Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 12:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children

[edit]
(
)

5x expanded by Epeefleche (talk). Self nominated at 06:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC).

  • I moved the nomination from 6 December to 29 November, where the expansion started, although you started editing it on 28 November, a day before. Nevertheless, the nomination is within seven-day limit in my eyes. --George Ho (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I oppose this nomination. The International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children is a self-seeking lobbyist group with dubious aims, and the idea that a weasely-worded claim as outrageous as "8 million children disappear each year worldwide, with 800,000 going missing in the US alone" should be entered as a DYK is appalling. The words "child", "disappear" and "going missing" are all kept deliberately vague in this tabloid-style headline-like claim. For example, in most countries "child" does not mean a 17 or 18-year old, but in US data it does. Also, these figures are NOT individuals, they are reports filed - so they can concern cases of the same person "going missing" multiple times. The claim weasely and deliberately tries to make out that in the US each year 800,000 separate children have "gone missing" and that "gone missing" equates to "disappeared" for ever (rather than someone just missing an afternoon from school for whatever reason and being reported "missing" by teachers because that is what the authorities are required to report and state). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)
BTW, the whole article is a mess and needs to be looked at in detail by a third party. Much of the recent Epeefleche added content is troubling, and includes what I consider to be particularly nasty blp violations. Content has also been given sources that do not actually support that content. See the article talk page. Also, I have already pointed out failings in the "8 million children disappear...." claim, but look at the sources used to justify the claim in the article. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources - and I would have expected detailed research data from neutral sources to support such a claim. However, two of the sources used for it are very low grade, with one appearing to be derived from ICMEC press releases. The third source is usually OK as a source but not for something this specialised and again seems to use a lot of unsourced ICMEC claims. Another source, cited elsewhere in the article, seems good and neutral [1], but is US-only data and gives all the qualifications for "going missing" that I explained earlier, qualifications that are not revealed in the headline-grabbing "800,0000". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

{ {hat}}

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). Epeefleche (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It would be much better, Epeefleche, if you responded to the legitimate points I raised rather than misuse this page to making spurious personal attacks. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
When an editor wikihounds me across the project, most recently to this DYK, to argue that The Wall Street Journal and the US Department of Justice and other sources are not sufficient, I think its fair to point out the hounding aspect of the editor's assertions. Epeefleche (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal is not a source for this claim because it is just a claim made by ICMEC and presented without any supporting research. It is made clear here who says 8 million children go missing: [2] "Around 8 million children go missing around the world every year, according to the International Centre for missing and exploited children." The US Department of Justice report is, as I have said, good and neutral, and actually discredits the wild claim you want inserted as a DYK. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
First -- will you please agree to stop hounding me across the Project, to confront my edits, AfDs, and DYKs? Second -- the Wall Street Journal is an RS, and as such is a source for this statement. It reports the statement in its own name. We rely on RSs to be reliable in this context -- that's the whole notion of RSs. This is normal wikipedia editing. Epeefleche (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you incapable of replying without insults? Perhaps as incapable of being a good editor in other aspects too? A good editor should know that sources are hierarchal in importance. If source A says X about a subject, and source B also says X but then goes into the subject in more detail and says Y as well, then (all other things, such as RS, being equal) source B is the better source and the one that should be used for the reference. The Wall Street Journal source just states X. The BBC source also states X, but in addition explicitly states that the source of X, the "Around 8 million children go missing around the world every year" claim, is just a claim made by the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children. There is no usable source for a statement "Around 8 million children go missing around the world every year". All that can be said is "The International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children says (without providing supporting evidence) that around 8 million children go missing around the world every year". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is another source that says the source for the "8 million children" claim is ICMEC itself: [3]. And here is The International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children publicity document that makes the claim, and that cites no sources or research papers to justify the claim. [4]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

|} Review needed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

ok - size and expansion qualify - still looking. stuff does need doing though, see article talk. (placeholder) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; I've acted on suggestions, and responded accordingly at your posts there. Epeefleche (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I cannot quickly find evidence that these statistics are controversial, but I think the hook needs to be rewritten to make it clear that the center itself is the source of the numbers. Mangoe (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Open to suggestions; thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a complicated situation. First of all, the article does need a good going over for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the distinctly promotional flavor -- as far as I can see there's no criticism mentioned at all, which I find surprising. As to the statistics, they don't just come from the Center (see Table 3 of [5]) and believe it or not they aren't inflated, once you understand the definitions involved -- basically any time a caregiver doesn't know where a kid (under 18) is for at least an hour, and is distressed about it, that counts as "kid was missing" -- this includes kid got off at wrong bus stop and got lost on way home, kid went to friend's house and forgot to tell parents, Timmy fell in the well but Lassie was on strike for better veterinary benefits, etc. But given the way most people naturally interpret the term "missing" this is highly misleading without more qualification than may be possible in the space available for a hook. (All the foregoing applies to the US stats -- I suspect the worldwide number is pure guesswork.) EEng (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Am still looking at it with notes on article talk. Just got busy with some RL stuff....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there an independent research source for the "8 million children disappear each year worldwide" statement? I have not found one. A number or sources say that the statement comes from the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (for example, see [6] "Around 8 million children go missing around the world every year, according to the International Centre for missing and exploited children", and [7] "It has been estimated that at least eight (8) million children go missing each year (International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, 2013)". Does their literature mention third-party research papers or projects or external sources that would indicate where the organization got the figure from? Even if the figure is not the "pure guesswork" that EEng suspects, can it be in a DYN without it being shown there is some research behind the figure? Also, what substantive connection is there between the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children and the 800,000 cases mentioned in the NISMART US data? Given that "missing" means so many things, what percentage of those 800,000 cases would fall under the remit of ICMEC's concerns? 1% of them? 0.1% of them? If the connection is that minimal, is there a justification for mentioning the figure in relation to ICMEC? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah am not keen on using the 8 million figure in the hook unless there is a better reference. Not hugely fussed about the other, though the data is old and given the definition in the study, it shows that the definition is very broad, and hence the "800,000 missing" is not really 800,000 missing....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Addressed on article talkpage (per wp:RS, the high-level independent secondary sources we have ... Wall Street Journal, BBC, etc. ... are the Wikipedia gold standard; not primary sources). Epeefleche (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • New review required. Nominator requesting another opinion. Fuebaey (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't really accept the figures. The BBC source says "it is thought (my emphasis) at least eight million children go missing". That's not a strong enough convincing claim in itself, I would want to see something like "a [insert major international case report here] demonstrated between 'x' and 'y' children go missing each year in the US, though [counterpoint]". The phrase "a number of law and policy tools" through to "the Child Pornography Model Legislation" paraphrases the original source (check) a bit too closely; it's not a substantial or blatant copyvio but still means its worth a check over in this area. To end on a positive note, let me suggest
    ALT1 : ... that the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children was instrumental in publicizing the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
    Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Richie. The Wall Street Journal ref directly 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.
WP:RS calls for us to base wp text "on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Wall Street Journal is certainly a high-level RS.
Furthermore,WP:RS states that it prefers that we rely on secondary sources (such as the WSJ). Stating: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible". And not on primary sources such as the "international case report" you are seeking. WP:RS states: "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." Epeefleche (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Having followed this for some time, it seems to me that we could come up with some hook that is about the centre itself, rather than something that comes across as something of an advertisement. It seems to me, for isntance, that something could be said instead about its connections with the UN and INTERPOL. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Mangoe. I think this hook is hookier than anything I could think of -- saying "is connected with the UN", for example, seems quite unhooky. Though I'm happy to hear suggestions. But I don't think this is at all an ad -- the fact (which is IMHO hooky) is the number of children reported missing ... which is not a function of an effort or accomplishment by the Centre. And it is reported on by the WSJ, among others. And wp:RS prefers we uses secondary sources for such information, rather than primary sources ... and the WSJ is a fine secondary source RS. Epeefleche (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That said, since unlike wp:rs some editors prefer primary sources over the WSJ, we could go with a hook of
ALT2 : ... that the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children tries to help find missing children, millions of whom disappear each year worldwide, with 800,000 going missing in the US alone?
Epeefleche (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Either ALT2 -- which focuses not just on what the Wall Street Journal, etc., support (as the first hook does), but focuses on what both a primary source and the WSJ, etc. support (which Cas Liber said he was "not overly fussed about") ... or alternatively ALT3 ... seem appropriate to me. ALT2 seems hookier. Epeefleche (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Absolutely opposed to continuing claim that "800k children" go missing annually in the United States, per WP:AREYOUKIDDING?. There are only 60 million children in the country altogether. They have not all (mostly/generally/commonly) been traded from one family to another at some point in their life. (If we're talking about minors rather than children, say that.) The US—which makes up a bit over 4% of the world population—does not account for 10% of its child abductions and missing persons. The hook needs to be struck completely, pending some phrasing that expresses whatever actual neutral sources support. (WSJ fearmongering based on an advocacy group's press release—the only fact check involved in the article is whether or not they claimed that—does not actually count.) — LlywelynII 10:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Llewellyn -- As to the hookier ALT2 (though I gather this is not an issue for you for ALT3), perhaps you are mis-reading the sources.
First, we have RS sources. The RS sources here include, among others, a 2012 independent, high-level RS, Wall Street Journal article entitled "Pooling Resources to Fight Child Abuse and Abduction" that supports it ("It is estimated that some 8 million children go missing around the world each year and, in the U.S. ... roughly 800,000 children [are] reported missing."). BBC News also, among others, reports on the world-wide figure.
Second, we have a primary source. In addition to the RS sources that WP prefers. Which your comment suggest you may perhaps have missed. There is also the highly detailed primary source entitled "National Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview", by the independent US Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, which supports it directly and which is discussed in great detail itself in the article. This isn't as you suggest a press release of the organization. Epeefleche (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I know Welsh can be hard but, if the name is difficult, feel free to cut and paste or abbreviate. I'm sure you didn't intend it, but the effect of misspelling a name immediately above where you're typing comes off as rude. Meanwhile, I similarly have no doubt you've got the best intentions here but, no, you do not actually have any RS for the claim in the original hook, primary or otherwise.

    The WSJ is just stating that someone somewhere uses that figure, not vouching for their methodology or its accuracy (or even their identity). The actual source is whoever gave them the press release and that could use a looking over to make sure it is a RS. If you want to emend the hook so it no longer stating a fact but correctly reads "some claim" it to be a true figure, this WSJ article would still be a questionable source for that, since it provides no source for its statistic and implies it was provided by its subject's interest group. We don't know how WP:FRINGE they are. (NISMART isn't fringe at all, but the WSJ doesn't identify them as the source of their number.) Your BBC "article" suffers from the exact same problem.

    You're right that the DOJ should be a reliable source for this kind of information. Too bad a) the figure in the article's lead and body is sourced to the non-RS WSJ article mentioned above which only speaks to claims and not facts; b) the actual study—which inexplicably isn't being used as a source for its existence or the number missing—reports a figure just under 800,000 (nothing an "almost" or "about 800,000" couldn't have fixed, granted, if it weren't belied by more recent figured below); c) it's sixteen years out of date for its findings (published 2002 but its estimate was for 1999; nothing an "a decade or two ago" couldn't fix, granted).

    More essentially, you are completely misrepresenting the fact being presented. There are hundreds of thousands of police reports of missing minors (including teenagers only loosely considered "children") filed every year (including duplicates); the total number of all missing persons reports of all ages from an actual RS (the FBI) was 627,911 for 2013 (which is no longer even "almost 800,000"); the total number of found and cleared that year was 630,990. The numbers (as represented above) are so obviously fraudulent this shouldn't need saying but the actual number of open missing person cases is an order of magnitude lower than it is being presented here: 84,136 of which all juveniles under 18 account for 33,849. That's the accumulated total for all people of all years who have gone missing and stayed that way. [Edit: Worse than I thought. They have a number for the number they consider to have been involuntary (i.e., everyone else is considered to be exactly where they wanted to be) and that number is an order of magnitude lower still: 4,883 for all legal minors for 2013.]

    Now. Ok. Even one is too many. We all agree about that... but you're taking every time someone skips school or an excitable mother or stern dad calls the police because someone misses curfew (≠"go missing") and presenting it as an actual missing person. Now that I've bothered to find actual RS showing it to be misleading by an order of magnitude and a decade out of date, original hook and ALT2 completely struck.

    You seem well-meaning enough. It's a well-meaning group and page. All the same, tone down the phrasing to something less inflammatory, non-misleading, and actually supported by your sources: at minimum, you need "reported missing" instead of "go ~" and better still if you note that (thanks to the good work of places like ICMEC) thousands more missing persons were discovered than went missing in 2013, the last year for which figures are available, or that media continue to widely report an overstated figure over a decade out of date because it's two orders of magnitude higher than the actual number of involuntary disappearances (which is important to note and understand, even if it's only tangentially related to this particular page). — LlywelynII 11:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sincere heart-felt apologies about my unintentional misspelling of your name. Please AGF, and don't take it as rude.
As to the hook -- the WSJ is an RS for what it states. And the DOJ for what it states (I believe the focus on the DOJ source was introduced by reviewing editor Cas Liber here ... who above seems not to have a problem with the US figure).
RSs are considered RSs, per wp:rs, because of their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Presumably (but let me know if I am wrong), you would not have a problem with stating something along the lines of (you may have tweaks) ... "that ICMEC tries to help find missing children, an estimated millions of whom reportedly disappear each year worldwide, with about 800,000 [or hundreds of thousands?] reported missing in the US alone?"
RSs tend to report facts. Not "vouch ... for ... methodology or ... accuracy" of studies. Per WP:NEWSORG, "'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." Full stop. Once we are looking at a statement of fact by an RS, there is no need to interrogate on what basis the statement is made by the RS -- we are instead relying on the reputation of the RS for fact-checking. (When the WSJ says person x was born on date z, we reflect it ... we don't say "I don't know the WSJ's source for that, so I either won't report it or I will say "the WSJ claims, without revealing its source, that person x was born on date z'.") And there is zero evidence that the Wall Street Journal reported on the basis of a press release. Or that otherwise, its RS-level reputation for fact-checking does not apply here.
And since as you say the Department of Justice isn't "fringe", and its number is consistent with the Wall Street Journal number in its 2012 article, that number doesn't seem problematic.
In support of relying on the Wall Street Journal over any primary sources, WP:RS states: "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." And further: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.".
In any event, language such as the above (or you may have suggestions) can clarify this further, by the addition of words such as "estimated" and "about" and "reportedly".
Perhaps you have further suggestions as to how to -- within the 200-character limit -- make this work? I think your thoughtful crafting would be helpful. And it may prove helpful if you would take a step back and re-consider the above links to: a) WP's reliance on secondary sources over primary sources, and b) WP's reliance on RSs' reputations for fact-checking rather than seeking the details of what that fact-checking entailed (or engaging in OR guess-work as to the source of the RS's reported numbers). This may well lead us to together being able to craft something.
And, alternatively, I gather you also don't have any problems with the other editor's ALT3. Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Just so. It doesn't state the figure is true. It states that other people report that number. Hence, its continued inability to serve as a RS for this hook.
    The thing in your second line has some grammar problems and is still repeating a decades-old number instead of the one I just gave you for last calendar year, but yes: it is a different thing to say it is so and to say that some people report it. You could tidy that up and it would be fine. Just like the WSJ.
    There is prima facie evidence the WSJ just passed on a press release number. It's precisely what they did. They just checked to see that someone else said it and left it at that. You can, too. Just stop phrasing it as if it were actually a true or accurate number. It isn't. By hundreds of thousands or by two orders of magnitude, depending on what you're talking about.
    The DOJ number isn't fringe. It is a RS for actual information, unlike the WSJ article. It's also two decades out of date and not talking about what your hook is talking about. So... still issues.
    I do appreciate your politeness, but I do rather have my dander up over your continuing insistence on misleading hooks, on a bad source (not the WSJ in general, just that article for that information), and on using data from a study a decade and a half ago when I just gave you one from last year. You can work it out for yourself. Better still, though, if you weren't just trying to make someone happy and saw the actual problem. You could make something factually accurate by including some "reported"... but it would still be misleading because more than all of those were found last year. Absolutely, we shouldn't be passing on wrong information; even when you rephrase it, though, I wish we weren't passing along misleading information either. (If you still don't see the many, many ways in which the figure is misleading... well... I already wrote that.)
    ALT3 has some grammar problems. Right now it says the ICMEC is running the government of 22 countries... — LlywelynII 19:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Cutting to the chase, listening to your concerns, would you find the below wording which seeks to address and allay your concerns acceptable for that ALT and/or ALT3?
For the first hook, would something along the lines of the following work for you?: [ALT4:] "... that ICMEC tries to help find missing children—with over 600,000 reported missing last year in the US alone and reportedly millions who disappear each year worldwide?"
For ALT3 (which seems less hooky to me), would you find it agreeable as an alternative if it were to say: [ALT5:] "... that the ICMEC and NCMEC's Global Missing Children’s Network assists investigations across 22 participating countries"?
Tweaks are welcome to either or both hooks. With your help, I would hope we can move this forward to your satisfaction.
I would be happy to have further discussion later on whether there is in fact prima facie evidence as to how the WSJ came to its number -- which would arguably be an exercise on both our parts in OR -- but I don't think I should bog down this discussion with that here. So -- I'm not ignoring your comment; just pending a response to a later time and forum, if that's OK. Thanks.Epeefleche (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Those are much better, yes.
    @OH: Grammar edit.
    Comment: The current phrasing suggests I can call them if I have a missing person. This is unclear to me from the present article. Do they themselves help people find their missing children? or do they improve and coordinate the law enforcement efforts and "raise awareness"?
    Comment: I think millions internationally is a valid idea but the article currently provides no reliable sourcing for it. This Irish Mirror article has it but is a WP:PUS tabloid that provides no source for the information beyond the advocacy group they're reporting on; we shouldn't use it except in precisely the context it shows up here: as evidence that it's a "widely reported" number and not necessarily a true one. The WP:SELFSOURCE to the ICMEC's page should just be removed or shunted to the #External_links section: they may qualify as experts but here they provide no sourcing or justification (even internally) for that figure and so it's no good. This link seems dead. NISMART doesn't provide the figure at all. The BBC article and the WSJ article are RS but, again, only for the fact that others are using those numbers and not necessarily that they are accurate. Related pages like Child abduction only give the (decades-old) US figure so I can't point you in the right direction, sorry.
    Comment: Look at the lead sentence of the Child abduction article for a good example of presenting the figures fairly. Big numbers are reported; almost all are recovered; that still leaves much too many (but not hundreds of thousands).
    Comment: The BBC and WSJ articles are RS that the number is being used. The present phrasing of the hook could allow that but grammar of the current sentence they're in means they're only sourcing the 800,000 figure.
    Comment: Given that there's no source for the actual number itself, though, it may be better to just stick with the US figure.
    Comment: I think just using the acronym may be more hooky. Do you think it's off-putting?
    Comment: It's fine if you'd like another reviewer. I can be overly blunt. But if I'm hanging around through the process, do go use and cite the current FBI figures for the US number. 800,000 is a historic one and should not be presented as a current one.

    @ALT3: Grammar and content edit. It's not "a" global network: it's a proper name. Per the article, doesn't seem to be exclusively theirs.
    Comment: I don't see where they're said to head the GMCN. This site says they "lead.. a... movement" and also that the GMCN is a "core program" of theirs, but it's not the same thing. The article says the GMCN was founded by the ICMEC and NCMEC together: is the NCMEC no longer involved? The site shows ICMEC're involved and a lady using one of their email addresses is the contact person, but do they head it? The "GMCN home" webpage is being run from the National Criminal Justice Training Center's site, not the ICMEC's. — LlywelynII 03:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Taking into consideration your comments, for the first hook, would something along the lines of the following work for you?: [ALT6:] "... that ICMEC tries to help find missing children—with over 600,000 reported missing last year in the US alone, and [estimates that] reportedly millions [who] disappear each year worldwide?"
That modifies the phrase "millions" with the word "reportedly". If need be, we can include the phrase "estimates that". This is WSJ and BBC-supported, as you indicate.
If need be, we could as you say stick with the US figure. But given the above edit, perhaps that is not necessary.
I agree that the acronym ICMEC has the advantage of brevity. At the same time, it communicates less as to the nature of the organization than does the full name. At the end of the day, though, if the 200-character limit is an issue, ICMEC seems IMHO the better choice.
As to how ICMEC tries to help, the article indicates that it consists of a number of things, such as improving/training and coordinating law enforcement efforts and "raising awareness", the global missing children’s network, performing related research, assisting the UN with regard to child abduction, etc. I think the article states how it helps, and the hook doesn't need to encumber itself with the detail.
As to your suggestion of this being open to review by another reviewer, I'm happy for you and anyone else to look at it. But I think that we are very close on wording at this point. Thanks.Epeefleche (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Just mentioned it since I know my objections are the exact same as those raised by at least three editors above and will be shared by any subsequent ones. You seemed to be phrasing things towards me personally, but we're all just trying to create accurate and helpful material. My only improvement has been getting you to see where they were coming from. Still not all the way there, though:
    Comment: I guess you missed it. There was (old) sourcing for the 800,000 figure. The problem was that you were—accidentally, no doubt—phrasing the hook in a way that it said something the figure didn't mean. (Something patently unbelievable, hence the objections.) Changing the phrasing can fix that, although now that we've found the real number you should go ahead and include it, removing the old number from the lead. The old number should only be left in the body if you make very clear that it is an historic figure and not a current one. (Still hasn't happened, but I get it that we're focusing on the hook at the moment.)

    The problem with the millions figure isn't that it's unbelievable. It is, easily. The problem is that there is utterly no sourcing for that fact in the present article, as above. It will remain something that should not be in the hook—or the article—until it's actually sourced to someone (other than the Daily Mail & the website of the group itself) who claims it is true and not (BBC/WSJ) merely mentioning that others claim it is. Kindly go find out where the number came from or let's just drop it (here and from the article) until there's a RS supporting it. An ouroboros of people just reporting that other people say it isn't good enough.
    Comment: I take it from your reply that, except in unusual cases, they do not help families directly. The tries in all these hooks is unnecessary—it does in fact do something. But the something it's doing seems not to be directly helping but something else. Better to nix the try to and change help find to something more accurate: ...helps those finding..., ...coordinates efforts to..., ...supports the efforts..., &c.
    Comment: Of course there's always the factual hooks like ALT1. I certainly clicked through to find out who she was and if they found her. But they hadn't... Do they have any agency success stories?
    Comment: In the lack of an individual success story, you can show how good LE is in general on these cases: you can lose the international figure and use the extra space to show how police found more people in calendar 2013 than went missing. Some people went missing, yes, but we're working on the backlog and that's good to know! ...except I'm not sure ICMEC is involved in domestic efforts: seems like more like the National CMEC's area. But you'd just need one successful US case ICMEC assisted with in order to be able to tie them in with the US's success rate. — LlywelynII 23:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. As to the above, yes, I'm focusing on the hook for now. As to the phrasing, I'm trying to find phrasing that you (since you are the one writing at the moment; but of course this applies to anyone else as well) find acceptable.
As to the millions figure, we are emphatically not stating that "millions are missing". We are stating precisely what the WSJ ("It is estimated that some 8 million children go missing around the world each year..." ) and BBC News clearly state. If they don't state "x is true", but state rather than "x is estimated", that in fact is RS support for the statement "x is estimated" (or, as in Alt 6, "... [estimates that] reportedly millions ... disappear each year worldwide?")
Per wp:rs, we accept RSs' statements that "it is estimated" as RS support for that statement.
Note as well, that the RSs indicated "8" million. We've however rounded it down to "millions," which could be as low as 2 million of course. There's no reason -- even if one engages in OR, which is of course unacceptable -- to doubt that there are at least 2 million in that category.
As to your questions as to whether the organizations helps families directly, I see no mention of that in any of the sources other than the little reflected in the article. What I have seen along those lines in RSs is what is for the most part reflected in the article. Same goes for whether there are success stories -- whatever I saw in RSs that was notable is for the most part reflected in the article already.
As to the term "tries" in the hook; that was an effort to not presume that they are successful. I'm fine with dropping it, if you think it better. And of your helpful suggestions, I think "... that ICMEC supports efforts to find missing children ... " works best. I think that's an excellent change, actually. Hookier, and barely longer. Thanks for the suggestion.
Would ask you to reconsider the above. This of course has been slow going, and the string is long, but it appears that we are inching closer to a viable hook. Many thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I already considered the above, as above. The WSJ and BBC are both sources that the number is claimed but (a) grammatically they're not currently being cited within the article (see above) and (b) you need to go find something other than the Irish Mail that says it's actually true, not just a daisy chain of people reporting other people that other people report it. First, it's needful and, second, any AGF goodwill went out the window when they report that number immediately next to a figure a decade and a half out of date. I'm sure the study this came from is out there somewhere and the article has been very dramatically increased from what it was before you got there, so we appreciate your work and can wait if you're busy now. Otherwise, feel free to remove the so-far unVERIFIABLE number and emend or change the hook. (Personally, I'd rather see the fact backed up since the US figures are more part of the NCMEC's bailiwick.) — LlywelynII 00:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The WSJ article is recent. So is the BBC article. They are both RSs. Published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
The fact that the figure mentioned is consistent with the figure a decade and a half prior does not ipso facto indicate that they were relying on an old figure. It seems to be an impossibility to you that the figure can still be the same, in two different years. That's raw editor supposition. Editor OR. You're simply making up the "fact" that the figure must be based on an old number, because it matches the old number. There is nothing to support that but your supposition. And it flies in the face of what our RS guideline states. Supplanting the RS's reputation, with your unsubstantiated personal editor guess-work.
As the RS guideline emphatically states: "we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." It is simply your Wikipedian opinion, based on your personal interpretation of primary source material, that the two RSs are not stating accurate information.
Since the WSJ is an RS, we as as a result can rely on it to report facts accurately. Same with the BBC. And as indicated above -- we reflect what RSs state without them laying out the sources they use -- otherwise we would never state "x was born on date y," if the Wall Street Journal didn't in turn say how they know it ... which of course is not how WP works.
I guess we could also look at using the UK's 140,000 figure, along with the US's, though from what I see that may be a low estimate. That could read: [ALT7:] "... that ICMEC supports efforts to find missing children—with over 600,000 reported missing last year in the US alone, and over 100,000 reported missing in the UK annually?"
I think we have the beginning of the hook squared away ("... that ICMEC supports efforts to find missing children—with ... ").Epeefleche (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It's been almost two weeks now, beyond the lengthy discussion above.
  1. The nominator continues to misread his sources, in order to support a claim they do not in fact support;
  2. the nominator continues to disparage editors and their concerns, rather than treat them with good faith and address those concerns with better sources;
  3. the nominator continues to do so despite having been shown newer data that shows his original sources are no longer accurate (if they ever were);
  4. that newer data has not been incorporated into the article, which continues to cite a US figure two decades out of date;
  5. the article continues not to caveat that number with the known facts that the vast majority of reported cases are voluntary, that 97+% of cases each year are closed within the year, that the last year we have data on (2013) over 100% of cases were closed... omissions that verge on violations of WP:LIE;
  6. the article concerns a US-based agency for dealing with international disappearances (domestic cases are dealt with by a separate group), so the domestic US figure is almost aside the point for the hook or the article;
  7. the article continues to provide no source whatsoever for its international figure, which the nominator has ignored for months;
  8. the article contains no possible source for the international figure, as it is only asserted by a WP:PUS Irish tabloid and a website self-published by the agency in question, which the nominator has ignored for months; and
  9. the nominator has responded to repeated calls to go find such a citation with further stonewalling and tendentious misread policy, rather than... going and finding an actual source.
Normally, I'd say we could always go with a blander hook and just get this done, but the stonewalling and seemingly WP:AGF-proof way concerns are being dealt with make me question the bias and reliability of the entire article. Should we just close this? — LlywelynII 01:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I wonder if perhaps Llywelyn's earlier suggestion that he was open to another editor looking at this afresh may be helpful. Especially as I don't read the above the same way he does. I've tried to address Llywelyn's concerns. I've sought to be civil.
As to his above concern # 4, I'm a bit perplexed by his upset -- as I had thought it was fine to wait until we sorted the hook out here first before one of us addressed it. But I have now added the FBI material that he indicated he wanted added to the article. In looking at the stats, it is clear that the FBI criteria for a missing child are narrower than the NISMART criteria -- thus, comparing the numbers is an apples-to-oranges comparison. That said, I would suggest -- in a revision that encompasses both definitional approaches -- that ALT7 be replaced by ALT8, reading:

[ALT8:] "... that ICMEC supports efforts to find missing children—with hundreds of thousands reported missing last year in the US alone, and over 100,000 reported missing in the UK annually?"

As to his concern # 6 -- the US and the UK are two significant countries within the countries covered by ICMEC; there are of course other countries, but these two cover a significant percent of the population of the countries in the ICMEC network.
As to his concerns # 7 and 8, I've left word at an appropriate wp talk page, and perhaps some expert in the RS area can provide helpful advice here.
But I don't think that is even necessary--if we are looking at ALT8. It doesn't speak to the broad international number at all. :::::Nor does ALT5, an update of the suggestion by editor TonyTheTiger. Which I also think is acceptable -- though less hooky than ALT7 (which is clearly sourced to RSs), also doesn't mention the broad international number. Epeefleche (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
[edit]

(facepalm) how did we get to this? Ok - we need footnotes next to numbers in article explaining how numbers are calculated. We need to get the info as clear as possible. It's late here and I am tired. I've read through this twice now and my brain hurts. Will try when less fatigued. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we need a rule here at DYK to the effect that when the nom discussion grows bigger than the article and all its sources combioned, the nom is withdrawn. EEng (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • That would just open the system to being abused by people who don't like a subject. Filibustering. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Good thing you pointed that out, because I was seriously gonna suggest someone write a "DYK nom length limiter" script, which would add up the length of the article and all its sources. Then a bot would come by and... EEng (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • FFS. The number has been both cited and attributed in text; that's about as "Are we sure about this?" as we can get with an RS. If that number is the controversial aspect of this hook, then leave it out. Go with ALT8 or ALT5. Personally, I'm concerned about the citation bombing going on in the article. Most of these claims don't need 5 or 6 references. — Crisco 1492 (talk0) 23:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
ALT5 I'd be OK with. All the stats such as that in ALT8 are misleading unless the hook can somehow squeeze in an explanation of phrases like "reported missing" -- no matter what the country. Otherwise we're just repeating hype. Beyond that (and I haven't looked at the article recently) to be NPOV the article itself needs to clearly explain all such figures with similar definitions. EEng (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
@Crisco -- tx; I also think ALT8 and ALT5 are appropriate (and agree with your first point as well, as to the number having been both cited and attributed in text, which is as you say is what we look for with an RS). Stats in ALT8 are amply discussed in the article text, which editors reading the hook and clicking find themselves at, and are government agency stats (actually, a very watered-down, under-stated version of them). Epeefleche (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll say it again: beyond the question of getting the numerical quantity right, it's also necessary that the hook's label on the number ("reported missing" or whatever) not be such as to mislead the typical reader. Most people don't imagine that "reported missing" includes (as it does) went to friend's house and forgot to call home for at least 1 hour. EEng (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't pretend to know what the typical reader imagines. But the "missing" definition in that regard is constant across the various governmental studies and RS articles reporting on them in the US and the UK that are reflected in the article.
And, as wp:dyk indicates, "When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is ... likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Shorter hooks are preferred to longer ones, as long as they don't misstate the article content."Epeefleche (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
All communication involves thinking about what the hearer or reader will understand, given the context of what the hearer/reader already knows or believes. I have no problem asserting that very few readers will understand, without being told, that "reported missing" includes every reported case in which a child didn't come home within an hour of the time expected. EEng (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
To make it easier going forward, since ALT5 is almost impossible to find above, I've reposted both hooks being discussed, ALT5 and ALT8, and struck all the other hooks; I've also added the bold link that was missing from ALT5:
  • ALT5: ... that the ICMEC and NCMEC's Global Missing Children’s Network assists investigations across 22 participating countries?
  • ALT8: ... that ICMEC supports efforts to find missing children—with hundreds of thousands reported missing last year in the US alone, and over 100,000 reported missing in the UK annually? —BlueMoonset (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe that my pruning addresses at least some of the commentary here; let's get this show on the road, with ALT5, which does not suffer from data that may be disputed and, let's face it, isn't part of the subject. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/International_Centre_for_Missing_%26_Exploited_Children&oldid=905535238"