes back to an OR (original research) issue, also WP:SYNTHESIS. It is perfectly acceptable to say "According to such-and-such human rights group, Brazil never returns children *footnote*". What is not acceptable is to say "Hey, here's a list of cases I selected and present here, and from these I conclude that Brazil never returns children." A huge portion of this article is self-published analysis and critique. WP isn't for publishing your own findings, its for presenting basic facts and the interpretations of recognised authorities on the subject. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

More problems

• I have fixed some POV language issues, but there are many more.
• There are BLP issues too - things like "XXX suffers mental illnes" needs reliable sources.
• Systemic bias - the article is very US centric
• Copyright issues
  • I removed a section lifted wholesale from CNN, there may well be more like that.
  • The image of the child staring at the plane may come from a Federal Gov document, but it is not licensed as such on its file page, and may well be the intellectual property of a stock photographer. Moreover it should be captioned "Picture of child staring at plane from XXXX report." otherwise it appears to be a picture of an actual abducted child.
• We should not use the word "kidnapping" without care. Abduction used here has a specialist meaning and is preferable.
• Section leads - the case sections should indicate what proportion of outstanding/resolved cases are illustrated. Examples, noteworthy or all?

Rich Farmbrough, 15:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC).

These problems are all valid and I don't see any work being done to address them. Additionally the article discusses problems and definitions that are generic to international child abduction, parental alienation and not specific to Brazil in any way. Even leaving aside the BLP issues with the individual cases the tone is completely POV and the content is excessively detailed and discusses the couples entire marital life pre-abduction even when most of it is irrelevant to the topic of the child's abduction--Cybermud (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The comments on this page really are 'drip drip' and of the 'nit-picking' variety and MatthewVanitas seems to have passed the baton to Rich Farmbrough in this regard. Cybermudmakes some valid points on generic international child abduction issues but seems to spend a lot of time on this page when his time might be more fruitfully spent working on International child abduction in Mexico, since it seems that that is where his main focus is. I don't see any case studies on this page which "is excessively detailed and discusses the couples entire marital life pre-abduction even when most of it is irrelevant" at all.

Re Rich Farmbrough's comments:

• POV is psychologically and pragmatically unavoidable when people with a direct knowledge of the issues are writing it. Please continue to 'fix' it, but please don't just redact. We are editors, not censors.
• BLP. As far as I can see, all mentions of living people are backed up by reliable sources.
• Systemic bias and US-centrism...Helloooooo!!! I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at this one - it was like, 'erm...we've got no arguments left - let's be politically correct now and bring up 'US-centrism'. In what way is it US-centric? The title is 'International child abduction in BRAZIL'!!! The references to the US State Dept's reports might take up some space, but that is because they are seminal to this subject. You will also notice references to the UK, France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Switzerland. There's a large quote from Le Figaro, multiple references to a report from Cardiff Law School (that's in the UK, guys - other countries have Law Schools too).
• The word 'kidnapping' is problematic in that the Portuguese translation of 'abduction' is the same as that for 'kidnapping' - 'sequestro'. The verbs, 'to kidnap' and 'to abduct' are translated as 'sequestrar'. 'International Child Abduction' is translated as 'Sequestro internacional de criancas' (accents missing)and the Portuguese term 'abduzir' as a translation of 'to abduct'is a very recent novelty that sounds odd and is only now used in Brazilian Portuguese because of the stir caused by the very issue of international child abduction. In fact, if you check the sources for Birotte case, you will see that Birotte's former wife alleges angrily that she's been called 'uma sequestradora' (a kidnapper). On closer inspection, it can be seen that this was because the English term 'abductor' was translated using the common Portuguese translation. This, of course, raises all kinds of cultural, anthropological and historical issues related to the phenomenon of kidnapping in Brazil(which is remarkably commonplace)- but that's something for another topic that some people might have enough time on their hands to start off.
• section leads...proportion, noteworthy?....drip drip...

I think the tags need to be removed. Dikaiosynenemesis (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Corruption in Brazil. I do not think it is wise to go down the Nazi road for the purposes of this article. Brazilian nationalist sentiment is a factor in the non-return of abducted children. Nazi war criminals are irrelevant. Please remove the reference to Nazi war criminals. Dikaiosynenemesis (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

POV is not unavoidable when people with a direct knowledge are editing and, in particular, not the extreme POV that is displayed here. I have intimately direct and personal knowledge of the topic and can avoid using hyperbole, emotive langauge or intellectually dishonest arguments to present this issue. I also resent the suggestion that my time may be more fruitfully spent on International child abduction in Mexico. Unlike many editors on this page I am not a one trick pony here to promote a one country view of this problem or soapbox for my son's abduction. Many of the edits on this page are embarrassingly POV, such as ad hominem Brazil bashing, and adding Nazi references (ie see Godwin's law), or editors coming here writing about their own children. This is a flagrant violation of WP policy. If this is an article on child abduction in Brazil, at some point it should start including details about children internationally abducted FROM Brazil. Some of the cases listed here do not meet WP:Notability the ones that do, and have huge sections, should be shortened and moved to individual articles (or already have them like the Goldman child abduction case). This article claims to be a part of Wikipedia's law project but has absolutely no legal information whatsoever besides to point out corruption in Brazil's courts and slow-moving litigation. Why is there no mention of the excellent and FREE legal representation provided by Brazil via the AGU? The reciprocity section is a joke and contains no "reciprocal" information. In a whole section on the topic, why is there no mention of children returned to Brazil, except one child which is anecdotal and was returned from Switzerland who themselves have a history of noncompliance? The Swiss just brought a case up before the ECHR that wasn't as old as Sean Goldman, where Brazil did order a return, and said the child had adapted due to the years of litigation and should not be returned. The PAS section is equally worthless and fully half the "Articles 12 and 13" section are verbatim quotes. These are not nitpicking issues, they are systemic ones and the tags on this article belong there.--Cybermud (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Cybermud probably responded in haste without having fully read my piece, so rather than have this descend into a war of words between Cybermud and Dikaiosynenemesis, I think it might be best if other editors could pick up on these points if they think they are valid:

• POV - identify and edit any examples of hyperbole, emotive langauge or intellectually dishonest arguments
• examples of children abducted FROM Brazil
• examples of where AGU legal representation has been given and/or been excellent and free
• more information on the 'Swiss' case
• Nazi references - see my previous comment above
• legal information and the section on Articles 12 & 13 - not quite sure what Cybermud wants here but I don't see how the section is worthless. Dikaiosynenemesis (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud. You are now vandalising this page. The latest edit was something you had ever even referred to or mentioned before and you have removed my message from your talk page as well. I am warning you to stop now. Dikaiosynenemesis (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware of WP's fundamental principle Assume good faith? Where do you see vandalism? I have to ask you to please stop w/ your personal attacks against me. Disagreeing with my edits is no reason to violate WP:NPA or WP:uncivil repeatedly. I am not required, in any way shape or form, to ask permission before making an edit, much less one that should be non-controversial. Why is my edit vandalism and Rich Farmbrough's not? Do you have a personal issue with that edit, or just me? Perhaps you'd care to clarify why my change is "vandalism..." or you can just revert me again...--Cybermud (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that I have assumed good faith up until the last 48 hours and I have not attacked you personally. I have attacked your actions. In fact, I agreed with your comments to start with (if you look through the history here)but you seem to have started finding fault in everything to do with this article and have, yourself, repeatedly violated WP:uncivil and WP:NPA in the way that you have referred to edits as 'embarrassing' and 'worthless'. I have repeatedly requested a cooling-off period, which you have taken advantage of to go full steam ahead with nit picking and fault finding. Not asking permission before making an edit which removes an entire section in the way you just did is indeed vandalism (as I have repeatedly said - we are not censors, we are editors) and your doing it again is edit warring (so it's ironic that you ask me in the history not to engage in edit warring)and indicating the whole article for deletion is highly provocative. I concede that Rich Farmbrough's edit in removing a case also fell short of WP standards and I have commented on his and others' actions above. I also intend to revert this. If you wish, then you are welcome to replace the tags that I removed and we can leave this whole thing for some neutral editors to deal with. Agreed? Dikaiosynenemesis (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of International child abduction in Brazil

An article that you have been involved in editing, International child abduction in Brazil, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International child abduction in Brazil. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

Protection

Partly per request and partly to prevent edit warring. Three days, to give the AfD a little more time. {{Edit protected}} can still be used, of course. Rich Farmbrough, 09:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC).

Lead

Please expand the lead paragraph a sentence or two. The rest of the article digs right into the issue and we need a summary up front. Thanks. --Shuki (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cases

Per consensus at AfD I have removed the cases from the article. I have placed them in Talk:International_child_abduction_in_Brazil/Cases where they can be referred to for the time being, and if you wish worked upon. If you need help I would be prepared to take a random case and do a line-by-line, word-by-word analysis of its value to the article. Alternatively you can seek assistance from WP:Third opinion or possibly WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Rich Farmbrough, 02:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough's removal of the cases follows a consensus based on 3 people's views - two of whom had never visited the page before. Ironically, the source that has been used in place of these cases makes it even more US-centric (something I believe was b brought up as an issue). What about the cases involving the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, Australia and France?

would be great to have numbers, it's a shame there is no central "Hague Convention" reporting - are you aware of anything that parallels the US State Dept. report? Rich Farmbrough, 01:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

Please do a line-by-line, word-by-word check on the French case. Dikaiosynenemesis (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Done Talk:International_child_abduction_in_Brazil/Cases#Gerber_.289.2F06.29. Rich Farmbrough, 01:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

Incidentally, the inflamatory reference to Nazi war criminals is still there. Dikaiosynenemesis (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Rich Farmbrough, 01:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

A few notes on this article

A few notes, in relation to my recently reverted edit.

First, I removed the reference to the US State Department from the first paragraph, because the US is not the world police nor an independent arbiter of international affairs. Having a condemnation from the US right in the first paragraph, in such a noble place, feels uncomfortable to me. It's like beginning an article on the foreign relations of Israel by saying: "Israel is a sovereign country and conducts its foreign affairs in such and such manner. By the way, Iran thinks it sucks." I would understand if this article was called "Criticism of Brazil with relation to international child abduction", but it's a general article on Child abduction in Brazil, so I think international criticism should come up at least a bit later on.

I renamed the section "Brazilian non-compliance with the Hague Convention" because it assumes in its title that Brazil does not comply at all with the Hague Convention, which is an extreme position, not backed up by the facts (for a notable counter example, see Sean Goldman). I believe the less charged "Interpretation of the Hague Convention in Brazil" is preferable.

The section goes on to state that "It is the second part of this article that is used as a defence in all Hague disputes in Brazil and one of the reasons why they are held up for so long." (emphasis added). This is an unsourced blanket statement that runs counter to logic (how does Wikipedia know the thesis of the defence in every case?) and the facts, which is why I rephrased it.

The section "Role of corruption in child abduction in Brazil" should be deleted in its entirety. It is completely based on original research, Synthesis of published material that advances a position, or a combination thereof. No knowledgeable writer would ever mention "jeitinho" and "Custo brasil" in the same breath as "International child abduction in Brazil". No offense to whoever wrote that section, I don't know who you are, but it is really poor and must go.

The "Reciprocity" section currently states that "Brazilian left-behind parents do not appear to suffer the same injustice in relation to Hague Convention appeals in other countries as non-Brazilian parents suffer in the Brazilian courts", which is demonstrably false, as I've shown in my edit, with reliable sources. It then refers to anedoctal evidence, with a single example, that does little to prove its case. The truth is that there are 82 Brazilian children abducted overseas, I don't how how that's not unjust.

The Parental alienation syndrome section is not particularly relevant to this article. I'm sure some parents with children abducted in Brazil feel depressed, others experience Parental alienation syndrome, other might get quite angry, but again, that is not an issue specifically related to International child abduction in Brazil.

I'm interested in your replies. Missionary (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that User MatthewVanitas raised his opposition to the "Role of corruption in child abduction in Brazil" section above. Some of you have countered that corruption plays a role in the Brazilian slowness to address Child abduction cases, which may well be the case, but this does not justify conjuring up a grand theory involving "jeitinho", the "haves and have nots", the federal police arresting the president of the Supreme Court of Espírito Santo (which doesn't even exist), and International Child Abduction. The lenghty criticism of the entire Brazilian Judicial branch looks disproportionate here. Missionary (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Like the edit I reverted, you are putting a whole lot content into a single edit (or in this case, talk section.) Without a doubt there are a number of problems with this article (I even suggested it be deleted because I thought it would be easier to start over from scratch than fix them.) It's been cleaned up a bit since then but numerous issues remain.

I don't know about having it's own section (organization of this article seems to have not been planned all that much) but parental alienation if not its syndrome variant is very relevant to any article on child abduction. Parental child abduction itself is an extreme form of parental alienation.

As far as reciprocity goes, I don't remember seeing any sources, much less reliable ones, but if you limit edits to specific issues one at a time, it makes it easier to focus on those individually. Massive edits without edit summaries or discussion on talk are almost guaranteed to be reverted.

Additionally, as far as noncompliance goes, the Goldman child abduction case is actually a fine example of how Brazil does not comply with the Hague Abduction Convention. Additionally the 2010 Hague Abduction Convention Compliance Report issued in May listed Brazil as a fully "non compliant" country.

I agree that no references have been listed even establishing corruption in the judicial process generally, much less in abduction cases specifically.

In any case, my motivation level for pro-actively working on this article is pretty low at the moment. You do make some good points though. I suggest you be bold and make changes to it (just please don't put them all in one giant edit.)--Cybermud (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually it looks like there are some good references on corruption in Brazil. I didn't actually follow them to see if they discussed the judiciary itself since, I suppose, it's possible to have a reputation for corruption that the Judicial system is independent of. Either way the section doesn't make judicial corruption or its involvement in abduction cases clear (though a corrupt judiciary, if it exists, can't help but be a factor in judicial non-compliance.)--Cybermud (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

OK Cybermud, I'll take a more careful approach to editing, instead of making a single overreaching edit. Thanks for the quick reply. Just on the Sean Goldman case, Brazil does comply with the Convention. It is in full force in Brazil, link to Presidential decree, as referred by Supreme Court judge Ellen Gracie Northfleet in her related vote. Some other cases of compliance with the Convention are available in this link. Many judges in the country are still ignorant about the Hague Convention, as the Supreme Court members themselves recognized, which is why the 2010 Compliance Report lists Brazil as a non compliant country. I believe this is bound to change as knowledge spreads. However, it's well established in the country's top court that the Convention must be respected. (all external links in Portuguese) Missionary (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources

When the article cites specific cases (like that from sweden in reciprocity) without citing any source, it is acting as a primary source. This does not comply with the no original research policy.

When the article cites just a primary source, it is acting as a secondary source, and it might be inappropriate to draw conclusions from this source alone, or otherwise rely entirely on it. The section on primary sources of that policy says:

"Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source.", and

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.", and

"Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source."

So what we need here is secondary sources. In special, we need to include analysis from secondary sources only.

I insist that Wikipedia editors are not entitled to analyze facts themselves, but to organize analyses from secondary sources. Unsourced analysis - and specially controversial unsourced analysis - does not belong to Wikipedia, even if it is correct, factual or otherwise appropriate. The rule for acceptability in our project is verifiability, not truth.

I have removed some random boldface because, in my interpretation, this highlight itself is essentially an unsourced analysis. Wikipedia editors aren't entitled to choose what ideas are central or otherwise essential for some topic (as implied by this boldface), we leave this task to secondary sources. If someone else is saying this quote:

"(...) these displaced children are the main victims in such situations. Their prolonged removal has serious psychological repercussions which may dramatically affect their future lives"

Please attribute it to the author, with reliable secondary sources (because it's an analysis). If it is totally unsourced, and represent analysis from a Wikipedia editor, it may not belong to Wikipedia entirely. --187.40.253.192 (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International child abduction in Brazil. 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/20101224103205/http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC84.pdf to http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC84.pdf

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) 01:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International child abduction in Brazil. 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/20141205040106/http://www.wlox.com/story/9336649/leading-brazilian-bank-joins-international-fight-against-child-pornography to http://www.wlox.com/story/9336649/leading-brazilian-bank-joins-international-fight-against-child-pornography
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100724141016/http://www.transparency.org/publications/gcr to http://www.transparency.org/publications/gcr

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) 09:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)