Any editor who hasnot nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to thegood article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as agood article. To start the review process, clickstart review and then save the page. See thegood article instructions.
Note: May take a day or so to respond depending on the time frame that this review is taken up. I pledge to review at least 2 article nominations upon review of this article
Short description: News magazine segment describing torture at Salvadoran prison
This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theInside CECOT article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates topost-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with thecontentious topics procedures before editing this page.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofCentral America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Central AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Central AmericaCentral America
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to bedefunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject El Salvador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofEl Salvador on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.El SalvadorWikipedia:WikiProject El SalvadorTemplate:WikiProject El SalvadorEl Salvador
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofjournalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related toLatin America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Latin AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Latin AmericaLatin America
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles abouttelevision programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you canjoin the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to thestyle guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
PerWP:SEEALSO let's keep this to a reasonable number, and not be expansive in our definition of "relevant," such as to create a neutrality issue. Therefore a link to a documentary about a Nazi concentration camp seems over the top. The link to the Streisand effect also seems like a stretch.Coretheapple (talk)16:57, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this article is about a video documentary of systematic prisoner abuse, why is a link to another video documentary about systematic prisoner abuse at previous detention facilities "over the top"? For that matter, if we have articles about video documentaries of systematic prisoner abuse at, e.g., Abu Ghraib, we should add those too. Those seem like specifically relevant links for a see also section: if readers are already reading one article about an instance of documented prisoner abuse, they may want to read about others.Einsof (talk)18:44, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the large number of documentaries about Nazi concentration camps, I wonder what criteria was used to cherry pickNazi Concentration Camps (film) as a "See also." No, I think this subject matter can stand on its own without Wikipedia throwing the Third Reich into the mix.Coretheapple (talk)19:13, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood the word "documentary" in this context, which means specifically "serving as documentation", in the sense of collecting primary-source evidence in the form of photographs or eyewitness accounts. The large number of concentration camp documentaries (in the more general sense) work from basic source material likeNazi Concentration Camps.Einsof (talk)22:02, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple I'm inclined to agree with @Einsof on this. Stand-alone, you're correct that it has a fairly heavy insinuation / equivalence that's not the job of this website to deliberate. However, Einsof is right that long-term, the people who are going to be viewing this article are very likely to be doing so in researching documentation of prisoner abuse and detention. Onus is on Einsof to provide additional links to justify inclusion (e.g.Abu Ghraib,Gulags,POWs, etc.), but regardless I think his point stands. Regarding the Streisand effect, sourcing should be found to support the claim that attention to the matter increased substantially on account of the administration's and network's (*possible*) efforts to suppress the issue, but from everything I've seen that appears to be the case, thus I believe it's reasonably justified.
For Israel–Palestine there are articles likeKilling of Muhammad al-Durrah, among many others. It occurred to me to add it, but I refrained because I did not want to gratuitously thrust this article into that contentious topic arena. I am not really opposed to other people adding it, though.Einsof (talk)22:13, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple, in response to your latest revision, I'd warn you that your effort to restrict additional referencing in this section could just as easily be construed as an attempt to push a certain agenda as additions pointing readers in the direction of other articles of similar (if not wholly parallel) scholarship are. You'd have known what the relevancy ofLa Question was had you actually clicked on the link, which it's relatively clear you didn't given that it's a book, not a documentary. I'd argue that it's absolutely reasonable to include Japanese internment by the US government, as it was the last time that the United States unconstitutionally imprisoned its own citizens by means of a cohesive rhetoric used to sway public opinion on such a broad scale (referring here to detainment and deportations under this administration more generally, but similarly noting the fact that this particular instance is closest in terms of the abuse suffered at the hands of enforcement officials). It's even more relevant given the fact that it was invoked based on the claim that it was necessary to protect national security (which is, in fact, almost the exact same situation that's occurring now). I'll look forward to your response, but will ask that you not simply remove information that would necessarily be considered to be contentious (given that it's been deliberated here in talk) without stating your reasoning in the relevant area of discussion.
Thank you for correcting my description of "La Question." However, substantively my objection to that and the other "see also" links remains as stated previously.Coretheapple (talk)17:16, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple Is your contention that it's producing an insinuation that you don't feel is justified (i.e that it's presenting an implicit opinion on the nature of the events occurring on the ground)?
Providing notice that I've nominated the article for GA status. If you feel that there is sufficient controversy surrounding the See also section, we should resolve it prior to review. Best,CSGinger14 (talk)07:59, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As currently constituted, the See Also section creates a serious NPOV issue, and does so in a heavy-handed, almost comically blatant manner. Now, at first we had a reference to Nazi concentration camps[1]. I took that out, and it was replaced by articles on Japanese internment camps, a 1958 book on torture, Guantanamo Bay, etc. Yeah, I think we get the idea. You don't have to slam people over the head with a sledgehammer to make your point. In fact, I see that in the zeal to add irrelevancies to the section, the highly relevantTren de Aragua dropped out.Coretheapple (talk)15:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Funcrunch and @Coretheapple, firstly, consensus hasn't actually been established since Funcrunch's entrance, given that the only other editors involved in this discussion are Core, @Einsof, and myself. Based on the actual points being made, I would question that you've presented an argument of sufficient quality to justify the removal. Secondly, and more importantly, I would contend that you're displaying more bias here than the original 'See also' section actually displays.
To begin with, Core never actually provided a real explanation as to why he thinks that the links as provided display bias. His point has boiled down to a contention that what's being done wrong is blatantly obvious. If that's the case, what prevents you from actually explaining here what the actual bias you contend exists is?
My main contention is that both of you are fundamentally misunderstanding the issue that's being debated here. Almost no one involved in the article (including Weiss herself and conservative activists cited in the text (See Noah Rothman, Bari Weiss quote in second paragraph of 'Aftermath and internal deliberation')) contends that what is happening on the ground does not constitute torture / human rights abuses (Save for potentially certain members of the Trump administration,who, even still, are largely arguing that those who are facing these conditions deserve it, not that they aren't experiencing it (See Stephen Miller, Karoline Leavitt, Administration RFC response).
The main question at play in this article is whether or not Weiss was justified in delaying the publication of the segment on account of an alleged failure by Alfonsi to properly convey in good faith the position of Trump administration officials. If you think that the question being debated here is whether or not the inmates are being tortured, you've failed to actually review the material listed within the body of the text. You're thus grantingundue weight to the argument of a minute fraction of voices in the Trump administration by deciding that equating the events occurring on the ground to torture displays overwhelming bias.
I find it slightly ridiculous that Coretheapple has felt himself justified in presenting this as a "serious NPOV issue" when he has failed on multiple occasions to correctly identify the actual information that's being discussed. How so?Firstly, by not recognizing that theStreisand effect could reasonably be perceived as occurring here (according to multiple sources representing one of the two main perspectives) based on the key point of contention that the administration ostensibly sought to prevent the dissemination of information on conditions within the prison, only to have that information widely publicized nonetheless, (thus legitimizing a link to explain the exact effect that one side argues has taken place).Secondly, failing to even take the time to look at the article onLa Question before deciding that it shouldn't be included.
In both cases, you've failed to display a proper understanding of the relevant facts under discussion). None of these links are unnecessarily dissimilar to the issue under discussion. I initially agreed with you that the Nazi Concentration Camps film was excessive, on it's own, but you've failed to provide any actual reasoning to support your argument, I essentially provided it for you because your position effectively boiled down to 'gee I wonder why you did this,' alogical fallacy which allowed you to shape the perception that Einsof's action was biased without actually providing any elaboration of what he had done wrong.
If your argument is that we are insinuating that the actions delineated here in the article constitute torture, you'd be correct, because,in fact,the lions share of sources on both sides of the discussion point to that being the case. Similar to the consensus that's been reached at theGaza Genocide page, presenting both sides as having equal weight, when the vast majority of sources collectively agree on the facts of the case, is misguided and representsa false balance; particular to this case, the issue you're presenting isn't even the relevant point under consideration, and you're lending support to a position that almost no one referenced in the text (on either side) actually supports. I plan to revert to the original version, and expect a far stronger argument if you wish to justify its continued removal.
My issue is not primarily with perceived bias, but with an excessive number of tangentially-related articles, per guidelines inMOS:SEEALSO. I'm not interested in participating in a lengthy debate on this section that is supplementary to the actual article, so will desist and see what the GA reviewers have to say about it (if anything).Funcrunch (talk)20:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The section should be a bulleted list, sorted either logically (for example, by subject matter), chronologically, or alphabetically. Consider using {Columns-list} [changed to prevent automatic scripting] or {Div col}if the list is lengthy. List entries should begin with a capital letter [...]Contents: Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment andcommon sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to exploretangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. For example, the article onJesus might include a "See also" link toList of people claimed to be Jesus because it is related to the subject but not otherwise linked in the article. The article onTacos might include the "See also" linkFajitaas another example of Mexican cuisine." — MOS:SEEALSO
FYI you don't need to @ me either; I'm watching this article. I didn't say anything about Tren de Aragua, and I have read the entire article, multiple times since its creation, and contributed a fair amount to it as well.Funcrunch (talk)21:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how one could possibly complain about tangentially related articles whenMOS:SEEALSO says "One purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category." And indeed, the filmNazi Concentration Camps is in the same defining category as "Inside CECOT"; i.e., it is audiovisual documentation of systematic torture at a prison camp.The Hooded Man is in the same defining category. It's a fairly specific defining category, so I don't anticipate the see also section ballooning to dozens of entries, even if we were quite thorough in turning up every such article we have that belongs to this defining category.Einsof (talk)00:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed above my issue with the links---their length, their blatant, in-your-face POV-pushing. Honestly, if you feel that this is such a great list, why not re-add the link to the documentary about Nazi concentration camps?Coretheapple (talk)19:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't articulated what minority POV you think is being pushed. It's just been a lot of innuendo that some POV exists. So what POV do you think is being pushed here?Einsof (talk)19:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien Like other editors before you, you haven't actually explained what the implied commentary is that violates NPOV. If you read back through my response, and through the body of the text, you'd see quite clearly that effectively no one is challenging the fact that this is torture. As I stated previously, the main contention in the article is whether or not Alfonsi acted in bad faith by not going to a greater length to get the administration's account and it's reasoning for why these deportations were justified. A 2023 State Department report raises concerns about torture, Trump's White House made no effort to deny that this was torture, with Leavitt simply stating that they needed to be held accountable (recently fixed this in the body, apologies for misattributing the first time). A court ruling found that they had not made the necessary efforts to ensure that inmates due process rights were granted to them prior to their deportation. Stephen Miller flat out states that the inmates deserved it (their treatment at the facility).
Weiss does not question the facts of the segment itself, simply stating that what's presented in the piece has already been reported by other outlets (e.g.60 Minutes must "advance the ball"). Alfonsi independently corroborated evidence which shows that what was occurring there amounted to torture. This was independent corroboration of a report detailing human rights abuses by Human Rights Watch, which is widely considered by this website's users to be a reliable and accurate source (as evidencedhere, andhere).
All of the links relevant to this discussion relate to torture or arbitrary detention, which is fully within the bounds of "tangentially-related topics" perMOS:SEEALSO. Even in the case of theNazi Concentration Camps (film) example, as Einsof points out, the focus of the page is documented evidence of torture and other human rights violations, as occurred in a Nazi Concentration Camp. If the actions of the Salvadoran administration are similar enough to what is documented in that film for a user to feel that it warrants inclusion, that is not the fault of the film, nor is it the fault of the user for drawing a through-line between them. If their actions mirror those which were performed by the Nazis, then including articles about the actions of the Nazis is not an attempt to state that those responsible are Nazis; the same would be true of an equation to any other regime for whom there is documented, verifiable evidence to suggest that they engaged in torture.
If you plugged the evidence into a machine that only had knowledge of events that occurred prior to the last decade and asked it to tell you which country's government committed them, we should rightfully assume that it wouldn't guess Switzerland. That is not a violation of neutral point of view. In fact, it seems more likely that attempting to suppress it is, as you are granting undue deference to the administration that is committing those violations in the interest of appearing neutral to 'both sides', when one side (that doesn't even make up a preponderance of the administrations that are actually being accused of assisting, financing, or committing torture (who overwhelmingly imply that it's ok because they consider those being tortured to be dangerous criminals)) is necessarily skewed towards a line of thinking which may stand in direct contradiction to clear and plainly obvious facts.
I ask that you read the entirety of this reply as well as my previous one as opposed to extrapolating my position on the matter from those final sentences. In sum, I truly do not see any reason why this should be considered a violation of neutral point of view, as including examples of human rights violations by other governments / in other places on any other page relating to a historical event would not be questioned by anyone on the website; torture is typically associated with governments that commit torture, choosing to link to pages that discuss documentation of other governments that engaged in torture is not an insinuation of anything other than the fact that the ones under discussion here are engaging in torture (see above if it isn't already abundantly clear that effectively no one is questioning that this is torture). It is only because it is a discussion of an event in the modern era that this is seen as a grossly unjustifiable implication of unsubstantiated fact.
This reads very strongly ofWP:OR and convinced me to take a closer look at the article. As I suspected, it uses sources that don't even mention the documentary itself in order to create aWP:COATRACK. This is a pretty common workaround toWP:DUE that lets editors handpick sources that can support the point of view they want the article to reflect.Thebiguglyalien (talk)🛸16:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I removed material in the background section that does not mention the documentary. So that removes another excuse for avoiding to declare explicitly what POV you think is being pushed here.Einsof (talk)16:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the inappropriate content I identified to prove that I failed to identify inappropriate content? I can't say I've ever seen that one before.Thebiguglyalien (talk)🛸16:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You jumped into a discussion of a page you couldn't even bother to contribute to before you decided to moan about it, I can't say I've ever seen that one before.
Cool, I'll put it plainly for @both of @you. I found effectively every single source that discussed this topic in depth. If you want to find sources published before the 31st that I "handpicked" to create a skewed narrative then be my guest, the only ones you're going to find are not considered reliable by the website.
I don't need you to cite policy to me. I included as many viewpoints defending the administration as I was able to find (excepting aThe Hill opinion piece that I was planning to add fairly soon), and went far out of the way to ensure that the sources within the article line up with the arguments presented by Weiss, the administration, as well as Alfonsi. The only section that potentially lines up with that is Background, which correctly explains the Human Rights Watch report (I'll concede in potentially an excessive amount of detail) that spurned the piece, as well as what was occurring at CBS in the lead up to the event. The only "sources that don't even mention the documentary itself" are ones that are linked directly to points made in other articles.
You have consistently managed to cite numerous policies that I'm supposedly violating without actually managing to find a specific example you can point to of the actual violation. This is frankly getting ridiculous
Section byCSGinger14 has been removed by them for the sake of decency and respectful deliberation moving forward. See page history for details.
Some of your statements above border onWP:OWN behavior and I recquest that you examine that policy. I also think that stepping away from the article for a period of time is advisable as well.Coretheapple (talk)17:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple you can just say calm down, and don't tell me to. I know whatWP:OWN is, and it's frankly insufferable that you keep talking down to me as if I've never read any of these policies. Half the information that got removed wasn't even mine. I want you to summarize any of the points that I made over the course of this discussion, just as a test of if you've actually listened and taken account of in the same manner that you feel is due to you. If your insinuation is that I'm mad, you're very much correct.
Also if your point comes from the fact that I discuss my own efforts, it's because I wrote half the article. I couldn't care less if half of it gets removed, what I care about is why, and at no time have either of you actually managed to present a non-leading point as to what exactly the violation you feel exists actually is.
As a final point before I make a series of edits returning it partially to its original version, based upon your major contentions:
To demonstrate that reliable sources consider this information to be relevant to the subject of the article, the editor shouldideally cite reliable sources that refer directly to the article subject. Buteven if no such sources are available, the information may still be provided for the benefit of the reader as long as it is verifiable.
Articles should usually rely on reliable third-party sources, but there are some exceptions and occasions when auxiliary sources may prove useful.Article claims that rely on an auxiliary source should (1) only report what the source states, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. ... Of course, auxiliary sources may be used freely as they are used in reliable publications ...Some auxiliary references may also be useful for providing supporting facts, figures or limited quotations to accompany claims and analysis from reliable third-party publications. However, serious care should be taken to avoid presenting a claim or interpretation, explicit or implied, differing from the reliable references cited.
I concede that the section on CECOT and Human Rights Watch was exceptionally long and strayed a bit too far from the bounds of the article. Otherwise, nothing listed is so tangential as to warrant exclusion from the article. The material I plan to re-add is reasonably necessary context which supports discussion later in the text, as it relates to the claims made by both sides. If your claim is that it's too tangential, you need to actually support it using evidence of what the violation is as opposed to simply throwing out policies / essays without any reasonable argumentation to back up the violations that supposedly exist.
I apologize for getting heated, genuinely, but I contend that this doesn't constitute WP:OWN, given that I'm more than willing to operate within the bounds of policy, but only fairly and accurately; additionally, I frankly think you should realize that the way you were approaching this was not nearly as disciplined as you presented it as being.
@Funcrunch My apologies, with all sincerity. I agree that my anger got the best of me. My language became antagonistic and personal, which wasn't justified. However, I continue to contend that I am not the only one who strayed from policy in this discussion, I'm simply the only one for whom it got to the point where the violation could be clearly and easily sourced by others involved. The most recent post is not intended to be a wall of text, it's simply intended to provide a full listing of the policies which support my claim.
"I can't say I've ever seen that one before" is intentionally sarcastic and goading
Refusal to elaborate on claims while expecting submission to proposed changes
Multiple direct accusations of misconduct which violate assumption of good faith (i.e WP:COATRACK, WP:OR, WP:NPOV)
It is difficult for me to properly explain myself in 30 words or less. My personal need to work on that is neither here nor there. Maintaining a level head isn't always possible when it feels as though others are being intentionally provocative. I felt a rather clear insinuation that policy was being thrown at me at each step to push me further into a position where I was necessarily in the wrong, which would endanger the actual point I was attempting to make. I'm not attempting to excuse my behavior, simply to explain it. Best,CSGinger14 (talk)19:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I believe the above constitutesWP:LAWYER as well. As much as you may be right that I wrote too much, it was only in response to brief and unexplained reference to site policy that I was thus obligated to rebut. Theonus rests on those seeking retention, something those citing policy to justify removal rarely grant pardon for.
One can assume good faith and still point out issues with another editor's contributions.
FYI perthis edit, it's generally preferable to strikethrough comments that you wish to take back rather than reverting them (like this), especially if they've been quoted by other editors.Funcrunch (talk)21:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. In this case I felt that it there wasn't anything of real substance that was worth keeping, simply a comment that signaled hostility, which is why the change / mistake is noted but not kept visually.
You're right that pointing out issues doesn't signal bad faith, but direct accusations that border on character judgements do (something I acknowledge I was guilty of as well), as was the case here:
This reads very strongly of WP:OR and convinced me to take a closer look at the article. As I suspected, it uses sources that don't even mention the documentary itself in order to create a WP:COATRACK. This is a pretty common workaround to WP:DUE that lets editors handpick sources that can support the point of view they want the article to reflect.
As currently constituted, the See Also section creates a serious NPOV issue, and does so in a heavy-handed, almost comically blatant manner. Now, at first we had a reference to Nazi concentration camps [1]. I took that out, and it was replaced by articles on Japanese internment camps, a 1958 book on torture, Guantanamo Bay, etc. Yeah, I think we get the idea. You don't have to slam people over the head with a sledgehammer to make your point. In fact, I see that in the zeal to add irrelevancies to the section, the highly relevant Tren de Aragua dropped out.
As I mentioned at the NPOV noticeboard, it seems the article possibly supports multiple angles - media/journalism, editorial controversy, human rights etc - but the See also section seems weighted mainly towards torture-history comparisons, implicitly emphasizing one over others.
MOS:SEEALSO allows "tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category". Here, the list seems to go beyond navigation by grouping historically/morally weighted comparisons. Those topics are not "wrong", but they seems to represent only one possible "tangentially related topics".
Given the article's primary focus, I think better to keep See also limited to directly adjacent topics (e.g. journalism or media-controversy articles) or not include a See also section at all. The historical or comparative details can be added in the body where it fits. Hope this helps the discussion here.Asteramellus (talk)14:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Asteramellus, thanks for your willingness to engage. I see the point you're making, and am wondering if this could be corrected by including articles focusing on the other topics at hand. Given earlier portions of this discussion, what do you feel an effective limit would be on the number of linked articles were the 'See also' section to be expanded. In that regard, is there a specific focus that you think the other general topics under discussion should necessarily cover? Frankly I'm always of the opinion that expansiveness is always preferable to exclusion, but some outside perspective is obviously appreciated.
Thanks also for considering my thoughts. I don't think See also has a numerical limit or a missing focus. Expanding it to cover multiple interpretive topics (even for balance) raises UNDUE concerns, as noted by others. I think broader context, if relevant and without WP:COATRACK concerns, better to include in the body rather than implied via See also.Asteramellus (talk)22:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Asteramellus, thanks for the response. I understand limiting the number of pages to limit the risk of UNDUE, but, given the fact that this is arguably a documented instance of torture (no major figures involved deny this fact), I don't feel it's unreasonable to include some tangential topics in the section. The example I'd point towards is the 'Tacos/Fajitas' analogy used onMOS:SEEALSO. I don't intend to rehash this, and will happily accept whatever conclusion you reach, but I felt there were a number of holes in the NPOV arguments as they were originally advanced, though I acknowledge that the discussion was exceptionally long and winding at times.
I'm not certain what topics would avoid UNDUE, given that this technically isn't even an official Trump administration action, and that's all that seems to be discussed. It feels as though limiting the See also section or removing it entirely is just as unfair to readers as leading them unnecessarily in a certain direction would be. I'm hesitant to concede that this is an issue of POV, especially given that no POV was ever really identified when this issue was initially raised.
Would this potentially be better included as categories / do such categories exist? My thanks in advance for a response.
The discussion above shows that there is a consensus for limiting the See Also section and I have edited it accordingly. Please discuss here before reinstating.Coretheapple (talk)15:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple Seems you got a tad-bit trigger happy! You've removed more links than fall within the scope of what @Asteramellus actually deliberated. Plan to re-add several, please read and analyze the entirety of policies / positions you cite.
Since everyone is fine with media controversy or journalism articles, I reinsertedGuantanamo Bay files leak and alsoThe Hooded Man, the latter of which was also apparently first published by60 Minutes (or rather its weeknight incarnation) after being postponed at the request of the US military.Einsof (talk)13:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And unlike all the previous times where you were asked and avoided answering (here andhere), are you now willing to say what POV you think is being pushed?Einsof (talk)15:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I've raised the class of the article based on recent additions, which largely capture the full scope of the issue as it's played out over the past week. Unless more reporting becomes available, this is largely what exists, save for commentary from different sources. This could reasonably be nominated forGA status, which, given it's immediate relevancy, I'm inclined to push for. This could reasonably be done if additions are made to the Reactions and Commentary section to improve the breadth of opinion commentary on the matter, as well as additional reactions from lawmakers and administration officials. I hope everyone is well. All the best,CSGinger14 (talk)06:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have nominated the article for GA status after a comprehensive review of the material and sourcing within it. If this is disputed, please leave commentary under this post. All the best,CSGinger14 (talk)07:59, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed most of the background section because it was not sourced to anything that deals with the article subject. Some of it probably could be reinserted if it can be sourced to articles that deal with the segment.Einsof (talk)16:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Einsof Pretty much all of them are based on information found in articles that directly deal with the segment. It's next to impossible to properly build a background section without it.
I don't think this needs a background section nearly as long as it previously was. The current CECOT paragraph could be a sentence or two longer. We have entire articles on CECOT and on Weiss and I don't think we need paragraphs and paragraphs of material here.Einsof (talk)17:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of it, you're right. Not the entirety of it though, even if they're grinning ear to ear that they managed to get rid of multiple pages of text removed.
@Einsof I don't see why it is that sources that aren't directly linked to the time of the article are unjustified. I'm going to take a page out of @Thebiguglyalien's own essay onusing contemporary sources to note their recommendation that "Since it is difficult to measure significance and due weight using contemporary sources, using them to write content causes editors to make their own conclusions about significance and give the content disproportionate weight." Though they would argue that this supports their point that one shouldn't trust the claims being made in those articles as a way of sourcing events further back, I'd argue that it just as much supports the claim that solely relying on articles from the time that the event transpired grants undue weight to the opinions presented in those articles, as opposed to a broader, holistic view of the issue, which is the purpose of this website. I don't see any reason why as much as half of the information in the Background section shouldn't be re-added.CSGinger14 (talk)19:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to be checked for sourcing and POV. I found a blatant violation ofWP:V that had to be removed.[3] Clearly a Good Article nomination is premature at this time. That is over and above any issue re "See Also" which has been explored ad nauseum here.Coretheapple (talk)23:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Be careful when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will likely have published it in independent, reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
It is getting increasingly frustrating that you fail to read more than half of the policies that you invoke. Spencer Ackerman is a well known journalist and his platform has been cited in credible journals, including the Columbia Journalism Review, as shownhere. I am desperately asking you to put in the minimum effort to actually think about the policies you're supposedly enforcing in good faith. This is a profoundly evident example ofWP:LAWYER and incomprehension ofWP:BURO
Additionally, in this case Ackerman is a primary source with reasonable affiliation to the organization under discussion, given that what's being analyzed is their opinion itself. You seemed to have no issue with Robert Reich, whose source is also self published, who, under your definition, should also be considered a third-party source.
@CSGinger14: Youreverted my edit that added a link to the "Evasion techniques" section of theEvasion (ethics) article saying that it "airs on the side of insinuation. It's not our job to push a narrative". It's unclear to me what was being "insinuated" since, as I believe the sources indicate, the administration's response to the60 Minutes production team did not address the content of the segment the team reportedly requested comment on but rather "attacked the questioner"—which is listed as among in the "Evasion techniques" section of the Evasion (ethics) article that was linked. Would you care to elaborate how this qualifies as aninsinuation rather than adescription of the administration's response as described by the sources cited? --CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk)15:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CommonKnowledgeCreator, in my view, you're not wrong that that's effectively what was done here. The problem is, that isn't explicitly noted in any of the articles. They don't explicitly consider him as having 'evaded' the question; in fact, they don't say anything about it other than the fact that that was his response, which effectively makes your inclusion of that link an example ofWP:SYNTHESIS, a violation ofNo original research policies. You're leading readers to a conclusion that they should be expected to make on their own.
Whether you're correct or not, it's not Wikipedia's job to tell readers that Trump was evading the question. Unfortunately this isn't a matter of whether or not this fits the definition within the linked article. If sources only say he provided a response, all that can be said is that he provided a response. Your assistance with the page is appreciated, this is just one link that can't be included. I'd be happy to provide further explanation if you'd like it. Hope all is well.
I'm more than familiar with the no original research policy and need no further explanation of it since I've reviewed its language and theexplanatory essay that clarifies what synthesis is not more times than I would care to as part of talk page discussions. However, your assertion that readers will draw this conclusion on their own is pretty dubious given the general public's lack of media literacy. I would argue instead that it is something that would need to be explicitly pointed out to readers. Other than thisMS NOW segment, I have not seen any references that refers to the administration response was "attacking the questioner".Perennial source discussions have established that MS NOW is generally reliable for statements of fact but that its talk show content should followguidelines for opinion pieces. Not sure what you would think about including content with it as a reference in the article's reactions and commentary section. --CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk)14:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Ackerman blog's attack on Bari Weiss as an "oligarch functionary"[4] perWP:SPS:Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. That's an appalling breach of policy and hopefully it is the only one of its kind.Coretheapple (talk)23:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple this is not being used as a third party source. Examples of third party sources include encyclopedias and data aggregators. This is an opinion piece. This is quite literally in a section of the article called 'Reactions and commentary'. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that anyone would think that this was being presented as objective fact. Though this is not an accusation, I ask that you readWP:Deletionism and consider how your recent editorial choices might be perceived as matching the criteria it lays out. You appear very quick to describe other editors actions/choices as "appalling", "blatant[ly] POV-pushing", "zeal[ous]".
Routinely you claim that others have violated policy while refusing to provide reasonable explanations to justify your accusations. Over time, you have simultaneously become quicker to remove information with which you take issue, which can quickly be proven to actually be within the bounds of site policy, while having less proper reasoning to support your position, which is why those edits can quickly be reversed. You are frankly being extremely rude to other editors in a way that, by nature of technicality, does not technically violate civility policies, but which skirts that edge to the extreme. Please stop. As you suggested I do earlier, I really think that you would benefit from stepping away from this article and any others where you find that this pattern of behavior has persisted. I feel your actions seriously undermine the collaborative nature of this project.
We don't use self-published sources to quote people calling other people an "oligarch functionary." Going on and on about this does not help. Please stop the personal attacks and the wikilawyering on this point, and stop edit-warring over it.[5].Coretheapple (talk)16:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.svg)