Talk:International child abduction in Japan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reshuffle

Hi, I feel that the "international marriage and divorce" section is slightly out of place. Moreover, I don't think this section could be expanded any further. On the other hand, "Japanese Custody law" section could be expanded to give more comprehensive coverage which include custody, child support and visitation. Vapour (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Article's Introduction

This section is horrendous. Why does an article on ICA in Japan even need to define the phenomenon of ICA or extensively differentiate it from other forms of abduction/kidnapping? If this is even pretending to be a legal article everyone reading it knows what ICA is, although if it's that confusing Abduction and Kidnapping are good places to include such details (though I'm pretty confident they already do) otherwise a disambiguation page might be helpful.

While I will grant that the International child abduction article (redirect actually) is terrible it is still a well-understood phenomenon in the broader legal community, if not the general public.

From WP:LEAD:

---

The lead section (also known as the introduction or the lead) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence.

---

I am removing one wholly inappropriate and awful paragraph from this section but the whole thing could use a rewrite.--Cybermud (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I am working on a new article "International child abduction" that is not country specific to replace the poor WP redirect that currently exists. I will publish an initial draft this afternoon. This article should focus on Japan, though aside from the lead-in it generally does, not on the definition ICA itself (which it has done poorly anyway.)--Cybermud (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The International child abduction article is now live. It remains very much a work in progress but having other knowledgeable editors to assist in its writing would help expedite it becoming a high-quality WP article on an important topic and avoid multiple definitions and re-definitions of the subject in articles intended to focus on individual countries such as this one on Japan, the International child abduction in Mexico article and International child abduction in Brazil as well as the numerous other articles on other countries which will no doubt follow.--Cybermud (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Historical Information tag and others

I removed the histinfo tag listed as being added in October 2009. I can find no justification for why this tag was added or what historical context is perceived as lacking. There is nothing about it in this talk page. I also couldn't find the edit comment that added it by looking at the edits in Oct '09. I also think that a discussion is problematically lacking on this page for the other tagged issues with a plan to deal with them (in spite of this article having a very active edit history) but at least with those tags I can reasonably surmise why they were added.--Cybermud (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Vapour's bias

It is obvious from his diction in English that Vapour is Japanese. It is obvious from his/her posts and revisions that he/she is biased towards the Japanese view that parental kidnapping to Japan is not a crime. We need to get more unbiased people without a pressing nationalistic motivation to rewrite this entire article in line with the kind of verbiage that appears in H.Res 1326. Vapour is continually providing only selected quotes from articles that support his hideous and superminority viewpoint that kidnapping is OK when it is to Japan by Japanese parents and that Japan's custody system that promotes this system is in any way acceptable. Allowing Japanese people who support the Japanese position to edit such an article is not proper. It is the equivalent of letting a Nazi SS officer who supports the Nazi viewpoint write a piece on the Shoa.

I agree. Halakahful (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This bias just needs to be declared by Vapour openly and honestly. To be clear though, people who have a pro-Japanese view on this should make a Japanese wiki page supporting international abductions and Japan's outlier laws on this and not spread their hateful propaganda here. Using Japanese newspapers and media such as the Japan times makes this worse even if the articles are in English. And in Japan, we know that the media writes whatever the government wants them to write. Just because it is done in English doesn't make it better journalism. Halakahful (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How do we make our votes count on this page. I also have been thinking for a long time that this article is terrible. Is it because one person with distorted views is editing this? That makes perfect sense. I think it is quite a mess to have such propaganda for the Japanese out there when the congress of the United States and the Ambassadors of 8 countries (at least!) disagree with this point of view that Japanese standards are somehow "normal". Whoever this Vapour person is, he or she seems hellbent on uncriming the crime of kidnapping to protect Japan's image and is painting the victim left behind parents in as poor a light as possible with his selected quotations from Japanese sources. This is a poor reflection on the quality of Wikipedia. I think this page should be completely deleted and another one posted, based mostly on the language in the U.S. Congress resolutions. At least that language was vetted by many lawyers for elected representatives from many states so it is not just the opinion of one or two victims. It is also bipartisan, so it is not even political.

--- I agree. I contribute to a number of articles related to international family law and child abduction in particular, and have come across, and removed, vapours edits on other pages such as the generic child abduction article where he added "In US., parental abduction has been defined as child abuse while in elsewhere this may be treated as a private matter" as a replacement for the simple statement that "International Child Abduction has been defined as child abuse." It seems to me he is evangelizing an idea that international child abduction is sometimes legitimately considered a private civil affair in order to protect Japan's practice and image in being a state sponsor of international abductions. Vapour's characterization that it's only the US who defines child abduction as child abuse is a grossly inaccurate and biased one -- particularly since the reference for that statement was not US specific but to a copy of a report presented to the UN. Even Japan considers it a crime to abduct children FROM Japan and even Japan has signed the UN CRC that declares international child abduction a violation of several fundamental rights of children. Additionally such a statement equates the definition of child abuse as being limited to only that which is not also defined as a "private civil affair," or non-criminal. There are countries where child prostitution is legal and a "private" affair. However, that doesn't change the abusive and exploitive nature of such actions in any way, shape or form. I have no problem with bias per se but I do take issue with intellectually dishonest edits that are intended to promote that bias.--Cybermud (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Parental abduction is not crime in majority of countries and as defined by international treaty as various academic and media source confirm. Secondly,I would consider accusation that I'm biased simply because of my nationality to be highly offensive and bigoted. I haver not accused anyone of anti Japanese bias simply because they are Westerners. I would expect the same courtesy and some common sense. I have no personal stake in this matter. However, I understand that quite few editors here are LBP and has a huge personal stake on the presentation of this article. I have not disputed their right to make edit. Lastly, even if I out myself as an agent from Japanese government (someone has accused me as such in here, it won't make any different because rules of editing is quite clear. Queen Elizabeth can edit her own article as long as the contents come from verified source. Vapour (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reported Vapour | here for edit-warring his POV changes and, specifically, violating WP:3RR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybermud (talk • contribs) 03:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Vapours edits on the UNCRC

Once again demonstrating his WP:Tendentious editing and WP:POV pushing user:vapour has rewritten my new section on the UNCRC. The diff that demonstrates his changes is here

This edit, more than any other edit, shows his advocacy of child abduction and POV pushing that Japan is not a criminal or rogue nation in the arena of international family law

The text of the UNCRC is available here--Cybermud (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, Japan actually has signed the UNCRC which obligates the country to protect children's rights violated by international child abductions. Two of the articles in the UNCRC specifically deal with child abduction (ie 11 and 35.) And he removed them as irrelevant and put his own personal (and fringe) POV spin on the articles he "allowed" to be related to ICA.

To clarify further, article 11 stipulates:

Article 11

1. States Parties shall take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad.

2. To this end, States Parties shall promote the conclusion of bilateral or multilateral agreements or accession to existing agreements.

And article 35 stipulates:

Article 35

States Parties shall take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent the abduction of, the sale of or traffic in children for any purpose or in any form.

Of course, according to vapour, neither of these is relevant to ICA (when they are the most relevant of all of them!)-Cybermud (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Parental Abduction in the Law

We need a review of neutrality on this section as well, particularly since this project is part of the law project. The author of this section has taken great pains to try and dilute the supermajority view that international parental child abduction should be considered criminal. Since the article is limited to the context of Japan, which provides no civil remedies for international child abduction or even intra-Japan child abduction in its domestic civil or criminal legal code, this discussion is not relevant and its inclusion clearly indicates an intent by the (probably Japanese) author to defend Japan's illogical duality of considering inbound abductions INTO Japan as non-criminal civil issues, while treating outbound abductions and intra-Japan abductions by a non-custodial parent as felony kidnapping crimes. This article should be neutral and factual and not promote cultural relativism in defense of Japanese policies of protecting child abductors who take kids into Japan. Halakahful (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please find a source to back up your claim. As far as I know the Hague Convention does not treat international parental child abduction as criminal matter. And moreover, almost all countries does not treat the custodial interference as civil and not criminal act. Otherwise, every dozen or so divorce cases would produce a criminal out of one of the parent, as parental abduction happens so often. It is only a recent phenomenon that few countries, notably U.S. reclassified inter-state and international custodial interference as a felony. In vast majority of the world, this still remains as civil dispute. And there are some view among group advocating meditation that criminalising the abduction would deter rather than help solving the problem. So, your personal view that "supermajority view that international parental child abduction should be considered criminal" is factually incorrect. Anyhow, what you or I "think" is super-majority opinion is irrelevant. "Vapour (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem when nationalistic evangelism supersedes actual knowledge of the topic someone is editing. The Hague Abduction Convention is an international treaty in "International Private Law." To the uninitiated, the name International Private Law is a misnomer since it's neither truly international nor truly private. There is no requirement that the treaty be implemented in any specific way in an individual signatory country hence the implementation of the treaty is, in fact, domestic law. Some countries, particularly Civil Law jurisdictions choose to treat the Convention text itself as statutory law to be interpreted textually, whereas other countries, generally Common Law jurisdictions, create their own legislation and statutes implementing the goals of the treaty. State parties and governments are deeply involved in many aspects of the implementation, enforcement, compliance and daily operation of these treaties, so they are not truly "private" either. Extending on the above it would be extremely inaccurate to assume that the phrase "Civil Aspects International Child Abduction" imply that the authors or signatories to the Convention are implying that international abduction is not a criminal act, they are not. "Civil" in this context is, once again, not intended to mean that international abduction is a private civil affair, or tort, as is understood in US civil law. In fact the man considered the father of the treaty has called it a "human rights" treaty, and that's exactly what it is. By the way, I hope your not implying that 1 in every 12 divorces results in a child abduction.--Cybermud (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost, please stop accusing people of nationalism or bias. Such accusation is very rude and is against wikipedia rule to be civil[1]. Also, whatever you feel about my editorial stance, please assume good faith of other editors.[2]. This article are frequented by many LBPs and they have far more personal stake in this matter than I but as long as they stick to wikipedia guideline and principles, it should not matter. I only took issue with incorrect statement that "the supermajority view that international parental child abduction should be considered criminal". I should point out that it was I who added the citation for U.K. law. (I might have done that same for U.S. but can't remember). Even in U.S. and U.K. criminalisation is an recent phenomenon and Australia recently rejected that move to do so. Vapour (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Domestic Abuse

This section is massively one sided. In fact this entire article seems to portray child abductors, and especially Japanese women, as all heroine mothers protecting their children from abuse. Claiming that the HC does not protect victims of domestic violence is highly controversial (as are Japan's use of it as a red herring to postpone or justify their abstaining from the HC) although reading this article gives the impression that it is widely accepted that the Hague Convention is an instrument used to further victimize victims of domestic violence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybermud (talk • contribs) 19:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This quotation in the article is a prime example:

"Kensuke Onuki, a prominent Japanese lawyer who handles many international divorces[78] was reported as saying he oppose Japan signing convention and claim that “[i]n over 90 percent of cases in which the Japanese women return to Japan, the man is at fault, such as with domestic violence and child abuse,” and that domestic violence is difficult to prove."

Verifiability does not mean reliability and verifying someone said something is not verifying the content of what is said. This quote contains an absurd and completely unsupported statistic and WP:REDFLAG applies, specifically "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.[4] If such sources are not available, the material should not be included."--Cybermud (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Verified statement from established media source is deemed reliable by the wikipedia rules. So in this case, these statements are reliable by default as it is quoted from an established media. This will prevent people censoring statement cited from Fox or NewYork times out of their personal take of bias. Also, the said media source is not asserting that the statement is true. They are merely stating that who said what, which, in this instance, is well verified. You are not allowed to censor statement made by someone simply because what you think is true. Vapour (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Any crackpot can make any claim they want on any topic and get it published, that doesn't make it appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia unless it's in an article on that crackpot. The ICA in Japan article is not a WP:Coatrack for all the ridiculous things that Kensuke Onuki says. The quote on "90%" is absolute hyperbole and completely innappropriate. Please stop your POV pushing. I have no vested interest in making Japan look good or bad (unlike you.) There are no sources that even begin to show 90% of abductions are the result of abused women and quoting sensalationsitic quotes to that effect does not belong in this article or any other article except maybe one on Kensuke Onuki in a section on stupid things he says.--Cybermud (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Also, please read wikipedia rule of editing. In wikipedia, your or my personal opinion about validity of statement made in established media does not count. If, Faux News quote Ann Countler saying "Obama isn't a muslim, he is an atheist", then it is verified statement. We are not allowed to say in wikipedia that "Obama is an atheist". However, "AC stated that Obama is an atheist" is a perfectly valid edit. This also apply to "children did not see it as abduction when it was done by mother (primary carer)". That statement is in the report issued by Reunite. You might not like what you read but please do not censor because of it. Vapour (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, could you translate that to English so I can try to respond effectively?--Cybermud (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

All of the extensive Domestic Violence content in this article has been added by Vapour. The whole article is completely weighted down by the topic which is interspersed into every section and has it's own huge section even though the topic is only of marginal relevance to the article. This is a blatant violation of WP:Undue and really amounts to POV pushing.--Cybermud (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, please understand that it is all about citation from established sources. The concern about docmestic violence is voiced by academic and various governments many of which are signatory of Hague. In wikipedia, government official announcement or papers published by academia is considered more reliable and hence more verified than pieces by journalists. This section exist because citation exist. This reflect the fact that it is seen as a serious matter by academic and government officials from Japan and other countries.Vapour (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, please understand, the relevant policy is WP:Undue and the whole article reads like a publication by a domestic violence shelter. I am not against there being a section on it, especially since Japan is using it as a red herring for not signing the Hague Convention, but the article is international child abduction in Japan not Internationally abused Japanese women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybermud (talk • contribs) 04:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not got any of my content from a domestic violence shelter. If you find any verified citation which says "Japan is using domestic violence as red herring" or "domestic violence is not relevant to parental abduction", then everyone benefit for additional insight. For example, it was I who added a quote by an American lawyer/academic in Japan, which says "Japanese court is heavily biased in favour of mother". Should I delete my own edit because the statement is anti Japanese?

if vast majority of verified contents concur with your opinion, then your claim that DV is given undue weight has merit. Instead, lawyers, academics and governments representative from Japan and various Hague signatory countries categorically state that domestic violence is a growing problem and that the Convention provide inadequate protection for domestic violence.

Discovering materials from media, academia and governmental sources require significant amount of time and effort. It is not nice to delete these just because it does not agree with you. Vapour (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. There are plenty of academic sources that contradict the ones you've added -- some of them in the very articles you referenced though you excluded those sections. There are also plenty of additional sources that also cite DV issues in Hague cases. Having an exhaustive list of them all is not necessary, would overrun the whole article and violate WP:Undue. More importantly, the Weiner report and many of the other sources you are using are from 10-20 years ago (although Professor Weiner is an excellent and reliable source.) Domestic violence is not a "growing issue" anymore, rather it is a well-established one that has been discussed at a number of Hague Conferences. The Swiss even introduced a proposed language change to the Convention to address domestic violence to add another exception to return when it is "manifestly not in the child's best interests." This was rejected by the attending member states with the conclusion that the "intolerable situation" clause of article 13b could be easily interpreted as covering DV. Point being, there are many sources who cite valid DV issues, though many of them are quite old and, additionally, there are many other sources which you are excluding, or unaware of, where HC applications have been denied for some of the most trivial things like "interrupting a breast-feeding mother," "unbonding a child," "cold weather," "not speaking German" etc, etc. The Japanese editorials that claim that Hague returns are only denied for returning children to war-torn countries are ignoring the fact that, in MANY countries, Hague returns are ALWAYS denied for any and every reason imaginable. More importantly William Duncan the deputy secretary-general of the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law has even said:

"Should there be evidence of serious domestic violence being committed in the presence of a child against the child's mother, for example, the presiding judge will most likely rule against sending the child back to his or her father, unless he can be assured that the return of the child can take place under safe conditions."[3]

Add this was in a Japanese editorial that I'm pretty sure you read but chose to ignore. Frankly, now days actual domestic violence is pretty well established as a valid reason to deny the return of children in most countries, especially if the country requesting return cannot demonstrate it's ability to protect women at risk. This is old news and your edits make it sound like a newly discovered and critical issue that is just reaching massive proportions. Additionally I can cite hundreds of pages of documentation that claims of domestic violence are very frequently false during divorce, custody and abduction cases, but having a huge section dedicated to claims of DV and claims of false allegations would quickly unbalance and overrun the whole article. You keep citing numbers of women who "allege" DV without acknowledging, or perhaps even being aware, that the domain of DV has been expanded so many times that it is almost meaningless in the US (where most of your references are from.) In the US, not giving your wife her own checkbook is now a form of "financial abuse," and not paying attention to her enough is a form of "psychological" or "emotional" abuse. In closing, having this section is fine, but it needs to show balance and the way you've been editing has not done that.--Cybermud (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

UKCrown reference

What is this reference all about?

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

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

More misused references

The following statement:

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

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

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

Another perverted reference

The statement:

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

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

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

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

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

And another (this one less egregious but illustrative)

The statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seal of Japanese Government

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

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

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

As of Mexican and Brazilian article, it is pretty obvious that it was you who added it so it add very little to validity of your argument. As of analogy about war, Iraq war is about war between Iraq and U.S. which had direct confrontation. International child abduction is, as you say, about child abduction between Japanese and non Japanese couple. Japanese government has not abducted any of these children, though many LBP seems to feel that way. Placing this photo at the introduction add to the impression that it is Japanese government's responsibility, which bias the article in favour of LBP perspective. I'm proposing to remove the photo not because it is not the best one or less relevant but because it is inappropriate.

I don't think I added the seal to the article on Brazil, but I really don't remember or care to check. Again, this is an article about Japan and a Japan image is an appropriate one. Perhaps this one is better? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Itsukushima_torii_angle.jpg It's definitely prettier, and doesn't give the impression that it's "Japan's government's responsibility" (even though it obviously is, or do you think the Australian gov't is responsible for Japanese foreign policy?) Going back to the Iraq war, that's a conflict between two countries, not a conflict between the US and the rest of the world. A better example would International child abduction in the United States. That article should definitely have an image representing the United States if you care to create it, otherwise I'm planning to get to it eventually.--Cybermud (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Multiple new opinions needed regarding WP:UNDUE & WP:NPOV

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

• Where exactly the issues of POV and UNDUE are not clear to the uninitiated, so it would be helpful to amend the RfC request with more information. I read this version of the article to look for User:Cybermud's accusation against User:Vapour "POV pushing (all abductors are abused mothers, Japan is being honorable by protecting them from the evil abuse Hague Convention)". I did not get the sense that the domestic violence section was undue. First of all, coverage in some way is necessary since domestic violence seems to be the main Japanese argument against adopting the convention. The section was thoughtful and balanced in its coverage, with the exception of the quote by the Australian official, which only reiterated the domestic violence argument in a more forceful, potentially upsetting way. I think that quotes like that should be avoided in general, with the arguments paraphrased in a neutral tone and counterarguments interspersed in between them. That is what was done for most of the section. Quigley (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• I am an editor of this page. Not sure which of the "only two" you are calling me (maybe i'm not considered "active") I haven't read the article for a while; though I think I've mostly kept up with its edits. When I last left it I would have said the NPOV tag was mostly not needed. I would be willing to offer an opinion on the NPOV tag and whether anything was UNDUE if there were a discussion on why either of those things is being claimed in the first place. If I have to read the article again without that context, I'm afraid I'm too busy at the moment. If there's no one advocating for the tag to be there it should be removed.--Cybermud (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I began this rfc due to your interactions with Vapour, as during that time you two appeared to be the only active editors in this article, and although I made contributions to this page I was in a wikibreak, so was not involved. I was under the impression that the NPOV tag was based upon the edit conflict betweem yourself and Vapour; but if memory serves me, the tag originates from the beginning of the major expansion of the article back at the end of 2009. If present active editors, have reviewed the article and have found that the article is written in a manor that keeps with WP:NEU, then by all means the tag should be removed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I support removing the tag. It predates my involvement with this article, though I think it was there appropriately when I first came to it as domestic violence histrionics were in every single section and the whole thing read like a justification for Japan's stance on the Hague Convention and issue of ICA.--Cybermud (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)