Talk:International child abduction in Japan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

links

Hey, I can't see the page that is part of one of the links on this notation stub on Child Abduction in Japan. Particularly the The Japan Children's Rights Network website (www.crnjapan.com) for some reason. I have

"Forbidden

You don't have permission to access / on this server."

produced on my web browser. I've seen this website 6 times before, and I believe I've seen it then. I checked the tags on it, and it seems that it doesn't have any validation certificates. Is there a way to bypass this? Psypho (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Some legal guide

It appear that Japanese family court do not enforce custody or child maintenance. Their strategy is to let husband keep money and mother to keep child so that it will create incentive for both to trade child maintenance for visitation. Consequently, there appear to be no ruling in favour or against foreign parent in child abduction. The arrest related to parental abduction only occurs in context of "forced" abduction. In Japan as well as else where "self help" is illegal. Obviously, such arrangement greatly favour primary carers who hold de fact rather than de jure custody. Vapour (talk) 11:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this some legal guide? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the comment by Australian delegate was meant for another reply. Vapour (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of editorial articles as sources

Please do not re-add removed editorial references, as it conflicts with WP:RS#News organizations bullet point one

News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not come across a policy or a guideline which say opinion must be excluded. As far as I understand, verification is what matter. In this instance, asahi article is reporting facts as well as opinion. Moreover, domestic violence allegation in international custody issue is well known fact. I'm planning to expand on this issue of domestic violence. Here is a source I'm planning to quote.

I have read the guideline. Given that this is not a policy, I believe some flexibility is allwed and this case warrant it. Firstly, this is not an opinion piece of individual in media but is presented as an editorial of asahi newspaper itself, highly respected and established newspaper. I have found a reference to domestic abuse elsewhere so this isn't a issue. However, A report in ashahi about Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada in a news conference is unlikely to be an opinion (and non fact). I do not believe it is desirable to present this statement as unverified.Vapour (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of editorial articles are allowed, but not as a verification of fact, per the guideline, but as a verification that the author holds that opinion. I do see how the writer of the editorial does state facts to support their opinion on the subject, that being shared with the subject of this article. That being said, the guideline does say that it can be used to verify the opinion of the author. In this case the only author given in the article is the Newspaper itself, but still it is only the opinion of the newspaper. I to am trying to find a non-editorial reference for the quote, so I am not against the quote, just what it is used to verify it.

Of course we can say that for this instance we can ignore all rules regarding it being an editorial source. Does that sound OK with you, as that appears to be what you are going for?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Legalism is explicitly rejected in a wikipedia policy, "What wikipedia is not". Even a policy can be ignore if it does not server the ultimate purpose. In case of guidelines, the flexibility is a presumption. In this instance, the statement is presented as a fact and not an opinion. Moreover, a statement in press conference by the Japanese foreign minister, which is reported in the second biggest newspaper in the world, is more than likely to be a fact and not opinion. Additionaly, this statement put Japanese government intention in proper context. I won't be surprised if nothing happen in two years time. Vapour (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean by the statement "What wikipedia is not", that you are referring to WP:NOTLAW? If you are read it, it states that "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously", and "If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.", thus I was asking if you wanted to ignore all rules, for the purpose of this editorial reference. Furthermore, as you can see, I have alraedy implemented it.

Also how is it that the paper is the "second biggest newspaper in the world"? I highly doubt that. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The guideline you referred to state that "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text.". There is no mention of excluding opinion. Rather the guideline ask to "attribute" opinion to originating individual. If we follow this guideline legalistically, "According to the opinion of Asahi newspaper, the Japanese foreign minister stated in a press conference that....". The guideline is designed to avoid presenting opinion as fact. It is not meant to present fact as opinion (and hence non fact). The policies and guidelines shouldn't be misused. Vapour (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not trying to exclude opinion, however, you were using an opinion piece (editorial) to reference a fact. As you said yourself to follow the guideline you would have to word as you did here:

"According to the opinion of Asahi newspaper, the Japanese foreign minister stated in a press conference that...."

That being said though, it matters not, as I have already applied Ignore all rules, with the understanding that it only applies to the Asahi editorial; that it can be used as a reference of fact without stating that it is the opinion of the newspaper, because it is from an editorial article. Isn't that what you wanted in the first place? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

?Vapour (talk)

Abduction of minor

It appear that parental child abduction is a felony on the basis that it disrupt child life (especially in the relationship to child's primary caregiver). In U.S., the parental child abduction is a felony on the basis that it goes against custody decree. This interpretation probably explain conflicting accounts in regard to legality of parental child abduction.Vapour (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I see "Japan does not recognise parental abduction as illegal" in many Western reporting. These statement are written without any qualification. Given that Supreme Court of Japan categorically ruled that it is a felony, this appear to be a myth perpetuated by lazy journalists. Oh, well, sometimes Wikipedia is a better source of information than professional media. :)Vapour (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Custody in Japan

I see that Vapour has removed the explination of determination of the Primary Caregiver/custodian in Japanese Courts, found in the "ABC" reference here on the bottom of the page.

What counts here is who, under Japanese law, is the child's primary custodian. In many of these cases, the primary custodian is the parent in possession of the child when the case is first brought to court.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. That sentence was rather convulsed and was difficult to read. I won't object if you restore it. But is it possible to make it more readable, please. Vapour (talk)

I will re-add it, but you're right it was a very difficult read :-( --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Finding Romanization

Thanks for finding that Vapour, that helps alot! :) --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul Toland case

It is said every divorce has its own story. I just read a court paper on Toland's divorce. It's here[1]. I'm quite sure there are clear cases of foreign father being screwed by Japanese wife. Yet, the ones which is most visible in media doesn't seem to fall into this. Vapour (talk)

Gosh, I realised that the case is dated August 2007 a month before ex wife committed suicide. Vapour (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty awful. But as third parties, we have no idea what actually happened between them, and to see any marriage end (except for cases of abuse) is something that I never look forward to. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

CRNJ ref

CRNJapan (25 June 2009). "Koseki". Child Resource Network. Retrieved 27 October 2009.

I shall take the above reference and to the reliable source noticeboard, to see what they think about it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Okey dokey. Vapour (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Japan Childrens Rights Network is CRNJAPAN.NET - We are not connected with CRNJAPAN.COM which is the Childrens Resource ... http://www.crnjapan.net/The_Japan_Childrens_Rights_Network/res-koseki.html The Japan Childrens Rights Network is a leading authority on International Parental Abduction to Japan - Please note differences before removing properly formatted proper information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.64.103 (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Japan Childrens Right Network seems to be one of several visible "advocacy" group but it certainly have no claim to being a leading authority. Anyway, I doubt it can be used as neutral or verifiable source of information. Vapour (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Vapour - No one cares about what "you doubt." The information is correct on The Japan Children's Rights Network. You want links removed because you support abducting children to Japan...admit it. You are a Japanese Yakuza Nationalist and should be banned from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.65.235 (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Do not attack fellow editors, doing so violated WP:CIVIL.

The nature of CRNJapan.com as a reliable source was never fully verified by additional opinions on the matter. Therefore, whether CRNJapan is or is not a reliable source is still in limbo. I will begin another discussion of the topic again, which can be found here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You may want to put in your 2 cents on the reliable source noticeboard, it appears there is a move to include it, if we state in the sentence(s) that it is from group X (therefore not absolute fact). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Dual Citizenship

What is not in question is the illegality of dual citizenship under Japanese Law, but whether it is legal or illegal under U.S. law.

The following statement was removed for discussion, for decisions of inclusion or final removal from the article or rewording to match references:

and U.S. Law.

The reference given to say that dual citizenship is against U.S. Law is as follows:

• "U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include: obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);"[2]
  which when formatted appears as "Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality". United States State Department of State. 1 February 2008. Retrieved 27 October 2009. U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include: obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);

The reason why I removed it was due to the following references, that appear to say that dual citizenship under U.S. law is permitted, under certain circumstances:

• "Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality". United States State Department of State. 1 February 2008. Retrieved 27 October 2009. Dual nationality can also occur when a person is naturalized in a foreign state without intending to relinquish U.S. nationality and is thereafter found not to have lost U.S. citizenship: the individual consequently may possess dual nationality. While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. Government also recognizes the problems which it may cause.
• "Dual Nationality". United States State Department of State. Retrieved 27 October 2009. A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

In the three quoted sections each from the same main page (travel.state.gov), we have three different statement that state quiet clearly that the U.S. discourages the holding of Dual Citizenship, but it does not state specifically that obtaining non-U.S. citizenship automatically makes that person lose their U.S. citizenship, nor does it say that it is illegal. However what it does say, is that under certain circumstances, due to the individual's actions the person may be subject to the loss of U.S. citizenship following an administrative adjudication of a case. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice this. Savoie did apply for Japanese citizenship as it is the only way to get it. He still hold American citizenship and Japanese citizenship. Both state could make a move to revoke his citizenship. I will only restore it when I find a quote from media which say that he is holding american citizenship in violation of American law.Vapour (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Extreme Racism of Koseki

I let a claim of "extreme racism" stay for a while. Existence of racism against zainichi korean is a fact but I fail to see how such racism is connected to koseki and citizenship law. It appear that the claim of racism is based on the fact that 3rd generation Korean still cannot get Japanese. Citizenship by birthplace, Jus soli, is pretty rare in developed countries. U.K. gave it up recently. Most developed countries use Jus sanguinis and it is rather odd claim to accuse majority of developed countries as extremely racist. I should also mention that most European countries allow descendants in another countries to claim citizenship by default, while Japan require that one's parent to have Japanese citizenship. So technically, Japanese system of jus sanguinis is less based on blood/race. Anyway, this edit doesn't have verifiable source. An academic specialising in Japan is provided as source without any quote. I doubt an academic specialising in Japan would make such an elementary error. I'm inclined to think that this is a personal opinion of a wikipedia editor. Vapour (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not access other editors of holding views that they do not hold. The reason for the re-addition is because it is an opinion that others may find relevant to the section. The references provided, are to two sources, one showing that the professor is a current professor of the institution wiki-linked. The second source is his work, which references his allegation/views. If you were to read the book, which the preview allows anyone to do (for the most part), or do a search for the word racism, it comes up with 11 results. These are not my views, but his (Dr. David Chapman), thus the rewording is done to show it is his views that are being expressed.

Now one could argue, and I could see the reason behind it, that this entire section belongs in the Koseki article, rather then this one; however, at the same time I can see the reason for its inclusion here, the entire section I mean, because it has repercussions upon child custody cases.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

None of 11 example link racism with koseki. I also fail to find mention of words "extreme racist" and "extremely racist" in the book. I did search with "koseki" instead. Only instance of racist use of koseki goes back to colonial period. I fail to find a portion which actually blame current koseki to "a system of extreme discrimination and racism". Where did this academic linked extreme racism through koseki to the fact that "even 3rd generation Koreans born in Japan have a different legal identity than their Japanese counterparts". When I look for job in West, I, too, need to show my passport to potential employers. One with foreign passport are disadvantaged for various reasons, some are legitimate and others are not. But hardly anyone blame passport system itself as the chief cause. And what this have to do with child custody? Vapour (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your objection, and as I said, I can see the argument that this statement would be better off in the Koseki article. Let me look into the history and see when Koseki statement was added, because it was not there on 22 OCT. Apparently it has been part of the article since it was added by an IP editor on 22 October. As you can see many statements about the claims of racism of the Koseki system were added by the IP editor. Therefore, as I had assumed from the beginning, neither you nor I added the content.

I shall remove the sentence.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Often

Prior to recent changes the sentence read:

Japan is experiencing a dramatic increase in the number of international marriage, often between a Japanese and non-Japanese couple.

and has been changed to

Japan is experiencing a dramatic increase in the number of international marriage　between a Japanese and non-Japanese couple.

The only difference between the two is only a single word, often. Now rather then getting into an edit war let us discuss changes to this sentence, and reach a consensus. Now let me state my reasoning for retaining the word often. Not all transnational relationships are between Japanese and non-Japanese individuals. As shown in the Specific Cases section, there is at least one case that has been referenced that is between to people of Japanese ethnicity, however, one is a Japanese national/citizen and the other is a Japanese American, who only has U.S. citizenship/nationality. Therefore, not to include the word often would be denying the verified fact that there are intra-Japanese marriages/relationships that are in fact transnational in nature. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not possible for two non Japanese couple to register their marriage in Japan. At least one of the couple must hold Japanese nationality. If not, then the couple must go back to one of the countries which they hold citizenship. I deleted the term "often" because it imply something which is impossible. 12:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes but not all cases occur in Japan, as is the case with Alan Kaneda, both were ethnically Japanese, but only the wife was a Japanese National/Citizen. Therefore, since this article is about any case of international parental abduction which results in one parent and a child (or children) being taken to Japan, thus resulting in the separation of that child with the other parent, not all marriages need to be registered in Japan in order for them to be covered in this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Could it be worded a bit better then? General reader would probably interpret the word "often" to imply that some international marriage in Japan are not between Japanese and non Japanese. Vapour (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How would you propose we change the sentence? If we remove the second part of the sentence which talks about ethnicities, and leave it only to differences in nationality/citizenship, then we remove the disagreement. However, I think we are in agreement that the vast majority of transnational/international marriages involving an ethnic Japanese person are with a non-ethnic Japanese spouse. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't notice your reply. I don't know if Alan Kaneda's ex wife is ethnic Japanese American without Japanese passport. If she is third generation, this is possible. In that case, she is utilising provision in Japanese visa regime which give indefinite resident permit to people of Japanese decent. Anyway, though it is true that there may be some case of ethnic Japanese person who doesn't hold Japanese passport abducting children to Japan, as far as International marriage in Japan is concerned it is not an issue. So I don't think the word "often" is necessary. However we could add a reference elsewhere to the existence of a rare case where a person of Japanese decent have committed abduction to Japan. Vapour (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the Alan Kaneda case, she is a Japanese National, and not an American born Japanese.

"As he wondered where they were, Marina and her mother were on a plane en route to Japan, the mother's home country." source is the same as in the article

Therefore, not all cases are between people of different ethnicities. However, all cases are transnational and/or involve a child that is a dual national. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

i.c. Well, in this instance, the marriage is still international but not interracial. The name, Alan Kaneda indicate that he is an American of Japanese decent. Japanese doesn't allow dual citizenship. If one of your parent is a Japanese in a international marriage, then the child will have Japanese citizenship until 20, at this point, if child does not give up his other citizenship, then he forfeit Japanese citizenship automatically. Alan Kaneda probably isn't a Japanese national. Moreover, I do not think Japanese married couple could file for divorce outside of Japan even if they are permanent residence elsewhere. At least one of them must get a foreign passport to file a legal divorce suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapour (talk • contribs) 16:23, 5 November 2009

However, this remains a transnational/international marriage regardless of the shared ethnicity. Therefore, the divorce which occured in Hawaii is legally binding. Or are you considering that in question? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Child Custody

It appear that the term "custody is antiquated description. "Parental authority"(Shinken) and "residence" (Kangoken) and "contact" (Mensetukoshoken) has superseded the traditional English common law description of custody after the ratification of The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The system is based on Continental law which Japan follw. Apparently, it was a common practice in Japan to split residence and parental authority in divorce. So mother look after kid as a holder of residence until child is 15 while father act as legal representative of child as the holder of parental authority, so he get to decide child's schooling, passport and most importantly, family name until child is 20. So accurate description is that shared custody is not common in Japan while split custody is (or was). Moreover, it is entirely possible and legal to rotate residence/kangoken as a part of meditation agreement. Let see if I can find verifiable source. Vapour (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Although that relates to this article, perhaps the difference between Japanese and Non-Japanese civil law when it comes to child custody, is best added to the main article about the subject, with a summary placed here. A summary should provide enough information to give readers of this article sufficient context which to read this article, without moving outside of the scope of this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore as a reminder, to maintain WP:NEU, neither system of law should be said to be better or worse than the other. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Still, legally, Parental responsibility (access and custody), Contact (law) and Residence in English family law are the appropriate English translation of legal terms in Japanese law. U.S. hasn't signed The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child so it use old English common law but U.S. and Somalia is the only exception. I can replace these legal term with citation from Japanese civil law but I'm not sure I can find citation for "split" and "rotating" custody in English sources. I got this info from Japanese divorce lawyer website. It appear that the Japanese court also enforce some element of custody arrangement if some specific conditions have been met. Vapour (talk) 07:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Move of discussion started by User:Wikilot49

I have moved the following discussion on my talk page, to here, as it would be best if consensus were to be reached before making further edits on the section that User:Wikilot49 has stated he/she has concerns about. Here is his/her statement:

Hello again,

This is a line that I deleted but you added back: "Consequently, Japanese courts rarely enforce custody decrees, child support orders, or visitation orders even in domestic cases."

This line is not supported by the reference you cited: http://www.international-divorce.com/thompson.htm

Japanese family court orders are essentially voluntary and unenforceable. So saying that the courts "rarely enforce" is wrong.

In fact, your reference supports my claim: "Japanese law enforcement and social service agencies unfortunately seem unable to enforce custody and support orders - even those laid down by their own courts, let alone from another country's courts."

Wikilot49 (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)wikilot49

And here is my response

As I am not the only editor of this article, perhaps this would be best moved to the appropriate talk page. The content that was removed was added by User:Vapour, and since your edit summary didn't given (nor does it provide sufficient room) for the removal of the content, I re-added the information.

I look forward to carrying on this conversation in a new section of the talk page I linked. Until then, take care.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Now from what I gather, the next appropriate action for Wikilot49 to do, IMHO, is to tag the references with Template:Failed verification templates, and with Template:Discuss, linking it to here, that way the original user who added the content, can discuss the edit with WikiLot49.

I did not originally place that content here, and believe it was User:Vapour who did, so he/she would probably be the one to reach a compromise with. I would happy to provide a third opinion if a consensus cannot be reached between you two alone.

Another possible route, to go is to tag the sentences you find questionable, as previously shown above, and after an appropriate amount of time (I normally wait 21-30 days), if a reference that supports the content is not provided, then remove it stating that you are removing it because it doesn't meet WP:V. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The content is not supported by the reference. If you read the article, then you would know this. You RightCowLeftCoast claim the opposite. In the "edit summary" you said that the content was supported by the reference. All you have to do is read the article in question! Wikilot49 (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)wikilot49

May I remind you to be civil when discussing with other editors.

I shall take a look at the references in question. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the following edit, the sentence

Since the Japanese family courts lack the power to enforce their own judgments, this parent is the parent who has possession of the child at the time the case is initially brought to court in Japan.

is already supported via the quote provided in the reference provided:

Tommy Thompson (26 March 2004). "Japan Needs International Child Support Law". The International Herald Tribune/Asahi Shimbun. Retrieved 25 October 2009. Japanese law enforcement and social service agencies unfortunately seem unable to enforce custody and support orders - even those laid down by their own courts, let alone from another country's courts.

Now I can understand if you would like additional references, and I would see no problem with that as well, but some would argue that additional references would not be necessary to meet WP:V.

Now the references labeled "taragana" actually refers to the following, which is contained elsewhere in the article, and used via a ref name:

Mari Yamaguchi (7 October 2009). "Divorced fathers in Japan, cut off from kids, turning to courts to seek access, change system". Retrieved 22 October 2009.

My initial reaction is that it can be questioned in whole or in part via WP:SPS, however, if consensus allows it via WP:IAR then it can be considered a reliable sourced reference, which has already been done once in this article.

After reading the reference, I agree that it does not support the sentence

Moreover, court mandated visitation in Japan only occurs under the cooperation of the custodial parent.

Since the first and third sentences, the third being supported by the same reference as the first, state almost the same thing, I can understand removing the sentence

Consequently, Japanese courts rarely enforce custody decrees, child support orders, or visitation orders even in domestic cases.

That being said, one sentence should be retained, IMHO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

All this being said, I would like to wait until User:Vapour makes his/her comment, before removing the text, just so there is a clear consensus built regarding removal of content. In the mean time I will tag the second sentence with the inline that I had linked earlier. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not read your comments before deleting my original content. I don't know why or who readded it. It should not have been readded as its main point is already repeated in another sentence. Wikilot49 (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)wikilot49.

Hello. Let me read it through. :) Vapour (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm back. Feel free to add to any unsourced content. If the contend doesn't accurately reflect the source, then please add , a tag I only discovered recently. Alternatively, I appreciate if someone improve it.

I also think that the grace period require some subjective judgement. Something which look true or plausible, such as the claim that, in Japan, mother's corporation is required in visitation, should have longer grace period. koseki is a good example. I would say foreigner losing custody by default due to lack of koseki would be unfair to say the least. And it did cite a name of Australian academic. So I let it stand "extreme recism" for a while. I made a move to delete it when it turned out that the claim is connected to Japanese citizenship requirement which is by parentage rather than by birthplace, which is a norm in many countries. Anyway, I read elsewhere that recent change in law mean that, upon marriage in Japan, if Japanese wife change family name to her foreign husband, then new koseki under husband's family name will be created. Vapour (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I tend to be a bit strict toward edit by unregistered I.P. editor though.

I found a better and more authoritative quote. "Hans van Loon, Secretary General of the Hague Convention on Private International Law" states "Japanese civil law stresses that in cases where custody cannot be reached by agreement between the parents, the Japanese Family Court will resolve the issue based on the best interest of the child. However, compliance with Family Court rulings is essentially voluntary, which renders any ruling unenforceable unless both parents agree."[3] There are few more useful info which can be mined from this link. Vapour (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sectionalized Specific Case Section

Although Wikipedia is not a democracy, and changes should be done by a consensus, who supports sectionalizing the section of specific cases, and who opposes it and why?

My personal opinion is that those that have received significant coverage, thus meaning it would be notable enough to warrant its own article, should have its own sub-section, where as those who are not considered notable enough due to say WP:BLP1E should be lumped into a sub-section labaled "other cases". For instance the Savoie and Toland cases would warrant their own sub-sections, where as Wood and Miyara, would be in the other cases subsection. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In my view, specific cases section should be treated essentially as a list section, mining as many names as possible from verifiable sources. I don't fancy the idea of treating each case as subsection because it will make the content in the top page unduly long. As of giving subsection to well mentioned cases, only Savoie case (and possibly Toland from Star&Stripe) has received wider media coverage on its own so far. So I'm a bit concerned about the balance. Plus, even for these well covered cases, facts are surprisingly thin. Near identical stories are repeated again and again. "A Western father lose kids to Japanese wife who flee to Japan and there is nothing he can do about it because Japan is non a Hague signatory. The father hasn't seen kid(s) since." Vapour (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Another reason I prefer this section to remain as a list section is that some cases are not international or abduction. Many case involve mother taking children in Japan then suing for divorce and wining custody. Technically, there is no abduction because custody ruling hasn't been made. Only notable feature is that "victim" are Westerners. There are literally thousands of father like this in Japan, Europe (well, at least in U.K.) and probably in some U.S. states. Vapour (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I say this is because certain individual cases on the list, including Savoie and Toland already meet the WP:NN requirement to have their own article, therefore, I think that elevates them sufficiently to have their own subsection. I don't doubt that the story spun in non-western media follows a similar pattern, just as the article and its supported references say that the Japanese media have spun stories under an opposite but similar pattern. Therefore, that's why I said those cases that haven't meet notability for their own article, should be lumped together in a similar manor as the pre-existing list.

Also, all cases, to be included in this article as we have already shown must be transnational in nature. On the abduction side, it may not exist in Japan (as stated in the article) due to jurisdictional issues; however, due to laws outside of Japan (therefore it falls into this article's scope) there is still an allegation/charging of a crime, or violation of a court order, committed by one parent against the other parent, via the child. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have some reservation about wikipedia notability requirement of these two cases. Toland case is mentioned repeated as an example in newsarticle about international parental abduction. In such instance, it does not pass notability on it own. On the other hand, Christopher Savoie is the story and the story has been widely covered internationally. So he is notable on its own. Toland himself is the main story only in Star&Stripe, which understandably focus on the plight of their serviceman. So Toland fall short of notability. Plus, the facts are too thin to make it as an article. As of Savoie, it may fall short of "Notability is not temporary" criteria. Who knows? This case may be remembered as the "it" case which eventually forced Japan to sign the Hague. Alternatively, in 6 months time, this case will be largely forgotten by media, except the last burst of reporting about possible custody ruling in Japan. How about creating a section only for Savoie case. If the media interest keep up, then the section could be forked out as an article.

Vapour (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

Just because the nature of the stories are pro-Cdr Toland, doesn't mean that the articles are any less relevant to the individual's notability. However, I will concede, at this point, that one or two more mentions would definitely make the notability non-arguable. As for Savoie, he himself is not what is notable, but the event, which falls under WP:BLP1E is what is notable. Since the section is about cases and not individuals, the case itself is notable due to the well documented coverage, which you have indicated yourself. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible edits by Cdr Toland

Creating Savoie article is fine by me. By the way, an I.P. editor from Bowie, Maryland, US has (69.140.181.136) edited contents regarding Paul Toland. Guess who. ;D Vapour (talk)

May I remind you that all editors are allowed to edit the article, as long as they don't violate any policy and/or guidelines of Wikipedia, and when reverting edits, it does help to provide an edit summary as to why the reversion was done. Only being an IP editor isn't a sufficient reason to revert an edit. That being said the edits by the IP user likely falls under WP:NOR, WP:COI, and/or removing content supported by a verifiable reliable sourced reference without consensus. Therefore, I have warned the IP editor appropriately.

If the IP editor begins to make edits again, in this article, we should assume good faith of the edits, and guide the individual (whether it is CDR Toland, or not) towards productive edits that don't violate any policies or guidelines. That being said, if after attempts to guide the editor in the right direction are clearly shown to have no effect, the assumption of good faith can be rightfully ended, and necessary warnings issued. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have re-added the case of CDR Toland, daughter, deceased ex-wife, and extended family. The case falls within the scope of the article, as the scope includes those abductions made within Japan as well. Furthermore, the daughter is a dual national, and at the time of the abduction, the parents were married therefore the removal of the daughter from the joint care of the father changed the previous custodial and care arrangements of the child in question. Moreover, the daughter at the very least, and most likely the former spouse as well, at the time of the alleged abduction fell under SOFA, as both would have been considered dependents of the servicemember. Also, regardless of the divorce that occurred after the alleged abduction, the daughter would remain a dependent of the servicemember father, and also remain a U.S. National & Citizen. Thus, the continued separation of father from daughter, can be interpreted as a continuation of the original separation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I reverted that edit because contents regarding Paul Toland are well referenced. I'm sorry I do not clarify my edit often. Due to my language skill, I tend to make may minor correction a lot. As of Paul Toland case, I don't think it fall into international parental abduction not because it is not international but because there is no custodial interference in this case. They were married when wife moved out with their kids. And subsequent court ruling in Japan did not give custody to Paul Toland. And American court ruled that Japanese family court has an jurisdiction. So Paul Toland has no legal recourse. Even Japan sign the Hague convention, he wouldn't have a case because the kid was born in Japan. As of SOFA, my understanding is that it apply primarily with criminal cases. Vapour (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, did I delete PT. That was by mistake. I'm trying to add well repeated "he spent $200000" claim. Japanese family court meditation don't cost that much so he must have spent majority of it in America. Vapour (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who deleted the PT case, but right now it is in serious flux. I only hope that we can civily discuss edits here first regarding that case, due to possible edit warring which may arise from dueling edits. The reason why I seperated the first discussion from the second discussion in this section was because they were both related to the same section. If you believe that I was directed my comments to you, I am sorry. The reason for it was primarily to explain why I had re-added it, so that whomever deleted it, understands by reasons to do so, and provide an opportunity for that editor to comment if they so wish.

As for the SOFA, it does primarily deal with criminal law, but also covers relations of dependents of servicemembers with the host nation. I don't think anyone is arguing that the daughter of Cdr Toland, and his deceased ex-wife, is a dual-national, and at the time of the change of custody/care relationship at the point of the alleged abduction, that the daughter was (and theoretically is) Toland's dependent.

Of course Wikipedia is not the place to debate who is right or wrong regarding this case. Rather, it is a place to post relevant information in a neutral manor to those interested in reading on the subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tolands' Washington court case

Here is what the court ruling says

"Here, the record indicates that Peter's appeal followed a series of legal maneuvers to obtain jurisdiction over his wife and child in the United States, despite his participation and acquiescence to jurisdiction in the Tokyo family court system. Peter's candor about his own circumstances was notably lacking in his changing representations about his domicile -- first Washington, then Virginia, then Washington again. The Pierce County Superior Court found that he appeared to be forum shopping. Furthermore, he failed to appeal the Pierce County Superior Court stay order in 2004, when we might have been able to timely determine the jurisdictional question, and he failed to appeal the Tokyo family court's rulings on jurisdiction or its final determination of the dissolution issues. His tactical decisions throughout the proceeding resulted in this appeal, which is wholly lacking in merit, and in Etsuko incurring litigation expenses and attorney fees in the United States, even though she and their child have resided solely in Japan since 1999. Under these circumstances his appeal was frivolous and on this basis we award Etsuko her attorney fees on appeal in an amount to be determined upon compliance with RAP 18.1."

And this is what is in the article. "However, he attempt a series of legal manoeuvre in Japan and U.S. to obtain jurisdiction over the divorce and the child custody in the United States which various U.S. courts described as "forum shopping", "wholly lacking in merit" and "frivolous" and was ordered to pay legal cost of his ex wife". It seems pretty straight forward summary. Paul Toland litigation in U.S. (forum shopping) was frivolous and had no merit and he had to pay wife's legal cost. Vapour (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Background court cases between CDR Toland and his deceased wife are irrelevant to the discussion. The central issue of this case is about an abduction case by a Japanese third-party non-parent withholding a child from a non-Japanese parent. That is the only current ongoing abduction case. This level of detailed background is unnecessary since the wife is deceased, rendering any ongoing court proceedings at the time of her death moot. Discussion should center on the current abduction case involving Akiko Futagi (the child's grandmother). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unthoughtknown (talk • contribs) 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that it is relevant to the case, as it provides background to the present status of it. I can understand if one can argue that in its present wording it falls under WP:UNDUE, and should be reworded to maintain a neutral POV. With that being said, I do not supports its wholesale removal. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several critical information only this court record provides. (1) The Washington judge note that the girl was born and raised entirely in Japan. This establishes her "habitual residence" as Japan. This rule out any applicability of the Hague convention when and if Japan sign it. (2) Paul Toland perticiated in Japanese divorce proceeding and that it is Japanese court which has jurisdiction over this case. Legal definition of international parental abduction is a international tort of custodial interference. (Here is the source. [4]). A lack of foreign/American jurisdiction clearly establish that Toland case is not a part of international parental abduction. Moreover, since Paul Toland is divorced and doesn't seem to have a legal custody in Japan, it may not even be a custodial interference. This is also relevant to future content I'm going to introduce which is Japanese court's complete disregard to "parental right" when one lose custody ([5]) One academia commented that, in Japan, once a parent lose a custody, that person literally become non parent in legal and cultural sense, which is what happening with Paul Toland right now. (4) Toland's $200,000 legal expense has been mentioned several times in media and this establish relevance as to the content of this expense, which included court ordered payment of wife's legal expense. (5) Lastly, bitter (or as the court say, "frivolous") court litigation is an indication of a nature of divorce between Toland and his ex wife. Bitter divorce and custody battle often precede visitation denial as custody winner exact revenge on the other. Vapour (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The Washington court case belongs, as I have previously argued, as does the overall case itself. The child was removed from U.S. Military Housing, even though it was within Japan itself. The child is a dual national, and as I have argued in the past, was removed from her previous joint custody relationship with the father, when the parents were married, and removed off a U.S. Military Reservation in order to separate the child from a parent. I do not question the validity of the Japanese Court System to adjudicate civil and criminal cases once the individuals were removed from the military reservation, that is within the limits prescribed in the SOFA, therefore the reason for the Japanese court system having primacy for this case. However, that being said, it doesn't change the initial action of the mother removing the child from the joint custody with the father, and there in lies my reasoning as to why it falls into this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not trying to remove Toland case out of this article. Technically, there must be a formal custody order, not just the fact that they were married. So legally, there is no parental abduction in term of U.S. law or laws of any other Hague signatory countries. Still, his case is repeatedly and prominently mentioned in relation to this issue so his case should be in if we are to reflect the source. Moreover, I prefer to keep his case in. My previous delete was a mistake. His case reflect much deeper cultural/legal issue which I want to expand on.

As of SOFA, my understanding is that U.S. military reservation does not work like an embassy. Rather, U.S. military personnel, while on duty, is under criminal jurisdiction of American military court. If a u.s. serviceman (or their family) commit crime in Japan off duty, then s/he will be investigated by Japanese police. This is well known fact because whenever a U.S. soldier commit traffic violation or accident in Okinawa, a claim that they were on duty is a get-out-of-jail-free card. 21:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Military reservations, you are right, don't work like embassies, and due to the SOFA or VFA, under certain circumustances the host country can, and will prosecute, servicemembers that are stationed in the host nation. Furthermore, there are internal judicial and non-judicial actions the US military can, and does take, to punish servicemembers. All this being said, the wife did leave with the daughter without the fathers knowledge, but you are also right that at that point there was still legal joint custody until the divorce proceedings began, even if Toland did not de facto visitation or guardianship. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, what matter is that many media source see the Toland case as an exemplary example of either (international) parental abduction or access denial. So this wikipedia article should reflect that. As of deletion of Toland case, I'm just assuming that it was I who did it. I really can't recall when I did but because I'm quite sloppy with use of wiki like (ref) and I happen to be working on Toland section. On a second thought, It may be someone else who deleted it. I can't be bothered to check the history. Vapour (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway,I believe it is a lack of content which give undue weight to the terms "frivolous", "forum shopping" and ""wholly lacking in merit". Here is my draft.

While residing at the Navy housing complex in Yokohama, his now deceased ex-wife Etsuko Toland, left with his only child, Erika who was only 9 months old at the time. In 2005, his wife through the Japanese court system filed for divorce, custody of their daughter and Paul Toland participated in family court mediation in Japan. However, he subsequently made attempt at various U.S. court to obtain U.S. jurisdiction over the divorce and the child custody, claiming that Japanese family court lacked personal jurisdiction over him under the U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement and that he filed (but did not serve) for divorce first in U.S.. Pierce County Superior Court dismissed Toland's claim with prejudice and the Washington appeal court affirmed that ruling. The panel of judges in the Washington court appeal ruled that the case is "wholly lacking in merit" and order Paul Toland to pay his wife's legal expense for his apparent forum shopping within U.S. state jurisdictions. The judge cited several factors for their ruling. The couple were married in Japan, and once the child was born in Japan, they had never left Japan so the American court lack personal jurisdiction over the wife and the child unless Tokyo court ruled otherwise. After separation, Paul Toland participated in meditation process under Tokyo family court and he acknowledged that the Japanese Court has the international jurisdiction over the settlement of the child custody and in 2006, Tokyo Family court finalised the divorce and awarded full custody to the mother without granting any visitation arrangement for the father. After the Washington court ruling in August 2007, Etuko Futagi committed suicide in September 2007 and her mother assumed the possession of the child.

Sorry about grammar. Vapour (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Besides grammar edits, I see nothing wrong with it. However, I think you should get a third opinion prior to making the edit, therefore there is clear consensus for the change, and that it does its best to maintain a neutral POV. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the case simply puts too much emphasis on the court case. I called the State Department to clarify whether a case such as Commander Toland's would be considered an "access" case or an "abduction" case, and the individual at the Office of Children's issues at State said this type of case would be considered an "access" case up until the time of the wife's death, but from there forward, it is an abduction case because the case involves a parent vs. a third party non-parent, and a parent has complete and total rights to their child over any third party regardless of "habitual residence", "best interests of the child", or any other type of factors a court would look at in a dispute between two parents. In cases where the dispute is between a parent and a non-parent, it is considered the same as if the dispute were between a happily married couple and a non-parent. All parental rights fall only to the surviving parent. I think the wikipedia entry needs to reflect this unique aspect of the current abduction case between Commander Toland (a parent) and the grandmother (a non-parent). Focusing the article on past court cases between Commander Toland and his deceased wife only detract from the current abduction case. They may add some history, but the court document cited also discusses a ruling by Judge Chole (not sure about the spelling) that Washington State DID have jurisdiction over their marriage because the SOFA states that neither Commander Toland NOR his family members maintained legal residence nor domicile in Japan while stationed there. I also read in a Stars and Stripes article at http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=64002 that Commander Toland was unable to obtain US Jurisdiction because the military had wrongly advised him to access the Japanese legal system, so it was bad advice from the military that prevented him from obtaining US jurisdiction. If you are going to insist on proceeding with a lengthy paragraph about the court case, then it will have to be balanced with all of this cited information, and Commander Toland's entry will become a very lengthy one, with many paragraphs focusing on a court case he fought with a now deceased wife, and the current unique abduction case with the non-parent grandmother getting completely overshadowed by this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unthoughtknown (talk • contribs) 23:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The cited Washington appeal court record state that Etuko obtained the sole legal custody. The academic paper I previously cited give an example of a Japanese case where, after a divorce, non custodial mother wasn't even notified when her biological child was adopted to someone else. She sued to regain custody but her suit was dismissed outright. In Japanese family law, once divorce happen, legally, the break is complete and permanent[6]. From U.S. perspective, the fact that PT is the only surviving parent is what matter most so what previously happened in the divorce proceeding are irrelevant. From Japanese perspective, which has jurisdiction over this case, the fact that he is the only surviving parent was made irrelevant by the fact that he is divorced and lost the custody. You might see why legal facts over jurisdiction and custody, which can be seen from the Washington appeal ruling is quite crucial.

Star&Stripe link provide additional useful information so it should be added to the article. Judge Chole ruling is another useful and interesting addition, however, i'm not sure if it can be verified. If it is not online, then citing archival case might constitute an original research. The washington appeal court ruling record allude to the possibility that SOFA is a valid argument had PT not participated in Tokyo court so we probably introduce this content without Judge Chole's ruling. Vapour (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'm happy to restore "PT is the only surviving parent" edit. After being made aware of the State Department position, I see that this fact is pretty important. Vapour (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

@Unthoughtknown - Therefore, this would then be similar to the Elian case of Parent v relative? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Office of Children's issues at State, that is an Expert, and this article calls from experts from all sides of this issue. Of course, they too would need to reference their edits to verifiable reliable sources. But theoretically an Expert would have easy access to those. Just as long as they aren't painted as pushing a POV, and thus consided a WP:COI editor.

Both US and Japanese perspectives of the case should be included, and neither should be given undue weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes. The Children's Rights of Japan webpage equates it to the Elian Gonzalez case http://crcjapan.wordpress.com/category/sole-surviving-parent/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unthoughtknown (talk • contribs) 12:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And to the North Korean abduction of Japanese citizen.[7] That probably cost them any sympathy from the Japanese public. 15:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I forgot to sign. The above comment is by me. Also I just remember that the Atlantic magazine article titled "The Snachback" which is cited in our article also feature a similar case, in this case, re-abduction of child by the stepfather (with a cooperation of biological mother) from the biological father. Californian court, in this instance follow the principle which is similar to Japanese, allowing the stepfather to adopt the child without getting consent from the biological father. Reading the article, I get an impression that the child who is much older than Erika, didn't mind being retained by his biological father. If the mother dies, it would be like Toland, the custody holding yet biologically unrelated person retaining the child against the wish of biological father using American law. Vapour (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to establish the relevance of the legal details by expanding contents regarding socio legal difference between Japan and America. I already have two short academic articles which discuss this issue. Anyway, I can't verify if the grandmother hold Erkca's custody. If divorce was finalised and the mother had the sole custody, then at her death, the custody must have been transferred to the grandmother through koseki. Vapour (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What happened?

Several discussion went on while I'm away and then some comments seems to be deleted including my draft for Toland case. 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I found the cause. It was my bad. m( _ _)m Vapour (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Elian Gonzales, crcjapan.com and source reliability of NPO sites

Hi. I noticed that crcjapan.com has been introduced as a source. I don't think this site can pass reliability test. It is an advocacy site by a group of LBP. However, I was going to introduce several child advocacy NGO, NPO and charity as source. They are (1) the Australian branch of International Social Services, (2) the Reunite International[8] and (3) National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. I don't want to appear unfair by deleting crcjapan while introducing these sites. So I want to get a consensus beforehand. All three NPOs have official affiliated status from their respective government. The front page of the Reunite[9] has a logo of the Ministry of Justice which require approval from the MOJ. The Australian branch of ISS is refered directly from the governmental website[10]. NCMEC is a NPO established by the act Congress. So there are two issues. reliability of crcjapan.com and reliability of government government affiliated NGO and NPO. What do you think? Vapour (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by the reason for discussion here. Apparently "Vapour" started a discussion to dispute this entry, but by the end of his/her discussion he/she seemed to agree with leaving these comments in. CRC Japan's comment was an analogy and I included the organization's name in the actual paragraph so as to not imply that this source was a newspaper or other law journal. If the analogy made by CRC Japan is not factual, please let me know and I will remove it. If the factuality of the analogy cannot be disputed, then it should stay up. The analogy properly frames the current abduction case between a parent and a non-parent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unthoughtknown (talk • contribs) 17:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. My English may not have been clear. My position is this. crcjapan.com should not be used as a source while three other NPOs should be allowed to be used as sources.

I'm not disputing the fact that crcjapan make an analogy. However, the fact that they make analogy should not be included because it does not pass the wikipedia threshold of inclusion. In Wikipedia, the threshold of inclusion is verifiability and not truth.

Wikipedia allow anyone with online access to edit without requiring the user to reveal their identity. So the contents must have verification from reliable external third party source which has some form of professional editorial oversight (i.e. media, academia, government and public institutions). So, personal or community sites should not be used as a source. crcjapan.com seems to be a site maintained by a group of LBPs. Whatever content they have, it has not gone through professional editorial oversight. so it can't be a reliable/verified fact. So we don't use it in wikipedia.

You might say that the fact that crcjapan do make an North Korean analogy is self referential so it is evidently true and require no verification. However, reporting of this analogy would violate wikipedia policy of neutrality. One good example would be the Scientology article. If we allow the Scientology website to be used as a source, then the members of Scientology would use their sites as a soapbox to swamp wikipedia with their argument, opinions and claims. So we only allow arguments or claims of Scietology if these are reported and verified by third party source. So if the Scientology website site claim that "psychoanalysis is a fraud", we don't report it. But if Fox news report that "Scientology claim psychoanalysis is a fraud", then we include it in wikipedia. So far the fact that crcjapan make the analogy is not reported by third party verifiable source. So the North Korean analogy shouldn't be introduced yet. However, Paul Wong did make such an analogy and that was reported in one of a media source so you could introduce it in relation to Paul Wong but not Paul Toland. Vapour (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As of three NPOs, this is somewhat different issue. In general, reliable/verifiable source would be limited to media, academia, governmental or public institution. However, we sometimes do allow introduction of contents from well established group with some aspect of public institution. These may include like of Red Cross or, in this article, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. These are bit of grey zone. If we allow opinion or argument from NGOs like the Amnesty International or, worse, the Greenpeace, then it can easily become soapboxing. However, the statistics or factual statement from Red Cross or National Center for Missing and Exploited Children would be reliable, verifiable and, in general, neutral fact. However the same can't be said about the death penalty statistics from the Amnesty International which tend to massaged statistics. So I'm giving a notice that I'm introducing contents (statistics and research) from fairly established quasi public NPOs. But if you feel that some contents from these NPO amount to soapboxing or inaccurate, then please do raise objection so we can discuss it here.

And if I didn't explain all these nuance of wikipedia policy, you probably tthought that I'm acting unfairly by rejecting contents from crnjapan while introducing contents from other NPOs. That is why I gave an advance notice in this talk page. Vapour (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Vapour, The facts surrounding Commander Toland's case are verifiable from numerous sources as an only living parent who is being denied access to his only child. The facts surround Elian Gonzales' case are also verifiable. The analogy by the Children's Rights Council that both cases are factually similar is also undeniable, and fit the criteria of being verifiable and reliable. The comments included by CRC are not massaged, soapboxing or inaccurate. They meet all the criteria you outlined, so why again are you objecting? I am starting to sense that you may have a biased agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unthoughtknown (talk • contribs) 02:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."[11]
• "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used."[12]
• "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable". [13]
• "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." [14]
• Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.[15]

crcjapan.com is a self published source and the group itself are barely reported in media. When they are, they are described generally as an advocacy and support group for LBP. Unlike Savoie, the site is not a news in itself. It's Toland/Erian analogy involve claims about third parties. So the contents in crcjapan does not appear to pass the inclusion threshold of wikipedia. And lastly, please assume good faith of other editors.[16] I understand that some contributors may have personal stake on this issue but I presume that even these editors are willing to work within the wikipedia policies, or if they don't, that is just to do with the fact that they are new to this site. If someone challenge your edit, please do not take it personally..Vapour (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Another worrying issue is that the group list "Gus Zamora aka the KID CATCHER" as a member of the Board of Directors, and he advertise and promote his service on the site. [17] Given the previously mentioned Japanese Supreme Court citations, this group could be busted for running a child kidnapping ring. One of his exploit in Japan described in the Atrantic "Snatchback" article would amount to felony kidnapping and false imprisonment. If they do get busted and receive media spotlight, then they probably deserve a wikipedia article on its own. Vapour (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Vapour, Apparently, you are confusing two completely different groups. The group that lists Gus Zamora on the board of directors is the Children's Rights NETWORK Japan, which is completely unaffiliated and very different than the Children's Rights COUNCIL http://www.crckids.org/, which has an advisory board that includes Former US Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), former US Senator and Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson (R-TN), Honorable Sherwood Boehlert, U.S. House of Representatives, (R-NY); and many other highly esteemed governmental and other national leaders. The Children's Rights Council has a Japan Chapter, and that is the group cited in this Wikipedia article. The Children's Rights Network Japan would never be cited on this site, because they are not a highly reputable organization governed by US Government and non-government leaders like the Children's Rights Council. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unthoughtknown (talk • contribs) 15:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

m( _ _)m My apology. And I'm sorry for making you to respond. A member from CR Network used to re-insert their link in several wikipedia articles including North Korean Abduction and Prime Minister Koizumi so I had this preconceived idea. I think that is how I come across this article few years back.

Children's Rights Council appear to be highly respected NPO and yes, their contents, with some caution, can be added. As of me being Japanese government employee, I assure you that I'm not. To begin with, I haven't been back to Japan for a loooong time. If you really want to be sure, then let me know. You could pick a ramdom admin and this admim could check my I.P. address. As of your solution, "simply continue to put verifiable facts into wikipedia as much as possible", I totally agree." Vapour (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. An unregistered editor promoting Children's Right Network has timely vandalised this talk page, in effect, demonstrating the cause of my confusion. Still, I'm very sorry to have cause you to respond unnecessarily. Vapour (talk)

The Japan Children's Right Network - crnjapan.net

An I.P. editor has inserted multiple citation from crnjapan. I'm very sorry that I confused it with crcjapan.com. Anyway, crnjapan does not appear to be a reliable source. Vapour (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Untrue - The Children's Rights Network acts as court certified experts in International Parental Abduction. Members have on multiple occasions passed the Daubert challenge. The information supplied on crnjapan.net has been used in multiple court cases, and has been certified on numerous occasions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.65.235 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please do not delete the comments in this talk page. You might be new to this site so you may be unaware of some of etiquette. But if you persist, an admin would probably take a corrective action. As of the reliability, the guideline for reliable source is listed here. [18] Wikipedia does not use Daubert challege to determine a reliability. Even American and Japanese lawyers who are intimately involved in this issue can not be cited in the article unless they are quoted by media. Vapour (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

They can, but generally, their own websites aren't automatically considered as reliable sources, and thus can be challenged. As for the link in the Koseki area, it doesn't belong there. Normally other pages have an external link section near the end of the article. I shall remove it, and create a section for such external links. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Savoie's alleged kidnapping

The fact that he wasn't charge or found guilty in court of law doesn't negate what he did. Every year, thousands of teenager have sex with another teenager despite the law against sex with minor. The fact that these kids are not charged or found guilty of sex with minor doesn't negate the fact it happen. Plus, it seems the previous edit is trying to imply that what he did is not illegal. This is not true at all. The illegality of taking kid even one's own in Japan is pretty well cited which include citation from the Japanese Supreme Court. He re-abducted his kid. He was arrested for kidnapping. the prosecutor released him without charge and directed him to pursue custody "legally". There is no need to imply anything. Vapour (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is not true at all. If Savoie had custody of the child, then it would not be a crime. And if the mother has taken the child she would be equally guilty under Article 3 of the Japanese penal code. The fact that neither has been charged does indeed point to a discrepancy in either enforcement or whether it actually represented an unlawful act in the Savoie case. In fact, the previous supreme court case did not deal with a presently divorced couple without the registry in Japan in which the mother had an arrest warrant outstanding and had not established habitual residence for the child, so this case would have been a first impression case to test whether article 224 applies under Japanese law. Since they decided not to go forward with a trial we still do not know whether this is indeed an illegal act or not. So, therefore, saying that an act is illegal might be considered a defamatory statement if it is aimed at a particular individual, is found untrue by a court of law and damages to Savoie's reputation result. In fact, since Savoie is a TN resident, the long arm statute and the fact that accusation of a felony crime untruthfully would mean that Savoie would not have to prove damages to succeed in a libel action. I highly recommend that we retract any implication of illegality of his actions whatsoever in this matter. Halakahful (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit other people's comments. You are more than welcome to reply to other editors comments, but please do not split their comments as you did. Also be careful of stepping into the realm of WP:OR, if you have references supporting your statement, by all means edit the article, and add the references which support the new content. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The WP:OR reference is for the article itself. This is the talk page so opinion is quite fine here. I do agree that a POV review for this whole article is necessary. It is far too supportive of the government sanctioned criminal acts of Japanese abductors and far too critical of the people who are against it, including the victim left-behind parents. 69.137.115.53 (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that the article contains OR, as it is very well cited. POV in the talk page maybe OK, but as editors editing should be done with in the article that adheres to WP:NEU. Whether or not the article is supportive of the Japanese government, is based on the references in the article. Being that the cases occur in Japan, in whole or in part, it is reasonable to assume that references are written with a certain perspective, rightly or wrongly. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that this is a reasonable assumption as the IP user has indicated. If this were an article about Apartheid and the writers of the article were pro-apartheid, one might make the argument that this is OK so long as South African sources were sited. That is a highly problematic analysis if the goal is to reach a neutral, factual article as the work product. The Japanese press is well known to be biased and xenophobic becuase of the xenophobic nature of Japanese culture. It is also well known that Japanese people are obsessed with maintaining their image in the psyche of the western media and populous. Just as the South African whites were. It is irresponsible to let Japanese people write this article and equally irresponsible to let them spread their erroneous propaganda. One blatant example of this is the inclusion of a section on Domestic Abuse. This is off topic and a red herring, but it is what the Japanese government (to the exclusion of every other government) use as an excuse not to sign the hague treaty. This from a country with an abominable record of protecting women from domestic abuse, no less. If this article were authored by non-Japanese, such a section would never have been penned in this context. Halakahful (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, countries which criminalise the parental abduction are in super-minority. Most countries do not consider custodial interference as crime. H.C. deal the parental abduction as a matter of civil law. Moreover, Apartheid was globally condemned and there are various declaration made in U.N. by all nations except S.A.. H.C. on the other hand is singed only by countries with European root. Countries in Asia, Africa and Middle East, which contain vast majority of global population, do not support it. Moreover, the convention has major shortcoming in that it lack legal defence for domestic abuse. This is cited by Japan as one of the major reason not to sign it and the shortcoming is recognised even by signatory countries. Vapour (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Vapour, really who are you? This is getting ridiculous. It appears you are on this board solely trying to defame left behind parents and justify Japanese kidnappings of minors. You have been untruthful in your posts and are posting in a false light. Sorry for the conclusory statement but one cannot reach another conclusion based on your posting activity. You even blocked a delete request using a sock puppet. What motivates you to justify Japanese parental kidnappings? Are you one of the kidnappers or a collaborator/co-conspirator? We need to get to the bottom of this right away perhaps in an open deletion discussion. Agreed? Now, the policies dictate that we should assume you are posting in good faith, but all of your comments serve to discredit the left behind parent victims of these crimes and attempt to nullify crimes that have been recognized throughout the world as serious crimes of child abuse. You have not at all posted anything truthful about the horrendous consequences of child abduction and seem to support international abduction of minors to Japan. What gives? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halakahful (talk • contribs) 01:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Savoie case

I am not going to change the article again, because I am tired of fighting. I started working on this article a long time before Vapour and RightCowLeftCoast showed up. (I was an IP editor and didn't haven't an account back then.) I am very disheartened by seeing all of the factual errors in this article. I have repeatedly pointed out the mistakes in a polite manner, but either my corrections are not understood (perhaps because of a language barrier) or they are being willfully ignored.

This article shows extreme and unbalanced bias for Japan's position. Wikilot49 (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Wikilot49

I am sorry you feel this way. In editing this article, I believe that I have done my best to maintain a Neutral POV, and have done my best to keep my own biases in check.

The only reason why I can think that this article may be seen as having a pro-Japanese position is because of the plethora of Japanese reliable sources in the article. Furthermore, one could argue, although I wouldn't be the one arguing, that the Japanese sources are given undue weight in the article.

It is my belief that Vapour has done a magnificent job at finding reliable sources from Japan.

It has also been my effort, that when available, I tried to find equal Japanese and Western media sources when posting new content.

IMHO, this article has grown positively in the past couple highly active weeks.

If you still believe that certain sections are not neutral, tag them accordingly, and begin a discussion. I think that you have seen in the past that I am reasonable enough to review my own past positions based on the facts available. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"I shot the sherriiif but I did not shoot the deputttyyyyyyy." Hey, I admit I make quite few crappy and annoying edit (much to do with my lack of command over grammars and wiki). But It wasn't me who changed "him having visitation right" to "him having a joint custody". This page[19] show that it was edited by someone from U.S. (216.217.58.142). I and this person is in a bit of dispute over "alleged" kidnapping. 01:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Savoie case, as presented in the article, is factually incorrect. I made changes but those changes were reverted by Vapour. As I pointed out before: Savoie *never* had joint custody in the United States. He only had visitation rights at first. The CNN article that you reference says this...

That is not true. Please see the Youtube comments by his lawyer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVjMCLVamyc&feature=youtube_gdata.

I have provided another link which is to the same interview but from a reliable third party source. The interview itself is from a lawyer familiar with the case and with Tennessee law.

http://www.dadsdivorce.com/blog/dadsdivorce-interview-with-christopher-savoies-attorney.html Halakahful (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Under TN law there is no such thing as custody vs. visitation. There is only the concept of residential time, which divides up physical custody as a ratio. Legal custody is handled in a checkbox section of the MDA and since joint was checked for all major parenting decisions, the legal custody was joint. Thus, the only interpretation possible under TN law is joint physical and legal custody. In TN, the primary and secondary residential nomenclature is only used to denote who has more than 50% for child support calculations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.115.53 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 6 November 2009

Please read the guidelines regarding conduct on talk pages, provided a the top of this page

Please remember to sign your comments, fully (this reminder is not only to you), including your username/IP & time of comment addition.

Please be aware that Youtube is not considered a reliabe source, as it falls under WP:SPS.

Please be aware that if this IP is related to Savoie, that your edits may fall under WP:COI, and maybe tagged, and possibly removed under that guideline.

That being said I am happy to welcome any contributing editor who is here to make positive changes to this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, more contributors we have the better. I invite you to register. This issue is often ignored by the media unless something big happen so the article tend to have edit from LBP with some personal stake. But that doesn't mean their edits are invalid. As long as one declare one's interest and follow wikipedia policy, everyone is welcome. The most relevant policy is to remain civil/friendly and adding contents only from verifiable source (such as media, academia, governmental and public institution). When your contribution get reverted, don't take it personally. If you come to talk page and discuss it, you probably find that revert is nothing personal. Vapour (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I could not agree more. Both of these authors seem to be promulgating a viewpoint that is standard in Japan in defense of Japanese law but which is a viewpoint that is not within the norm of how most English readers in the West would view the situation. Clearly kidnapping of children to Japan is indefensible by international laws and human morals. It does not represent truthfulness and honest neutrality to allow Japanese authors or authors with Japanese interests to bias this article in favor of unacceptable practices. It would be like allowing South African whites to write an article commenting on apartheid with many statements promoting the laws or allowing neo-Nazis to draft the articles on Nazi Germany. The writers doing this are also obviously not native English speakers so the article is of very poor quality and diction. I recommend that if these users would like to draft a separate article which defends Japanese publicly sanctioned kidnapping that they write that article on the japanese language wikipedia site where it will not be considered propaganda or PR by Japan or Japanese people, who are a rogue country when it comes to this issue. Halakahful (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, please leave previous comments as is, and respond to them after the oldest comment in the section, or after the comment which you wish to respond to. As for your comment, perhaps this article should be tagged for a POV check by a non-interested party? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Child abduction, rescue, and kidnapping

Hi. I believe that the word "abduction" (or re-abduct in Savoie case) would be the most neutral term to use. The term "rescue", which imply no illegality whatsoever is factually incorrect and biased in favour of CS and the term kidnapping, which is what CS did in the eyes of Japanese law, is nevertheless, biased in favour of Noriko. I should also point out that, whatever the basis of custody in any countries, use of force to recover one's right, know as Self-help (law), is illegal unless there are some exceptional circumstance such as self defence. The term, (parental) abduction, does not make defacto judgement about criminality. I don't think any countries in the world define simple parental abduction as crime. Only interstate or international abduction is crime in some countries. This appear to do with the civil origin of the dispute as well as the fact that parental abduction happen so regularly that criminalising it would result in too many, otherwise law abiding, parent having criminal record. Vapour (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If Christopher had custody in Japan, his actions were not illegal and therefore the term "abduction" would not be factually correct, nor neutral. Since there have been no indictments, the police or the prosecutors in Japan have not determined that he did anything illegal. It is not up to an encyclopedic informational article to pass judgement the illegality of an action unless police or prosecutors, based on a reliable third party source, have made that determination. Might I suggest the word "retrieve" which is neutral in terms of legal judgment and does not take a side? In Noriko's case, she has indeed been charged with abduction. There is a federal indictment in place, so I believe that this meets the factual correctness requirements. Halakahful (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for registering and welcome to Wikipedia. :) The following is taken from this article. "The Supreme Court of Japan categorically ruled that a parental abduction in which force and coercion is used to remove child is a felony of kidnapping of minor irrespective of person's custodial right. The case concern a couple who were separated but were not divorced so the abducting father held a joint custody." "Moreover, a foreign father trying to abduct children by force to take a child to foreign state would face extra charge of "kidnapping for the purpose of transporting the kidnapped person to a foreign country" (Article 226(1) of the Penal Code) which carry imprisonment with labor for a limited period of not less than two years." These content are based on direct case citation of the Supreme Court. Moreover, I'm advocating the word "abduction" as a middle ground between "kidnapping" and "rescue". Even in U.S., non interstate parental abduction is not presumed to be a crime. Had I been trying to imply illegality, I would be pushing for the word, "kidnapping". Vapour (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, how about the word "take"? Vapour (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a more neutral term, but I think under the legal doctrine of proximal cause (even with regard to your excellent comments above on self-help) the "but for" proximal (legal cause) argument under common law and civil law systems would not place legal (or even moral) equivalence to "taking" in the first instance and "taking back" what is rightfully one's own. The actions are not symmetrical because but for the initial action (for example stealing a painting), the retributive action (stealing or abducting or taking the painting back) would not be necessary. Halakahful (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, in the interest of intellectual honesty about intentions and neutrality, and in consideration of Policy, your statement above "use of force to recover one's right, know as Self-help (law), is illegal" would directly contradict your more recent statement "Had I been trying to imply illegality, I would be pushing for the word, 'kidnapping'" Vapour, you not only implied illegality, you explicitly stated it as a legal fact. Halakahful (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it appear that you misunderstand what I meant. It is "Had I been trying to imply illegality in the article, then I would be pushing for the word "kidnapping" to be used to describe what he did in the article instead of the word rescue or abduction." He did commit kidnapping but then I understand that others see it in other way so I'm happy to find a workable solution. Anyway, it is nice to reach consensus. Nice talking to you. Cheers. 10:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)