Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International child abduction in Brazil


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. The consensus is that the article needs work, but should be kept --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 23:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

International child abduction in Brazil

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Reason Cybermud (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am the original creator of this article. The article's topic is a good one and there should be an article on it though I actually originally created it as a place to put good edits that were being done in the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction article, but were not appropriate for that specific article (as I documented in the talk page).  Since then the article has been hijacked by a number of POV pushing single purpose editors looking for a soapbox to discuss their own children and make ad hominem attacks on Brazil (all while not contributing worthwhile information).  As an editor who is very interested in improving the coverage of ICA in general on WP and helping create a good encyclopedia in general I don't have the time to continue to argue with problem editors in that article and, as it stands today, the article provides very poor coverage of the topic and has very significant WP:BLP issues with its "individual case histories" comprising 75% of the article.  Trying to tag the article for improvement has failed as the tags are just summarily removed because "I must have been confused" when I added them.--Cybermud (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding to the above, the fact that I am personally tired of trying to improve that article, would not be so problematic in and of itself if there were other editors actively trying to constructively improve it but the only ones who did try seem to have been driven off as well.--Cybermud (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep the article has many problems, however it is notable. What is required is to remove most of the case histories, and reduce those that remain  to the salient points (for example, one is significant because the judicial ruling followed the Hague Convention, but the parent defied the court).  If necessary the page can be protected, but I have added comments discouraging addition of not-significant-to-the-article cases. Rich Farmbrough, 17:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Cybermud is getting far too heated and arrogant in relation to this article. Yes. He created the page, but he did this to give people who had added information on an inappropriate page another page that was dedicated and more appropriate. He suggested it for deletion simply as a knee-jerk reaction to his previous comments being challenged and his arbitrary tags being removed (they were not repeatedly removed. His use of words like 'embarrassing' is not helpful and it appears that he is setting himself up as some sort of authroritative editor with a comprehensive knowledge not only of this issue but of the practice of editing in general. He has jumped around from nit-picking point to nit-picking point, pulling a new one out every time his previous one is challenged, proved wrong or disagreed with. This article has NOT been hijacked! People with children abducted to Brazil have contributed to it - yes, I am one of them and have contributed much to it and I deeply resent his suggestions that my additions are embarrassing and worthless. I have gone to great lengths to be balanced and to source everything I have put down. The section on Articles 12 and 13 were well researched and are fundamental to Brazil's interpretation of Hague. AGU and Interpol in Brazil are notorious as being mere fig leaves. AGU does NOT provide free and excellent legal support and Interpol simply does NOT locate children abducted to Brazil - fact!!!If the Brazilian abducting parents acted in good faith and did not follow a common startaegy of refusing to respond, going into hiding and relying on a moribund judicial system to drag cases on forever, we might get enough counter arguments to provide Cybermud with his balanced arguments, but they do not. I suggested that Hatufim had gone overboard with his Nazi comments, so it is not helpful for Cybermud to start suggesting that there is some cabal of LBPs who have hijacked this page. He is now stamping his feet and claiming that it should be deleted because he hasn't gotten his own way with previous comments that he has made and says that he hasn't got time to debate the issue. Well he certainly has had plenty of time to stick his oar in up until now. I have tried to be as diplomatic as possible with this, despite the odd excursion into sarcasm and irony, but I am reaching the point where I am beginning to think that WP should start investigating the pages Cybermud has created on International Child Abduction in Mexico and International Child Abduction. A cursory look will throw up all kinds of issues. This page must be protected and Cybermud must keep out of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dikaiosynenemesis (talk • contribs) 07:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I also request that user Dikaiosynenemesis be warned for ad hominem (and baseless) attacks and uncivil behavior. If anyone should be blocked from this article it is him for failing to disclose his blatant conflict of interest in editing an article and  POV pushing about child abduction in Brazil when he has a child allegedly "abducted" there (and has no doubt edited content about himself directly.)  The marginal quality of the article today is the result of other editors removing extremely emotive language added by him and IP addresses.  I didn't say the article was embarrassing here, or anywhere else except on my talk page[] in response to him asking me to stop editing it so he can continue to do so with his sockpuppets (IP logs will verify this) and even there didn't say his edits were embarrassing and never said "worthless" except for the, literally worthless "Parental Alienation" section (and I'm not sure who put that in.. but I guess it was him since he's taking it so personal.)  I also would like to see a single case where anything I ever said on that article was "challenged" in any substantive or meaningful (or even meaningless) way that would give me a motive for "knee-jerk" reactions.  Additionally, in my not so humble opinion, I am deeply knowledgeable about the subject in general and specifically as it applies to Brazil (though I have no children there) and am particularly bothered by this articles poor coverage of it (see my user page for more on me and ICA.)  He also seems to want to pretend I said the "Article 12 and 13" section is worthless when I said they were mostly direct quotes (and, incidentally, one of the only good sections in the article.)--Cybermud (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep the article. If what is bothering you are all the individual cases, would deleting all the individual cases that are bothering you from this article fix the problem? They have already been backed up and are being mentioned all over the web in websites such as bringseanhome.org, http://www.hatufim.org/brazil.php and many others. Would this fix the problem? Deleting the whole article is NOT a good solution, as censorship is never a good alternative. What would the abducted children want to do? Do you think they want to be ignored and forgotten? Do you believe that just by ignoring Brazil's role in international child abduction, they are just going to stop doing it? Those who are merciful to the cruel will in the end be cruel to the merciful. --Hatufim-org (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not, I do not want to ignore Brazil's role and plan to eventually recreate the article later since, as I stated, it's a noteworthy and important topic (I've said the same many times in the article's talk page.) I just view starting from scratch later on as easier than dealing with single purpose editors that are not interested in creating a good, encyclopedic, article on the topic that would be of value to victimized families, law enforcement, judges, attorneys, journalists and members of the public who are looking for reliable and verifiable information on the topic and not long sections about people's children (no matter how sympathetic I am to the individual parents and families.)  Contrary to Dikaiosynenemesis specious aspersions as to my work in creating the International child abduction in Mexico and International child abduction articles they are both well referenced and, mostly, encyclopedic (though need more work) with excellent information I wish I had been able to readily find in a single location when researching the subject for my own son years ago... and none of them contain information about me or my family (or anyone's family for that matter).  Furthermore, the first comment in the Mexico article's talk page is my acknowledgement that I have a conflict of interest and a son in Mexico.  I even actually know, in real life, several of the parents who are highlighted in the Brazil article, have communicated electronically with probably half of them, attended the Congressional hearings on Brazil last December before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission and have spoken with Brazilian attorneys on the topic.  Removing individual case histories goes a long ways towards addressing the problem but I'm not against highlighting cases as a general rule when they are illustrative of the broader subject itself.  For example the recently removed Larivee case was a good example of the unconscionably slow progress of Brazil's courts.  Also, contrary to DK's claims, the AGU does provide excellent legal representation for free (in a bad judicial system but nonetheless.. perhaps he'd care to dump a fortune into a non-free bad judicial system?) and Interpol does track down children (inefficiently, yes, but they are the agency that does it in Brazil... something that should change)  Details like these, and more, are what the article should have not broad generalizations, Brazil bashing (a la Nazi comments.. though even they have some relevance in the context of extradition, which is another topic never touched in the article) and personal promotion.--Cybermud (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought Cybermud didn't have time for this. Clearly he does because he's gone and started deleting cases that he never even mentioned before.

Some points:


 * Cybermud is now vandalising this page even as he backtracks in his comments above.
 * He has provided no evidence of his AGU and Interpol comments. Please provide evidence of where AGU has provided free and excellent advice (even if it hasn't resulted in any children being returned). Their advice to me was zilch. Please provide an example of where Interpol have located a child. They haven't located mine after many, many years of going through SEDH.
 * Cybermud stated 'the Article 12 and 13 section is equally worthless'
 * He says he knows several of the parents in the article. Do they object to their cases being used?

This page must be protected from further vandalism Dikaiosynenemesis (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are, once again, repeatedly mischaracterizing my edits. Your quote of "Cybermud stated 'the Article 12 and 13 section is equally worthless'" is vaporware and foolish since WP maintains perfect records.  It's also just one of your many invented or imagined wrongs against you.  I'm not "backtracking" from anything.  I never said "I don't have time to edit the page."  I said I don't have time to argue with single purpose POV editors.  Your behavior on this page is consistent and illustrative of the very problem behavior I was referring too.  You do not assume good faith you revert changes with flimsy, or no, reasons, you are uncivil and violating WP:NPA.  Your advice from the AGU would be zilch because you don't have a Hague Convention case.  It is a logical fallacy to generalize from an exception so stop using yourself as an example and, furthermore, please desist from further ad hominem attacks.  WP is no place for them--Cybermud (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article is serious, properly cited and presents useful information to the public. I agree with others that to prevent soapboxing, individual cases should be barred from the article, so that it discusses the issues in generalities only. If there is a notable case of child abduction, then a separate article should be written on the matter so that it stands alone apart from this article. HarryZilber (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - but delete all the unresolved cases - wikipedia is not a list of examples-- Cailil  talk 15:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.