Talk:Maud de Boer-Buquicchio

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Maud de Boer-Buquicchio. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.coe.int/t/secretarygeneral/sga/Biography_en.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.coe.int/t/secretarygeneral/sga/CV_en.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150703182150/http://www.icmec.org/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_X1&PageId=1225 to http://www.icmec.org/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_X1&PageId=1225

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

"Erroneous press conference"

From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#"Erroneous press conference":

Maud_de_Boer-Buquicchio#Erroneous_press_conference_at_Tokyo looks problematic, in several ways. Could somebody else please consider this? (There are other demands on my time.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Seeing no signs of interest here (let alone edits there), I did this. -- Hoary (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I had a quick go at tidying it. The article content is a bit unbalanced; she must have done something other than hold one press conference... HLHJ (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Belated thanks, HLHJ. It seems that the biographee made a mistake in a direction that was unflattering for certain aspects of Japan, and that a Japanese politician complained that she had impugned the dignity of Japan (which is the kind of complaint that Japanese politicians like to make). If the complaint isn't much commented on, I don't see how it's worth the attention of an encyclopedia. The article has since undergone this dubious edit: note the hysterical title of the cited source (a product of some US "think tank"). -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Commercial surrogacy agreements are legal in much of the US, and unregulated in a lot of it. Adoption by homosexual couples is legal everywhere in the US. So... "Oregon Supports Buying and Selling of Children"? "Alabama Supports Buying and Selling of Children"? I don't know what the RS noticeboard would think of the publication. However, I think that the article text makes it fairly clear that no-one is advocating child slavery. I've wikilinked that section for context and tagged the article for balance. HLHJ (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The source is this outfit. I'm surprised neither the organization nor its "Friday Fax" seems to have yet come up on WP:RSN. Meanwhile, all the Japanese indignation that's mentioned comes from a single politician, and much of this comes from "the internet program Yamada Tarō no sanchanneru (山田太郎のさんちゃんねる), shown on Niconico on 20 January 2016"; it's his personal video channel (here it is); "shown on Niconico" is just a Japanese analogue of "shown on Youtube". -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, Hoary, that seems clearly non-RS. The Japan Times also mentioned this altercation, so we can cover it, but the WP:UNDUE detail seems to be supported only by this self-published source. I suppose one could argue that he was an expert on Japanese politics, but politicians' self-published sources often go on at inane length about all sorts of things of little public interest, so I'm not sure that would be a good principle. I'd be in favour of removing things that no third party saw fit to mention. The quaintly-titled "Friday Fax" (the organization was founded in 1997) gives me a clearer picture of the author's opinions than De Boer-Buquicchio's report, and a better source, and possibly a link to the report, would be good. HLHJ (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I am the biographee. First, thanks Hoary and HLHJ for your vigilance and action here. I fully concur on the lack of balance of this article and will submit below an edit request, trying to be as neutral and factual as possible, I would be grateful if you - or anyone else interested- could have a look at it. Maudddbb (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for following the edit-request process, Maudddbb. I've moved your post into chronological order so that is isn't part of the earlier quote, do let me know if this is a problem. Apologies for dropping this not fully resolved last October, and for the slow response. We still seem to have a lot of rather inadequate sources in this article. I've tagged some of the English-language ones, no idea if logmi.jp is reliable (Hoary?). If no-one provides better sources soon, I will try to remember to come back and delete the inadequately-sourced content. I added the Japan Times source, which I fear may be the only non-primary reliable source in the article. To be honest, as I can find no independent third-party sources mostly about you, it may be that this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As a source, the UN is reliable, but not independent on the subject of its own officials. HLHJ (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi HLHJ, many thanks for coming back here. One comment on your edit if I may: I think it is a duplicate of what already appears below, and one of the 2 paragraphs should be removed or merged into the other.

Your edit:

In 2015, the Japanese Foreign Ministry protested a remark made by De Boer-Buquicchio at a press conference in Japan, quoting her as saying "I’m referring in particular to this phenomena of enjo kosai, which is a trend amongst schoolgirls. Some 13 percent of the schoolgirls in Japan are involved in that kind of activity." They stated that the statistic had no factual basis, and asked for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to cite its sources.[6]

Same info below:

On 2 November 2015, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a complaint to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) over De Boer-Buquicchio's comment of 26 October stating that “13% of schoolgirls have experienced enjo kōsai (compensated dating)"[clarification needed] and asked her to disclose objective data for the claim of 13%.[11][non-primary source needed]

Also, just a clarification on the independent nature of the sources cited: UN Special Rapporteurs are NOT United Nations officials, but independent.

Thanks and best regards, Maudddbb (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Maudddbb, for your continuing patience with this. I've removed the duplication. I haven't yet followed through on the independence of the Special Rapporteurs; I expect to look into this soon, though of course anyone else (HLHJ?) is most welcome to beat me to it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems, subject to correction, that a United Nations special rapporteur is appointed by the UN, but not paid by the UN, though they receive in-kind support. So the rapporteurs are fairly independent, as appointees go, but I'm not sure we could say that the UN is an WP:independent source on UN special rapporteurs. The two seem closely affiliated. Perhaps which should dump all these sources on the WP:RS noticeboard and get a consensus on them (the "Center for Family and Human Rights", logmi.jp, and the parliamentarian blog for reliability, and the Japanese MOFA, UN, Council of Europe, International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children etc. for independence on this topic). It's possible that some primary sources would be OK, but I think we have too many. HLHJ (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Dear Wikipedians,

• Disclaimer: please excuse any mistakes in the form of this request as I am new here
• What I think should be changed:

In the Career section, United Nations Special Rapporteur

• The title “Press conference at Tokyo” -> “Visit to Japan”, more relevant to the content
• reference n°6 is linked in Japanese, it should be the English version
• I would suggest adding a reference to the end of mission statement which is a verifiable and official source from United Nations
• reference n°11 is a note to an upload of a video in Japanese on a video hosting service, Niconico, without an actual working link, I suggest removal
• I suggest amending the entire paragraph starting at Tarō Yamada and the subsequent 1.2.3.4.5 sections with the below:

On 2 November 2015, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a complaint to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) over De Boer-Buquicchio's comment of 26 October stating that “13% of schoolgirls have experienced enjo kōsai (compensated dating) and asked her to disclose objective data for the claim of 13%.

In response, the OHCHR released a note of clarification acknowledging that the Special Rapporteur had not received an official statistic concerning this matter while in Japan and explaining that the 13% figure was an estimate found in open sources that was mentioned to highlight a phenomenon that must be urgently tackled.

Following the issuing of a press release by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 9 November in which it requested the withdrawal of the remark and that the report be based on objective data, she addressed on 10 November a letter to the Permanent Representative at the Permanent Mission of Japan to the United Nations in which she stated that she would not refer to this estimate in her Report to the UN Human Rights Council.

The final report was presented to the UN Human Rights Council in New York on 3 March 2016.

• Why it should be changed:

• WP:ACHIEVE NPOV WP:BALASP WP:IMPARTIAL
• using references only to official sources in English (OHCHR and Ministry of Foreign Affairs), sticking to facts WP:RSN
• the issue about the misunderstanding by the translator of the 13% vs 30% is not relevant and has not been brought forward by the MOFA complaint. WP:UNDUE

Best regards, Maudddbb (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request implemented

Hi fellows, after reading this request and the initial comments about lack of balance i implemented the changes that seem reasonable

Victrue (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Added secondary sources to address the issue raised above Victrue (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

"Report on surrogacy"

The section so titled has a single source: an ideological pressure group that for good measure is classed by the SPLC as a "hate group". I propose that if nobody can back it up with a reliable (non-axe-grinding) source within two weeks, the section should be removed. -- Hoary (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)