Talk:National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] NCMEC not what it claims to be

According to numerous relatives of kidnapping and trafficking victims - not just in the United States but in Europe as well - personnel of the American “non-governmental organization”, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), in Alexandria, Virginia, have refused to provide assistance to them to search for and recover missing loved ones.

There are many examples of collusion of NCMEC personnel with corrupt personnel of similar organizations abroad, especially in refusing to post photographs and details about missing children.

Many NGOs have joined conspiracies with kidnapping and pedophile gangs and complicit police officials (and other government officials) to kidnap and traffic children, cover up the crime and thwart recovery efforts by relatives.

According to its advertising, NCMEC was founded by a man, John Walsh, who lost a child to kidnappers. His intention was to help those who suffered similar experiences. But this seems to have been a false claim. In many such organizations about the world there are persons who make similar claims - that they lost a child to kidnappers and want to work for a child protection organization to help other victims. But these agencies are often uncooperative in many cases. This is particularly so of Child Focus in Belgium, which was set up during the Michel Nihoul – Marc Dutroux scandal in 1967 and 1968, with the help of NCMEC personnel.


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pah Rent (talk • contribs) 11:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

This page was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The consensus was to keep it. dbenbenn | talk 14:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I have added the cleanup-tone tag, Radiant! has suggested that it may actually need a cleanup-rewrite tag, as it appears to simply be a direct copy of the organization's mission statement. HyperZonktalk 18:53, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've written about the Center and can write an entry. One problem: The name of the organization uses an ampersand, and I don't know how to change the name above or do a redirect, and the Help instructions stymie me on this. Would anyone be able to help? --24.199.120.207, Fri, Sept 23, 2005

reply: To de a redirect, create a blank page with the following text in it only:

   #REDIRECT internal link

Where "internal link" is the name of the page you want to redirect to.

Arundhati Bakshi 10:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted edits

This addition of NCMEC criticisms by User:Nazz uses a encyclopedic tone, but does not cite reliable sources; instead, it cites blogs and blog comments. It also mentions the WSJ and Congressional testimony, both of which are far more acceptable as sources, and I see no reason why Nazz didn't cite them directly. Oh wait, yes I do: here's the actual "Wall Street Journal" piece: It's an an op-ed column on WSJ Online and Nazz mischaracterizes it. The columnist is only documenting his efforts to find a source for the NCMEC's figures for the size (dollar-wise) of the child porn industry – information which someone else (Chris McElroy of the 'faith-based' Kidsearch Network) is using as ammunition in their criticism of the Center. This doesn't constitute an endorsement by the WSJ of McElroy's allegations of NCMEC impropriety. The WSJ Online column could still be mentioned, just not in connection with McElroy. I didn't look up the Congressional testimony.

I'm actually not opposed to having a criticism section, nor am I opposed to ever citing blogs as sources (though the purveyors of WP:V would have my hide for saying so). It's just evident to me that in this particular case, a relatively non-notable criticism is being given undue weight, and the contributor's attempt to use mentions of the WSJ and Congress to artificially inflate the credibility of McElroy's blog smells fishy. I'd rather just revert it due to suspicious motivations rather than attempt to clean it up. The onus is on the contributor to write more neutrally. Ask here first if you need help figuring out a good way to characterize the debate.

I also reverted edits made later in the day by User:24.225.89.38. This user had made changes to both the AMBER Alert article and this one. The edits clearly reflect a malicious agenda; the reason for reversion (especially in the AMBER Alert article) should be self-evident. —mjb 05:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)