Talk:Broward Transitional Center

Internal linking
Niteshift36, what is the reason for deleting the internal WP links? Is there a WP policy that frowns upon overlinking? It seems to me that an encyclopedia should be as pithy as possible. I will restore all the internal links soon unless you or someone has thoughts on this. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OVERLINK is part of the manual of style. It frowns on links that aren't needed. Linking commonly understood words like "privately owned" (which is self-explanitory) is not needed. Nor is breaking a location name into two parts. Generic articles on location, such as would be the article about Florida if made into two parts, don't add to the article and should be removed. And no, it shouldn't link as much as possible. It takes longer to load and users with devices to help the visually impaired find the links troubling. Besides, it becomes the boy who cried wolf. Links should highlight something important that enhances the understanding of the current article. When too many links get thrown in, it minimizes the impact of the important ones. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eflatmajor7th (talk • contribs) 23:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Reversing insupportable deletions
Congressional attention was attracted by many reports of serious medical neglect. What is the rationale for removing documentation of these conditions? Activist (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should ask before just reverting everything (including duplicate wikilinks). You reverted much more than just a passage about medical incidents. How about if you specify which specific deletion you are talking about......without edit warring. Very little of what you added was changed. Looks like under 25%. Rather than delete large amounts, I was quite selective. So why don't you try something different this time and actually discuss it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is "very little?" Spare me: Serafin Solorzano, a former detainee from Nicaragua, was denied the use of his asthma inhaler during a two- week detention at BTC in 2010. He said he felt like he would suffocate. At a May 2012 Palm Beach protest of the GEO Group he said: “This is something that has violated my human rights. Palm Beach Post, Jeff Ostrowski, August 25, 2012. Activist (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, 2 sentences is very little. My question here is why this particular individual gets highlighted? Can you explain why? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

How about this?: (Congressman Gutierrez said) ...because it was time to review the “whole notion” of jailing and deporting low-priority cases like those detained at Broward. “These are not criminals and we should not be wasting resources deporting a lot of them in the first place because most are assets to the communities in which they live." Young immigrant activists had purposely gotten themselves arrested so they could verify the validity of the complaints about the substandard care provided from inside." His statement encapsulated the reasons to question the policy that has enrichened GEO while damaging the community. The courage exhibited by those young activists, in purposely getting arrested in placed in custody, drew national attention. This isn't "surgical," deletions. It's amputations. Activist (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's talk about that: First, why are we highlighting Gutierrez? He is not in the area, like Deutsch or Hastings. He had no first hand knowledge. He was simply one who signed. If we quote anyone, wouldn't it make more sense to use Deutsch? Now, let's talk about agenda. When you say "His statement encapsulated the reasons to question the policy that has enrichened GEO while damaging the community. The courage exhibited by those young activists, in purposely getting arrested in placed in custody, drew national attention.", you're clearly taking a position of advocacy. Can you have a discussion without being an advocate? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Gutierrez has been a national leader and the spokesperson for his caucus for 24 years on the general issues of immigration laws, policy and conditions. That's why the Hispanic reporter who wrote the article went to him for comments, so maybe you would want to write to him for the answer to your question. However, if you could forswear being adversarial and dismissive, and had instead taken direction from the Gutierrez Wikilinking at the Broward TC article, you would have read this, in the first cite, second paragraph: "'Clearly comfortable with the heavy burden history has placed on his shoulders, Congressman Gutierrez has become the best known Hispanic official in the United States and, more importantly, one of the few only Hispanic politicians with the moral and political authority to be able to convene the diverse factions of our community at the national level. Undoubtedly, he is the recognized national leader on comprehensive immigration reform.'" He was born in the U.S. and his parents were citizens by birth, but immigrants from the Dominion of Puerto Rico and he was raised in the century-old, Hispanic immigrant community within Chicago, drawn there to work on the railroads and in the slaughterhouses. Activist (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I read it, but you didn't answer my question. Why him and not Deutsch? This is in his district and he started the letter, so he'd be the most likely, most relevant person. It's sweet that an advocacy source spoke so highly of him, but that really doesn't answer the question. What you're giving me is hype from advocacy sources as an answer.... and making me wonder if his article needs some attention. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've answered your question extensively and please stop insulting me. I'm not giving you "hype" from "advocacy" sources. I'm giving you WP:RS from an established newspaper. I think both Deutch and Gutierrez should be quoted. You've previously dismissed and deleted good faith references made by numerous Wikipedia editors to Deutch's efforts as being, as you call him, "just one" congressman, and his letter as being only "signed by 24 (sic) out of 435" representatives, who were only ".5%" of the members of the body, when they were 5.5%, 11 times the actual number which you attempted to minimize. I'm feeling that if only 217 members signed it, you would complain it was less than a majority.You previously, over five years, have repeatedly deleted edits made by other Wikipedians referring to Deutch's letters on the GEO Group article and now on this article."Revision as of 03:35, 8 January 2016 Niteshift36 (→‎Controversies: just being reliably sourced doesn't mean it's that notable. This was a short lived protest by 30 people, not hundreds. 24 congressmen of 435 signing a letter isn't a very big deal. Happy to discuss on talk page)" "Revision as of 16:44, 26 November 2013 Niteshift36 (→‎Controversies: Deutch ask ICE to respond to another report. ICE hasn't. Did he ask GEO to respond? did they refuse? This article is about a company, not Deutch's crusades.) (you erased this following text:) On July 30, 2013, Deutch requested ICE to respond to a 'comprehensive report' satirically entitled 'Broward Transitional Center: A 'Model' for Civil Detention' authored by the Americans for Immigrant Justice, formerly the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center.(URL)Broward Transitional Center: A 'Model' for Civil Detention, March 2013, Americans for Immigrant Justice. Retrieved 26 November 2013." You seem to be being deliberately adversarial. It seems to me that you actually would rather no references be made to either, anywhere. This is very frustrating and immensely time consuming, but nothing seems to satisfy you. Activist (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not insulting you at all. Yes, that is an advocacy source. The source calls itself "advocating for the preservation of pedacito de patria" Their stated purpose is to highlight Puerto Ricans and their culture, so of course they'll speak in glowing terms. And yes, I have opposed the material in a different article. That article was about GEO Group and, in the history of that company, the latter is a non-event. However, in the history of THIS CENTER, is is notable. See, you have a mistaken belief that I want to "whitewash" everything. I just think things belong in proper places. I haven't resisted talking about the letter in this article, because it is relevant to this topic. That's because I don't have an agenda. If you would step away from your agenda, we might find common ground. As you can see, Eflatmajor and I were able to collaborate. BTW, it's called a typo..... .5% should have been 5%. Should we highlight every typo you've made? You remind me of the saying "When the law is on your side, pound the law. When it's not, pound the table". Niteshift36 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, the Palm Beach Post link retrieved today is a dead link for me. Anyone else? And since Niteshift36 has done the most recent edits, Activist, can you type here specifically what content you want to add or change, and give justifications, without actually making any of the changes yet? Since you guys have been trading edits so quickly it's hard to keep track of which editors are advocating for what content. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I'll sort through that to clarify for you. I had problems with the PBP site: The search engine didn't seem to be working and they have paywalled pre-2016 articles. I got the article from the Wayback Machine and substituted that URL. Activist (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)