Talk:Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children

Photos of the board of directors

These photos were added in a single edit [1] and I do not think that they are appropriate as an illustration for what is in fact a very large detention facility for children (I will not go into more detail about that aspect). The point is: what do all these suits and uniforms have to do with a child detention facility ? GastelEtzwane (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I looks like nobody is in favor of keeping these photos. If there is no reaction on this talk page, I will remove them as they are not relevant to the article. GastelEtzwane (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The photos have been there for many months and no one has objected. They help elucidate why this contract has been written and expanded. Congressman Pocan and others made that connection in a hearing just two days ago. Activist (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

During the time the photos have been in the article, they have gotten almost 20,000 views with no one objecting. Activist (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The photos have nothing to do with the number of visits to the article. They really distract from the main subject. The whole "About" section also needs a bit of pruning, and a lot of the information has been copied (or adapted) from other articles.GastelEtzwane (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Activist, please don't keep reinserting this over-the-top gallery. GastelEtzwane was correct about both things: they distract from the article, and the idea that there would be fewer readers because the pictures are gone makes no sense. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Drmies So 20,000 Wikipedia readers have looked at the articles since they were added, six months ago, and they weren't all added at once. Please don't keep deleting the gallery. One picture is worth 1,000 words. Don't claim that "a lot of the information has been copied (or adapted) from other articles," in the absence of any evidence to that effect. Since the gallery has been removed, viewers have dropped by more than half. You're substituting your two opinions for that of 19,998 other readers who had no problem with it. Before that, the article had gotten 4,000 views in six months. The question that is asked about the contract is why the feds are paying $600 a day for 1,200 empty beds. It is answered by the gallery. Activist (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

There are seven flag rank officers on the board of directors, including the President's former Chief of Staff, getting paid $100,000 a year for lending their names to the obscenity. In addition there are two former ambassadors and a former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence. They all stand to get a $200,000 each bonus if it's sold. That's Hunter Biden money. I suspect if the administration realizes that Admiral Stavridis has been castigating Trump for the last month or two, that juice might dissipate. This is the personification of the military-industrial complex. Do you think that that board has any particular expertise in how to run such a place and why it exists at all? Activist (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. They're getting paid $600 a day for 1,200 empty beds. That's $720,000 a day for 30-31 days a month, or $21,600,000-$22,320,000 monthly. How could any taxpayer not like that? Activist (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Ooops. Maybe Trump did notice that Adm. Stavridis had gone off the reservation. The contract was ended 11 days ago, so Uncle Sugar paid almost $90 million for four months worth of empty beds. I'll update the article when I find a reliable source. Activist (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You don't sound like you're here to edit Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

That criticism is baseless. You've made over a quarter of a million edits. You know you're not supposed to attack other editors. The coverage of the facility was universally negative in the scores of stories I read about it during its operation and afterward. That included stories quoting many local state and federal legislators, social service agencies, child protection experts, academics, etc. We're supposed to be neutral in our editing, but that doesn't mean we have to be Pollyannas, or Panglossian, ignoring the outcry raised by every official and agency involved, and the overwhelmingly negative media coverage. It seemed to have no champions except the board and management, and those signing the contracts that raised such a clamor. If we're editing about smallpox, or the sinking of the Titanic, we don't have to look for its good points, though bacteria or sharks may have appreciated both as a windfall. Activist (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

In searching for a reliable source, a few sources indicated that the shelter contract was going to end on November 30th, but none may meet the Reliable Secondary Source criteria, though none seemed to, prior to October 28th. However, I found one story written about then that indicated there were numerous serious environmental problems that would mitigate against it ever being used again to hold children. I'll post that to the article. Activist (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It appears I am now being held accountable or responsible for edits to this article made by any number of other Wikipedia editors whose work Drmies seems to question after I disagreed with one of the Drmies edits, though he or she read them two months ago and did not see fit to contest any of them until our disagreement about the photo gallery. He removed a remark about General John Kelly driving around the detention facility in a golf cart, videoed by a news organization and which observation was quoted by many other news organizations. Drmies removed an entire paragraph that is sufficiently sourced and germane. The source article says,

An executive order on ethics issued by President Donald Trump in 2017 doesn't appear to prevent Kelly and other White House officials from joining boards, but it does ban lobbying activities. Democratic members of Congress, including three presidential candidates, quickly condemned Kelly's appointment. Sen. Elizabeth Warren said it was "corruption at its absolute worst," and Sen. Cory Booker said Kelly's actions were "disgusting." "This is unforgivable," tweeted U.S. Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, who represents the district where the facility stands. "It confirms what we knew about the President — that he and the people he surrounds himself with, like John Kelly, are willing to profit off the cruel detaining of immigrant children."

Drmies has also taken me to task for using the vernacular, "Uncle Sugar," a term extensively quoted by, i.e., Mike Huckabee used to refer to the government handing out money to suspect recipients, such as poor women. I also referred to the regular six-figure payments involved going to the ex-military Caliburn board members comparing it to the six-figure payments given by Burisma, the Ukraine petrochemical corporation, which was (is?) paid Hunter Biden apparently only for his presence on its board, hoping to generate favoritism, rather than for any particular expertise. I think that Drmies is trying to make a case that I'm a bad or reckless editor, where I believe that there is no basis for such a claim. Drmies has now filed a complaint against me which I hope neutral parties will examine. Activist (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Activist, You need to remember that WP:BLP applies everywhere. Figurehead directors are a normal thing in government contractors. Stick to what is said by multiple reliable independent sources and you should be OK, but remember that we have a specific definition of reliable that excludes a lot of popular websites. The closer you get to Reuters, the better. WP:RSP may help you here. Guy (help!) 11:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• The photos of the directors are not closely associated with the shelter itself, and the whole section of compensation, stock bonuses, etc. appears to be an attempt to "name and shame". Noble as the intent may be, this isn't what Wikipedia is for. The idea that 20,000 people viewed it with no complaint doesn't hold much water either. Our writing is based on policies and guidelines, not reader demand, and we don't exactly have a giant "Complaint Department" link on every page. –dlthewave ☎ 13:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Apparent COI vandalism

An IP editor made a rapid succession of edits to this article, removed well and reliably sourced info. The IP location traces back to Homestead itself. 2600:1700:4ff0:5200:b0bf:2c3b:15b3:d046 United States Florida Homestead Activist (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Activist, I’ve given them an IP welcome with links to relevant policies, and left a canned warning against WP:PAID editing on their talk page. That’s all we can do, aside from monitoring the page for any future COI or paid advocacy. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, but I don't think they give a damn about Wikipedia rules. I'd be delighted if they actually did, but bet if they post some more, they don't. I've given up long ago when I identified obviously paid posters, complained about them, and after they in response complained about me to an administrator, I was admonished. One who did that, who called himself "CFredkin" was finally busted not for that, but for sockpuppetry he used to pretend he had a consensus for his edits. I expect he had a long list of right wing Republican campaigns paying his bills. I'll bet he was barred for all of an afternoon, until he invented a new USER identity. I'd almost wager that I know who the new one is, because another one with precisely the same M.O. complained about me getting on his case to the same administrator who admonished me in the first place, and she responded with another scolding. I had also complained to paid Wikipedia staff and they did nothing as well. Activist (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)