Talk:Federal prison

Disambiguation page?

@Arms & Hearts, AJHingston, Altenmann, and Clarityfiend: So the best solution we can come up with is turn the page into a disambiguation page? There is a difference between federal and state prison and in its current form, this page does not educate the laymen on what those differences are (sorry if I'm coming off as hostile, I'm not trying to). Skarz (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily the best solution, perhaps more likely the first stage in WP:BRD. My stance, broadly speaking, is that while it may be useful to inform readers as to the differences between federal and state prisons, that fact doesn't overrule the fact that "federal prison" as an abstract concept is unlikely to be notable. Perhaps one solution would be to add a sentence of explanation (e.g. the first sentence of the former lede, though maybe that's not as clear as it could be) to the first sentence of the dab page? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I think what is making the situation confusing is that there may not be such a thing as a 'federal prison' outside of the US. Although we would need experts from many different counties to confirm or deny that. A Google search for 'federal prison' brings up the Federal Bureau of Prisons's official website as the first result. Almost all the references are pertaining to the United States. Skarz (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, here's a couple of articles using the phrase "federal prison" in relation to Canada: [1], [2] (this, to which the Vice article refers, uses the phrase "federal facility"). I think it might be the case that the results Google shows you are based in part on your location? And obviously finding sources for the Russian and Brazilian systems is more complicated because of the language barrier. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• I do not think that this discussion should take place without reference to the wider debate at AfD. Turning this into a disambiguation page does nothing to help users, and shows a very narrow understanding of the issues here. The previous approach was much better because it made it possible both to have an introductory passage and a short section explaining for each federal country how the federal prison structure, where it exists, fits into the country's penal regime. It is different everywhere. It also avoids getting into the issue of whether in any particular country they are known as 'federal prisons'. Each country has its own way of describing them and many federations are not English speaking - this does not matter, even if the focus is on the administration (which it need not be), because Russia's prisons are federal regardless of the fact that they are the only ones.

The organisation of the penal system of a federal state is a function both of its fundamental constitution and the administrative arrangements made within it. The United States has a peculiar arrangement not necessarily followed by others. It would also be helpful to users to explain that there is no necessary link between federal criminal jurisdiction and the organisation of penal services by mentioning that in some federal countries all prisons are local, eg in the very different legal contexts of Germany and Australia. Even in the UK, which is not technically federal, we actually have quite separate judicial and penal systems for England and Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland so we cannot assume that readers understand these things nor will they get it from going to the links.

What I suggest is reverting to the structure of the previous article. It should be easy enough to reach consensus on the introduction because it can be descriptive of the different approaches. Then there can be a paragraph or so for the individual countries, not going into the actual administrative structures but just summarising each arrangement. For example, in the United States federal prisons receive inmates sentenced by the federal courts, but there needs a bit more to explain how that works because it is unusual to have parallel jurisdictions. In Canada, they take only prisoners sentenced to two years or more. In Brazil, federal prisons are only for those requiring high security (the judicial system is complex, and I think that means that those tried in federal courts may often go to state prisons, but it would be good to find a source) though under the constitution the federal government is responsible to oversight of the whole penal system. And so on. More countries could be added if sources are traced.

Let us talk about it here first. --AJHingston (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note - I tagged everyone who was a part of the AfD discussion. I have reverted the page as per WP:BRD and I think in this format we can expand the lead enough to educate the reader, and the subsequent list can serve as a sort of disambiguation. There are over 30 pages that link to Federal prison and so the page should rightfully serve some kind of educational and informative content. Skarz (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of the above, but the problem of notability is still unaddressed, i.e. the notability of federal prisons as an abstract concept is unproven. In the absence of any such proof I'd like to restate my suggestion that this remain as a disambiguation page, though one with a sentence of two of explanation instead of simply beginning "Federal prison may refer to:". (As for incoming links, I think a lot of them would be better off pointing to more specific articles, e.g. Federal Bureau of Prisons. I also removed the link to this article from {{incarceration}} after dabifying, but that ought to be reverted if this is to remain an article.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand that. What I suggest above is descriptive and verifiable. The variety of approaches is significant and changes would be needed to the other articles to include some of it which might be said to be off topic for them since they are actually concerned with the administrative bodies themselves. It simply is not the case that 'a federal prison is a federal prison' and the differences do not come about by accident. What is it that you think is not notable? --AJHingston (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Descriptive, verifiable, significant ≠ notable. For notability to be shown we would need significant coverage in reliable sources relating to federal prisons as an abstract international concept (rather than to the Federal Bureau of Prisons or its equivalents). In the absence of such coverage comparisons between different prison systems are also original research. I'm not necessarily of the view that such coverage doesn't exist (it's totally conceivable that people have conducted comparative studies of penal systems) but I can't find it, and apparently neither can anyone else who's participated in this discussion or the AfD. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me remind me the well-meaning people who want to make an article here: please stay away from original research, especially is you are not an expert. If you cannot find a decent reference to the definition of the term (I could not), a good chance that there is none, and please don't invent the definition yourself. - Altenmann >t 20:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that we need to be descriptive, as a great deal of Wikipedia is. I have held off editing the main page because I thought it more useful to have a conversation here first than the edit war that is in danger of developing. Being bold is not always the best way to make progress. It is not OR to find RS for the arrangements in individual countries, as I was able to do, and on which I based my remarks above. They can serve perfectly well and legitimately as the basis for a descriptive summary of the differences, which is wholly legitimate in the introduction. Please see WP:OR. Nor should we simply expect to copy a definition from somewhere, and I do not think that there is actually any dispute as to what a federal prison is. This does not seem to me a constructive discussion, and it is making a mockery of the AfD process. We are supposed to be making Wikipedia better. --AJHingston (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it's been pretty constructive by Wikipedia standards, but then I might be a little out of touch. (I also don't think there's any real risk of an edit war developing.) Could you explain why you think this discussion is undermining the AfD process? My interpretation was that, although the result was a clear-cut "keep", there was no consensus on what form the article should take. I think, though, that that's a bit of a peripheral issue. With regard to the central question of what form this article should take, it doesn't seem like a consensus is on the horizon. How would you feel about a request for comment being the next step? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • re: "I do not think that there is actually any dispute as to what a federal prison is". Sure thing. For the same reason there is no dispute what a "state territory" or "leader of the state" are: all three are dicdefs. Is you want to add to the article anything beyond dicdef, references please. - Altenmann >t 02:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • re: "It is not OR to find RS for the arrangements in individual countries" - no it is not. But what's wrong with having these arrangements in the respective ariticles? - Altenmann >t 02:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • re: "descriptive summary of the differences" - we will have a slippery slope here. Any non-trivial "differences" is WP:SYNTH. - Altenmann >t 02:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

    P.S. I briefly looked into the articles in question and I clearly see that the only meaningful ""descriptive summary of the differences" would be "federal prisons in different states are based on completely different grounds, the only thing being in common is that they run by a fed authority". - Altenmann >t 03:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  • re: "more useful to have a conversation here first than the edit war" - If you start with solid references rather than with a text on what you think a fed prison is, then there will be no edit war. - Altenmann >t 03:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@Altenmann: By the way, I know that you are referring to me. Just to let you know I work in a prison and am very aware of the differences between state and federal prison. No I am not an "expert" but I definitely am more knowledgeable than the average person. Yes my additions may constitute original research but do not assume that my contributions are bogus. Skarz (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

(Nope, I was citing AJHingston's) I am sure you are aware about the difference in your country (in all probability, it is US, right?) You are free to write them in the corresponding section. Heck, if it is the USA, you can even write a separate article, Differences between federal and state prison systems in the USA. Or, better, Types of prison systems in the USA. - Altenmann >t 04:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Since AJHingston wrote about "arrangements in individual countries", I assumed he was talking about differences in "arrangements in individual countries", and my reply addresses this reading. - Altenmann >t 04:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

re: "do not assume that my contributions are bogus" - if you are referring to my recent deletions from the article, the deleted text had one problem: it was valid for the American prison system, but not for the generic term. - Altenmann >t 04:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFC

@Arms & Hearts and Altenmann: I am all for a WP:RFC as previously mentioned. Who will start the process?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Federal prison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110320014003/http://www.privacy.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Supreme_Court/ll_sc.nsf/vwPrint1/SCO_wood_0504 to http://privacy.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Supreme_Court/ll_sc.nsf/vwPrint1/SCO_wood_0504

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)