Jump to content

Talk:Child abduction

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

VfD I

[edit]

from VfD:

It's not an article, but a bunch of quotes from different people. Timo Honkasalo 15:43, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

VfD II

[edit]

Second vfd of child stealing is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Child stealing. Consensus was to move to its more common name, child abduction. Dunc|☺ 15:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Agenda

[edit]

Two IP addresses: 61.193.213.106 and 61.45.80.227 have been updating this article with an obvious agenda.

"The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is an international treaty and legal mechanism to recover children abducted to another country by one parent or family member. The United States signed this into law in 1988. Japan is the only G7 nation not have signed this treaty into law, and Japanese law makes this country a haven for Japanese nationals who have removed their children from another country. As of December 24th 2005, Interpol has outstanding warrants for two Japanese nationals, the most recent addition being Wood, Ayako, who abducted her son and daughter from Canada to Japan in 2004. The children's father, Murray Wood, a Canadian national, presently has his case for the return of his children to Canada and his care before the Japanese Supreme Court. Interpol fugitive listing here: http://www.interpol.int/public/Data/Wanted/Notices/Data/2005/47/2005_23547.asp + The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is an international treaty and legal mechanism to recover children abducted to another country by one parent or family member. The United States signed this into law in 1988. Japan is the only G7 nation not have signed this treaty into law. - - Mr Wood has the full support of the Canadian court which have ruled that the children be returned to their habitual place of abode, as they were born and raised in Canada until their abduction. This Canadian ruling has not been recognized by the Japanese family court and Japanese high court as having any relevance to Japanese citizens. Mr Wood's case is one of many such instances of Japan ignoring internationally agreed tenets of human rights in regard to child abduction, both cross-border and domestically. More examples and stories of such abductions can be found here: http://www.frij.net/m/index.asp Link goes to Father's Rights in Japan website. This link to Children's Rights Network of Japan http://www.CRNJapan.com/en/ Murray Wood's personal website detailing his attempts to reclaim his children through the Japanese legal system: http://public.sd38.bc.ca:8004/~MWood/"

I've removed all details of the spicific case as Wikipedia is not a soap box. I have kept the top part of the first paragraph as it is information that is true and usefull. Random Player 04:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While WP is not a soapbox. Mr Wood has gained considerable support in Japan for this issue, and there are several independent third-party sources that discuss his case. I would like to ask interested editors to have a look at two articles from my magazine which discuss Mr Wood's case in more detail. I would like to ask if editors think it appropraite to create a section in this page for Japan-related abductions. Feature Think of the Children Follow-up Remember the Children. -- Sparkzilla talk! 10:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

[edit]

I think this article could use some statistics on the numbers of abductions done by non-custodial parents and relatives versus people unknown to the child. This is really a very important aspect of this. --DanielCD 14:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium Embassy Girls

[edit]

I think this topic also doesn't belong in this encyclopedic article (same as the complaint on the Japanese abduction). I've re-written it nonetheless, waiting for consensus. The article states the situation was "participarly complicated"; however, the stated facts don't appear all that complicated at all --other than that the case dealt with a non-Hague country (which is a frequent occurrence) and that "the girls fled to the Belgium embassy" and a resolution had to be mediated by the Iranian ambassador. I know of at least three other cases that are at least as complicated, none of which deserve discussion on this article page. Ronels talk 19:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japan is the only G7 country

[edit]

I have seen some soapboxing by someone related to "Japan Children's Rights Network" in other articles. In an article about North Korea's abduction of Japanese citizen, someone from JCRN tried to argue that situation is similar to theirs. Considering that some abductees are killed by North Korea, I found the argument quite offesive but I guess when one is flustrated with system, they tend to make bizzare argument. Anway, I assume quite few countries, including developed countries hasn't signed up for it. Use of G7 is an attempt to single out Japan to bring attention to their cause, which directly violate soaxbox ban of this site. I will delete reference to Japan unless someone reference it to verified source. Vapour

[edit]

I'm hoping a regular editor on this page will check the external link labeled "Federal Resources on Missing and Exploited Children" and either remove it, or reply here to say it is ok. See asiaing.com. Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New page on "Parental Child Abduction" proposed

[edit]

Today I made my first Wikipedia contribution (see: “Mary Marshall Dyer” adds). Since I am a wiki novice, I would hope that a more experienced contributor might be interested in assisting me in starting a new “Parental Child Abduction” page.

I have copious materials to add dealing with the phenomenon from the 18th century to present; regarding cases, law, public perception and the important aspect of popular culture representations). While my contributions would be based on “original research,” I can resolve the “original research” protocol issue by discussing on the new Wikipedia page only materials referenced in primary documentation (usually newspaper articles 18th century - present) currently available online (in text format).

A Wikipedia page would be important because there is, at present only one published source on the history of parental child abduction and it is wildly inaccurate, yet influential. --RKS182 (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on International parental abduction in Japan. IPA in Japan" article is a orphaned article at the moment. I came here because I was looking for a parent article to link. I would prefer if there is a separate article titled "parental abduction" or "international parental abduction". I prefer to write about international difference in family law, conflict of doctrine regarding child welfare (primary carer doctrine v.s. shared parenting), woman freeing from (alleged) abuse, international diplomacy, father's right movements in various countries, etc." Surely, parental abduction is not same as kidnapping by stranger. Many countries still consider it as civil(tort) rather than criminal case. Vapour (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is discussion of Internet chat rooms relevant?

[edit]

The section "Child abduction for rape and sexual exploitation" is dominated by discussion of the risks of children being exposed to inappropriate sexual conversations on the Internet. No sources linking this to the topic of the article are given. Is this stuff relevant? (Except, I suppose, if this article is really about 'worried parents') 76.17.122.160 (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

needs disambiguate between by family by strangers

[edit]

I suggest change in order of sections. The more frequent familial parental abduction should come first. Within the other second section of criminal abductions by strangers, perhaps reorder the subsections from bad to worst... (extortion, illegal adoption, trafficking, murder.) Article needs more references and work. There should be a disambiguation page. Both categories are crimes. But one within family law, the other criminal law... Yohananw (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the internet a safe place for children?

[edit]

What does that really mean? Is the internet in fact safe for children or adults? It sounds more like a meaningless advert for these organizations and MySpace than a factual, encyclopedic statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.146.80 (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saboteurs causing proliferation and disorganisation of similar articles?

[edit]

This article could almost be re-titled as 'Child abduction in the USA' - it is very USA-centric, with an inconsistent heading hierarchy.

I note that the resolution for VfD 2 above was that 'Child abduction' is a more standard term than 'Child-selling' - I agree, but note that the quality of the Child-selling article is much better.

Generally, there is a very disappointing fragmentation of Child-abduction issues into various articles, with very uneven coverage of countries. E.g. there is a separate article for Child trafficking in India, and a few details by country in Child laundering & Child-selling, but a lot of essential info is missing. This is particularly disappointing, given that, e.g. China is now using a DNA database in a start to rectify decades of abductions, but finding this info on WP seems hard. Given the horrific plight of victims, I suggest that WP could be doing far more to organise this info, and perhaps assist co-ordinating translation into relevant languages.

Given that this is the poorest organisation of info I have seen on WP despite the importance of the topics, I suggest experienced Wikipedians consider whether we have a cock-up or a conspiracy. Normally I would suggest Hanlon's razor, but, as an Australian, I know how terrible mistakes were compounded by attempting to wall-paper over them, e.g. Australian cock-ups / conspiracies include:

It would be terrible if WPians allow saboteurs from various govts / authorities to wallpaper over past mistakes at the expense of the speediest discontinuance / rectification of child abduction. But hopefully the current mess is just poor organisation that can be rectified by experienced Boldness. AntiCensorious (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good concern and it's possible to find out, but mainly I think you're describing a failure to add good information (including sourcing). Wikipedia is a work in progress and it has many gaps, probably millions (as it has millions of articles). If you want to investigate whether good information was deleted, go to the View History link at the top of any article. Up to 500 past revisions of an article will be listed on one history page, there may be more history pages linked at the bottom going back to the article's creation, and you can choose any two revisions on one history page and, with a click of a button, compare them, with highlighting of differences. If you find something interesting, you can repeat the process for a smaller number of revisions and trace a problem to a particular editor. But in general it's probably more efficient to add information that you know of, assume that in a subject as controversial as these that most information will be challenged unless adequately sourced, and keep the pages on your watchlist so you can monitor subsequent edits. If the information you want to add was previously added and then deleted, go to that article's talk page, discuss your proposed addition, and develop a consensus. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"800k"

[edit]

The source isn't terrible: they work with the DOJ. All the same, that figure is over a decade out of date and needs replacing from the current FBI figures which are lower. See here. — LlywelynII 03:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Child abduction

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Child abduction's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "train":

  • From Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear: Petri, Alexandra. "Peace Trains, Crazy Trains, Love Trains and automobiles at Stewart rally". Washington Post. Retrieved October 30, 2010.
  • From International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children: "ICMEC to Train Officers in Bangkok September 18–21". Virtual Global Taskforce. September 5, 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Child abduction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Child abduction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Theft"

[edit]

Is there a source for the use of the term "child theft"? It seems totally inappropriate to me, considering it implies one can own a child, a concept wholly repugnant to modern sensibilities all over the world since the abolition of slavery. Hairy Dude (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neonatal, perinatal, prenatal, embryonic...gamete?

[edit]
Neonatal "infant abduction" and prenatal fetal abduction are the earliest ages of child abduction as defined by a viable child through the age of majority. In addition, "embryo theft" and even "oocyte misappropriation" in reproductive medical settings have been legally construed as child abduction.[3][4][5]

I added this paragraph on rarer earliest age categories.-Yohananw (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smuggling

[edit]

Would the issue of child smuggling be worth an article? This would have some overlap but also include non-abduction cases by legal guardians who emigrate/immigrate illegally. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A new section on this page about religion motivated child abduction

[edit]

Proposal to add the section mentioned in the title. Examples would be..
.. the stolen generation in Australia
.. boarding schools in North America
.. the dalay lama in Asia (abducted at 5 years old) Wallby (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Child_abduction&oldid=1200845612"