Jump to content

Talk:International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children

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

Comment

[edit]

Where did this huge chunk of material come from? You need to cite your sources and use reference citations. All articles must meet WP:N and WP:V. Also, no original research is allowed per WP:OR. Check these policies out. If you provide this information via citing appropriate references, your article will not have a problem. Mattisse(talk) 21:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

[edit]

The original upload, as edited by XOHottie at 21:24, 10 August 2006, was a wholesale WP:COPYVIO dump from www.icmec.org Overview of Programs - ICMEC International Centre also available in PDF format. Poeticbent talk 17:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koons Family Institute on International Law and Policy

[edit]

I tagged this section as pov. I removed the pov "abducted" allegation against Ilona Staller, but have realized there are serious problems with that whole section. The linking with an organization titled "International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children" and the statement that "the issue of child abduction is personal to Koons" still has serious blp violations since it all but states that Staller was guilty of child abduction and exploitation. In addition, the wording in much of the section is appallingly pov. For example, Staller is described (for no good reason, since it has nothing to do with the subject of the article) as a "porn actress". If we allow this, surely for balance we should have Koons described as a "porn actor" or a "pornographer" since, during their brief marriage, he produced works for sale depicting them having sex. Is the real reason for mentioning "porn actress" because most of the section is about the Family Institute on International Law and Policy and child pornography, with the intended implication that Staller is not just an abductor and exploiter of children but something more? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More weasel or pov wording. The paragraph beginning "ICMEC found in its initial report that only 27 countries had legislation needed to deal with child pornography offenses". This entire paragraph is just a series of claims made by ICMEC, not even a claim made by or supported by a neutral third party, so it should be worded to reflect that. We have more weasel in "ICMEC has worked with legislatures in 100 countries to adopt new laws combating child pornography". We have sources given for this. The first is invalid, being a press release from ICMEC. the second, Rhona Schuz (2014). The Hague Child Abduction Convention: A Critical Analysis. A&C Black. pp. 82–83, makes no mention of at all of child pornography, but talks about a conference on child custody problems in which the ICMEC took part, and which, according to the source resulted in "little to solve the problems". The third source is a strategic plan by the Hague Conference on Private International Law which again does not mention child pornography once. The last of the 4 sources talks about ICMEC being involved in training law enforcement officers in Thailand about child exploitation issues. This is not "working with legislatures to adopt new laws". So the seemingly 4-sourced "ICMEC has worked with legislatures in 100 countries to adopt new laws combating child pornography" claim is actually unsourced. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the background to the above by Tip.

Since a dispute weeks ago, he has followed me around the Project to confront my edits, at articles he had never edited before. For which he has been warned by sysop Callanecc, among others (see here).

His latest efforts have included following me to this article, and to the DYK nomination of this article, to confront my edits. Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please respond to the points raised, Epeefleche, rather than misuse this talk page by making spurious personal attacks. Are you capable of doing that and assuming good faith? The insertion of a npov tag is meant to provoke discussion towards improving an article, not to provoke bad faith accusations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the background indicated above, I think its fair to say that the duckish behavior calls for a suspension of our usual assumption of good faith. The hounding is by no means a spurious attack, nor is my pointing out that you have been cautioned to stop it by other editors. It is relevant that you followed me here, as you have done for weeks now on other articles, to confront my edits. That helps editors evaluate the nature of your comments. I think all language indicated is appropriately sourced (now, by even more sources), and there is no reason for the tag. Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editors will see the above as nothing but more bad faith personal attacks done to avoid dealing with the legitimate issues raised. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this edit [1] makes matters worse rather than better, turning the weasely-implied into the unambiguously stated: that Koons' involvement in and financing of ICMEC was done to make it (and make any mention of his involvement in it) into an ongoing attack against his ex-wife. Even though this is not a blp article, this is a blp issue. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's all amply referenced. The Wall Street Journal article and the Vanity Fair articles are fine sources. The sentence says: "As highlighted by articles over the years, including a Wall Street Journal article entitled "Pooling Resources to Fight Child Abuse and Abduction", the issue of child abduction is personal to Koons.[1][2][3]
  1. ^ Melanie Grayce West (May 25, 2012). "Pooling Resources to Fight Child Abuse and Abduction". The Wall Street Journal.
  2. ^ Ann Binlot (November 16, 2011). "Jeff Koons Gets Under Your Skin With a New Kiehl's Moisturizer Line for Charity". Art+Auction.
  3. ^ Helen Werbe (December 2, 2010). "Kiehls and Koons Collaborate to Protect Children Around the World", Vanity Fair
What's possibly wrong with that? That's the title of the Wall Street Journal article. The three articles discuss at some length how the issue is personal to him. There is no mention of this being "an ongoing attack" against his ex-wife. Epeefleche (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Koons accuses his ex-wife of "abducting" their child - that is the "personal interest in child abduction" the sources talk about. Abduction is a crime, no court has convicted his ex-wife of abduction, and she has lawful custody of their child, in spite of the large amount of money spent by Koons to fight it (though, it seems, he is far more reluctant to spend his money on child maintenance). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK review

[edit]

Right, will place this here so it doesn't disappear for posterity with the DYK nomination. Ideas below (still reading): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - of the sources in the page, this is the best one to use for the 800,000 figure. We also need to add that it was a 2002 study. The definition of 'missing' from the source should also be added (wonder if there's a NISMART-3....?) We should remove the newspaper refs from the lead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, NISMART has a stubby article too, which should be linked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The NISMART paper has this quote, which is important:

In considering these estimates, it is important to recognize that nearly all of the caretaker missing children (1,312,800 or 99.8 percent) were returned home alive or located by the time the study data were collected. Onlya fraction of a percent (0.2 percent or 2,500) of all caretaker missing children had not returned home or been located, and the vast majority of these were runaways from institutions who had been identified through the Juvenile Facilities Study

this is best link for official status of Koons institute with ICMEC.
I am satisfied that first 3 paras about Koons in the Koons Family Institute on International Law and Policy are written neutrally.
Done. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ICMEC reports that it has worked with legislatures in 100 countries to adopt new laws combating child pornography - I'd take this line out - it is repeated in the paragraph after the quote. Putting it in twice labours the point and makes the article sound too promotional.
Combined the two sentences into one (one related to working with the countries, the other to the countries changing their laws). Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the problem of missing children is large. Approximately 8 million children disappear each year worldwide, with 800,000 children going missing every year in the United States alone according to a 2002 study. - I would remove the first sentence. Let facts speak for themselves. Report study total here (with study as ref), then add "a figure that has been widely circulated in the popular press" (and add all the newspaper refs at that point. We don't have a ref for hte 8 million at this point.
Done. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ICMEC had conducted 57 trainings, of more than 5,000 officers in 121 countries. - too close to FN 37 - rephrase.
Done. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - which ref (apart from WSJ) has 8 million kids missing?
As you point out, the Wall Street Journal ref supports the statement. It says, in its lead sentence: "It is estimated that some 8 million children go missing around the world each year and, in the U.S., a quarter of the roughly 800,000 children reported missing are taken by a family member." Melanie Grayce West (May 25, 2012). "Pooling Resources to Fight Child Abuse and Abduction". The Wall Street Journal.
In addition, I don't have access to the full Irish Mirror article now, but did before. In any event, the headline of the article from earlier this year matches what the article supports. It states: "International Missing Children's Day: Eight million kids disappear around the world every year". Pat Flanagan (May 25, 2014). "International Missing Children's Day: Eight million kids disappear around the world every year; It's thought that around 800,000 children will go missing in the US alone". Irish Mirror. These are two 100#-year-old publications that support the statement. Epeefleche (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A third RS supporting the same statement is BBC News. In "Katrice Lee - Missing for more than 30 years", 16 June 2013, BBC News, it states: "It is thought at least eight million children go missing around the world every year ...." Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I still worry they are all just parrotting the number from one each other. There must be some official stat somewhere that determines how this number was figured...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you are saying.
At the same time, wp:rs calls for us to base wp text "on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." That's the core principle. Once text is RS-supported (here, by three 100-odd year-old, established RSs, in different countries), we are relying on the fact that the WSJ and BBC and Mirror have "reputations for fact-checking and accuracy".
We do not second-guess our RSs, and say "I won't reflect what has been reported by 3 different long-established RSs in different countries, because I don't know the details of their fact checking." That's quite simply not what wp:rs calls for.
Furthermore, wp:rs states that it prefers that we rely on secondary sources (such as these). Stating: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible". And not on primary sources such as the "official stat" you are seeking. Stating: "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." Epeefleche (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ article

[edit]

As at the DYK nomination,

A) The WSJ article is not actually a source for the figure of 800,000 kids reported missing annually: It merely notes that some source—left completely unidentified—claims that to be the case.
B) It's most certainly not a source for that having been discovered during a specific 2002 study,

as that study goes completely unmentioned in the actual article. — LlywelynII 11:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is an RS for the statement that "It is estimated that some 8 million children go missing around the world each year and, in the U.S., a quarter of the roughly 800,000 children reported missing are taken by a family member." That is the very first sentence of the article. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children. 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) 17:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children. 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) 22:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Centre_for_Missing_%26_Exploited_Children&oldid=1207725107"