Talk:Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia

"ILLEGALLY DEPORTED"

To say he was "illegally deported" as a fact is incorrect. One can also say he was illegally not deported when he should have been. A liberal judge decided not to follow the law by allowing the illegal alien to get a work visa. Donald Trump is invoking the Aliens Enemy Act of 1798 which can be used against foreign gang members who are not U.S. citizens. The Supreme Court ruling wasn't finalized until the deported plane was already over International waters. Which means he was not deported illegally at the time. 47.195.244.166 (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome to find a reliable source that supports your claims and propose changes that you would like to see. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

No offense, but you seem confused about a bunch of basic facts in this case. For example, you say "Donald Trump is invoking the Aliens Enemy Act of 1798 which can be used against foreign gang members who are not U.S. citizens," when Trump only invoked it against Venezuelans who are members of Tren de Aragua, and Abrego Garcia is Salvadoran. You say "To say he was "illegally deported" as a fact is incorrect," when several courts have ruled that it was illegal, so it is in fact correct to note that. You say "A liberal judge decided not to follow the law by allowing the illegal alien to get a work visa," when Abrego Garcia doesn't have a work visa. Perhaps you meant an Employment Authorization Document, but that's granted by the Department of Homeland Security, not a judge. You say "The Supreme Court ruling wasn't finalized until the deported plane was already over International waters," when the flights left on March 15 and the Supreme Court didn't rule on this until April 10.

You're free to believe whatever you want, even when it's not true. But we're not going to base the article on what you believe. The text of the article is based on what's reported by reliable sources. In the future, if you want to have any hope of changing text in the article, follow MilesVorkosigan's advice: cite a reliable source and propose specific changes. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

It should simply say he was deported. Any claim to illegally deported or wrongfully deported can be added later on in the article. According to the law if someone enters the country illegally it is the duty of law enforcement to deport them. To say our own immigration department who is enforcing the law with the aproval of the President deported him illegally is just asinine. You can say the proper procedures were not followed and I would disagree nut I would allow you to say that. To go so bold as to say ILLEGALLY means you are implying that ICE agents committed a crime. Where is your evidence for that? Nobody has been charged with a crime. And even if a judge ruled that ICE committed a crime that wouldn't make it a FACT. I'm just saying the first sentence is implying that America is a CLOWN SHOW. Mikeblake00 (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The US Supreme Court said "The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal" (emphasis added). Many reliable sources have reported what the Supreme Court said, and we follow the reliable sources, not any of our personal opinions about it. It's significant that every court that has ruled on this has stated that it was illegal. It belongs in the lead. Of course, you're free to have whatever opinion you want, but are you truly that unwilling to accept what the Supreme Court said? FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Again I'm going to have correct you on the use of the word ILLEGAL. If you say the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ghe deportation was illegal then that would be a factual statement. But if you just say the deportation was illegal then that's not a fact and instead expresses undertones of a Liberal bias. Considering we have a woman Supreme Court Justice who can't tell you the definition of a woman, I wouldn't consider the Supreme Court a credible source. Mikeblake00 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

That is called 'original research' and is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you believe that the Constitution has been changed and Marbury v. Madison no longer applies, you would need to find a source that agrees with you. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion You must read WP:BLUD.

The term "illegally" in "illegally deported" should be removed for neutrality. This language implies wrongdoing by U.S. authorities, which has full authority to remove every illegal immigrant from US Soil who entered illegally and introduces bias into the text. The legality of deportations is a complex issue subject to interpretation by various legal standards. A more objective phrasing, such as simply stating "deported," maintains clarity without bias, allowing for a balanced discussion of the circumstances surrounding the case in subsequent sections.VeritasVanguard☎ 16:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

There was wrongdoing by the US government, as every single court—including the Supreme Court—has noted. The US government has to abide by US laws. When the US government breaks a US law, it's doing something illegally. The US government does not, in fact, have "full authority" to break the law. And to be clear: two comments (now three) over 10 days is not bludgeoning. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion I never said US Government has authority to break the law. I said It has authority to remove any illegal immigrant from US Soil. VeritasVanguard☎ 16:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

You said "This language implies wrongdoing by U.S. authorities," and I pointed out that there was wrongdoing by the US government. In this case, the government broke the law. Therefore, what the government did was illegal. Do you accept that there are laws that govern deportation (e.g., the conditions under which someone can be deported, where they can be deported to) and that if the government breaks the law, its action is illegal? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion While I acknowledge that there are laws governing deportations, it is essential to recognize that the term "illegally" can introduce a judgmental tone to the discussion. My argument focuses on maintaining neutrality in language to facilitate a balanced debate. It’s possible to analyze the legality of deportations without implying wrongdoing by presuming intent. Instead of framing actions as “illegal,” which suggests a moral failing, we can simply state the actions taken, allowing the facts of the situation to speak for themselves. This approach respects the complexity of the law and encourages a more constructive dialogue. VeritasVanguard☎ 17:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that one word noting a legal fact introduces "a judgmental tone." The article itself is not a "debate" or a "dialogue." Every single judge/justice who has ruled on this agrees that this particular deportation of Abrego Garcia to El Salvador was illegal. You talk about "allowing the facts of the situation to speak for themselves," and this is one of those facts. Nor do I assume that "illegal" implies "a moral failing." (Frankly, I'd say that it's much more of a moral failing to recognize that he was illegally deported and then balk at returning him to the US so that he can be treated in a way that's consistent with US law.) The law establishing the illegality of this specific deportation is not "complex." It's totally straightforward, which is why the Supreme Court summarized it in a single sentence: "The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal." This article is not trying to address "the legality of deportations" (plural). It only addresses one specific deportation. I doubt that we're going to make any further headway with this; you're certainly free to use some other kind of dispute resolution if you want to pursue this further. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

But this isn’t a debate, this is Wikipedia, we’re here to report on what is happening, not persuade people. Nor should we lie to avoid making someone look bad when they choose to break the law.

As you know, every court to rule on this has confirmed that the deportation was illegal. If you have a source that proves all of them were wrong, present it here. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that discusses the Supreme Court ruling and shows how they are wrong, you are welcome to suggest it here and we'll discuss it.

Until then, we don't change the encyclopedia because someone thinks it makes the subject look bad. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

To To put this website in the same category as the Encyclopedia is a joke. The Encyclopedia wouldn't make the same mistakes as this website. To just say he was Illegally deported without adding the opinion of the Supreme Court in the same sentence makes the sentence a false statement. As I said before even if the Supreme Court rules he was Illegally Deported that doesn't make it a fact. You can't just say he was illegally Deported without adding the opinion of the Supreme Court. The judge's ruling putting a hold on deportation was absurd. He illegally entered the country in 2011. The judge's ruling happened in 2017. So are we to believe his life is still in danger 6 years later? Plus El Salvador has recently been recognized as the safest country to live in. Deporting him when he was first arrested would be the proper legal process. Not following the law would be Illegal which is what this judge did by putting a hold on his deportation. Sure the current judges might not see it my way but that doesn't mean there couldn't be judges on the bench in the future that would agree with me. And that's why you don't take a judge's decision as a fact. Mikeblake00 (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to your comments each in turn.

First, if you don't like wikipedia as an encyclopedia, that is fine. Don't use it. But this is not the place to debate that.

Second, you say "To just say he was Illegally deported without adding the opinion of the Supreme Court in the same sentence makes the sentence a false statement" but there is a citation in the sentence to an article that says just that. Wikipedia deals with verifiability NOT truth. The reference says that he was illegally deported and that is all that is needed to substantiated the claim. The article also still has a link to the Supreme Court opinion in it if anyone wants to find it.

Third, as a matter of US law, if the Supreme Court says something is illegal, it does actually make it a legal fact. As Justice Robert H. Jackson said about the Supreme Court: “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." You may not like the fact that Abrego Garcia had a lawful withholding of removal status, but he lawfully did. Thus he was unlawfully deported as the Supreme Court found and the Trump administration's own attorney originally acknowledged. If you don't like that legal analysis, take it up with the courts, not the wikipedia talk pages. Remember (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

To add to FactOrOpinion's comments: when you say "The Supreme Court ruling wasn't finalized until the deported plane was already over International waters" you may be mixing up details of this case with the one described here: March 2025 American deportations of Venezuelans#Timeline Mason7512 (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The deportation was not illegal and it shouldn't state that. This is exactly why Wikipedia faces such strong allegations of left-wing bias. 24.120.61.89 (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

As is indicated above, in Wikipedia we summarize what reliable sources say. In this case, it was the US Supreme Court which explicitly stated that the deportation was "illegal". In the US, the Supreme Court has the ultimate say on what is legal and what is illegal.

Having said that, if you can find a reliable source that says that the Supreme Court was wrong, we can include that in the article. Nowa (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The Trump-Bukele video that was added

A few days ago, the photo of Trump and Bukele at this meeting was replaced by a video of the meeting, set to start ~16 min. into the meeting, with a suggestion that people watch for ~5 min. There are several minutes of false or misleading claims by members of the Trump administration in this clip. I'd like to get others' opinions about including this video, and if it has any implications for whether other content should be added to the section (e.g., fact-checking, which isn't done until a section much further below, on False and misleading information) or elsewhere in response to what was said (e.g., in Van Hollen's meeting with Ulloa, he points out that no one was asking President Bukele to smuggle Abrego Garcia into the US; there is video of this as well). Pinging @Yovt: as the editor who introduced the video. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Trump, Pam Bondi, Stephen Miller, Bukele, and Marco Rubio comment on Abrego Garcia (until 21:55), April 2025. Fact-checkers (tell which ones) identified potentially false or misleading statements (by who).

Hello, and thanks for the ping. Yes, I did replace the photo with the video, believing the video to be a good source of information for anyone seeking that White House meeting. I was not aware that the claims included false and misleading statements, and I hope this hasn't negatively affect the article's credibility. In any case, though, I highly recommend it remain at the White House meeting section, as readers may not look that deep into the article, and the section is specifically dedicated for the meeting. With regards to fact checkers, I wouldn't be opposed to the presentation of the media (which is important for readers to identify the tone and who has made which claims) like this, though I'm open to other suggestions. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Politifact addressed some of the false or misleading claims by several people in the meeting. I'll have to look around to see if there are other sources that address multiple statements made in the meeting. My own response took into account other fact-checks when Trump officials have made similar claims, as well as Van Hollen's point. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I have uploaded Van Hollen's remarks on the topic; the file's here and could have potential usage on this page, which I am open to discuss. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 03:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Media framing

A user removed the "Media framing" section stating that the sources were "poor and unreliable". I think this deserves further discussion.

I feel that media framing is an important subject for the article and that the section, as a whole, should not be removed. Some of the sources are cautioned, but none are are deprecated. Where cautioned sources are used, their statements are attributed.

I'd like to recommend that the section be restored and, if further edits are needed, to edit accordingly without removing the entire section.

Here are links to the Wikipedia Reliable sources/Perennial sources notice boards for the references cited:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#AllSides Use caution, "reliability...should be determined on a case-by-case basis"
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Daily_Beast Use caution, "Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons."
• Hungarian Conservative - No rating
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Hill "The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics."
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Media_Matters_for_America Use caution, "As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be attributed."
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#ABC_News "generally reliable"

Here is a copy of the section that was removed:

Media framing

Allsides looked at the language used to describe the Abrego Garcia case by a variety of news organizations with different political leanings during the period from April 15 to April 18, especially in their headlines. It found that the language varied in several ways. In their headlines, news outlets they assessed as left-leaning were more likely to describe Abrego Garcia as a "Maryland man", outlets they assessed as centrist tended to omit a descriptor, and those they assessed as right-leaning were more likely to describe him in terms of gang affiliation or domestic violence. The language also varied in terms of whether he was or wasn't identified as a "migrant", with the outlets they assessed as right-leaning being more likely to identify him that way, and often noting that he had entered the country illegally, and those they identified as left-leaning being more likely to omit this. A third dimension along which the outlets varied was how they characterized the deportation: describing him as having been "mistakenly" deported in the body of the article by outlets they assessed as centrist, as an "administrative error" in a detail "buried" in the article for those they assessed as right-leaning, and as "wrongly" or "wrongfully" deported by those they assessed as left-leaning.

In an April 22 White House press briefing, right-wing social media influencer Tim Pool referred to what he called the "Maryland man hoax", described by him as part of "false narratives" by mainstream media who use the phrase "Maryland man" to describe Abrego Garcia instead of calling him "an MS-13 gang member". In a Hungarian Conservative opinion column, Márton Losonczi stated that many mainstream media outlets – including Politico, Axios, Reuters, NPR, PBS, ABC News, The Guardian, and CNN – had referred to Abrego Garcia as a "Maryland man" or "Maryland dad", and proposed that they used this phrase to turn Abrego Garcia's deportation into a "golden 'human interest story' to try to sway public opinion on immigration". Becket Adams also highlighted the use of "Maryland man" in an opinion column, and objected to it, asserting "he is not a 'Maryland man'. He is a Salvadoran national who has been living in the U.S. illegally since 2011, most recently residing in the state of Maryland." Becket called the phrase "supremely unhelpful", and said that its use tends to "muddy the waters" of this legal case, especially for those who only attend to news reporting on a casual basis.

Media Matters for America argued that "right-wing media personalities" and news sources have often downplayed or rejected Abrego Garcia's due process rights.

External videos
"El Salvador trip was to defend 'the rights of this man to due process': Van Hollen", April 20, 2025, ABC News, "This Week"

Nowa (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I like having the section, but I’m happy to discuss any *specific* and clear concerns about it. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

References

@Hipal, you removed the entire section, saying "poor and unreliable sources." The piece from The Hill is a "contributors" opinion column, and RSN says that those should be treated as SPS, so I agree that it should not be used for BLP content. RSN identifies AllSides, The Daily Beast, and Media Matters for America as MREL rather than GUNREL, so we should discuss whether they are/aren't reliable for the specific text sourced to them, and whether there are better sources for the content. There is no RSN discussion of the Hungarian Conservative. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you seem to understand some of the reasons why I removed the section. See also WP:PSTS, WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:BLPSOURCES. --Hipal (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

No, actually I don't understand why you removed the entire section. There is no assumption that MREL sources cannot be used; rather, the reliability of a specific article source assessed in relation to the specific WP statement(s) sourced to it. Would you explain, for example, why you judge this AllSides article to not be an RS for the paragraph that was sourced to it? FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:ALLSIDES states, "There is general consensus that reliability varies among the website's articles and should be determined on a case-by-case basis; while the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable as they are reviewed carefully by experts, others depend on blind user surveys that some editors consider opinionated and less reliable."

Other than their high-confidence ratings, I remove AllSides references, with very few exceptions. No one has given a reason to keep this one. --Hipal (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Just for the record, are you refusing to state any specific reason to remove the reference from AllSides other than the fact that you, personally, don't like it as a source? You won't say what about the statement might be unreliable or how you disagree with it? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC and WP:AGF. --Hipal (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Please stop quoting policies unless you are willing to follow them yourself. And noticeably, you did not answer the question about why you decided to remove that statement or what might be wrong with it. This behavior is the *opposite* of focusing on the article and is why you keep getting reported to AN for refusing to communicate. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Take it elsewhere. --Hipal (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm asking you for a case-by-case analysis. This particular AllSides article is not a source rating, much less one that's based entirely on blind user surveys. Rather, this particular article is a comparison of the language is used by diverse new sources (where each of those sources has an assigned bias placement, and you'd need to check each source's info page to see what information was used in determining that bias / what level of confidence they have that that bias rating is likely to be accurate). You shouldn't blindly remove anything that isn't a high-confidence rating; the RSN assessment says / implies nothing about this kind of AllSides article.

For the record, I don't think that AllSides bias analyses are themselves reliable; they are American-centric, and there is no objective way to determine where "neutral" lies for any of these kinds of assessments. That said, just because an absolute scale is unreliable, that does not imply that a relative ranking is unreliable. (If this doesn't make sense, just say, and I'll explain further.) I'm inclined to think that their relative bias rankings for different news sources are moderately reliable. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The onus is usually on those seeking inclusion. Please provide a case-by-case analysis yourself if you feel it so important.

RSN assessment says / implies nothing about this kind of AllSides article Excellent point. Have you reviewed all the RSN discussions to see if such articles are mentioned? I vaguely recall a mention or two, but the focus (and editing problems) have been on the ratings.

AllSides has slowly expanded from an organization that solely provides ratings to publishing reprints of articles to having their own edited content. This is probably the first of the latter that I've removed that anyone has discussed at all. So, the basic RS questions apply: is the publisher and author WP:REPUTABLE? The author is an editor at AllSides, so I think the reputation questions can safely be put on the publisher: Does AllSides have a good reputation for such articles? --Hipal (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I meant to say RSP above rather than RSN, my mistake. No, I haven't reviewed all 22 of the RSN discussions that mention AllSides, but the ones that I looked at were all focused on their bias ratings, not this kind of article.

As far as I can tell, neither the author nor the publisher have any reputation (positive or negative) for this kind of article, so I view this as a case where the assessment comes from looking at the specific WP and source content rather than the author's or publisher's general reputation, per WP:RSCONTEXT, "judge whether [the source] is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." The AllSides article draws on their bias ratings. Are those ratings reliable as facts? No, per my discussion above. Are attributed statements about their bias ratings reliable as opinions? I think so, at least for relative rankings, which is the primary element here. What about the claims re: a few different ways in which the language used by different news media varied? I think those are reliable too. WP:NOR is clear that it can be appropriate to engage in OR in assessing sources, and we can read the various headlines for ourselves and see what language they used; ditto for reading the linked articles for ourselves. Can we be certain that the articles he looked at were a representative sample? No, in fact it's unclear what a representative sample would be in this context, though we could enlarge the sample by choosing some additional articles from other news publishers to see whether the findings in the AllSides article are consistent with the language in other news articles.

RSCONTEXT also says "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." The article was reviewed by four other AllSides employees, some editors, so that's a point in its favor.

What is your objection to this specific article for the actual WP text that was sourced to it? And if you object to this source, have you checked whether you can find what you believe to be better sources for this kind of discussion? FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

neither the author nor the publisher have any reputation I agree. I think we should stop there. No need to discuss the other policies that apply, when we haven't cleared the hurdle of WP:RS. --Hipal (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we should stop here. I'd like you to answer the questions I asked you.

I'd also appreciate it if you clarified what the referent of "it" is in your last sentence (does "it" = this single AllSides article? does "it" = the subset of Allsides publications that aren't bias ratings? something else?). If by "it," you mean this specific article, then "we have not found evidence for it to be reliable" is false, because I just presented some evidence to you for the reliability of this specific article for the content that was sourced to it. If by "it," you mean this subset of AllSides publications, there is no requirement that an entire subset be reliable in order for a single element of that set to be a reliable source for the specific WP content that is sourced to it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when no WP:USEBYOTHERS has been offered, we're stuck. It may be too soon to determine the reputation of AllSides for their original journalism outside their ratings.

Do we want to examine any of the other refs? --Hipal (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm struck that you're unwilling to answer my questions. I've made a good faith attempt to respond to your questions to me, and I'd like you to make a good faith attempt to respond to mine.

There's certainly use of the AllSides blog by others. For example, a quoted Google Scholar query on "allsides.com/blog" pulls up dozens of responses. (That's the subdomain that this article was in: https://www.allsides.com/blog/kilmar-abrego-garcia-maryland-man-or-illegal-migrant.) One would have to go through them one by one to assess how many are for AllSides articles with original analyses vs. some other kind of article in that subdomain. It's harder to assess with a general search engine query because it requires weeding out all of the hits that are links to the blog itself from those that illustrate use by others. But a search on allsides.com/blog site:edu pulls up a bunch of hits as well; there too, one would have to go through them one by one to check what kind of use they illustrate. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC and note WP:CHOICE. I believe I've addressed the concerns relevant to determining if the ref meets RS. The onus is on those seeking inclusion.

Apologies. I didn't notice the "blog" bit. That lowers my view of this ref.

"edu" searches could bring up a large amount low-quality hits. Citations from a Newspaper of record would be good, as would citations from expert-written academic publications. --Hipal (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I am focusing on content. Both of my questions to you were content-related. The first is clearly relevant to whether this specific article is reliable for the specific WP content sourced to it, per WP:RSCONTEXT, and the second is clearly relevant to assessing whether the section you removed can be rebuilt with sources that you believe are RSs.

I think I've already met the onus for inclusion. You clearly disagree, but you haven't engaged with the majority of what I wrote. @MilesVorkosigan, @Nowa, you've also posted to this talk topic, do either of you have comments either way about the reliability of this source for the WP content that was sourced to it? We could also seek input at the RSN.

That this subdomain says "blog" does not imply that it's a blog per WP's typical interpretation of that term. The articles are edited. Looks like they identify the editor(s) for each article.

Re: the .edu hits, "could" ≠ "are", and I already pointed out that there are dozens of Google Scholar hits. Google Scholar hits aren't limited to "expert-written academic publications," but scanning the results, there are a number in peer-reviewed journals. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

So let's find some hits that are suitable and list them here or at RSN for discussion. --Hipal (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll wait to see whether either of the other editors want to weigh in on whether this source is reliable for the content sourced to it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with the source. As far as I can see, the editor who removed it just said that they remove it whenever they see it, it's a personal thing, not any kind of consensus.

Though 'Hungarian Conservative' does not seem at all notable as a source, I'd support removing that. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

So we have no actual evidence for WP:USEBYOTHERS to discuss here or take to RSN, and we agree that the Hungarian Conservative ref should be removed. Shall we look at the other refs? --Hipal (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

We do have evidence of use by others, per both a standard search and a Google Scholar search. If we want to know whether those uses are the same kind of article, we'd have to go through them one by one. For example, here's a law review article that draws on another AllSides article of the same sort. But I honestly don't want to start going through each reference one by one when you still haven't engaged with the argument I already provided above. Also, I'm waiting to see whether Nowa wants to weigh in. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the review. --Hipal (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome.

Nowa, I saw the comment that you added and then deleted. Are you comfortable with where the section now stands? Perhaps it can still be improved, if anyone wants to look for additional sources. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Nowa (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the Hungarian Conservative, and as I noted above, I hadn't realized that The Hill's contributors' pieces are considered SPS, so that content must be removed, per BLPSPS.

For Media Matters, RSN says "There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be attributed." I think this specific article is reliable for what was sourced to it, as they've presented a variety of sources to back their claim. Also, it raised the issue of due process, which is another dimension along which the media discussions seem to differ across the political spectrum. Tim Pool's comment, sourced to the Daily Beast, is consistent with what AllSides found ("Maryland man" vs. "gang member"), so in that sense, it doesn't introduce a new dimension. But there's no doubt that Pool said it (he made the comment in a WH press briefing), and it could help balance the Media Matters reference in terms of NPOV. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Hipal usually refuses to engage in good-faith discussions on talk pages and will bludgeon the discussion in an effort to get their way.

Note the way they keep saying 'focus on the article', while refusing to discuss the changes or go into any specifics. There's currently an open ANE case they filed that looks like it's going to boomerang over this behavior. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep this up and you'll likely be blocked or banned. --Hipal (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and refrain from making threats, that is not civil. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Drop the stick or report the problems that you see at an appropriate noticeboard. Anything else is disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Please focus on the article, Hipal. This is not the place for you to continue this behavior. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

[1] --Hipal (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad we've made progress here. Is the video appropriate? When the video and most of this section was added [2], it was full of examples that had been subsequently trimmed except for the video. Should the video remain? --Hipal (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The video is not appropriate for that section, as it is not about media framings. It could be appropriate for the section on Van Hollen's trip to El Salvador. There's currently a different video in the latter section, a clip from from C-Span coverage of a press conference right after Van Hollen returned. I just viewed it, and to my eyes, it cuts off in a strange spot. But the entire press conference is quite long, and I'm not personally inclined to link to all of it. Among our options:

• delete the ABC interview from the Media framings section and leave the current C-Span clip
• delete the C-Span clip and move the ABC interview to the section on Van Hollen's trip
• delete the ABC interview and look for / create a better clip from the entire C-Span coverage

FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Hipal, I see that you deleted the video. Would you say why you decided that the first or third of the three options above is what best serves the article, and clarify which of those two you advocate? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

No matter what we did, the video was not to be included in the section, so I removed it.

I'm not clear that the clip, or any video from that or other press conference belongs in this BLP article.

Aren't there better references that cover the topic far better? What is the point of having either video?

My preference is to remove both. Alternatively, replace the clip with the interview seems an improvement at least. --Hipal (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is primarily about a set of legal issues rather than being a biographical article. Re: "Aren't there better references that cover the topic far better?," which of the topics addressed in the videos are you referring to? And in your view, what makes the interview better than the C-Span clip? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it a good idea to dismiss the BLP aspects of this article.

I'd treat the ABC interview similar to a written interview with a brief intro. At least it has that introduction. I'd treat anything from the press conference similar to a press release. --Hipal (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing the BLP aspects. I added a chunk of that content, and it's a meaningful part of the article. Plus in all articles, all content about living persons must abide by WP:BLP. However, but for the court case, this article would not exist, though he might be mentioned in March 2025 American deportations of Venezuelans (which still needs to be moved to a title that better reflects the scope). We don't rule video from press conferences out of hand; the video from the Trump-Bukele meeting is a press conference. It's still unclear to me what topics you were referring to by "Aren't there better references that cover the topic far better?" FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we mostly agree on the BLP aspects. Thanks for the clarification.

Again, what is the point of having either video? Without an answer to that, I feel I'd be wasting my time trying to figure out what references might replace them. --Hipal (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Could you try explaining why you have to replace them? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd treat the ABC interview similar to a written interview with a brief intro. At least it has that introduction. I'd treat anything from the press conference similar to a press release. I expect that everyone working on this article is familiar with how interviews and press releases should be treated, especially in the context of BLP.

Again, what is the point of having either video? Without an answer to that, I feel I'd be wasting my time trying to figure out what references might replace them. --Hipal (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Repeating yourself after ignoring his statement doesn't help clarify anything. When people ask you about what you've said, they're asking for more information, not repetition.

We don't rule video from press conferences out of hand; the video from the Trump-Bukele meeting is a press conference. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. Your wording comes across as you hadn't seen the explanations.

Maybe I'm expecting too much concerning references and how they should be treated. How about someone make a case for inclusion, and/or answer my question? Alternatively, just go with FactOrOpinion's second option, which I've already said I agree with as an improvement. --Hipal (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

This continues to not be an answer to either of our questions. Look, I'm trying to figure out how it can be possible to work with you, if you refuse to answer direct questions, give us some kind of suggestions for how to get this information out of you. What other options should we try? What might work better? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Clearly indicate you've read what I've written and ask specific questions directed at what I've written. Respond to my questions, or indicate why you cannot as I've done. Alternatively, expand upon the questions you want answered. Respect onus. --Hipal (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

"Re: 'Aren't there better references that cover the topic far better?', which of the topics addressed in the videos are you referring to?" is a specific question. I am not a mind reader. You asked a question, and I asked you to clarify your question. I was not asking you "to figure out what references might replace them." I am asking you to clarify the topic(s). FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

You have been asked many specific questions. For some reason you hate them and refuse to answer. I'm trying to get you to suggest some other way we can try to help you communicate. What would help you to not ignore our questions? How can we make replying easier?

(Note: This is not a request to repeat something you've already said, I'm trying to get an answer to the questions above) MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

you hate them and refuse That's not how to communicate, but rather disrupts communication completely. Please stop. --Hipal (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Are you going to answer my question? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it does disrupt communication, that’s the point. It’s very frustrating. How can we help you to stop doing it? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

First incivility, now WP:POINT? A block or ban may be necessary. --Hipal (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

If you're not going to answer my question, "What is the point of having either video?", why go on? I've made it clear that I think it a waste of time. I've implemented your second option. No one has given a clear argument for the others. Apparently, no one can explain why the videos are even there.

Let me clarify where I brought up "topic": Aren't there references that are much better at covering the topics presented in the videos?" I explained the problems with the videos. A good alternative would be references that summarize and analyze the same topics, giving them broader context. --Hipal (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I twice quoted what you wrote, so it's bizarre that you think you need to "clarify where" you brought it up. You're clearly unwilling to explain which topics you're referring to (i.e., which topics you believe are "presented in the videos," but that you believe are absent from the text and are worth searching for non-video references about). C'est la vie. I guess this is the end of our exchange. For the record, I didn't expect anyone to "implement" any of the options I listed. I presented them to generate discussion about what would best serve the article, and without the expectation that it was an exhaustive list of options (in fact, you have presented another option: do not use either one). FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

AGF. I attempted to clarify what I meant, that there should be better references covering the same subject matter as contained in the videos. I have no specific topics in mind, nor do I believe I implied otherwise. If I made a mistake, I'll refactor.

that you believe are absent from the text Sorry, but I don't believe I wrote anything remotely like that. If there's something I wrote that implied it, point it out and I'll refactor.

My questions remain unanswered. Note I'm not making any accusations or assumptions as to why that's the case, or why you have not given an opinion on what you think is the best option. We're discussing some videos here. Don't make a big dispute over them, and don't base that dispute on assumptions and accusations of others. --Hipal (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

We *were* assuming good faith, that’s why we kept begging you to communicate.

Since you refuse to do so, I guess we’ll just leave the page as is until someone is willing to discuss specific changes that they think should be made. I’m not willing to keep wasting time trying to help you communicate. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

You appear to be incapable assuming good faith, of reading what others have written, of working collaboratively. You are misrepresenting the situation. Whatever your aims, you're being disruptive, and could result in a block or ban.--Hipal (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, look, I get that people asking you questions upsets you, but don’t let that make you lie like this or file another frivolous report with the admins like with Cortador. If you think about it for a second you’ll realize that the admins would see an entire talk page of people begging you to communicate from your edit war on the Hasan Piker page and at least one more on this page who pointed out you’ve been refusing to answer questions.

And it will be fine, I’ll just stop trying to get you to communicate and you’ll be fine, right? Just go back to editing. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Now it's lies? You really need to stop before it's too late. --Hipal (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that both of you stop.

As for your earlier response to me, I was assuming good faith. That I disagree with or am puzzled by another editor's choice does not mean I think the person is operating in bad faith. Re: "there should be better references covering the same subject matter as contained in the videos. I have no specific topics in mind," unless you think that there's some topic that is covered in the video but is not covered in the text, then I'm not sure why you're raising this (clearly if it's already covered in the text, then there is no need to search for additional sources). I'm not the one who introduced any of the videos in the article, but I don't object to them, and if you object to them, then you can make an argument for removing them. FWIW, there is a broader discussion of the use of videos in WP, where people have presented both pros and cons, and there's also a WMF VideoWiki project, though that focuses on videos that can be edited by WP editors (analogous to text editing). FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.

I objected to your comment where you made assumptions about what I may have meant by my comment that are not actually in anything I wrote, claiming I was unwilling to explain. That's not assuming good faith. If that's the reason for your bludgeoning, then it's something worse.

You don't object to the videos, and don't know why there were added. That's fair.

there is a broader discussion of the use of videos in WP Where?

Are we done here? --Hipal (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to bludgeon anything; I was trying to understand what you meant, and asking you for clarification, and was frustrated by your repeated choice not to clarify.

"you made assumptions about what I may have meant" Yes, when one person is trying to make sense of what another person said, the first person may well make an assumption (e.g., "This person said X in relation to Y, and the only relationship that I see between them is Z, so I'm going to assume Z even though the person didn't say Z, and I'll ask for further clarification based on that assumption"). This is a normal thing that people do and does not imply a failure to assume good faith.

Re: the discussion of videos, I've participated in discussions at RSN and VPI; I doubt that those are the only places that discussions about it have occurred. This is actually reminding me that I need to add content below the Trump-Bukele video, as there are false claims made by speakers in that video. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

POV of Media framing

Multiple times in the RSN entries for AllSides, the question of DUE weight is brought up. Our current presentation in this article qualifies the AllSides and MediaMatters content, which I think is appropriate.

The content cited to AllSides is large, over 200 words. It attempts to summarize the reference, but apparently without following the oiv of it's own "Conclusions on Analyzed Coverage". It should be reduced to a sentence or two, and summarize their conclusions.

I'm unclear why Tim Pool's viewpoints as presented in The Daily Beast are DUE at all, let alone in a manner that doesn't follow the pov of the reference.

The presentation of the Media Matters reference seems ok. --Hipal (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

"Multiple times in the RSN entries for AllSides, the question of DUE weight is brought up." I don't see how that's relevant here; as we discussed earlier, those discussions did not address this kind of AllSides content. I don't think that "apparently without following the oiv of it's own 'Conclusions on Analyzed Coverage'" is true. That said, if you can figure out a way of making the text sourced to AllSides more concise while still addressing its 3x3 analysis, go for it.

Re: whether Pool's viewpoint is DUE, I don't have strong feelings about it either way. It was introduced because a conservative editor was concerned about NPOV in the article as a whole / said that conservative views were not represented in the article in proportion to their existence outside of WP. If you have other content that represents a conservative view and that you think is more DUE, it would be great for you to introduce it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The past RSN discussions may not be wholly relevant, depending upon how we treat this publisher. If AllSides blog articles should be treated as opinions, then such articles may never be DUE at all without a better, supporting reference.

(The blocked editor introduced the general subject, full of RS and OR/SYN problems. This is when the video was added.)

• Talk:Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia/Archive_3

I agree with your comments about the AllSides ref here. Those could be grounds for its removal.

After looking through the article history and reading the talk page discussion, the addition of Pool's viewpoints appears to be a WP:FALSEBALANCE vio.

I have to tip my hat to all of you that have been working on this article. I avoid recent events, and politically charged events. The temptation to work from editors' opinions rather than from high-quality sources can be overwhelming. The length of time it takes for high-quality sources to appear is frustrating. Editors have to work from what they have at the time, and rewriting as better sources become available is difficult. --Hipal (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The AllSides article is not an opinion piece, and I don't see anything in what I said that's grounds for removal. We've already established that three of us think it should be left in. Again: if you can make it more concise while keeping the 3x3 analysis, I encourage you to do so.

If you avoid current and politically charged events, then it's surprising that you're here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)