Talk:Florida Department of Children and Families

Spanish names
WhisperToMe (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "POLIZA DE ADMINISTRACION Y PROTECCION DE LA INFORMACION PERSONAL DE SALUD."
 * "DEPARTAMENTO DE NIÑOS Y FAMILIAS DE LA FLORIDA" - Departamento de Niños y Familias de la Florida
 * "Apéndice B Dónde Acudir para Solicitar Ayuda."
 * "Departamento de Minoridad y Familias de Florida"

new source on child deaths — 2014-03-17
http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/report-links-neglect-deaths-hundreds-florida-children/ --Jeremyb (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

In Hone care for Infants
Want to start one 2603:9001:9303:3300:9D9D:EF73:77E2:F181 (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph about Nikolas Cruz
The paragraph recently added about Nikolas Cruz does not belong in the history section of this article. It should be removed from this article and the information be integrated to the article about the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting where there is a section about Nikolas Cruz as the perpetrator of the shooting, and where the department's involvement seems to be adequately covered. Additionally, the fact that investigators from the department investigated Cruz before he was involved in the shooting does result in this article falling within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography because the department was not involved in the criminal behaviour. If editors want to cover the department's involvement in notable cases, then a separate section at the end of the article might be warranted. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does belong in the history section. It is notable, and directly discusses the Department. Such is the stuff of appropriate inclusion. Discussing it elsewhere is also fine, but it certainly belongs here. This is simply not off-topic - it's not : a) personal commentary, b) gibberish, c) test edits, d) harmful or prohibited material. It's very much on-topic. Notable nexus with other articles, of course, but highly relevant here. Really - a very odd rationale for tagging this. --2603:7000:2143:8500:B969:F3CB:10CD:7023 (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the cases that the Department deals with as being part of the history of the Department itself. That is why I tagged it as being off-topic for Department history. Prior to the addition of the paragraph about Cruz, and the History section header, the article flowed from details about the creation of the department to details about its administrators. Inserting details about notable cases the department has dealt with under the History section disrupts this flow, which describes the administrative organisation of the whole department, not the actions of individual employees or investigators. In some respects, the notable cases can simply be dealt with as a See also link. However, there is also the issue of undue weight being given to controversial incidents. If one compares this article with the one about Broward County Public Schools, one can see that there is a separate Controversies section for that article that is outside the history of the school system. To me, the off-topic issue is about achieving a balance between writing about the department itself and the individual cases the department deals with. In the case of Nikolas Cruz, the involvement of the department is covered in the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting article, so only a brief mention of the department's involvement should be made in this article. Similarly, for other notable cases that have their own dedicated articles, only a brief mention is warranted in this article. Part of the reason I tagged the paragraph about Cruz is that it probably goes into too much detail for this article, although it is not enough detail for an article about Cruz himself, or an article about Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP articles routinely, and quite correctly, cover the notable events in the work of organizations, just as they cover the notable events in the work of individuals. Such events can quite properly fall within the history of the organization - they comprise the history of the events of the notable work of the organization. They are often more notable frankly than a list that includes non-notable persons (not even cited, quite often) who served as an administrator, because properly part of the article they are referenced to RSs that are independent of the subject of the article. As to what weight is proper, and whether it is undue, rather than resting that decision (as with notability of an article - same process) we properly look to RS coverage. here, the RS coverage is quite robust. Check google yourself. To seek to hide what is widely covered in various RSs in terms of the actions of the organization - and such actions are of course always taken by its employees, as an organization is not a sentient being - would be improper. And to claim "undue" or "it's covered in another article" is of no merit here, where RS coverage shows it to be quite appropriately covered, and intersection of coverage among articles is how WP works. As far as controversies sections are concerned, as you may perhaps know, they are not looked upon with favor at the Project. It's really important with these issues to fit within WP rules and policies and approaches, rather than think up and seek to apply subjective approaches that are not in accord with Project policies. It's also manifestly illogical to expect a person interested in the doings of the organization that have attracted the most RS coverage to go to other articles to find it .. when there is an article here. Of course, organization articles - if there is RS coverage, and editors do the work to reflect it (often - they don't, and they are under no obligation to, and there is not time limit), do in fact in well-written articles reflect the historical doings of the organization. Otherwise, editors would tear apart for example Central Intelligence Agency. 2603:7000:2143:8500:2444:FA7E:10BC:53DD (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the Central Intelligence Agency article is an exemplar for how to handle notable cases, or in the case of the CIA, controversies, in relation to an organisation. While the history of the agency is dealt with in its history section, there is a separate section for the controversies the agency has been involved in. So much so that this is now a separate list. In relation to the notable cases for the Florida Department of Children and Families, I believe that a separate section, independent of the department's history, is needed. With the articles about the CIA and Broward County Public Schools being exemplars about how to lay this case (or controversy) information out in an article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree, unfortunately. That might seem intuitive. But it is directly opposite of the WP approach, which is to not have controversy sections. Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. 2603:7000:2143:8500:A00D:1A5A:E4FF:4798 (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You make a good point about negative criticism needing to be integrated throughout with other viewpoints. However, my original point was that I think the paragraph about Nikolas Cruz is not really part of the department's administrative history, but part of its caseload. Sources have criticized the department's behaviour in particular cases, and including this information under its history could be seen as distracting or even irrelevant to some readers. My thinking was that the article would read better if there were separate sections for departmental history and one for departmental caseload, especially where individual notable cases are more thoroughly dealt with in other articles. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is without doubt part of its history. I can't understand why you would have a contrary view. It's really a poster child for what the word history means. I can't fathom your assertion that this historical event of the departments actions is not part of its history. I'm not sure what dictionary you are using to support such an assertion. I think that the only thing that is irrelevant or distracting is the irrelevant and distracting tag you have place, frankly. It does not belong, and our conversation is only confirming its inapplicability IMHO. 2603:7000:2143:8500:5546:A559:DE2A:B55F (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)