This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Dear Wikipedians,
Best regards, Maudddbb ( talk) 13:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Dear Wikipedians,
Best regards, Maudddbb ( talk) 13:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)