Talk:UNICEF

• Archive 1

Trick or treat

Should add information about trick-or-treat for UNICEF, a common program DiceDiceBaby -Undated

Work in world

Anyone know what work they do around the world in more detail?the work is going on very well -Unsigned

The lack of information on this wikipedia page is quite shocking! It doesn't give any idea about the number of people it's working with, but it does give a lot of criticisms... 82.41.200.77 (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC) (lionfish)

Language template poll

A poll as to whether or not the language template should be included in this article is being conducted at Talk:United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Poll Raul654 19:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Mention criticisms of UNICEF

There are many criticisms of UNICEF. Some claim that it became too focused on ultra-feminist goals instead of the good of children when it was lead by Carroll Bellamy. Others claim that UNICEF forces abortions and sterilizations onto women in developing countries, or tricks them into receiving such procedures without their knowledge. I can't prove these as true, but the accusations are widespread. To mention that the accusations are made is important to demonstrate that there is a degree of controversy surrounding UNICEF. MikeNM 01:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There is little no NPOV here - this article was pulled right off the UNICEF website. There is a significant history of campaigning and distributing international funds for abortion and population control in UNICEF for several decades. It needs to be recorded here. User:rjp2006 Sept 2006

Where does it say on the unicef web site anyhting about promoting abortions? Articles I was able to find were about caring for orphans, AIDS prevention and immunizations. Additionally, if those allegations of forced or tricked abortions or sterilizations were true, one would think some (politically and religiously independent) human rights-promoting organization (such as Human Rights Watch) would have created a dossier about it. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a political forum, and as such, it should contain objective, verified information. There is no place on Wikipedia for baseless allegations, no matter how widespread they might be in some circles. 71.166.127.249 (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that, if UNICEF money was indeed gonig to fund abortions, that such a fact woudl be found on their website. In any case, we can't even talk about criticisms until we actually have some basic information, first. This article is highly formative and needs to be built, especially considering how much publicity UNICEF typically gets. The first task is to obtain some appropriate third-party sources. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The American government has been calling for a Japanese ban on possession (of child porn), and the Japanese branch of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) has been pushing for the inclusion of virtual depictions in the ban. Sounds like UNICEF wants to ban loli, something not everybody seems to agree on. VDZ (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been a lot of coverage of this issue lately VDZ, it may be relevant to have a section about it. Not to rush it though, we could put together some good references in the talk page first. The insistance of the Japanese branch of UNICEF on banning fictional depictions goes above and beyond protecting children in my view. I would be completely understanding of any parent or teacher who did not want them doing their Halloween collection campaigns in their schools due to this intrusion upon art and free expression that even Neil Gaiman is protesting as it happens on US turf. Tyciol (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we can add a bit in the criticism section.

Sources from ANN:

• Japan's Planned Child Porn Law Exempts Manga, Anime, 2008-03-11
• Unicef Japan continues push against virtual child porn, 2008-10-12.
• There should also be an article about the proposed swimsuit depiction ban, but I can't find it ATM.

Sources from Sankaku Complex (not sure if it counts as a reliable source, but at least their sources might be reliable if SC isn't):

• Anime School Swimwear Ban Demanded, 2008-10-12
• UNICEF: Japanse Anime & Manga Poison the World, 2008-11-27
• "Japan Lags in Loli Ban" - UNICEF Lies Exposed?, 2008-12-16
• UNICEF Demands Tighter Loli Ban for Japan, 2009-01-14 VDZ (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent date formats at the UNICEF web site

After visiting the UNICEF web site, both American and British date formats can be found.--Jusjih 09:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Current Executive Director, Ann Veneman

Ann Veneman's appointment as Executive Director of UNICEF is disturbing. In a Nation article, Now Bush is Picking On Kids, John Nichols wrote, "the notion that Veneman would be placed in a position to decide how to feed and care for the planet's most destitute children is every bit as alarming as the notion that Wolfowitz would be charged with providing aid to developing countries." Earlier, Nichols explained why Ann Veneman was "Perhaps Bush's Most Dangerous Cabinet Pick." The Nation. Common Dreams.

Maude Barlow: "As a negotiator of NAFTA, (Veneman) helped consolidate neo-liberal policies that plunged millions of children into poverty... A far-right conservative who will put profit for American corporations above the health and safety of the world's children is a disastrous choice to head Unicef." Too Close For Comfort, p. 249

Democracy Now! (video, audio, and transcript): "Agriculture Secretary Veneman's Tenure Marked By Anthrax Scare, Trade Disputes, and Mad Cow Disease"

New York Times: "In the case of mad cow disease, there were early accusations that the government was playing down the threat to protect the beef industry. The secretary of agriculture when the first case was found, Ann M. Veneman, was a former food industry lobbyist, her critics noted, and her chief spokeswoman's last job had been press representative for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reuben Apple (talk • contribs) 03:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Employment policy

UNICEF has a profoundly bias view on employment, carrier development and fair distribution of allowances and grants. The organizations rules, policies and regulations differ from the Head Quarters, Regional Head Offices, Country Offices, Zone Offices and even in the Emergency Offices / Hubs. The 'Head of Office' is the official 'Czar' and can pretty much do anything for their benefit. This is evident from most UNICEF policies that give them this power.

Employment is usually but not always transparent. UNICEF has to scratch the back of host governments or the Czar might want to bring in their familiar compatriots / women. Ann's employment is a fine example, thanks to Bush.

Further more employees themselves are treated in 3 'different' categories, IPO’s (International Professional Officers), NPOs (National Professional Officers) and GS (General Service). The provisions, benefits and even rights to training can be decided in these categories, irrespective of the Level of Education / Experience of GS and NPO or IPO and NO could be very much the same.

Even the employee rules are either staff rules 100, 200 and 300. Mostly the same but differentiating where it benefits the above structure.

The organizational structure itself is almost like an inverted triangle with more people on top then the bottom, i.e. IPOs and NOs are usually 2/3 of the setup while the labor workhorses of GS staff are 1/3.

The essence of corporate plagiarism is also a maligned stigma, where the people below work and the fame is gathered by the higher ups.

It would be delightful if some one could shed some light of whether the Executive Directors Carol and Ann had a major role in achieving their personal agendas rather than the vision of UNICEF. Ann has been linked to countless flaws in her previous employment and Carol some what of a feminist, had a major impact on women in the UN, but, most parts of the world do not always follow this rule due to the internal cultural norms. This can cause bottle necks in the organizations work flow.

Oh the above paragraph can further clarify the 'Czar' comment. Also for those new and gold charmed UNICEF want to be employees, 'this is not a humanitarian organization as it is for others (those that we help) but not equitably for all its employees. It is very much a strong hold of the worlds top diplomats, beaurocrats and corporate leaders which has changed this organization to a corporate entity'. -Unsigned

Shouldn't we change the name to "United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund"?

Title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.56.202 (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --65.78.213.134 (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the current name of the organization is, in fact, the United Nations Children's Fund. According to their website's FAQ, the name was officially changed (though the acronym retained) to its present form when UNICEF was incorporated as a permanent UN body in 1953. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling UNICEF now

Shouldn't United Nations Children's Fund be done like United NatIons ChildrEn's Fund for the caps to match? Tyciol (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The acronym doesn't correspond to the full title of the organization anymore--UNICEF kept it because the word "UNICEF" is recognizable and known around the world, but the title of the fund has been simplified. "UNICEF" corresponds to its first, longer title, and isn't meant to line up exactly with the new one. -Unsigned

Unicef's funding of terrorist training camps

Title makes me look like a crazy, but a report was done in 2003 by the Globe and Mail (most read Canadian newspaper) in which UNICEF was found to have funded Palestinian summer camps where kids were being trained in terrorism. One of the camps UNICEF paid for was named after the first female suicide bomber. The G&M article is gone, but there's a report from the Anti-Defamation League [1]. I don't mean to politicize this page, and clearly UNICEF also does a lot of good, but it's probably worth a mention in the article. 67.193.131.167 (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So what happened after this request of UNICEF was made? What action did UNICEF take? If none, what follow up did ADL take? Kingturtle (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Public criticism

I don't understand why UNICEF's "adherence to the 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child" would be a source of criticism. Is it that it fails to adhere? Could somebody explain please? supercriminal (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If we cannot find why/if there is notable public criticism, then remove. Babakathy (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And who criticises UNICEF for being against the sale/marketting of milk substitute in hospitals (except the manufacturers of said products)? Babakathy (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well UNICEF 'adherence to the 1990 convention on the rights of the child' is a source of critisim cause 'adherence' does not justify 'non-compliance of host Governments' , where UNICEF counties to run their programmes. So even if countries have signed the convention & do not implement it UNICEF does not make any efforts to understand the other parties point of view or take steps to programatically involve that party to ratify the convention. Gaza's murder of children by Isreal & the support of Isreali UNICEF work is an example, although Isreal was condemned so UNICEFs actions are like a double faced faucet, with no single flow of thought.

About the second opinion (UNICEF critised for critising milk substitutes) that might be right, but, the fact is with the WHO (world health organisation), UNICEF can recommend but not over ruls what the WHO says ... there are varying opnions of 6 - 12 months pf breast feeding. Infact UNICEFs own breast feeding policy is pretty fuzzy when female employees cannot make it to their homes to feed their infants or at the same time do it in the office due to security / social norms or etc. Infact which push comes to shove, the policy is totally set aside, saying the female employees should sacrifice this policy for their job descriptions rather than follow the advice given by UNICEF to others for 'not substituting mother milk'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infotechnic (talk • contribs) 17:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)