RfC on inclusion of The Hooded Man in See Also section
Should the See Also section of this article link to The Hooded Man, published by 60 Minutes II in a previous story? A broader discussion of the section occurs above in #See also section. Einsof (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support (as nominator): Sources explicitly compared 60 Minutes's 2025 "Inside CECOT" story to 60 Minutes II's 2004 story "Abuse At Abu Ghraib", of which the most enduring visual product was the Hooded Man photograph. (As an aside, the Abu Ghraib story was also the subject of government censorship, as detailed in the photograph's article.) This comparison is written in the article and links to prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib; however, the article does not link to or mention The Hooded Man explicitly, and thus is a candidate for inclusion in the See Also section. Einsof (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Support per above, combined with the reasoning I provided in earlier discussions on this topic. Those opposing inclusion have given little formal reasoning to support their position. They've pointed to policies including WP:POINTy, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE as having been violated, but provide little to no explanation of what the violation actually is. At this point half of what's been disputed has literally been discussed in the sources we're using, which makes it harder and harder for me to believe that we're giving undue weight to something that's already necessarily intended to be skewed away from the topic in one way or another.
- The supposedly blatant violations that they claim exist have no real validity to them if they can't point to what insinuation or correlation is being made that upsets NPOV, which pages in particular create a WP:COATRACK (and why), or why these particular pages are being lent undue weight when the connection between them and the subject has already been established by the exact sources we consult. To some extent, it feels as though criticism of this section has amounted to WP:Policy shopping, which represents the same form of WP:BIAS that we've supposedly perpetuated.
- CSGinger14 (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
GA review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Inside CECOT/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: CSGinger14 (talk · contribs) 07:59, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: RandFreeman (talk · contribs) 21:26, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Reviewing this as part of my pledge at Talk:The Marion Star/GA1. My review should be up within seven days. Rand Freeman talk ⬩ stalk 21:26, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Remarks
The first thing I have noticed is that, though the article is mostly well-written, it has some loaded language, weasel wording and phrasing that could be less verbose or redundant. I suggest some rewordings below; the original text is plain and my suggestions are green.
- Via interviews with former detainees and via photographic evidence, the segment describes systematic torture at the facility, independently corroborating earlier conclusions by Human Rights Watch, according to the reports by the survivors ("detainees") and journalists which described "El Salvador's CECOT" as a "living nightmare" and a "hellscape" with features typical of a dystopian horror film due to the extreme conditions and high-tech surveillance.
The segment includes photographic evidence of, and interviews with former detainees about, systematic torture at the facility, corroborating earlier reports by Human Rights Watch. Journalists and former detainees have described CECOT as having severe living conditions and heavy, high-tech surveillance. - Both pundits and sources of note have questioned whether, or asserted that Weiss's actions represent an effort by CBS to quiet negative commentary on the administration to guarantee a favorable outcome in Paramount Skydance's efforts to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, considering the extent to which that may represent an abandonment of CBS News' commitment to journalistic integrity.
Pundits and journalists have theorized that Weiss pulled the segment to suppress CBS's criticism of the Trump administration and guarantee a favorable outcome in Paramount Skydance's efforts to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery. [The authors of "sources of note" are, by and large, journalists.] - Many employees at CBS were quick to lend their support to Alfonsi.
Many CBS employees supported Alfonsi. - Another detainee described conditions in the prison in stark terms, noting that "There was blood everywhere, screams, people crying, people who couldn't take it and were urinating and vomiting on themselves."
Another detainee recounted that "There was blood everywhere, screams, people crying, people who couldn't take it and were urinating and vomiting on themselves." [This description, by itself, is horrific, so the phrase "stark terms" is redundant.] - Alfonsi explained that the story was "factually correct" and had been "screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices."
Alfonsi asserted that the story was "factually correct" and had been "screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices." [This is from Alfonsi's point of view.] - Formatting nitpick: I feel that "progressive" in Weiss met with major backlash from numerous journalists, progressive groups, and public officials... should be wikilinked to Progressivism in the United States, to avoid making "progressive" seem like it is being used as a compliment.
- Weiss's decision attracted widespread condemnation, including by American legislators and journalists. Weiss's actions have conversely been defended by conservative commentators both within and outside the Trump administration.
Weiss's decision to pull the segment was condemned by many American legislators and journalists, but has been defended by conservative commentators both within and outside the Trump administration. - Stephen Miller called for CBS to fire all of the producers who "engaged in this revolt" against Weiss for pulling the segment, which he described as "another pathetic 60 Minutes hatchet job". Regarding the deportees imprisoned at CECOT, he stated, "They know that these are monsters, who got exactly what they deserved." He accosted 60 Minutes staff, criticizing its producers who he claimed were "living in comfort and security in their west end condos trying to make us feel sympathetic for these monsters." Little additional commentary has been reported as having come from the Trump administration in the aftermath of the story's release.
Stephen Miller called for CBS to fire all of the producers who "engaged in this revolt" against Weiss for pulling the segment, which he described as "another pathetic 60 Minutes hatchet job". He stated that the producers of 60 Minutes “know [the deportees imprisoned at CECOT] are monsters, who got exactly what they deserved" and were "living in comfort and security in their west end condos trying to make us feel sympathetic for these monsters." Little additional commentary has been reported as having come from the Trump administration in the aftermath of the story's release.
- The article is stable; the last edit was made by you in April, there have been no recent edit wars and, as far as I can tell, the article is not currently the subject of any disputes.
- The two images on the article are relevant (an image of the segment for visual identification of the media, and an image of CECOT itself). The image of the segment is fair use, and the image of CECOT is a screengrab from a video licensed under CC-BY. Rand Freeman talk ⬩ stalk 01:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- Almost all the sources are reliable, and the only ones on generally unreliable websites are used appropriately as primary sources or as self-published works by subject-matter experts (e.g. Robert Reich). Rand Freeman talk ⬩ stalk 03:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- There is a [citation needed] after the first paragraph of section Paramount Skydance and CBS, and immediately following reference 12. I checked reference 12, which does not fully corroborate the statement: it states that Colbert's show was cancelled, but not that he criticised the settlement. Rand Freeman talk ⬩ stalk 03:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- The Synopsis section is rather short and incoherent. Most of the good synopses I've read are arranged according to the chronology of the film/episode/book in question, and have a moderately detailed description of its contents (see Freedom_for_the_Thought_That_We_Hate#Contents and Mind_Meld#Contents for examples of what I mean). If you are able to find and watch Inside CECOT in full, you can write up a summary of the segment using the segment itself as a primary source. (If you cannot find it, I can email you a copy if you would like.) Rand Freeman talk ⬩ stalk 05:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @RandFreeman. Thanks so much for taking on this review. Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I've taken a look at your comments and am about to publish some changes in their regard. It may take me a little while to work through others. I agree with most all of your suggestions, and will happily provide an explanation if you request it in cases where relevant revisions deviate from them. Moreover, I'll try to go watch the segment again and see if I can expand the synopsis. You have my appreciation for making the comments as thorough as you did, as it makes the task of getting this article up to standard far easier. Hope you're well, and I'll look forward to your reply.
- All the best,
- CSGinger14 (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
- @CSGinger14: in re your edit summary here, I think "former detainees" is a more appropriate term in this context than "survivors" because using the latter implies that it is our assessment, as Wikipedia editors, that CECOT is so horrific that those who left it should be denoted as "survivors" and not merely as former detainees. A reader can infer from the article that the former detainees are survivors of torture, because if they had died we would not be hearing their stories; saying that ourselves is editorialising. The only instances of the word "survivor" I have read, where I did not get a sense that its use was a social or political statement, were in relation to natural disasters, mass killings, terrorist attacks, genocides and other incidents where most victims actually died or were expected to die. Most news sources also do not use "survivors" for former CECOT detainees; this BBC article uses "Venezuelans released from Cecot", for example, and this Guardian article calls an individual who was released from CECOT a "former detainee". Rand Freeman talk ⬩ stalk 20:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. "Survivor" is a designation that may also be contradicted by future developments, to wit: if a former detainee later dies from a condition that is determined to have been caused or aggravated by incarceration in CECOT, that determination may have implications for legal culpability (e.g., in a Nuremberg-like trial), and then it may no longer make sense to speak of the "survivor". For what it's worth, even some Auschwitz survivors refer to themselves as having been inmates or prisoners (e.g., Five Chimneys). Einsof (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- @RandFreeman Your reasoning here makes sense. Will make that change shortly. I think that change was made at the same time that the "dystopian horror film" part was added, by the same editor, and was a bit skeptical of it for many of the same reasons you listed above, but realized that ultimately, they are technically survivors of torture, so wanted to know what others thoughts were before making a final determination.
- As regards your note on No. 5 of the source spot-check, I should note that almost all of the sources I consulted concerning internal deliberation after the episode's first (erroneous) airing made use of Weiss's exact phrasing that the story did not "advance the ball" in a meaningful way. If my memory serves me correctly, that line is about as close to the description those sources gave as it could be. I'll try something out, though, and will wait to see what you think of it. Unfortunately it's been an incredibly busy last few days, so I haven't had a chance to go look at the episode again, but will do so as soon as I can get access. I might end up taking you up on your earlier offer if I can't easily find a version online, though I suspect it could be found at 60 Minutes website now too. Hope all is well, and my thanks for your additional input.
- All the best,
- CSGinger14 (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- @CSGinger14: in re your edit summary here, I think "former detainees" is a more appropriate term in this context than "survivors" because using the latter implies that it is our assessment, as Wikipedia editors, that CECOT is so horrific that those who left it should be denoted as "survivors" and not merely as former detainees. A reader can infer from the article that the former detainees are survivors of torture, because if they had died we would not be hearing their stories; saying that ourselves is editorialising. The only instances of the word "survivor" I have read, where I did not get a sense that its use was a social or political statement, were in relation to natural disasters, mass killings, terrorist attacks, genocides and other incidents where most victims actually died or were expected to die. Most news sources also do not use "survivors" for former CECOT detainees; this BBC article uses "Venezuelans released from Cecot", for example, and this Guardian article calls an individual who was released from CECOT a "former detainee". Rand Freeman talk ⬩ stalk 20:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- @RandFreeman Wondering if the rough version of the synopsis that I've just written is more along the lines of what you were hoping to see.
- CSGinger14 (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, it reads much better. Rand Freeman talk ⬩ stalk 05:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- Any thoughts on what else may be needed to get everything up to standard?
- CSGinger14 (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- The only outstanding issue I see is the [citation needed]. Everything else looks good. Considering that most sources our consensus holds reliable give many reasons to condemn Weiss's actions and few to approve them, the article is about as neutral as it can be, and there is an adequate amount of information on Weiss's reasons and justifications for pulling the segment.
- Nitpicking this paragraph in §Aftermath and internal deliberation: "Weiss had reportedly questioned the use of the word "migrants" to describe the Venezuelan deportees, concentrating on the fact that they were present in the country illegally. CBS News publicly announced the segment was postponed only three hours before the anticipated broadcast."
- In their current location, these two sentences read like a bit of a non-sequitur from the preceding paragraphs. I would merge "CBS News publicly announced the segment was postponed only three hours before the anticipated broadcast" into the first sentence of §Broadcast postponement, to create On the afternoon of December 21, 2025, three hours prior to the anticipated airing of the episode, CBS News announced the CECOT segment had been pulled from the episode, and would air at a later date, without disclosing a reason.
- "Weiss had reportedly questioned the use of the word 'migrants' to describe the Venezuelan deportees, concentrating on the fact that they were present in the country illegally" could be moved to the end of the paragraph immediately preceding it. Rand Freeman talk ⬩ stalk 05:56, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- Thoughts?
- CSGinger14 (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- Everything looks good. All the criteria have been met, so I will pass. Rand Freeman talk ⬩ stalk 07:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, it reads much better. Rand Freeman talk ⬩ stalk 05:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Source spotchecks
Source numbers as of this revision.
1: OK for all four times it is cited
5: Mostly OK, but the 3rd instance/the first sentence of subsection "Aftermath and internal deliberation" is a bit too close for comfort. I would rephrase it to In a meeting the following morning, Weiss said that the report failed to provide any information that had not been previously published by other outlets and "was not ready" for publication.
15: OK
20: OK
25: OK
30: OK
35: OK
40: OK
45: OK
50: OK
Good Article review progress box
|
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.