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

International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children tries to help find missing children, 8 million of whom disappear each year worldwide, with 800,000 going missing in the US alone?

• Reviewed: Bryce Alford

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)

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)