Talk:MOCHIP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MOCHIP was re-edited so as to not violate copyright. I hope this satisfies. It is not advertising, just defining something that has become a massive part of out state since the abductions earlier this year...I'm sure you remember seeing it in the news.

The text is still lifted nearly verbatim from the source so it has been deleted again. Beyond that, you need to provide some sort of evidence that this is a notable program; multiple non-trivial news coverage in publications that would be considered a reliable source would help.--Isotope23 13:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly provide news articles about MOCHIP. Anyone can "google" it and see how big it has become. How do you want the news sources?? Should I list the entire article for you to read? List the url's to the news sites? Just let me know. There are only so many ways to paraphrase what the MOCHIP program is about, honestly I am just trying to get the definition out there so when people have heard about it they can come herer to find out what it is. I'm am getting a little discouraged about how difficult it is to get something posted here. This is not a joke to me, as I am sure you come across many people who just play around. Let me know about the sources...I will re-write it for a last time, and after that I will be done trying. Jokerst44 12:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] MOCHIP media examples

Here are but 3 of very many MOCHIP media examples to prove this is extremely program does exist. I certainly hope this allows me to publish this definition once and for all to those who look it up.

MOCHIP media 1

MOCHIP media 2

MOCHIP media 3

MOCHIP Home Page

Let me know if this is not sufficientJokerst44 14:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this probably could serve as the start for an article about the CHIP program in general, but leaving it focused on just one state is too narrow, in my opinion. Additionally, and I may be wrong on this, but I think the CHIP program started in Massachusetts. I'd suggest turning this article into "CHIP-Child Identification Program" and discussing (with cites) the history of its rise, and where it has spread. Some data regarding number of families served, any cases where CHIP kits have been used in missing child cases, and successes of the same.--Vidkun 01:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
One source on PART of Massachusetts's conbtribution (the toothprints) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKX/is_2_72/ai_99988045 --Vidkun 01:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Idea

You should not change this to a CHIP only article. The CHIP programs are NOT related. They are similar in vision and goal, but they operate differently and independently. Meshing them together would be a disservice and dis-information. This article is about MOCHIP and independent program operating under the supervision of the Missouri Masonic Childrens Foundation. Jokerst44 02:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course they operate independently, considering all the GL's are independe4nt. But a state level one like this is then not notable enough for an entire article, which was why I suggested an article about the concept of the CHIP program, and then history blurbs and information about each state's version. I'm of the opinion that that would be a better encyclopedic article, but obviously you disagree. Whatever.--Vidkun 09:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would a state level organisation not warrant an article? I think that would depend on the vastness and impact that organisation has had on a community. I believe your opinion that it doesn't justify an article is just wrong. I have read many thing on WP that seemed actually trivia in nature yet the article stands. A statewide program featured on many news outlets, some of which I cited, which has had such an impact on the state certainly justifies an article. I think every state, if the program is active, should have its own article. MOCHIP is its own entity, and is in fact slated to be on CNN in mid-summer. These are not reasons to remove it as a stand alone article. Jokerst44 12:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm challenging this statement: The CHIP programs are NOT related. Let's see: Masonic Organization conducts a childhood identification program that includes photographs, interviews, fingerprints and dental prints, to be used by families in case there is ever a missing child issue. It's done by MANY US GL's, the fact that they don't all use the exact same way of getting the informations/items is incidental. Hwo can you say they aren't related?--Vidkun 14:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You say that MANY US GL's do this?? How many is "many"?? I can tell you it is only done in 6 states at this time. NO, they are not related. They use similar principles and visions, but related, no. Related would assume they have some accountability to each other, as if under an umbrella, and they do not. Each GL operates their ID program under different standards and guidlines, this is NOT incidental...it is indeed a fundamental difference. Just because McDonalds and Burger King both sell burgers, and are considered "fast food", does not mean the companies are related, thus different names. Just like each state has different name for its version of Child ID. As a side note, Illinois is actually maintaining all of the information they collect. Missouri and most other states purge all information after each event..not an incidental difference. For some reason you don't like what I'm saying. But in all seriousness, call up the GL of a state that has a Child ID program and ask them if their program is related to any other state. They will claim complete autonomy and most likely go on to explain why theirs is the "best". This is not the same as an appendant body in Freemasonry. I personally wish each state did answer to a higher authority, it would lend credibility and each state would operate the same. I think enough has been said about this. Jokerst44 15:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
For some reason you don't like what I'm saying. No, you seem to be insisting on reading personal offense into my suggesting that a larger umbrella article would be better. Organizations and activities don't need accountability to each other to be related. You sure are getting heated about "your" article.--Vidkun 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Am I getting "heated"? I guess that depends on how you define it. But I see people get "heated" on here for many things. If heated means responding to your comments, then indeed I am getting "heated" and what would you expect? But if "heated" is a derogatory remark directed at me, I suggest you stop. Jokerst44 15:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No, heated is not a derogatory remark. It's my opinion that you are taking personal offense at my criticism of the article. I'm trying to make a better encyclopedia, and one way of doing that is suggesting that small groups/organizations (such as state wide ones) would be better served by an umbrella article descrbing the concept of the program, where it started, and what the evolution was, with seperate state by state subsections. I realize you went into an awful lot of work on this article, and I'm sorry if my comments hurt you, but they shouldn't: they are directed at the content of the article, not you.--Vidkun 15:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The programs are related - there is a National Director (whose name escapes me ATM, but I've seen him at numerous Quarterlies). So, it would seem that your "GL sources" are grossly misinformed (probably because they tout the proghram without being aware of the administration thereof). Day-to-day, the programs may be independent, but there's still a hierarchy, and the various directors on the state and regional levels do talk to each other, I would imagine, because otherwise there would be no need for them. Therfore, an umbrella program article would be the best idea. MSJapan 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see this "National Directors" name my friend. I promise you there is no National Director for this specific ID program. It is hard for my GL to be wrong when I know how it operates intimately. Yes I am aware and involved in state and regional(within Missouri) hierarchy, but not national. Please show me the name of this National Director, and I will start answering to him because thus far I have not been. MOCHIP operates on a State directed level only. It is hard for our GL to be "wrong", when they started it in this state. Again, do your best to find me the name of the "National Director" that the MOCHIP program is accountable to. Jokerst44 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Here you go - http://www.ctchip.org/links.php MASONIC CHIP Support Committee: In February 2004 the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America, formally recognized the need to support a methodical generation of identifying items for parents to keep on hand as a safeguard, and then in the event of a missing child, turned over to law enforcement agencies as an aid in recovery and identification. By a vote of 54 out of 58 Grand Masters present, a standing committee was formed known as the MASONIC CHIP SUPPORT COMMITTEE (MCSC). http://www.masonichip.org/ Masonic Child Identification Support Committee of the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America. 30 seconds on google found that. Oh, look, your OWN program links to it: http://www.mochip.org/links.php --Vidkun 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Before you become a smart ass about this...answer the question. Who said I was unaware of the Grand Masters Conference. Do you know what the Grand Masters Conference does? One thing it does NOT do it govern the MOCHIP program. The GMC simply endorses the idea and concept, they are not the governing body. That is a fact. Don't be ignorant toward me, there is no need for that. I want to know who this National Director is you are talking about. If you mis-spoke, then just admit it and "no harm, no foul". But don't try to prove something that does not exist. Go to this website Masonichipand actually read the Mission Statement and what the National Committe does. Note there is NO and I repeat NO, oversight from this organization. You simply mis-interpreted their role. Jokerst44 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just my two cents. There is no national director for the Masonichip program. There are state directors for the 20 states currently envolved with the program. However, there is a national committee. They state that "We, the MasoniCHIP Support Committee (MCSC) of the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America present the following definition as an umbrella under which all Masonic Grand Lodge Jurisdictions engaged in Masonic Child Identification Programs can operate. The elements listed below, we all share in common, and are aspects that set our MasoniCHIP initiatives above all others, no matter what types of identifying items each individual jurisdiction decides to generate or the equipment each employs to do it. MasoniCHIP is established and recognized as one of the most comprehensive child recovery, identification, and abduction awareness education programs in North America. Twenty (20) of our Masonic Grand Lodge jurisdictions are reported to be currently engaged in child identification programs. Our collaboration with the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) has resulted in recognition from the NCMEC for those programs that conduct "Comprehensive MasoniCHIP"." So there is a connection between the different states although they are also seperate. This is because the funds for each individual state is received through a 501-C3 which is connected to the endowment fund of each participant GL. As each of these GLs are seperate organizations, they can not have a unified 501-C3. Offically, these are all seperate programs, however they work together through the Conference of GMs for support and uniformity. Chtirrell 19:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finished

How about we have a little respect for each other and drop this infighting. I know how our program operates because I work it daily to prepare for weekend events. If someone wants to debate it, fine, just please make sure the facts are interpreted accurately. I don't have time to keep up this debate. And if Fraternal regards are due...peace. May the GAOTU guide us in our endeavors. Jokerst44 17:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's the issue?

Why would you put this up for deletion?? You seems to have a personal issue with this article. I thought you were going to contribute to it. You clearly have a biased hatred against this atricle and I think that should be taken into account. Very sad and tells a lot about you MSJapan. Jokerst44 21:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed this on your talk page. Don't ascribe thing s to me because they don't fit with your motivations. If you want to play that game, how about this: Massachusetts started the program in the first place and there's no article on it. The problem is that you are too invested in this to see anyone else's perspective. This is one program in one state out of 50, period. All the CHIP programs identify children. Why is yours special? That's notability, and it is not something you have addressed at all. MSJapan 22:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It is notable because of what it does and what it accomplishes for the community. Is it my fault YOU, or someone else has not written the article on MAChip or anyother one?....no. So why shoot one down because your state is NOT listed, that is why you take it so personally. It is clear you feel you are NEVER wrong and somehow your opinion is better than everyone elses. I see that over and over on WP. You seem shallow and conceited. Jokerst44 23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You can cease with the personal attacks RIGHT NOW. MSJapan brought up a good point: why is this ONE CHIP program more notable than any of the others? I tried addressing this to you before, but you took it as a personal attack, EVERY TIME. You also made claims that were later proven to be factually incorrect, and have continued on the tangent that this one program is so unique it must have its own article, and that none of the othe rprograms are related.--Vidkun 12:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with you. I am offcially asking that you stop writing me. This is my official request that you leave me alone. Jokerst44 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That only applies to your talk page, by the way. This is an article talk page, and does not belong to you. Or are you claiming ownership of this article? MSJapan 11:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Brethren... "Harmony is the support of all institutions, especially this of ours." That quote can apply to Wikipedia just as well as to Masonry. Can we tone down the hostility.
Is there a reason why we could not shift the focus of this article away from the specific program in MO, and create an article about Masonic Child ID programs in general? I would think we could help more families, and save more children, if we take a broader approach that explains and links to all of the different programs no matter which jurisdiction runs it. I would not mind if we pull in non-masonic programs that do similar work. After all, the point is to help children, isn't it? Blueboar 15:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Blueboar thank you. Yes indeed we can. I have no issue with that. He just seems to want to take down this article for the sake of taking it down. And MSJapan....when did I even hint at trying to "claim ownership" of this page. You don't seem to understand that you are constantly baiting me and can't simply, and I mean SIMPLY let it go. What is the point?? Seriously. Be my guest to say whatever you want, wherever you want. How foolish of me to think you might recognize and respect my request. Clearly you don't want to, and again chose to argue about it. I've had enough of you. Blueboar I appreciate your input and at this point I would be happy to allow some merge of info. I just have not taken on the task of creating such an article...and to be honest, with MSJapan lurking over every move I make, I suspect someone else will have to take on this endeavor. Jokerst44 17:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Great... I will try to start a stub umbrella article on CHIPs programs in general this weekend, and we can merge this article into it at some point. I hope you will help out at the new umbrella article. I am sure that your experience and involvement with the Missouri program will translate into useful insight when talking about all the other programs and the nation wide efforts. My advice... go take a break for a few days and let your temper and ill feelings over the delete nom die down. And when you return, try to assume good faith a bit more... MSJapan is one of the more respected editors when it comes to articles related to Masonry. He really isn't out to "take down this article for the sake of taking it down"... He had an honest issue with the notablilty of the topic. It is OK to disagree with that view, but there is no need to be uncivil to him in the process (and, mouth to ear, my brother... with all due respect and courtesy, you were not very civil). But enough about the past... let's focus on the future. Blueboar 19:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey all, for what it's worth: that's brilliant, an article more-inclusive of the other programs, port this in, probably as a section there.... Joker, this is a great subject matter to create an article on, many kidos, & now perhaps lets see it evolve, & like BB said, that'll be most productive to the cause of the article's subject matter !~) with that, everyone here can contribute positively instead of wasting hours yappin about stuff that just distracts us from creating... & BTW, here's a link to CO GL's program
Grye 00:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
And here is a link to the NY program Blueboar 17:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some references

More local news articles:

--A. B. (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD over

Per AFD, this should be merged with MasoniCHIP. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)