Talk:AMBER Alert
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Missing sections
Seems there should be a section for criticisms, statistics for success and failure rates, and also examples of the "scams."
Obviously from this Talk page, there is plenty of controversy, disagreement, lack of clear data, and scamming going on in the country regarding Amber Alert. Yet this doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article.
Evidently there isn't a consensus and there's a problem with whether some sources are legitimate. But shouldn't these things at least be mentioned in the article, with their specifics omitted? I for one have no idea what the controversies and scams are ABOUT. I don't need names and places -- I just need to know the concepts. What is the controversy? Could the scams be described? Tragic romance 04:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, should an entire underlying concept be removed from an article just because its specifics are unsourced? Or should the specifics be removed, while leaving the concept intact? [For example, you wouldn't delete the entire "Hail Mary" section from the football article just because someone put in unsourced info about players and coaches who used it.]Tragic romance 04:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested image
A photo of an electronic traffic-condition sign displaying an AMBER alert would give the reader a more immediate understanding of what a typical alert consists of and how large a scope the alert actually has. Mrtea (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, Author782! Mrtea (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Author782 09:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
A new image, Image:Amber1.PNG, was posted by ChrisRy5 on 3-SEP-2006. However, it's actual copyright status is uncertain - it is claimed to be public domain, but without actual source information, it will have to be removed. Kevyn 06:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- The image has been deleted as a copyright violation. Kevyn 15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 |
This article contains or may have contained one or more copyrighted photograph or photographs. It is requested that a freely-licensed photograph be included in this article to replace such copyrighted images, if possible, in order to better comply with fair use policy. Many copyright-free image sources are listed at our public domain image resources, or you could create your own. Alternatively, you may request permission from the copyright holder of the original images to release them under a free license. Wikipedians in North America may be able to help! |
--Chiew 09:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Questions (removed from article)
I removed this html comment from the article: "When did the national system come online? What is the history of Canada's versions? Did Al Gore have something to do with proposing the U.S. system? (He was mentioned in a previous version of the article, but it was not clear whether the info was accurate)." Mrtea (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I had put those questions in there to accompany the sectstub that was applicable to the History section. Someone squeezed in a new section above the stub and comments last month. I believe the history section is still not much of a history, so I am restoring the stub and will point to the talk page. — mjb 23:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Missing White Woman Syndrome
I removed this link from the see also. The program is used to help find children of a variety of colors and both genders in my area and I am sorry if it is only used to find white females in the area of whoever added it but it is not related to this article. - Kuzain 16:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Since Amber Alerts are predominantly concerned with white rich kids, particularly female, certainly the link about "Missing white woman syndrome" is relevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome
Kuzain censored it out because he or she doesn't want anything in the article that conflicts with his or her opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nehmo (talk • contribs).
- Can you back up this claim with some facts? If that link is to be there, it needs to be accompanied with properly sourced justification. In my case, the last two Amber Alerts that I've seen were for hispanics. --Bletch 13:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Kuzain. The Amber Alert system has nothing to do with the cultural phenomenon "Missing White Woman Syndrome." I could see an article on "Missing White Woman Syndrome" referencing the Amber Alert article, but not the other way around.Tragic romance 03:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Amber Article on 3-01-06 is complete junk
This article as it was on 3-01-06 is emblematic of what is wrong with Wikipedia. It was an advertisement rather than an impartial encyclopedia-like article. Amber alerts, who issues them, how they are used, how much funding goes to them, and what happens to the funding, are controversial subjects. Promotional writings on Amber alerts deserve a skeptical eye.
There are so many people profiting from child protection scams, particularly the government sponsored ones, that nowadays in America, almost any program or agency claiming to help children should be suspect. Nobody should simply assume these programs or agencies are blossoming from the goodness of someone's heart. — Nehmo 15:06 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) next time (I added an attribution of your comment for you this time).
- You raise some excellent points, but you also demonstrated some of the other shortcomings of Wikipedia. For one, your attempts to correct the situation consisted of turning the article into a very informally phrased message board post; your contributions belie your frustration, as they sound more like sour grapes than anything academic. Also, the article was actually far more neutral before someone started messing with it on February 19. You should always check the recent history on an article that attracts scam artists because they tend to sneak things in, and they make their last change be a minor edit that causes people checking watchlists to overlook the more drastic changes made on the same day. That's pretty much what happened here (I'm not calling anyone a scammer, I'm just saying there were some less-than-ideal edits that snuck in). For now, I have reverted it to the last 'good' version. This also includes reverting the 'Successful Examples' section that was added by Zappa.jake; in hindsight, I think a discussion of examples should include a mention that unsuccessful examples are rarely publicized, and the likelihood that the 'success' of the system is hard to measure, since many cases are never proven to be abductions. So please review the current article and see what you think is needed, and let's discuss its shortcomings here (see below). — mjb 19:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article changes needed
I think it's not necessary to elaborate on the criticisms of child protection scams in general, at least not in an article devoted to AMBER Alerts specifically, but I'd like to at least characterize the controversy (i.e., mention that it exists). Would you say that the system's high visibility is thought, by some, to feed into the public's paranoia and hysteria about child abductions? I think I would, but I can't cite a source for that.
What are some of the other criticisms?
Some of the contributions by Nehmo (click) that were removed when reverting the article to the relatively neutral version include the following:
- Who prompts the issuing of alerts? It was speculated that sometimes it is local police departments, and sometimes it is child protection services divisions of state governments, while some erroneously think it is the Dept. of Homeland Security. Who's doing the issuing and at whose behest seems like it should be verifiable info; would someone mind doing some Googling for that?
- It was speculated that an AMBER Alert wouldn't have helped Amber Hagerman, and "Maybe it was just a feel-good the media wanted after the kid's murder". Wikipedia is not the place for such speculation, but there might be ways we can work these points into the article when discussing the intent and justification of the system when it was created.
- Criteria for issuing an alert varies widely, and the state of Maine's criteria was given as an example, along with discussion of how other jurisdictions' criteria may differ. I think this is good stuff and can be restored, but it needs some phrasing cleanup. Did you (Nehmo) author it yourself or did you pull it from somewhere? It was formatted with hard line breaks which makes me think you copy-pasted it from somewhere.
- More examples of successes and failures were given. I like the general idea but it could grow out of hand; we need to first write some prose about the variable measures of 'success' and the fact that failures are not publicized. Then, any examples must have sources cited.
— mjb 19:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Nehmo, please adhere to Wikipedia conventions here. Don't split up someone's original comments. If you need to address them point-by-point, then make separate copies what you're responding to, and use indenting (everything at a particular indent level should be attributable to the same person, so they don't have to sign every paragraph). I've reformatted your replies below, and added my own responses. — mjb 11:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it's not necessary to elaborate on the criticisms of child protection scams in general, at least not in an article devoted to AMBER Alerts specifically,
- Amber alerts *are* a child protection scam. But I did not elaborate on "child protection scams in general" in the article I posted. You are confusing my comments on the discussion page with the article I posted. -- Nehmo
but I'd like to at least characterize the controversy (i.e., mention that it exists). Would you say that the system's high visibility is thought, by some, to feed into the public's paranoia and hysteria about child abductions? I think I would, but I can't cite a source for that.
- I don't know. But it's a separate issue than anything I discussed. The main issue is that Amber alerts are claiming to be something they are not. A Wikipedia article that parrots what Amber alert promoters say is not an accurate article, and it ignores Wikipedia's neural point of view philosophy. -- Nehmo
What are some of the other criticisms? Some of the contributions by Nehmo that were removed when reverting the article to the relatively neutral version include the following:
- Since you at least read some of what I wrote, you must understand that I would not agree with your characterization of the previous article as "relatively neutral". Indeed, it's grossly biased. It unabashedly presented Amber alerts as benevolent, and it didn't even contain one critical item.
- Moreover, you displayed your own bias this when you choose to include (subsequently removed by Lendu ) as the only example of an Amber alert the vague "successful" example added by Zappa.jake. There were so few details in the story, I couldn't conduct a decent search on it, but I tried [1]. Let me know when you find the story. Actually, Zappa.jake, the original submitter of the example, should provide a cite. If Wikipedia allows submitters to just fabricate examples, biased ones at that, then Wikipedia is less reliable than even the usenet. At least in that case the possibility of a challenge is more likely.
- I provided links for my examples. -- Nehmo
-
- Pretty much everything you've said above is based on incorrect assumptions. When you started making changes to the article, it was, I agree, in a pretty sorry state. It got that way mainly due to a series of edits made on February 19 by an anonymous user at IP address 65.25.18.202 (this person was attempting to fill in some history details in order to justify removal of the sectstub, but they ended up just adding propaganda), and Zappa.jake's edit on February 21, which added the so-called 'succesful example'. (And all Lendu did was add a link to the Finnish version of the article.) Prior to 65.25.18.202's changes it was actually in pretty good shape, and did not have egregious bias problems. You are completely mistaken when you say that I reverted it to a version that said "She could possibly been rescued shortly after she was abducted. If only there had been a means of spreading her information, the nine-year-old girl could have lived." That text clearly came from 65.25.18.202's ill-advised changes made on February 19.
-
- Neither did I knowingly "allow speculation to stand for so long" as you ask about below. It was actually not even two weeks. And what happened was this: when I checked my watchlist on the night of Feb. 19, I saw only the very last edit by 65.25.18.202. It was very benign, and I didn't think to check to see if any more drastic edits had been made prior to that. Watchlists only show the most recent change, you know, so when someone follows up a major change with a minor one, it has the effect of "nothing to see here, move along". This is a trick some people use when they make controversial edits. Sometimes it is just an accident. Anyway, that's how it slipped by me and probably everyone else who is watching this article. Then, when I checked my watchlist on the 21st, I saw Zappa.jake's edit. I could see that his edit was rather useless and unverifiable as an example, but it wasn't demanding immediate attention, and I figured it would be dealt with by someone with a greater interest in the article anyway. The next edit was TSP's on Feb. 26, which got buried in my watchlist (which is rather long) and I never saw it. It didn't reflect any bias, though. Then you came along with a ton of changes that, in conjunction with what came before, left the article looking not just "unpolished" but also resembling an informal message board post editorializing in rebuttal to some unseen propaganda. It needed more than copyedits and would have had to be completely rewritten to bring it up to encyclopedic standards. So I reverted it to the pre-chaos version, and then posted here in order to explain the action and start some productive discussion on what this version of the article actually needs in order to be improved.
Who prompts the issuing of alerts? It was speculated that sometimes it is local police departments and sometimes it is child protection services divisions of state governments, while some erroneously think it is the Dept. of Homeland Security.
- I addressed this already, and I could expand on the topic too.
- What I meant, and I provided two explanatory links, was that some people confuse Homeland Security advisories with Amber alerts. They see the words "Amber alert" and they think it's a risk level, which are colored for distinction, and two of the colors are amberish. I don't know of any instance of someone believing Homeland Security issued a missing-kid Amber alert. -- Nehmo
-
- OK, I see what you are saying (The "AMBER" in AMBER Alert is sometimes mistakenly thought to indicate a risk level in a color-coded system like those used for air quality and national security alerts, whereas it is actually just the name of the type of bulletin issued by agencies participating in this system). If we are careful how we phrase it, we could say this in the article.
It was speculated that an AMBER Alert wouldn't have helped Amber Hagerman, and "Maybe it was just a feel-good the media wanted after the kid's murder". Wikipedia is not the place for such speculation, but there might be ways we can work these points into the article when discussing the intent and justification of the system when it was created.
- The previous article _speculated_ that such an Amber alert back then in Arlington would have helped Amber: "She could possibly been rescued shortly after she was abducted. If only there had been a means of spreading her information, the nine-year-old girl could have lived." Why did you allow that speculation to stand for so long if speculation is inappropriate? -- Nehmo
Criteria for issuing an alert varies widely, and the state of Maine's criteria was given as an example, along with discussion of how other jurisdictions' criteria may differ. I think this is good stuff and can be restored, but it needs some phrasing cleanup. Did you (Nehmo) author it yourself or did you pull it from somewhere? It was formatted with hard line breaks which makes me think you copy-pasted it from somewhere.
- I wrote it myself. I agree, it wasn't in polished form, but the previous version of that section was worse. Even though the section used the qualifiers "most" and "guidelines" It implied those criteria are indeed used.
- The article I changed states "… most alerts follow the following guidelines".
- 1. Since written guidelines or criteria vary widely, how can anyone say they are followed? Just what is being followed?
- 2. Nobody follows the criteria. None of the examples I posted conformed to any criteria. And if you look at the local alerts in your community, you'll see how loosely the criteria in your area are followed. Many cases are girls who left with their boyfriends, foster kids trying to escape, or parents "taking" their own children. These aren't Amber-alert-monsters abducting little kids. -- Nehmo
-
- OK, well, regarding point #1, the qualifiers made it pretty clear that the four criteria listed were in the ballpark, but were not supposed to be exhaustive. I don't think people reading it would come away with the wrong impression of what the criteria actually are, because it disclaimed away any pretense of the list being anything more than representative. On the second point, though, you are correct, there was no citation provided to verify that most jurisdictions follow the guidelines, and it's plausible, if not verifiable, that they don't. I think TSP's edit today tightens up the language of that section pretty well, and makes good use of scare quotes and a reference to a source. — mjb 11:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
More examples of successes and failures were given. I like the general idea but it could grow out of hand; we need to first write some prose about the variable measures of 'success' and the fact that failures are not publicized. Then, any examples must have sources cited.
- I never characterized anything as a success of failure, and it would be simplistic to divide cases into those categories. If, via an Amber alert, a mother gets caught for trying to keep her baby from what she believes are kidnappers, the state government, is her capture a success? In a way it is. It's a successful kidnapping. —Nehmo 16:56 2 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps, but the article isn't a place for such "food for thought". Any examples must be illustrating an explicitly stated point. I think if you/we can come up with a way to phrase that point as matter-of-fact rather than implying it or editorializing, then those examples might be useful. —mjb 11:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] False alarms
I don't know if this has been noted, but they don't by any means stick to the stated criteria when issuing these alerts. I've seen false alarms. I know of one where none of the criteria was met. --DanielCD 14:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- If you can provide any source or citation for this, then it can be included in the article. Wikipedia policies don't, however, allow us to include information based purely on the personal experience of a contributor. TSP 15:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Oh, gee. I didn't know that. Duh.
-
- My point is that mention of this might improve the article, if it's not mentioned already. I didn't say anything about personal experience. --DanielCD 16:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Sorry, I should have checked out whether you were an experienced editor. I agree that it would improve the article; but I don't know of any particular such instances, and I was wondering whether you had any citations which would allow us to include content on them. The only citations/references we have at the moment are to official sites, so the article is likely to only contain positive material; which is indeed a problem, but attempts to balance it by including uncited material aren't helping. TSP 16:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I'll see if I can find something that can be cited. --DanielCD 18:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- There's got to be citable articles on this. A quick scan of Google News turns up all kinds of stories just in the last couple weeks, including some that look pretty critical. Add "false" to that query, for kicks... mjb 11:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
In 2005, Scripps Howard News comissioned a study of all Amber Alerts that ocurred in the United States in 2004. Only one-third of the alerts actually met the U.S. Department of Justice's criteria for issuing of alerts. I've written a short section for false alarms, citing and linking the study. Kevyn 05:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Darn I forgot to get back on this; a lesson to me to keep better track of all the little side projects I get myself into. My thanks to Kevyn and others who helped address the issue. --DanielCD 17:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] When is an AMBER Alert issued?
Amber alerts are issued at the discretion of the city or county emergency manager. Traditional ways of issuing alerts are to send faxes to all media outlets (namely television and radio stations). The Emergency Alert System is the key dissemination instrument. EAS is a FCC-mandated network of radio and television stations, and has by far been the most effective way of distributing AMBER Alerts (called Child Abduction Emergencies [CAEs]). While the EAS system is mandated by the FCC, broadcasting of AMBER Alerts are not- a station is free to choose to not disseminate an alert. While most stations will broadcast an alert for public safety issues and (frankly) good press, there are stations who refuse to interrupt programming for a child abduction alert. Billboards that have marquees dedicated to local emergencies have also been extremely effective ways of distributing alerts. Difficulty arises when the child "abducted" has been taken by a divorced parent- the emergency manager must be selective in issuing AMBER Alerts because he/she does not want to desensitize the local population to serious alerts such as AMBERs. There is no universal protocol for determining when or when not to issue a CAE. —24.11.214.174 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Senior alerts
Colorado just passed legislation 'to extend Amber Alerts to missing senior citizens'.[2][3][4] It's not 100% clear from the media reports whether this is going to be a separate system or is just a change to the state's existing AMBER Alert criteria. It will apply to 'persons 60 years of age or older with a "verified impaired mental condition" and "whose disappearance poses a credible threat to the safety and health of the person."' I'm not going to try to work it into the article until I know more about it.—mjb 01:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I know Talk pages are not for general discussion about an article's subject, so I apologize if this is a nuisance and I'll understand if it must be deleted, but this is the problem with the way these bureaucrats work. Whether it's Amber Alerts, tax code, higher education, transportation, or any other govt project, they can't resist tinkering with it and tacking on more and more complications. The "crying wolf" desensitization is the biggest threat to the Amber Alert system. It was meant for children. Now people are going to pay even less attention to it. Tragic romance 03:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External link policy
Since many web sites and services relating to missing kids and AMBER Alert are contentious—it is argued above that they are scams, and previous links have been unceremoniously deleted—I intend to delete any non-authoritative resource links. Official sources and press articles about AMBER Alert are OK, but portals and "keeping your kids safe" sites are not. I encourage others to help enforce this, if they agree.—mjb 19:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you. I've reverted that safekids site in the past. A lot of these AMBER Alert "informational" sites have obvious hidden agendas. Mrtea (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- 24.225.89.38 was back at it again tonight, removing the section on the web-based amber alert system , and changing two of the links to authoritative sites to link to scammer sites. I have reverted all changes. Kevyn 05:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Naming?
Why did they choose an indirect naming like AMBER? Why didn't they go for something more clear like "missing child alert"? Wouldn't that be more helpful?--Sonjaaa 03:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently honoring Amber Hagerman's memory is more important than recognition. But then again, it's fairly widely known that an AMBER alert is. --DanielCD 16:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Amber Alert History - Sources?
An anonymous user, with this edit, replaced the paragraph describing who came up with the idea of the Amber Alert with an entirely different story. Can people supporting either version provide any credible an verifiable sources backing up their version? TSP 22:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- That anonymous edit should not be allowed to stand, but since the book it references does exist, we can say something about how the origin of the AMBER Alert system is debated and the fact that this book exists and that his pastor claims to have had the idea first; some say… others say… etc. I hate weasel words, but sometimes there's no avoiding them.—mjb 03:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It's my opinion that the pastor is mistaken, and is trying to generate book sales with his claim that he initially suggested the Amber Alert. In his story, he mentions that the Arlington Police Chief was Dee Anderson and I know for a fact that is absolutely incorrect. Dee Anderson worked for the Arlington Police Dept as a media spokesman *only* at the time of Amber's abduction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.142.189.255 (talk • contribs).
[edit] NCMEC
I just added a link to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, because I got some of my International Influence information from that site. I don’t know for sure, but I hope that that site does not fall into the “spam” category – if it does, that was not my intent. According to the website, it is a private non-profit organization, but it does have corporate sponsors... Jaksmata 00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- NCMEC is entirely appropriate for the context of this article. Kevyn 04:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Split off Child Rescue Alert into separate article?
I think that the section on England's "Child Rescue Alert" system probably merits being split off into its own article, since the program is so separate from the AMBER Alert system in the U.S. and Canada. A new section for "Child alert systems in other countries" with a link to the new article would probably be sufficient. Does anyone object to this? Kevyn 08:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That sounds correct to me. This article is not about "Child alert systems." This is specifically about the "Amber Alert" system. I also agree that the two proposed articles be linked. Tragic romance 03:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MySpace to distribute AMBER Alerts
Just announced today. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_on_hi_te/myspace_amber_alerts
Probably should go in the article somewhere.
-PK9 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
