::::::::::::::::::I don't see any issue with including it, fine details of MS-13 are very important to lots of people now that MAGA people have been programmed to believe the lie that the victim here is a gang member. Including some of the pretenses they've offered seems relevant, we might as well keep the short version. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 16:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::I don't see any issue with including it, fine details of MS-13 are very important to lots of people now that MAGA people have been programmed to believe the lie that the victim here is a gang member. Including some of the pretenses they've offered seems relevant, we might as well keep the short version. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 16:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::@[[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]], would you mind saying more about why you think it needs to be quoted and want to include that entire blockquote instead of just summarizing it? I consider this a tiny point, and proposed "In contrast, Mia Cathell of the ''Washington Examiner'' pointed out that in an unrelated case, a 2011 DOJ indictment named six MS-13 cliques operating in the greater Washington, DC metropolitan area, including the Sailors and Western cliques," which I think captures everything significant in the intro+blockquote. Thanks, [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 20:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::@[[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]], would you mind saying more about why you think it needs to be quoted and want to include that entire blockquote instead of just summarizing it? I consider this a tiny point, and proposed "In contrast, Mia Cathell of the ''Washington Examiner'' pointed out that in an unrelated case, a 2011 DOJ indictment named six MS-13 cliques operating in the greater Washington, DC metropolitan area, including the Sailors and Western cliques," which I think captures everything significant in the intro+blockquote. Thanks, [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 20:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was saying that in *some* version, I think it should be mentioned.
::::::::::::::::::::I have no problems with your suggestion.
::::::::::::::::::::Though seeing it worded that way, it reminds me that I'm curious how often members of different 'cliques' hang out together, because the other people from 2019 were supposedly in a different one. And, of course, how often members of dangerous and powerful gangs spend time hanging out looking for day-labor, but I haven't seen RS (or even Unrel) on either of those questions. [[User:MilesVorkosigan|MilesVorkosigan]] ([[User talk:MilesVorkosigan|talk]]) 21:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::"The burden of proof is on the A.G. in these administrative proceedings."
:::::::::::"The burden of proof is on the A.G. in these administrative proceedings."
:::::::::::That's an impossible burden to clear. Proving something didn't happen is…well…nearly impossible. [[User:Iknowyoureadog|''i'' know you're a dog]] 18:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::That's an impossible burden to clear. Proving something didn't happen is…well…nearly impossible. [[User:Iknowyoureadog|''i'' know you're a dog]] 18:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic.
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
This page is protected. You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject El Salvador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of El Salvador on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.El SalvadorWikipedia:WikiProject El SalvadorTemplate:WikiProject El SalvadorEl Salvador
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latino and Hispanic heritage, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Hispanic and Latino Americans on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latino and Hispanic heritageWikipedia:WikiProject Latino and Hispanic heritageTemplate:WikiProject Latino and Hispanic heritageLatino and Hispanic heritage
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
"Should we remove all the accents of all Spanish names?"
No, since some common names include accents. But many other common names don't, despite the fact that the name has accents in Spanish (or other diacritics for names from other languages), and this is one of the ones that doesn't (it's hard to find any English sources that include the accents in his name). Do you believe that WP:COMMONNAME is no longer consensus for names with accents and that all relevant pages should be moved? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's basic Spanish spelling if you know the Spanish pronunciation, and I've heard it pronounced both ways in Spanish, and I've seen it spelled both ways in Spanish-language media. A couple of Spanishexamples with Abrego rather than Ábrego. Either way, the commonname in English is still Abrego Garcia. FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Legal status of Abrego Garcia
Two things: What was Abrego Garcia's immigration status between him entering the country and being deported? And are the accusations that he is a member of MS-13 unfounded? I'm linking an AP article which is currently the 5th reference on the page and which I'll be quoting extensively from for easy reference. Sorry if this isn't typical, I'm not very familiar with editing on wikipedia
"Abrego Garcia fled to the U.S. illegally around 2011,"
"In 2019, Abrego Garcia went to a Home Depot looking for work when he was arrested by county police"
"Abrego Garcia later told an immigration judge that he would seek asylum and asked to be released" when? I'm not sure, but I'm almost certain 2019
"ICE…alleged that he was a certified gang member based on information that came from a confidential informant"
"According to Abrego Garcia’s attorneys in his current case, the criminal informant had alleged that Abrego Garcia belonged to an MS-13 chapter in New York, where he has never lived."
"The judge said the informant was proven and reliable and had verified his gang membership and rank."
"In October 2019, an immigration judge denied Abrego Garcia’s asylum request but granted him protection from being deported back to El Salvador because of a “well-founded fear” of gang persecution"
"Since then, Abrego Garcia has checked in with ICE yearly while the Department of Homeland Security issued him a work permit, his attorneys said in court filings."
Even if he were a confirmed member of a designated terrorist organization such as MS-13, which is illegal under US law, Justice Sotomayor points out in her concurring opinion that it is still typical for legal proceedings to be carried out in the US, which makes this case unusual. JRBuch12 (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your questions:
(1) legal status: I think the situation is that Garcia entered the US illegally and then didn’t submit an asylum claim in time to request asylum then was found to be able to be deported but could not be deported back to his country due to the potential for violence against him in his home country and thus giving him status to remain in the US pending resolution of that issue. I don’t know whether to label that as being “legally” here or not but I think the sources all agree that this was his status.
(2) Gang membership:the accusations about being a member of the gang were found to be credible for purposes of a bail determination but that is not the same as determination for criminal or civil penalties. Thus there has been some evidence provided regarding his affiliation with a gang but it hasn’t been the subject of long fact finding and legal determination such that it is a dispositive legal conclusion. So I wouldn’t call the accusations “unfounded”, I would call them “unresolved”. But that’s just my understanding. Remember (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remember:: is it of interest to you that Bail in the United States states: "The regular rules of evidence do not apply at a bail hearing. The prosecution typically proceeds by "proffer" alone. Instead of presenting witness testimony and documents that would be admissible at trial, the prosecutor merely makes an unsworn oral promise to the judge as to what the evidence will show as to the suspect's dangerousness, likelihood of guilt, and propensity to flee the jurisdiction"? --Kizor01:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is very useful to note. I assumed as much. I’d ideally like a source to say this explicitly in the current case if possible. Remember (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean gang membership should be said to be unconfirmed since the administration is using shaky “evidence” (e.g. tattoos) to accuse/label people as gangs and call them such 128.54.26.97 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He was protected from being deported to El Salvador. Besides, there still needs to be due process/hearings/orders before deportation, and also due process/trials/sentencing before imprisonment. 128.54.26.97 (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hey, you beat me to making a new section. Reuters describes Abrego Garcia as "a Salvadoran migrant who lived in the U.S. legally with a work permit." In a caption, but still. NPR says that he got "withholding of removal" status and a work permit in 2019; "Since then, Abrego Garcia has lived and worked legally in Maryland". So he is living the US legally (or was until his abduction (which it is when you grab someone living in the US legally without a warrant and imprison him indefinitely without trial). And he was an illegal immigrant.
CRASH!
Did you hear that? That was the sound of the incoming nitpicking. Alas, I don't know my ass from my elbow, law-wise, so: If he was an illegal immigrant from 2011 and then lived in the US legally since 2019, does that mean he was a legal immigrant since 2019? Was it the "withholding of removal" protected status, the work permit, either, or both that meant that he lived in the US legally? A work permit isn't a travel document (or a work visa), am I right that it doesn't count for being allowed to legally be in America, only for what you're allowed to do there? Tangent: I wikilinked "work permit" to Employment authorization document instead of work permit as three seconds each of glancing at those articles' leads tells me that's what the phrase refers to in the States, was this correct? Did he stop being an illegal immigrant once he was legally in the States? Can we talk of him legally being in the States, or is there a distinction between that and legally living in the states? --Kizor19:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that he lived in the US from 2011, illegally. Since 2019 it was documented by the police and ICE that he was living in the country, and he is granted "Withholding of Removal" status. Homeland Security issues him a work permit, and he checked in with them yearly.
In the US, according to ICE's website, Withholding of Removal status is similar to asylum, but can be applied for after being in the country illegally for a year. The main difference however is that WoR requires more evidence to prove you'll be harmed by being deported to a specific country, >51% chance of harm. WoR immigrants cannot get permanent residency, and can be deported to a different country if such an arrangement is made by the government. JRBuch12 (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Proper procedure for deportation of illegal immigrants must be followed. Any other action should be voided. He didn't properly seek asylum. The judge's decision to "withholding of removal" shall be VOID. Although El Salvador was dangerous in 2011 it wasn't officially labeled as uninhabitable by the U.S. Even if it was why should the U.S.A. be the country where everyone in the world gets to seek asylum. He did say in his defense that the gangs were trying to extort his mother's business PupUsa for money. Saying they were going to make her son a gang member and then murder him. The story sounds fishy. Kind of like he was a gang member and got scared and left. It was improper for ICE to not deport him in 2019. The current D.O.J. is doing the process right in 2025. He should be deported to his home country and be forced to spend time in jail probably 90 days for first offense and our country should pay for it. After he is released he could apply for citizenship because he is married although the marriage should be VOID because he got married in our country as an ILLEGAL ALIEN. Mikeblake00 (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me you may have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia does. It does not come up with original analysis of a situation but instead restates and summarizes what reliable sources have said about a notable issue in the world. Even if you were correct in all your analysis it wouldn’t matter to what we can say because it would be original research. What you need to do if you want information to be contributed to the article is find reliable sources that assert something you think is notable and then that information can be included with attribution. I hope that helped make things more clear. Thank you for your input. Remember (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being a corrupt shill. This article is clearly written in a slanted, unconforming (to Wikipedia's rules) way. You are perfectly emblematic of that. 108.160.66.135 (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific? Pointing out specific things that should be fixed would help. News articles or other reliable sources showing what I got wrong would be good too. Here's a list of a lot of news outlets that are trusted, and ones that are... not. --Kizor20:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that there is something in the article that is incorrect, you should probably tell us what it is so we can look into fixing it.
Between all of the obscenely sloppy writing lacking punctuation, and all of the diatribes, it's impossible to know what in the world is going on. In regards to his legal status, and in recognition of the fact that "reliable" sources are in fact not always so reliable (and increasingly unreliable in modern times), I suggest that there should actually be LESS said trying to assert his legal status. It is sufficient to state that he entered the country illegally, and that in 2019 the immigration courts ruled that he should not be deported. No need to even try articulating any inference out of it. This is not difficult, folks. It's just plain logic.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:b07b:9700:3c85:a9af:dac7:d82c (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a clear indication that this article is heavily biased and, unfortunately, Wikipedia admins are doing nothing to police it. Inaction like that will destroy WP's legitimacy and reputation for presenting objective information. It will become the next Snopes.
"It is sufficient to state that he entered the country illegally, and that in 2019 the immigration courts ruled that he should not be deported. No need to even try articulating any inference out of it. This is not difficult, folks. It's just plain logic." -- Yeah honestly I'm trying to figure out what the purpose of this very long talk section is. The actual explanation is fairly straight forward. Too much stuff is being thrown into what should be a straight forward timeline of events. Armeym (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning of wife and child as US Citizens in the lead
Currently the sentence in the intro reads as follows: “This occurred despite his having a U.S. immigration judge's order protecting him from removal to El Salvador since 2019 and a wife and five-year-old child who are both American citizens.”
The bolded information is information that some editors want removed and others want preserved. I’m bringing the issue to the talk page to resolve so we don’t keep editing in circles on this issue. Please put your thoughts below.Remember (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Include wife and child info in lead - I would vote to include the information in the lead since I think it is both relevant practically (most people are abhorred that the US government would separate someone from their wife and child who are both US Citizens) and legally (often the citizenship status of close family members is taken into account for legal decisions by courts). Also the wife and child are also plaintiffs in the lawsuit to bring him back. Remember (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. The context of this information is relevant in both sections as his wife and child are US citizens. Although his child would have to be over 21 to assist him with citizenship, or obtain spousal sponsorship, the fact that they are plaintiffs is helpful to add. Evelynbennett (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to bio section These facts aren't mentioned anywhere in the body of the article and don't seem to have any bearing on the legal case. The lead should summarize important points from an article, not to introduce new facts/ideas. --Bob drobbs (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article does mention that his wife and child are US citizens and mentions that they are parties to the lawsuit against the government. Remember (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search shows that there's only 4 mentions of the word "citizen" in the article. Three of the four are in the lead. One is in regards to a legal argument about citizens being deported, nothing to do with his wife or child. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see. I believe it used to be there but I think the citizenship of the wife and child was removed in some earlier edited version. I’ve added the information back in the body of the article. Remember (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still leaning toward move. I haven't seen any evidnece that this is part of any legal argument here. And it makes the article feel more "human interest" than "encyclopedic". Bob drobbs (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll have to think more about whether I have a preference. In the meantime, I'm wondering why the citizenship of his wife and biological child is relevant, but the citizenship of his step-children (also American) is not. He's acting as a father to all of the kids. His wife refers to all of them as his children (for example, here and here). FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I didn’t know the position he was in with regards to his step-children (like whether he has custody or sees them at all). Happy to add that too but I originally avoiding noting information about them because I didn’t have a good RS that gave me insights into that relationship for me to describe. Happy to have that info added. Remember (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He and his wife are raising all three kids. Here's an AP article saying "Abrego Garcia has lived in the U.S. for roughly 14 years, during which he worked construction, got married and was raising three children with disabilities, according to court records," and another saying "The couple are parents to their son and her two children from a previous relationship." I'm guessing that he doesn't have legal custody, in that they might also be plaintiffs in the suit if he did. But helping raise them, and his absence matters to them. I can't find the reference right now, but I read a statement from her about how hard it is to care for all three by herself. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the information should not be in the lead. I see no reliable source in the body that states "often the citizenship status of close family members is taken into account for legal decisions by courts", nor even if that were the case, that a reliable source mentions that whether he should be deported has anything to do with whether his wife and children are US citizens.ReferenceMan (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a reliable source that talks about how the family status is taking into account by ICE officers “An ICE spokesperson said the agency considers individual circumstances when determining whether to detain someone.” It also discusses the issues of deporting family members when a spouse or parent is a non-citizen and changes between Trump and Biden, which seems relevant in this situation as background - link. Remember (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also family member status is important for gaining extreme hardship waivers that can stop a deportation if it would cause extreme hardship on a US citizen. See brief discussion in New Yorker article here - “She can get a waiver permitting her to remain in the U.S. if she can prove that her prolonged absence would cause “extreme hardship” for certain members of her family. But, because of processing delays, getting the waiver can now take three and a half years.” link. Remember (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a particularly strong opinion here. But I'd really like to see a RS which connects this particular case and his wife/child being citizens before putting this in the lead. Bob drobbs (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it is not just a legal issue, it is also a personal and narrative issue that I think most readers would find notable (that’s why it’s mentioned in most news articles). This person wasn’t just deported and imprisoned and has no one. He was deported and imprisoned in a maximum security prison and taken away from his wife and his children that are US citizens. I think most readers would find that to be one of the most notable aspects of this case. Remember (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So we hopefully agree it may or may not be relevant to the legal case, but that more importantly it may or may not be relevant to the narrative. In this case I'm still not sure, I think it clutters the lead JRBuch12 (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'CommentIf you're going to mention his wife, it should be noted when they actually got married. It should also mention that she filed charges against him for domestic abuse. I'm not sure how you can include one, but not the other. Especially since the domestic abuse charges is a contributing factor in deportation. Also not sure why the page says "illegally deported". He had two deportation orders... the only thing that was an issue was sending him to El Salvador. But, since MS-13 is a terrorist organization, that order doesn't apply.172.56.73.141 (talk)
To address your issues: (1) it is mentioned in the article when they got married and the charges for domestic abuse just not in the lead which I think makes sense given the crowded nature of the lead; (2) you say the domestic abuse is a contributing factor in the deportation but we have no sources saying that this issue played any role in the government deciding to deport him; if you have a source to support that please provide it; (3) the page says “illegally deported” because the government in arguments already acknowledged it was illegal and the Supreme Court made that finding too; we only restate others findings, we don’t make determinations ourselves for a wiki article; and (4) you assert that his withholding status was moot due to the fact of alleged MS-13 affiliation which is what the Trump administration has asserted but that issue has not been adjudicated in court but what has already been adjudicated is a finding that the deportation was illegal given the arguments that the government made at the time of the Supreme Court decision. Remember (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Barking up the wrong tree The bigger issue is that the entire lede is terrible and needs to be redone. There's little point in debating whether or not to keep the info in the lede until the lede is rebuilt more appropriately as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:b07b:9700:3c85:a9af:dac7:d82c (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Detention per the agreement between US and El Salvador?
The lead states that Abrego Garcia is being detained “per the agreement between the two countries to jail U.S. deportees there in exchange for money.” Do we have a source that supports this assertion? I know the US paid El Salvador for certain detentions but is this one of the ones paid for? Remember (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "The Trump administration is paying the Salvadoran government $6 million to house migrants there," but it doesn't specify whether Abrego Garcia is in this group. I don't know how that could be determined without either a Trump admin. statement or access to the agreement between the two countries. I'd probably remove it from the lead and include something in the body, where we can say a bit more. Certainly the 3 flights that took people to CECOT were part of the agreement to imprison US deportees there for pay, even if we cannot vouch that every prisoner is part of that agreement, or if the Salvadorans were just sent back and then Bukele chose to imprison them at his own expense. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This 3/16 tweet from Bukele said "Today, the first 238 members of the Venezuelan criminal organization, Tren de Aragua, arrived in our country. ... The United States will pay a very low fee for them, but a high one for us. ... the U.S. has also sent us 23 MS-13 members wanted by Salvadoran justice ...," which suggests that the payment doesn't cover the Salvadorans, though it's not certain; it could just be that he wanted to discuss the Venezuelans and Salvadorans separately. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I figured the source was iffy (and says a lot about me that I went ahead anyway). It's infuriating: we have AP saying there's an agreement to accept and jail deportees from the U.S. of any nationality.[a] We have The Atlantic saying that Abrego Garcia's lawyer is seeking to withhold that payment.[b] And we have sources for how Abrego Garcia was never charged or tried in El Salvador. But even the source we have that says Garcia's lawyers are seeking to withhold funds to stop the agreement to imprison US deportees there for pay doesn't spell it out that Garcia is part of the agreement to imprison US deportees there for pay.
Would it be tolerable if we shored up what's in the article with The Guardian saying that the US paying El Salvador to detain deportees in CECOT has bearing on Abrego Garcia's case[c] and AP stating Abrego Garcia's lawyers say the US is paying El Salvador for his imprisonment?[d] Or would that be SYNTH, considering that, yeah, it's AP saying his lawyers are saying that, not AP saying that. --Kizor23:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ABC states: "Abrego Garcia was sent to El Salvador as part of what the Trump administration described as a $6 million deal with Salvadoran authorities in which they would house deported migrants in exchange for payment." I've replaced the old source with this. However, the article behind the words "$6 million deal" only speaks of the over 200 Venezuelans "as part of a $6 million deal", it doesn't mention El Salvadorans. Is that a problem? --Kizor23:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ABC's straightforward mention of exactly what we were looking for looks like a usable source to me, even though the other article it links to only talks of Venezuelans. @Remember: what's your take on it? (Also, while we're at it, I'm still kinda new to pinging people on Wikipedia, so is doing so here an appropriate way to ask for your attention or is it impolite and demanding?) --Kizor00:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging me here works for me. As for the source, I think it’s still unclear given that the source you say ABC is referring to doesn’t back up the claim. But I’m happy to be persuaded otherwise and happy to do differently if others feel differently. Remember (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The thing ABC's article contains a link to is another article by ABC, and not a reference or explainer either, just a normal article. So... the issue is less of a "not in citation given", more like half that, half an inappropriate "see also"? --Kizor01:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not thinking that clearly right now, but that doesn't strike me as SYNTH to say something like "Abrego Garcia's lawyers have said that the US is paying El Salvador for his imprisonment," citing the AP; but we can't write "the US is paying El Salvador for his imprisonment," citing the AP. If there's reporting on it, we can also say that the Trump admin. hasn't made the agreement public, and A.G.'s lawyers have asked Xinis to order the government to provide a copy of the agreement or provide a witness who can testify about it. We might get some reporting about that soon, depending on how Xinis responds to the request. I'm guessing that she's not happy with the admin's claims that they don't need to comply with Friday's order. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added it with a "his lawyers argue," citing AP, that I'd like to get rid of. I also tossed in the AP article from February about the agreement. --Kizor01:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This PolitiFact article notes that A.G. has never been charged with a crime in El Salvador (nor, as far as I can tell, even charged with any crime), so it's questionable that they'd imprison A.G. if not for a U.S. request that they do so. That implies that the U.S. is paying, though the article doesn't say that. It's unlike the situation with this Salvadoran member of MS-13, César Antonio López Larios, who was also deported to CECOT on 3/15, but who has been in pretrial detention after indictment at different times in both the US and El Salvador. I still don't think we have enough info to put it in the article, but I'm now more convinced of the likelihood that US is paying for him to be imprisoned. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remember:, @FactOrOpinion: heads up, ABC's new article states: "Abrego Garcia, who has been living in Maryland with his U.S. citizen wife and 5-year-old child, is being held in El Salvador's notorious CECOT prison, along with hundreds of other alleged migrant gang members, under an arrangement in which the Trump administration is paying El Salvador $6 million to house migrants deported from the United States as part of President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown." It doesn't have the link issue that was the stumbling block of the previous one, so I solved the unwieldy length and inaccurate statements this part of the lead was having by bulldozing them and replacing them with this, but I still want to run it past you two. Remember, you've been more careful than me to be truthful and fair, and FactOrOpinion, I guess you're cool too. My lingering question about how this article puts it is, wasn't the $6M just for the Venezuelans? But we know the agreement's to jail deportees of any nation; we know it's overwhelmingly been used to jail Venezuelans but hasn't been limited to them, nor intended to; and we know that since the prisoners have been overwhelmingly Venezuelans, the $6M it's cost the USA to jail just the Venezuelans is also close to what the whole thing's cost so far unless there's a 1000% surcharge for detaining Salvadorans without trial or something. So the way ABC puts it, a $6M deal to jail migrants, seems accurate to me. --Kizor00:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and yesterday Sen. Van Hollen said that when he asked Salvadoran Vice President Ulloa why they were holding Abrego Garcia in prison, given that he hadn't been convicted of any crimes in either El Salvador or the US, Ulloa said it was because the US was paying El Salvador to hold A.G. at CECOT. I trust Van Hollen's word. Judge Xinis also ordered expedited discovery on Tuesday, and A.G.'s lawyers have asked for a wide variety of documents, and then starting on p. 49, interrogatory questions that a small # of Trump admin. officials will have to answer, one of which is "List each payment that has been, or will be, made or withheld in connection with the detention at CECOT of Abrego Garcia and other individuals removed or deported from the United States or transported by You from the United States to El Salvador, including when each payment was or will be made or withheld, in what amount, by whom, and to whom." So hopefully we'll also learn more details soon. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Czarking0:, you said on my talk page that "El Salvador has an agreement with the U.S. to imprison U.S. deportees there for payment." is a better representation than "...as part of an agreement between the two countries that El Salvador imprison U.S. deportees there for payment." Could I ask you to tell me more about that? The source states that Abrego Garcia "is being held in El Salvador's notorious CECOT prison [...] under an arrangement in which the Trump administration is paying El Salvador $6 million to house migrants deported from the United States as part of President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown." To my understanding, the latter phrasing's supported by the source, and it also makes a crucial distinction: his deportation and his imprisonment weren't two events where the US sent him over as a free man, and then, separately, El Salvador used their best judgment to imprison him. He was deported by the US into a Salvadoran prison, incidentally, as the theory went, placing him beyond the reach of US law. The fact that USA is sending people to rot in foreign prisons without a trial is quite an important one to cover, and it's also central to understanding why, as described later in the article, the US washes its hands of the whole affair, going don't look at me, we're not holding him, and El Salvador washes its hands of the whole affair, going don't look at me, it wasn't us. --Kizor22:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the phrasing you suggest indicates that this specific man is part of (named in) the agreement. Also "as part of an agreement between" was cv flagged. I won't push this issue though so whatever the community thinks. Czarking0 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the issue of factual accuracy I described above, I changed it back. This is my second reversion with minor changes within a few days, which is starting to push it, and I'll fold under pushback. I made some tweaks to make the phrasing less cumbersome, and I changed "as part of" to "under", hoping that assuages the issue of sounding like the he was named in the agreement. What do you think? What do others think? Would "under the terms of" make it clearer? --Kizor15:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's mostly OK (see my last paragraph below for a different small issue).
Sen. Van Hollen also stated that when he asked Salvadoran V.P. Ulloa why Abrego Garcia was being imprisoned at CECOT, despite his not having been charged or convicted of any crime in either country, Ulloa allegedly said that it was because the U.S. was paying money to El Salvador to keep him imprisoned. So that's additional substantiation that the US payment to El Salvador covers A.G. as well.
Per Van Hollen and a court declaration to Xinis (reporting what the DOJ was allegedly told by the US embassy in El Salvador), A.G. was later transferred to another facility. The DOJ says that it's a penitentiary. He is not free to leave, and he is still being kept from communicating with his wife or lawyers. The text at the beginning of your sentence says "He was imprisoned without trial" at CECOT, which is probably OK since it's past tense, but I'm not sure if it should also say something like "and is now being held in another Salvadoran prison." Right now the article says that the facility in Santa Ana is a "detention center" (which I do not interpret as "prison"), and we should look into what RSs have said about what kind of facility it is. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that at the end of the lead, it says "Abrego Garcia said he had been transferred from CECOT to another prison in El Salvador," so that addresses most of my last paragraph above. I'll adjust the text in the body. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^"U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio left El Salvador on Tuesday with an agreement from that country’s president to accept deportees from the U.S. of any nationality [...] “We can send them, and he will put them in his jails,”"
^"He is asking the court to order the Trump administration to ask for Abrego Garcia’s return and, if necessary, to withhold payment to the Salvadoran government, which says it’s charging the United States $6 million a year to jail U.S. deportees."
^"And the fact that the US is paying El Salvador to detain deportees it sends to the notorious Cecot prison undercut the notion that the administration lacked the power to return Abrego Garcia into US custody"
^"Attorneys for Abrego Garcia said there’s no evidence of gang membership. They claim the U.S. government has the power to return him, while noting that it’s paying El Salvador for his imprisonment."
Misinformation section
Can we create a separate section for all the misinformation spread by trump and his sycophants, that has since been debunked (gang membership, restraining order, etc)? 46.97.170.73 (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not necessarily opposed to such a section but it would be useful if we had sources documenting this as a trend. I’ve seen this in Rolling Stone (link) but unfortunately Rolling Stone is not considered a reliable source for a lot of things. Do we have other sources to support a section on this? Remember (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's all in the article already, but scattered across multiple sections. It would be more helpful if it were all in the same place. Most people coming to this article will probably do so because they heard the false claims circulating and will want to verify them. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What misinformation? He was noted to be a gang member by a detective, the Gang Unit, and a confidential informant. Furthermore, two immigration judges agreed with this assessment. How is that misinformation? Also, there is no doubt that there were two restraining orders filed against him by his current wife. That's 100% verifiable. So I don't know what misinformation you're talking about? Mkstokes (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean there have been a variety of false and misleading statements at times. JD Vance for example stated that he was “convicted” when that never happened. Trump asserted that he “won” the case 9-0. Some people have asserted or implied that the courts actual adjudicated whether he was a gang member when that was only something that was used for a quick bail determination that is not the same thing as an actual tried fact. So there are things that could be discussed. But I think it would be best to lean on a reliable source rather than compile the information ourselves. Remember (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Immigration is a civil case, not criminal. Thus the burden of proof is much lower and the process is different. Your reference to a "tried fact" doesn't apply. As a civil case, the Immigration Judge said he was MS-13 and when it was appealed, that judgement was upheld. That's the end of it from a due process standpoint, period. Mkstokes (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, there's zero evidence of the arresting officer working with a "gang unit." The first immigration judge, who accepted the allegation of his being a gang member, was only assessing it for whether he was eligible for bail (no trial, the standards of evidence are lower than in a trial, and there was no opportunity to question the police officer who made the claim because that officer was suspended and pleaded guilty to misconduct shortly after), and the appeals court did not assess it, only whether the first judge made a "clear error." There was only one restraining order filed by his wife, and she chose not to press charges. Misinformation includes things like: zero evidence that "he was found with rolls of cash and drugs," zero evidence that "Intelligence reports found that he was involved in human trafficking," zero evidence for Bondi's claim that he's "one of the top MS-13 members." He's never been charged with any crime in the US or El Salvador. Ask yourself: if he's a top MS-13 member, why didn't the Trump Admin. challenge the withholding of removal order in 2019 and have him deported then? But I agree with Remember, we'd only create a specific misinformation section if RSs are characterizing the info that way. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, there is no "trial" in the traditional sense. Once again, this is a civil case, not a criminal one. Think traffic court or divorce court. The judge makes a decision and that's it. Also, the report provided by the detective is called a GFIS, which means Gang Field Interview Sheet. Of course the Gang Unit gave him the information to complete it! There were two TROs, not one. When you say "zero evidence" i don't think you understand the nature of legal evidence. Verbal testimony is evidence, so saying "zero" is just wrong from a legal standpoint. Him hanging out woth known gamg members is evidence (circumstantial evidence). Having a car full of people with zero luggage is evidence (circumstantial). Pretending to not speak English is evidence. No offense, but your understanding of the legal process is lacking. Mkstokes (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I said was wrong. It's true that there was no trial, because it was a bond hearing. (And for the record, there are often trials in civil cases.) It's true that in a bond hearing, the standards of evidence are lower than in a trial, including a civil trial. In an immigration court bond hearing, the burden of proof is on the immigrant. I know what GFIS stands for, thanks, which does not make the cops part of a "gang unit." As the GFIS says, the men were picked up for loitering.
As for "There were two TROs, not one," I have no idea which case you're referring to, but if you can present the two TROs you're referring to, I'll look at them. I'm aware that "Verbal testimony is evidence," but testimony occurs in court or a deposition, under oath. A GFIS is not testimony. And if you bothered to read the GFIS, you'd find that it did not say "he was found with rolls of cash and drugs," nor "Intelligence reports found that he was involved in human trafficking," nor has Bondi provided evidence for her claim that he's "one of the top MS-13 members," which were my claims, so don't try to move the goalposts to things I did not make a claim about. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"His attorney also contacted the [Prince George’s Police Department] Inspector General requesting to speak to the detective who authored the GFIS sheet, but was informed that the detective had been suspended. A request to speak to OTHER officers in the Gang Unit was declined."
Additionally, the provided article is much more critical of the MS-13 membership claim given it involved two levels of hearsay from people who never gave testimony under oath. 2600:387:15:4F16:0:0:0:B (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that he was found with rolls of cash and drugs. No evidence that intelligence reports linked him to human trafficking. No evidence supporting claims that he is a "top MS-13 member" (as alleged by Bondi). Misinformation section would be interesting if executed properly though this may be difficult to maintain consistently? Evelynbennett (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a misinformation section already under the 'Trump Admin Statements' header, it includes things like the lies about the victim being a terrorist and a 'high-level' member of MS-13.
We could consider moving it to it's own heading and just call it 'Misinformation'? The section about 'Maryland Man' could be moved there, as well. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Information already in the article based on the wife's own testimony clearly explains why the restraining orders are not as significant as trumpists claim them to be. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Garcia was detained by a Tennessee highway patrol officer on suspicion of human trafficking in December 2022 while driving a vehicle carrying seven passengers.
The report, which cited unnamed sources, said officers contacted the FBI and later released him and the passengers.
In a statement, the Tennessee Highway Patrol confirmed that Mr Abrego Garcia was stopped for allegedly speeding in 2022, but was released after officers contacted the FBI.
Biden's FBI Ordered TN Highway Patrol to Release 'Maryland Man' Recently Deported to El Salvador After He Was Detained in 2022 Traffic Stop on Suspicion of Human Trafficking
If we use the Tennessee Star, it should be attributed (if they choose to identify the FBI as "Biden's FBI", it suggests bias). It doesn't say that he was arrested, only detained. He wasn't charged, and there is no actual evidence in the article that he was engaged in human trafficking. In a different Tennessee Star article, it says "THP did not state whether Abrego Garcia was suspected by THP officers of being engaged in human trafficking, as sources told The Star on Wednesday," only that the THP spokesperson said “Per standard protocol, the THP contacted federal law enforcement authorities with the Biden-era FBI—the agency of jurisdiction—who made the decision not to detain him.” Can you name the person or agency that is alleging that he engaged in human trafficking? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Tennessee Star, while not the subject of much RS discussion, is a website set up by members of a Political Action Committee (according to snopes, politico) and has reposted content from deprecated sources like Breitbart and the Daily Caller. I would caution against citing them at all, maybe we can find different source reporting on the statement? But, now that I think about it: is this relevant to his deportation? It hasn't been cited by any agency like ICE as a reason or justification for his deportation. Mason7512 (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, it's not relevant to the deportation. But it is relevant to the Trump administration's portrayals of him as a dangerous person who shouldn't be returned to the US for due process, and their portrayals of those who support his return as supporting terrorists. For example, Secretary Noem has said that he has "trafficking in his background," DHS claims "Intelligence reports found that he was involved in human trafficking." DHS Assistant Aecretary Tricia McLaughlin said “We have intelligence reports that he is involved in human trafficking," and the same article says "White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt labeled Abrego Garcia 'a foreign terrorist' and an 'MS-13 gang member' who 'engaged in human trafficking.'" We can probably use that Independent article as a source, but need to be careful to say that this is what the administration alleges in public statements, but hasn't provided evidence for it and is not alleging it in their court documents. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add the context for that AOL quote:
On 15 April, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also accused Mr Abrego Garcia of involvement in human trafficking. She appeared to be referencing a report in The Tennessee Star, a conservative news website, which said Mr Abrego Garcia was detained ...
On Dec. 1, 2022, Abrego Garcia was stopped by the Tennessee Highway Patrol for speeding. Upon approach to the vehicle, the encountering officer noted eight other individuals in the vehicle. There was no luggage in the vehicle, leading the encountering officer to suspect this was a human trafficking incident. Additionally, all the passengers gave the same home address as the subject's home address. During the interview, Abrego Garcia pretended to speak less English than he was capable of and attempted to put the encountering officer off-track by responding to questions with questions. When asked what relationship he had with the registered owner of the vehicle, Abrego Garcia replied that the owner of the vehicle is his boss, and that he worked in construction.
Is this a quote? Please provide the full source (e.g. URL) and format it as a quote. Otherwise it could be misconstrued as plagiarism. That also protects you from possible accusations of libel. See, e.g. WP:BLP. — W.andrea (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Newsweek now has an article about this along with a response from Abrego Garcia’s wife. I would think this would be a reliable source to add relevant info. [1]. Remember (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that works as a source. That document was created yesterday at DHS. I wonder what the original Tennessee document says. I think we should also include some of the quotes from Trump admin. officials; I included a couple of sources above. They're now softening their claim from "he is involved in human trafficking" / "engaged in human trafficking" to "suspected" human trafficker (presumably because they don't have any evidence of actual trafficking). A BBC article that's already a source in the article also says "In a statement, the Tennessee Highway Patrol confirmed that Mr Abrego Garcia was stopped for allegedly speeding in 2022, but was released after officers contacted the FBI," and it strikes me as notable that there's no mention of the FBI in the portion of the DHS doc that's been made public (they only released 2 of 6 pages). FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me too. I'm guessing that all of the reports about that right now are coming from statements from Van Hollen, who said that that's what A.G. told him, and that the new prison is not as bad as CECOT. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is claimed that those photos were purposefully staged by the Salvadorian government to paint the appearance that he isn't being treated that badly Tritoneditor24 (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The photo with the NYT is a bit more complicated, because some of that NYT text is copyrighted. @Kizor, I saw that you'd brought this up for discussion at WP:MCQ. Looks to me like people are saying that it could be usable if the text at the bottom of the photo is blocked out. Is that your understanding? Did you still want to include it? Should it matter in assessing whether it's WP:DUE, I've found some more mentions of the tweet (e.g., 1, 2, 3) FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's indeed my understanding of the discussion that the image is usable. I then completely dropped the ball on bringing it up here. I'm sorry. Thank you for taking care of that. I do still want to use it. It's a very good illustration of how, as Time puts it, "the Trump administration has worked overtime to convict Abrego Garcia in the court of public opinion." It's also a good illustration of the contrast between the administration's lofty statements of what it's doing (“I’m not defying the Supreme Court. I never defy the Supreme Court. I wouldn’t do that. I’m a big believer in the Supreme Court, and have a lot of respect for the justices.") and the actions it's taking. But is it tainting my judgment that it'd also make the Trump administration look petty and childish? What do you think, is it a good illustration? What do others think? --Kizor23:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to edit the photo, but if you can do that, I think it makes sense to use it. In addition to what you note, I think it's a good illustration of some of what was discussed in the "Maryland man" section below about how different media organizations use different language for framing the issues (e.g., "Maryland man" vs. "MS-13 illegal alien," "wrongly deported" vs. silence about it having been wrongful and illegal). Which reminds me that @MilesVorkosigan and I had discussed adding a bit of info from an Allsides about how left/center/right news sources are sometimes using different language (exchange starting here) and perhaps retitling the Media coverage section. If you have thoughts about that, please weigh in. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Deportation and Imprisonment/Detention of ..."
Just saying deportation does not do it justice nor accurately describe what happened. When I first heard about this case referred to as a "deportation," I though well a sympathetic official (likely state) can just pay to fly him back, and was not thinking about this case as a CECOT one. As there have been so many deportations in a short period of time lately, I feel like many people are not able to keep track of which case is which, where they are going, and whether or not its a case involving imprisonment. As such, just saying deportation may be misleading, particularly to those who don't remember each case with a lot of detail, and does not do it justice since the actual case is a lot more serious than it sounds if we just say "deportation." Tritoneditor24 (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably sufficient to just create a new topic on this talk page with a subject along the lines of "Proposal to move the page to _____," filling in the blank with the entire title you propose (perhaps putting quotation marks around the title, and making sure that it's consistent with WP:TITLE). Then add a brief comment along the lines of "Please say whether or not you support this move." In a separate comment, add your own response: "Support", accompanied by your argument for why (which can just be what you said above: the current title "does not do [the situation] justice since the actual case is a lot more serious than it sounds if we just say 'deportation,'" and you think the proposed title better represents the situation). If someone else has a different suggestion, they can say what they propose instead. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there are many more implications and complexities of this "deportation"
Within the United States - Subject to Deportation
Before entering United States - Subject to Exclusion
With the exception of non lawfully admitted persons- Subject to Exclusion
only two indictments in U.S. history, and zero convictions.
The Logan Act (1799) makes it a crime for any unauthorized American citizen to "directly or indirectly" correspond with a foreign government with intent to influence the foreign government's decisions in relation to disputes with the United States.
Important to note: US senators have recognized oversight in foreign policy making it very difficult to formally convict him of violating as private negotiation. Evelynbennett (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Bloomberg estimated that 90% of them had no US criminal record”
This is not correct, iirc crossing the border illegally can be a felony, and since they all crossed illegally, it would mean all of them had at least some criminal record. Juju376 (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you said does not change the fact that Bloomberg did estimate that 90% of them had no US criminal record (their investigation still happened and that was still their estimation). Claiming an investigation is wrong based off you believing it contradicts other facts would fall under Original Research, you would have to find a RS disputing the investigation on those grounds to include this doubt in the article.
But on what you said: First of all, you are operating on the assumption that they all entered the US illegally, which is not an established fact (and you should keep in mind that these people were deported without trial, meaning they never had the chance to present evidence to the contrary, and Venezuelans specifically had TPS for years). Second of all, crossing the border illegally does not automatically result in a criminal record; criminal records require a conviction in a criminal court. Mason7512 (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bloomberg's 90% estimate was for serious crimes: "For the rest of the men, there was no available information showing they committed any crime other than traffic or immigration violations in the U.S." I've updated the text. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mason you are correct in that what I said doesn’t change the fact that they did estimate that, however if that’s the case then what they said not just misleading, it’s false.
Thank you for letting me know about the RS stuff, but I’m fairly new to Wikipedia so I don’t know how to do that.
I am operating on the fact that they entered illegally and you are correct that they didn’t stand trial, but iirc in cases of illigal immigration isn’t the burden of proof on the defendant? Juju376 (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Illegally vs Erroneously
As this has been the subject of talk page discussions before, I thought I'd open a conversation after this change was performed undiscussed. Though this has been opposed, the use of the word "illegally" to describe the deportation in the lead remained after discussions. The edit changed the word "illegally" to "erroneously". Generally, if something has been discussed on the talk page, it should not be changed without finishing or reopening said discussion. I will @ users that were involved in previous discussions and the user who made the change: @FactOrOpinion @Pqmb @Fivey @SydCarlisle @Swatjester @Remember @Mkstokes. Mason7512 (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for highlighting this. I changed it back but erroneously doesn’t make sense but illegally does since that is what sources say and that is what the Supreme Court said. SCOTUS said it was illegal. As is frequently stated “SCOTUS is not final because it is infallible, but it is infallible only because it is final." Remember (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The word "illegally" has a citation right there with a Supreme Court quote to substantiate that the deportation was illegal. The SCOTUS quote is "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." Every lower court also ruled that the removal was illegal. The intent of putting that citation right after the word "illegally" (rather than at the end of the sentence) was to make it less likely that editors would contest the use of that word. The second half of that sentence already says that the government called it "an administrative error," and it makes no sense to say "erroneously ... in what the Trump administration called 'an administrative error.'"
That said, here's an attempt to reword it a bit to preclude further back-and-forth: "Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador who was erroneously and illegally[citation] deported from the United States on March 15, 2025. The Trump administration called it 'an administrative error.'" But I prefer the current wording to this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the current wording as well. I’m not sure Trump has been consistent that this deportation was erroneous and I feel like they are taking the position that it was their stated objective. Remember (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you lump all of the Trump admin. together, then it's inconsistent (or has shifted), but I think it's really two different parts of the Trump admin. The lawyers have said that it was an error, and the people in political positions (Trump, Bondi, Leavitt, Miller, ...) started making a case that it was the right thing to do — not legally, but couched in terms of their policy goals and Trump's "mandate" to deport people, and because he's a ____ (fill in the blank with their negative claims about him), he deserves to be deported and will not be allowed to live here. Perhaps we should even add a sentence about this stance in the lead. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the tragic coincidence of this discussion. From a Wikipedia standpoint, it doesn't matter that the Supreme Court and "[e]very lower court also ruled that the removal was illegal." All of that means absolutely nothing unless a "reliable secondary source" reports that the courts said it. Yet, every response here talks about the courts calling it "illegal." Yes, it was illegal and "erroneous" only has to do with when Abrego Garcia was deported, not if he was going to be illegally deported. They meant to put him on a different plane. I don't think the word erroneously applies at all because their intent was to deport him, period. Yes, he deserves to be deported, by law, because he's a illegal alien. He should have been deported in 2019. But for some reason he wasn't deported until now. The illegal part had to do with the country to which he was deported and if he's returned he likely can be legally deported to almost any other country in the world other than El Salvador. I don't think "erroneously" applies in this context. Mkstokes (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of reliable secondary sources pointing out the SCOTUS and lower courts called it illegal. We've cited several in the article. And as I already pointed out to you: if you believe that WP:BLPPRIMARY's proscription against using court documents is a bad policy, nothing prevents you from raising that in the appropriate place, which is at WT:BLP, not here.
As for Yes, it was illegal and "erroneous" only has to do with when Abrego Garcia was deported, not if he was going to be illegally deported, that's quite a Freudian slip there. He's not supposed to be "illegally deported", no matter when. I don't think the word erroneously applies at all. And you're free to have that personal opinion, but it cannot influence how we describe it in the article. The government stated that it was an "administrative error." Lots of RSs reported this, and it's our job to accurately summarize what RSs have said, abiding by all policies. he deserves to be deported, by law, because he's a illegal alien. He should have been deported in 2019. More personal opinion. US law does not require that all people in the country illegally must be deported (so there is no "deserves" and "should"), and RSs have stated that he had legal status as of 2019; DHS gave him legal permission to work here since then, which was renewed annually. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point but there's no surprise there because you're not trying to understand. 🤦 I'll greatly simplify it. We are lucky there are "plenty" of reporting on this issue, because I've seen several instances where there was almost no reporting on a court issue. So, despite having court documents explicitly providing the outcome, the truth could be posted on any cite in the world EXCEPT Wikipedia, where opinion matters more than truth. There was no Freudian slip. The Trump administration intends to deporting some individuals illegally in order to test existing immigration laws. It's like when Biden purposely ignored the Supreme Court with regard to student loan forgiveness (https://youtube.com/shorts/7u5hCy7KCQo). Executive administration do this all the time in order to push an agenda. So there was no Freudian slip due to an "unconscious subdued wish" as I don't wish for any administration to illegally deport anyone. If you're going to use psychological terms, please make sure you understand what they mean. Finally, there was no real error on the part of the government, even though someone said so. According to Robert L. Cerna, the Acting Field Office Director, the following are true: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.11.3_2.pdf
6. On March 15, 2025, two planes carrying aliens being removed under the Alien Enemies Act (“AEA”) and one carrying aliens with Title 8 removal orders departed the United States for El Salvador. Abrego-Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was on the third flight and thus had his removal order to El Salvador executed. This removal was an error.
11. On March 12, 2025, ICE Homeland Security Investigations arrested Abrego Garcia due to his prominent role in MS-13. Over the next two days, Abrego-Garcia was transferred to the staging area for the removal flights discussed in Paragraph 6.
12. The operation that led to Abrego-Garcia’s removal to El Salvador was designed to only include individuals with no impediments to removal. Generally, individuals were not placed on the manifest until they were cleared for removal.
13. ICE was aware of this grant of withholding of removal at the time Abrego Garcia’s removal from the United States. Reference was made to this status on internal forms.
14. Abrego-Garcia was not on the initial manifest of the Title 8 flight to be removed to El Salvador. Rather, he was an alternate. As others were removed from the flight for various reasons, he moved up the list and was assigned to the flight. The manifest did not indicate that Abrego-Garcia should not be removed.
15. Through administrative error, Abrego-Garcia was removed from the United States to El Salvador. This was an oversight, and the removal was carried out in good faith based on the existence of a final order of removal and Abrego-Garcia’s purported membership in MS-13.
But since court documents can NEVER be used on a WP:BLP and no news organization has written about ALL these details AFAIK, we will never know on Wikipedia that despite ICE knowing he was not to be deported, they did it anyway. Not only did they know his status, it was on internal forms. Despite the paperwork, he was put on a listed as a "alternate" on the flight! You're welcome to believe it was an accident, but I'd certainly love to have these details on Wikipedia. But we can't add them because no "reliable secondary source" has reported all of them. Mkstokes (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point ... I'm not. you're not trying to understand That's false too. I'm telling you, again, that you keep complaining about WP:BLPPRIMARY as a policy, and that the place to voice that is not here, where it does nothing to improve the article, but at WT:BLP, where you can try to convince people to change the policy. since... no news organization has written about ALL these details AFAIK, we will never know on Wikipedia that despite ICE knowing he was not to be deported, they did it anyway. SMH. You could have just asked for help finding RS news reports about it, for example, this CNN report, which quotes relevant text from Cerna's declaration.
I don't wish for any administration to illegally deport anyone Great, I didn't say that you did. If you're going to use psychological terms, please make sure you understand what they mean. I do understand the meaning of "Freudian slip," thanks, and it's not limited to an unconscious subdued wish (look it up if you don't know that it also refers to some other kinds of unconscious slips). I assumed that "illegally" was a slip, which turned out to have been a mistaken assumption on my end; thanks for correcting me. The Trump administration intends to deporting some individuals illegally in order to test existing immigration laws. That's quite a claim. Maybe it's true, but we have no evidence that they intended to deport Abrego Garcia illegally. there was no real error on the part of the government. The courts disagree. And Cerna stated under penalty of perjury that "This removal was an error. ... Through administrative error, Abrego-Garcia was removed from the United States to El Salvador." Do you think he committed perjury? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have just said that there was 'no real error' and then included a quote from Cerna's statement that includes at least one lie and the claim that the victim here was removed 'through administrative error'.
Your own source is disagreeing with you. You might want to take a breath and edit some articles that you don't have such strong political motivations about. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Organization of the Trump administration content that's case-related
Right now, there's Trump admin. content about the case spread across several sections:
"Trump administration inaction and efforts to influence public perception," a subsection of "Facilitating" Abrego Garcia's return
"False and misleading information spread by the Trump administration" (it's own section)
"Trump administration," a subsection of Reactions
(There's also "Trump administration deportation policy," a subsection of Background, but the content of that subsection is not specific to this case, so it's not relevant to my question. I don't think it needs to move.)
I think that the numbered content above should probably be reorganized, but I'm uncertain about what organization would be best and figured I'd ask here before launching in moving things around. My current thinking:
Have a "Trump administration inaction" section within "Facilitating" Abrego Garcia's return, focused only on the administration's legal responses, and move the "efforts to influence public perception" content
Create an "Efforts to influence public perception" section (Heading level) with a couple of subsections, one for the Trump Administration and one for Abrego Garcia's wife and lawyers. Within the Trump Admin. section: (1) place the remainder of the content that's currently in "Trump administration inaction and efforts to influence public perception" and (2) add a subsection (at a lower heading level) for "False and misleading information spread by the Trump administration." Move the content from the third bullet into one of these as appropriate.
This works in theory, though right now, we don't have much content about the efforts of Abrego Garcia's wife and lawyers to influence public perception of the case. An alternative: just create a "Trump administration efforts to influence public perception" section, with a "False and misleading information" subsection, and move content as proposed in the second bullet. That's easier to do, but I have NPOV concerns (for that matter, we should probably look for some media commentary from conservatives).
Does anyone have suggestions or other responses? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think your suggestions make sense to me. Either one works. I think I have less concerns without having a counter to how Trump has run a big PR campaign on this because I think that reflects reality. Trump has deported this person and then run a big pr campaign to justify it and others are scrambling to react. Remember (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing media bias is a hotly and generally opinionated topic.
It would be far easier and more fact-based to more directly explain the nature of nonjudicial removals and use the sources provided as information regarding how long they have been done, the statistics involved regarding numbers of persons removed through nonjudicial removal procedures, its significance during previous and current administrations, etc. Armeym (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that those deported by Obama were deported to their home countries as free persons, not renditioned in chains to a gulag for their rest of their lives. Carlstak (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to add that claim to the page about Obama's presidency, but you should include what RS say about the very large amount of criticism he got from the left about his immigration policies.
OK. So basically you people are saying that the sources that I posted are pretty good, but that it would be better to put them in a different article. I understand. Thanks for explaining that, as well as for the welcome. I appreciate everything that all of you said. R5Y93mdf (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Scope/OOS - RE: 'Proposals to jail American citizens'
Of course I understand the information is categorically relevant -- at least regarding the broader story of questionable or contentious immigration policy and court battles -- but it does seem a bit OOS for a page specificallyabout the removal of an individual who is not a US citizen and I would also note that Kilmar Abrego Garcia's name does not appear a single time in that entire section. Armeym (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The entire section should be removed from this article as it has absolutely nothing to do with the "Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia." Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is not and has never been a U.S. citizen. He has never been incarcerated in the U.S. or any other country for criminal behavior. He's not accused of being a "Tesla attacker" or any other form of vandalism. As @Armeym said, Garcia's name is not mentioned in the section and the three articles used a reliable sources for the claim (AP, USA Today, and Politico) don't mention Garcia either. How this section got added here is beyond me but it looks like some IP address added it and then everyone else started adding to it. It should be removed immediately. The biggest editor was @Kizor who seems to have cut and pasted the info from the March 2025 American deportations of Venezuelans article. I'd removed it because it doesn't belong here. Mkstokes (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general I agree that a long discussion of the issue shouldn’t be on this page but I could see that being an article on its own with a link on this page. It possible for added to this page because Sotamayor specifically noted that the current legal position of the Trump administration could be used verbatim to justify it imprisoning American citizens in foreign prisons with no recourse. Remember (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Remember, there definitely needs to be a link, because Trump has said he wants to do the exact same thing to US citizens, this is clearly relevant given his hostility to due process. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion at Talk:March 2025 American deportations of Venezuelans § PROPOSED SPLIT - PLEASE VOTE HERE about whether the scope of that article should instead be all deportations to CECOT (in which case the article would be moved to an appropriate title), or if it should instead be split, with some of it being transferred to a new article about all deportations to CECOT. You might want to weigh in there. Discussion about Trump's proposal to send Americans there would be appropriate in the general discussion (either in the current article, if enlarged, or in a new article, if split). I agree that this doesn't warrant a section here, but I think a brief mention here could be warranted, linked to Sotomayor's statement, and I'll see if I can find an RS bringing together Abrego Garcia/Sotomayor's statement/Trump's plan. If I can find that, perhaps we can mention it in the Reactions / Media commentators section. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We already have a link between those two, since Sotomayor's statement is part of the court's response in Noem v. Abrego Garcia. What I need to find is a discussion linking Sotomayor's statement and Trump's statement about deporting Americans to CECOT. I haven't gotten to it yet, but I will. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So this opens yet another option to redo/refine the scope of this section.
A title such as "Legal implications" could summarize that quote from Sotomayor "Similar concerns were echoed by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote in the court’s ruling in Abrego Garcia’s case: “The government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.”"
Placement for info on Dem Reps also in El Salvador
Today I've seen reporting about four Democrat members of the House of Reps visiting El Salvador to also demand his release. Before I attempt to add to the page, I was wondering if I could get some consensus on where to put this new information. Should it go in the Congressional Reactions subsection or in its own subsection following the Chris Van Hollen section? Trilomonk (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Chris Van Hollen section could use more information as all that is there now is the Logan Act which doesn't necessarily apply as of now. more information on house of reps visiting and what this could mean or not would be interesting! Evelynbennett (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a section dedicated to misinformation spread by the Trump administration... I think that alone shows bias. There's no need to adress that here. And if we're going that route, there should also be a collection of misinformation by the other side. But the best solution still is to get rid of the section. 77.172.146.248 (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have reliable sources that show the other side is spreading misinformation related to this case, then please present them and we can include them in the article. We included the misinformation because various news sources have specifically noted that issue with regards to this case. We don’t make up history, we just document what reliable sources are saying about history and currently they are saying across the political spectrum that in this case the Trump administration has been spreading lies and misinformation. Not my words, the words of reliable sources. Remember (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The government disinformation is absolutely needed because it is one of the central issues around this situation. We need to be neutral, but we aren't required to pretend that we believe lies. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of removing an entire section that is relevant, it should probably be retitled since it now contains more than only "false information from trump admin."
The title can be more broad since the scope being set by the title is that everything in that section should be objectively false statements made by the administration. SCOPE of section; WP:WTW; WP:MOS.
Or...The section's content needs to be better vetted and the content directly not from the trump admin should be moved to another "information" section. Armeym (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why "government disinformation" is "absolutely needed" for this article, so I don't see the need for a section dedicated to it. Throughout the article, instances of conflict between what the government says and what "reliable sources" say are provided. I'm looking at the COVID-19 misinformation article and there is no "False and misleading information spread by the Biden administration" section. In fact, in that massive article, "Biden administration" is only mentioned ONCE! In that light, the admonition that "We need to be neutral, but we aren't required to pretend that we believe lies" falls on deaf ears. If an event that killed millions worldwide doesn't need a "Biden" or "Trump" administration disinformation section. I don't see why this one does. This article doesn't even come close to ignoring conflicts in information.
Off the top of my head I can think of other disinformation. How about the defense or even Abrego Garcia's wife not disclosing the two restraining orders? His lawyer saying there's "no evidence" that he's a MS-13 when there are tattos, a confidential informat, clothing, and the mere fact that he's hanging out with known gang members? Bukele called Abrego Garcia a "terrorist" during a White House meeting. Bukele stated it was “preposterous” to suggest he could return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. Overstating Garcia’s innocence as a "model citizen." Exaggerating prison conditions for political impact. Claiming definitive innocence without addressing evidence. If we keep this section in here, it will get longer than the meat of the article. Mkstokes (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to address your partisan feelings about Covid on the appropriate pages. They are irrelevant here.
The restraining orders are obviously irrelevant and none of that is actual evidence of being a gang member. If you have a reliable source showing that he has any kind of non-moving violation/non-immigration criminal record, you are free to post it.
If you want to add Bukele calling Abrego Garcia a terrorist to the misinformation section, you are free to do so.
Your belief that due process does not apply to anyone who isn't a 'model citizen' is best addressed on the pages for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
If you have reliable sources showing that people are exaggerating conditions at the torture prison, you are free to post those on the page for the prison. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MilesVorkosigan, we are told "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." As a biography, every aspect of his life is relevant and of course the restraining orders aren't evidence he's a gang member. However, in regards to this deportation event, "reliable sources" have mentioned the restraining orders, so since they have, they are relevant, period. That is why they are mentioned in this article. I didn't say "due process does not apply to anyone who isn't a 'model citizen'," so I don't know why you are addressing this. I said "[o]verstating Garcia’s innocence as a 'model citizen'" is misinformation with no mention of due process whatsoever. As is refering to him as just a "Maryland man" and not an illegal alien, which by law he is and even admitted to the police that he was. But your point seems move all other misinformation somewhere especially if is hurts Abrego Garcia's case, but keep the other stuff here. Mkstokes (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It must adhere to the policy, that doesn't mean the article itself is a biography. Read the title of the article again.
And no, 'reliable sources' saying something doesn't automatically make it relevant. You, yourself have argued a number of times that things in the article from reliable sources should be removed. Please stop trying to apply policies differently based on partisanship
Obviously, I'm addressing the way you keep wanting to put in irrelevant information to defame the victim here and make it look like he deserves illegal treatment.
No, obviously that wasn't my point. Again, as people keep telling you, if you disagree with BLP, you should go to the BLP page and try to have it changed. Complaining about it here doesn't do anything but clog up the talk page. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly what specifically we are talking about, the title of the section or the tones/opinions expressed in it's writing? The title could be a bit better, or at least shorter..."False and misleading information" = Misinformation. But the section could be broadened to hold more information.
For example the part about the tattoos seems to still be up in the air about whether or not it is factually related to the gang in question.
The content is relevant to the story of the deportation and should remain but I question some word-choices as a few bits of the content feels more like we are including opinions of journalists instead of being plainly encyclopedic while using their articles as sources of truth.
For example:
"The Daily Newspaper found the claim 'Government official saying something wrong' to be false (because....)"
Instead this section includes parts like this:
" The Daily Newspaper found the claim Government official saying something wrong' to be false and the magazine called it a "disgraceful performance." "'
" The Daily Newspaper found the claim Government official saying something wrong' to be false and a commentator stated that this was "deeply misleading" "'Armeym (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2025
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
He was illegally deported. The Supreme Court said that it was illegal, as did the lower courts. If you choose not to believe all of these court rulings, OK, but this article is not about any of our personal beliefs. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia[a][b] is a citizen of El Salvador who was illegally[8][9] deported from the United States on March 15, 2025, in what the Trump administration called 'an administrative error.'"
Garcia was not illegally deported. He was an illegal alien, and is still a member of the criminal gang, MS-13. Whether someone in the Trump administration said his deportation was an "error," or the media invented that claim, the Trump administration is not saying that now.2603:7000:B23D:C116:19F1:400A:B013:2F02 (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to find a reliable source that shows the Supreme Court of the United States was mistaken when they said it was illegal, or any *reliable* source that shows he's in a gang. Until then, posting the unsourced claim isn't going to help. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Erez Reuveni
NBC News reports that Justice Connection, "a network of former Justice Department employees", defended Reuveni, saying "Justice Department attorneys are being put in an impossible position: Obey the president, or uphold their ethical duty to the court and the Constitution". Is this something we should mention in Reuveni's subsection, or are we not in the business of covering how everything that's done regarding Abrego Garcia's case is also endlessly blathered about in the media? --Kizor13:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It could, but I (personally) don't place a high priority on that. I may retitle Second presidency of Donald Trump § Justice Department investigations (a subsection of Actions against political opponents and the media), so that it also includes actions taken against career employees of the DOJ (lawyers, FBI), and then add a few sentences there. I've actually been wanting to create an article about political firings and protest resignations in the second Trump admin., but haven't gotten around to it. Mention of this group would be relevant there, as some of the people who created the group were fired or resigned in this way, and the group's goal is to help DOJ lawyers who've left the dept. in one of these two ways. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's it @FactOrOpinion. Keep fighting the good fight online!! Based on your contribution history, you've spent the vast majority of your edits setting the record straight in regards to Donald Trump. So there's no surprise you've "been wanting to create an article about political firings and protest resignations in the second Trump admin." What will you do when he's gone in a few years? I look forward to reading more of your unbiased, neutral point of view analysis of the Trump administration! 🫡🇺🇸 Mkstokes (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to WP:CIVIL before commenting further. This page is for discussion of the article Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, not attacking fellow editors. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This policy does not require editors to continue to assume good faith when there is evidence that they have bad faith." (See Wikipedia:Assume good faith) As evidence, I provide the entire edit history of the user @FactOrOpinion. Thus civility isn't necessarily required in this instance, but if you review their contribution history and you think it doesn't show bias I'd be glad to change my opinion based on new evidence.
I did not refer to WP:AGF. There is no exclusion in WP:CIVIL for "But I don't think the other editor is neutral enough".
If you believe that something they have posted is *that* far from good faith, you should discuss it here on the talk page, or report it to the admin page, not make personal attacks with no diffs or references to an edit. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your OPINION is noted, @MilesVorkosigan, but I don't honestly care about your opinion in this regard. Under other circumstances, of course your opinion would be countenanced. But thank you for telling me what I should or should not do in this instance. I have discussed it here in detail but I don't expect any action upon it because Wikipedia, has an obvious political bias and the narratives associated with it are acceptable here. That will not stop me from pointing it out and providing evidence of it. Wikipedia is not a way of life, it's a platform for leftist propaganda, so no, going to the admin page is NEVER an option, leftist editors know this, and thus they operate with impunity. Or, as at least two leftist editors have told me, without ever being handled properly by admins, "Facts have a liberal bias." But thank you for the useless suggestions. Good day, sir. Mkstokes (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some information you would like to add or remove from this page? Or do you not have a content complaint and just have issues with another editor? Remember (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell he is mad that WP:BLP applies to an article like this, but does not want to discuss changing the policy at the policy page. Plus there were some complaints about how the article didn't insult the victim enough, because apparently people are being too sympathetic towards the lack of due process/rendition to the torture prison. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't an opinion, it was a reference to the rules of the site you are on.
You did not point anything out or provide any evidence, which is... kind of the point. You're just complaining and making personal attacks at this point. Take a breather and if you think that there is something biased in the article, come back and address the *facts*, not emotions or feelings. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about using common sense. For English Wikipedia "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Instead, these rules and policies are used in an effort to do Wikilawyering. The WP:BLP clearly says court documents can be used in certain circumstances. But it's been corruppted to mean those documents can't be used in ANY circumstance, which makes no common sense. The end result is even if a "reliable secondary source" does provide their opinion about it, then, for instance, the Department of Homeland Security's release of supporting documentation for their position towards the subject of this article gets removed from this article. We can talk about the Supreme Court's ruling that the Trump administration acted illegally, but we can't provide the official U.S. government document says so!!! That makes no sense. Instead of focusing on making this article the best possible article, it's just yet another massive attack on the Trump administration with even a specific section of the article designated for attacks.
Why does the "Media commentators" section only have anti-Trump information in it?
Why does the "Members of Congress" section only have anti-Trump information in it?
There's no need to go through all the items in the "Responses" section, because they are all negative. How is that writing an article from a neutral point of view. Plus the entire "Proposals to jail American citizens" has absolutely nothing to do with the Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia but it's still here and being added to. All of these points keep being brought up, with all of them being rejected. So addressing "the *facts*" has provided no changes whatsoever and we all know why.
HERE'S A REMINDER
You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Yes, we already said that, but it is worth repeating.
Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit (see also Use common sense, below).
Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labeled "guideline" or "policy", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of many editors (see also Wikipedia:Consensus).
Most rules are ultimately descriptive, not prescriptive; they describe existing current practice. They sometimes lag behind the practices they describe (see also Wikipedia:Product, process, policy).
The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored (see also Wikipedia:The rules are principles).
Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you (see also Wikipedia:Civility).
If you have information from reliable source that is pertinent that you want to add, please add it. If you have reliable sources regarding "Media commentators" section that is pro-Trump from reliable sources, please add it. If you have reliable sources regarding “members of Congress” that is pro-Trump, please add it. If you want to fight about the nature of citing primary sources, please bring that up on the talk page for that policy to discuss the relevant policy. If you think we aren’t following the policy here, please report that to admins and so we can find consensus. Remember (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
even if a "reliable secondary source" does provide their opinion about it, then, for instance, the Department of Homeland Security's release of supporting documentation for their position towards the subject of this article gets removed from this article. How about you provide a diff where someone has removed secondary source reporting about the DHS docs? For example, right now, the article includes the following about the documents that DHS released:
The Trump administration also presented documents and press releases from the Department of Homeland Security that intended to show Abrego Garcia as "as a [MS-13] gang member with a violent history". The documents include information related to the 2019 arrest and immigration hearings, information related to a 2021 protective order, and information related to a 2022 traffic stop. This was part of "aggressively building a case against the native Salvadoran [...] designed to combat an onslaught of criticism from Democrats and intensifying scrutiny from the courts."
What else do you think it should say, and what's the secondary RS you want to use to support that addition?
As for your concerns about the article, like Remember, I encourage you to improve it. If you think there's something missing and you need help finding an RS for it, you can ask for help.
You falsely alleged above that I am engaged in bad faith editing. As WP:NPA notes, personal attacks include "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." You haven't provided a diff showing even one bad faith edit by me. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the government's lies about MS-13 membership *are* included in the article. You should really read it instead of wasting all your time ranting on the talk page.
If you want to add a section about why the government should be able to ignore the Constitution and court rulings, you are free to bring that up here on the talk page, nobody is stopping you.
If you don't understand why non-partisan viewers have a negative reaction to the government ignoring the Constitution, I'm not sure how we can help you, but it calls into question your ability to contribute to an encyclopedia. Have you considered going to Facebook or something and yelling at people there? It's more designed for that kind of thing.
And none of the rules you quoted have anything to do with your personal attacks against other editors. There is no exception for "saying things about the leader of my political party" to WP:NPA. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, @MilesVorkosigan, you either don't understand what I'm saying or are being purposely obtuse. I fully understand why non-partisan viewers have a negative reaction because I have a negative reaction. There is no indication the government is "ignoring the Constitution," which is a very biased assessment on your part. Rather, there is an ongoing legal process without a final decision on constitutional grounds. Thus here is no argument to make "on this page" as to the government ignoring the Constitution and your help is unnecessary. However, the fact that you don't know the Supreme Court has not officially weighted in on the Constitutionality of the Trump administration's actions (The Supreme Court is the intimate arbiter of what is and isn't Constitutional) "calls into question your ability to contribute to an encyclopedia." The recent opinion provided by the Supreme Court doesn't reach a constitutional question and there is no mention of the constitution in it whatsoever. Rather, it is an "Opinions Relating to Orders," which remands aspects of the case back to the lower court. Furthermore, merely because something is "illegal" does not make it unconstitutional. Breaking the speed limit is illegal, it is not unconstitutional. As it pertains to jurisprudence, you are obviously out of your depth. But you have given me a chuckle.
As it pertains to MS-13 membership, thank you for expressing your bias. At least we now know where you stand and aren't even remotely objective. From a legal standpoint, his MS-13 membership is still at issue, thus neither lies nor truths. I've already started to add my edits. More to come. I'll note that the statement regarding "due process" by Justice Sotomayor was only signed by two other justices. Thus it is not controlling. Mkstokes (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understand your position completely. And of course, since the Supreme Court has already ruled, we do know what their opinion is.
Again, if you don't even know what SCOTUS says about this, you should stop trying to correct people who do know, and go read the linked sources.
I did not say that something being illegal makes it unconstitutional, you made that up so you could feel as if you understand the topic.
You are allowed to pretend that you believe the victim is a member of MS-13 because of your partisanship, but the encyclopedia is based on facts, not political propaganda. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication the government is "ignoring the Constitution," which is a very biased assessment on your part. You're the one who (earlier) said "The Trump administration intends to deporting some individuals illegally." A president purposefully breaking the law, especially ignoring due process (part of the Bill of Rights) ignores his constitutional requirement to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
there is an ongoing legal process without a final decision on constitutional grounds. Which constitutional issue are you referring to? SCOTUS stated that A.G.'s "removal to El Salvador was ... illegal," that "[Xinis's] order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador," and that "the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps," which the admin. has so far refused to do.
it is an "Opinions Relating to Orders" It was released on that page because the order from the court was accompanied by Sotomayor's opinion.
From a legal standpoint, his MS-13 membership is still at issue The only way that it can be a legal issue is if the government brings him back to the US, which, again, it has so far refused to do.
I'll note that the statement regarding "due process" by Justice Sotomayor was only signed by two other justices. Thus it is not controlling. SMH. The Fifth Amendment states "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Everyone is the US is constitutionally entitled to due process. No one needs a "controlling" opinion from SCOTUS to be guaranteed due process. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki Education assignment: Informed Citizenship
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2025 and 23 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Evelynbennett (article contribs).
I reverted it. It absolutely could be valuable if based on more reliable sources, but obviously it should include discussion that MAGA is again trying to push the idea that the victim "is no angel" in order to get people to think that it's okay to deny him due process and equal protection under the law.
For example, we could mention that the government is lying and claiming that the victim is a human trafficker and a high-level member of MS-13 without any proof, while people are angry that he is (truthfully) described as a 'Maryland resident'. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section is specifically about the global framing of Abrego Garcia as a "Maryland man" by the majority of news sources, not about his character, him being "no angel" or anything else. None of those issues are related to this framing and your reference to MAGA, lying, and other items is prima facie evidence of your bias. I provided argument from both sides as to the reference and invite you to do so as well. But this is not an opportunity to add more anti-Trump screed to the article. Mkstokes (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the reason why MAGA people have been programmed to yell about this is relevant to the subject, what are you talking about?
@MilesVorkosigan, MAGA people is a pejorative and you know it. It was used by the Biden administration and Kamala throughout the 2024 election campaign. The fact that you're using it here was well as the derogatory reference to them being "programmed" is evidence of your bias. That's not truth or fact, it's opinion and you should know the difference. If you want to give other references in that section about others decaying the use of the term "Maryland man" go ahead, but provide reliable secondary sources saying it's MAGA propaganda or that they have been programmed and who programmed them. I provided both sides of the argument and intend to add more. You are essentially saying there's only one side. 🤦🏾♂️ Mkstokes (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing the issues on the talk page does not require 'reliable secondary sources' for things that we all know are true. That's for the dictionary pages.
And it's rich that you're complaining about reliable sources after linking to "The Hungarian Conservative".
Saying MAGA people "have been programmed to yell about this" when another editor's obviously going to take it personally crosses into a dick move. --Kizor20:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to discuss *why* they feel it's so important to push the 'no angel' line in support of denying due process. We shouldn't ignore that part of the story. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, @Kizor. I am not a MAGA person, so it doesn't impact me, but it's clearly meant to demean. As to the usage of the Hungarian Conservative, Wikipedia has clear guidelines on the usage of sources which no opinion as to reliability has been made and I've followed policy. Mkstokes (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it comes across as SYNTHy because the sentence "It cites articles from Politico, Axios, Reuters, NPR, PBS, ABC News, The Guardian, and CNN, which actually refers to him as a 'Maryland resident'" includes a lot of citations and makes it look like OR. Here's the basis in the Hungarian Conservative opinion piece that's referenced in the first sentence: "Mr García became ‘Maryland man’ in all the headlines of news articles, such as ones by POLITICO, Axios, Reuters, NPR, PBS (the latter two are currently fighting defunding by a Republican Congress), ABC News, and The Guardian. Or, alternatively, he is the ‘Maryland dad’, for example, in the headline for a piece by CNN." As an opinion piece, WP:NEWSOPED is in play (e.g., it should be attributed to the author, Márton Losonczi, as well as the magazine). I don't think that the quote about the census and illegal immigration is DUE.
NEWSOPED also applies to the opinion piece printed in The Hill, which should only be attributed to the author, since The Hill states "The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill." We can certainly note false statements that are being presented in conservative media, like Becket Adams false claim that Abrego Garcia "has been living in the U.S. illegally since 2011" (his residence here became legal in 2019 when he was granted withholding of removal). "Most recently residing in the state of Maryland" is a bit misleading; AFAIK, he's been living in MD since 2011. I'm also uncertain that "Maryland man" merits a section on its own, given that it's a fact that he has Maryland residency. It's unsurprising that Sen. Van Hollen talks about the family as constituents: they are, since constituents are not limited to citizens. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FactOrOpinion the statement that is patently false. He has been living here illegally since 2019. All the order said was that he could not be removed to El Salvador, not that he was all of a sudden a legal resident of the U.S. Quote: "Withholding of removal, in contrast to asylum, confers only the right not to be deported to a particular country rather than the right to remain in the U.S." (Garcia removal proceedings) In fact, Abrego Garcia's lawyer admitted this in court filings and Garcia also admitted he was here illegally. He was denied both asylum and parole. @Bremps This can't possibly be WP:SYNTH because I've quoted what the article said. Synth says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." How is providing what was said by each source synth? Mkstokes (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pay attention to details. I did not claim or imply that he had "the right to remain in the U.S." I said that he was here legally since 2019. Do you understand the difference? (For example, someone here on a tourist visa is here legally but does not have a right to remain.) "Withholding is like asylum in that it keeps you from being sent back to your country, and it means you may live and work legally in the U.S." (source) Don't like that source? How about the 4th Circuit's statement of facts that "Abrego Garcia is an El Salvadoran national who has been lawfully present in the United States since 2019, when he was granted withholding of removal to El Salvador" (source). A grant of WOR means that the person is legally in the US until the US moves to remove them, either by deporting them to a third country, or by going back to the immigration court and convincing a judge to end the WOR. "Abrego Garcia's lawyer admitted this in court filings" Quote it; I suspect that you're again confusing whether he was living here legally with whether he had a right to remain. "Garcia also admitted he was here illegally." He did that in March of 2019, before he was granted withholding of removal in October, which changed whether he was here legally. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He was in Maryland legally as undocumented immigrants (illegal aliens) are allowed to establish residency in liberal states like Maryland. However, he was in the U.S. illegally which is why he could be deported to any country other that El Salvador at any time. Yes, details matter. Mkstokes (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"he was in the U.S. illegally " Only until Oct. of 2019. I already gave you two sources of evidence that it's false after that. Who do you think understands his legal status better: you or the 4th Circuit? I'll take their legal opinion over yours. (And to be clear: their statement was about the US, not MD; your claim about MD is irrelevant.) Re: "undocumented immigrants," what kind of documents are you talking about? He had documentation issued by the federal government in at least two forms (and probably more than two): his DHS employment authorization document (EAD), and his ICE order of supervision document (OSUP). As for "he was in the U.S. illegally which is why he could be deported to any country other that El Salvador at any time," the group of people who can be deported is not limited to those who are here illegally. As another example, the US is trying to deport Mahmoud Khalil, who has lawful permanent residence; he's not here illegally. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this warrants an entire section, I suggest renaming it more broadly as "Media coverage", which will be helpful if we want to include anything similar. Mason7512 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this whole section based on a theory by an opinion person for the “Hungarian Conservative”? Is the Hungarian Conservative considered a notable or reliable source? If not, I would suggest we delete this section unless we can get a more notable reliable source to make this point. Remember (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no opinion regarding the Hungarian Conservative. Thus, as policy dictates, I've made a specific reference to it being their opinion. The section also has a reference to the "Maryland man" framing from The Hill, which Wikipedia says "The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline." There are multiple references to those listed media sources referencing "Maryland man" and I'm in the process of fixing additional links. Finally, a counter framing is provided by Senator Van Hollen, to give the other side of the story as well as a detailed interview. Why one would suggest removing the entire section is beyond me, but I think I know why. Mkstokes (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think a better reference for this section than the Hungarian Conservative would be the question by Tim Pool in the White House briefing room today. see at youtu.be/9nJpjcC5myU So I would suggest the section lead with that and not the Hungarian conservative since Tim seems more notable and the interaction at the white house seems more notable than the opinion piece in the Hungarian Conservative and it still brings up this point. Remember (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would totally agree with leading with the comments provided by Tim Pool in the White House briefing room today. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Mkstokes (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are several sites including the below. So what if she looks bad. Why would that even factor into the consideration of weather or not to cover it in relation to the deportation of Abrego Garcia? Is there some Wikipedia policy stating that we must only use content that makes individuals referenced by the source "look good?" If so, please provide that rule/policy, @MilesVorkosigan
@MilesVorkosigan, color me shocked that you're going to add only negative content regarding the Trump administration and MAGA people to any article that you can and not provide WP:BALANCE. You've made your intentions clear. Keep fighting that good fight. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to improve the article and not use it as a platform or conduit for our political views. Time to stop feeding the trolls 🧌. My apologies to everyone in regards to my personal comments. I'll walk away. Mkstokes (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkstokes As you know, that is a flat out lie, I literally just said I was not going to add it to the article and I have not.
We only have the “Maryland man” subheading under “Media Coverage” and no other discussion regarding media coverage. Thus, I would suggest we move the Maryland Man section to a subsection under “Reactions” since that section is not talking about any other media issues right now. Remember (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. There's a Media commentators section there, though it's not clear to me how the few items were chosen, given how much reporting there's been on this. (I added the content about Elizabeth Shackelford's opinion piece because I thought some of what she wrote added something new: about starting with "unpopular populations," like gang members, before broadening a tool's use to other groups, and the link to the Declaration of Independence.) We actually haven't said much about the news reporting on this. I don't know if there's much meta-commentary about the news reporting itself (e.g., the "Maryland man" framing across news outlets). That's clearly distinct from news reporting that's directly addressing the case. I'll do a quick search to see if I come up with anything else of that sort. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Conservative Hungarians is a "magazine" which was only created a few years ago, and I can find no indication that it is any sort of major publication. I haven't seen any evidence that it's notable enough for it's views to merit inclusion in this article. And I think it's only a single editor who thinks this belongs in the article.
My inclination would be just to delete it, unless better known sources are found making the same claim. Doing a poll if necessary to vote on this action.
I'd never heard of the Hungarian Conservative, so that particular piece (or at least the opinion in the second sentence of that paragraph) may not be DUE. But I think Mkstokes' goal was to introduce a conservative perspective per NPOV, which is an appropriate goal. When that text was introduced, there was also content from this opinion column by Becket Adams; that could be added back in, along with keeping the comment from Tim Pool. My only concern is that Adams claims that A.G. was still in the country illegally when he was deported, whereas reliable sources say things like "[Abrego Garcia] has been lawfully present in the United States since 2019, when he was granted withholding of removal to El Salvador" (the 4th Circuit) and "[since the withholding of removal order] Abrego Garcia has lived and worked legally in Maryland" (NPR), so we need to be clear that it's Adams' opinion that A.G. was living illegally in the US through 2025.
If Mkstokes has a GREL news (not opinion) source saying that A.G. was still here illegally in 2025, then the current article text "The U.S. Department of Homeland Security granted him a work permit, and he lived and worked legally in Maryland" post 2019 should be changed to something like "... he worked legally in Maryland. Some new sources say that he was still living illegally in the country [cite source], and other news sources say that from that point on, he was living in the country legally [cite source]." FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had never heard of the Hungarian Conservative and actively looked to see what I could find out about it. Almost nothing. It could be a failure in my google skills (and that I don't speak Hungarian) but it could be a little magazine for a few English speaking Expats.
I think adding The Hill as a reference is a much better idea, and the author Becket Adams isn't notable enough for his own wikipedia article but he is an actual voice in conservative movement and apparently the current director of the National Journalism Center.
I do understand the problem of introducing falsehoods even under opinion. But I think there are other quotes we can take out of the article or just paraphrasing the key point without mentioning the false claim. Bob drobbs (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FactOrOpinion, I agree The Hill article should be added back to this section while including a direct reference to it being Becket Adams' opinion as to Abrego Garcia's legality. An editor removed this citation as well as an extended quote from the Conservative Hungarians because they deemed it a "silly opinion" and "conspiracy theory" which is not a valid Wikipedia rule or policy to warrant rejection of a citation. Mkstokes (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no Wikipedia rule or policy regarding disallowing citations of "magazines." People is a magazine and it is a WP:RSP as well as many other magazines. In addition, there is no such Wikipedia policy regarding "major publications" or the timeframe that a secondary source needs to be active in order for it to be cited as a source, so none of the criteria provided is controling. The goal is not to find sources making the exact same claim in this regard. It's the establish that the "Maryland man" framing is prevelant throughtout mainstream media, which it demonstrably is. I had provide at least a dozen citations for the listed new sources that used the moniker "Maryland man" or something to that effect, but all of them were deleted for some reason. I'll note that even for the Tim Pool reference, I cited a total of 8 sources that could be used for citation and the only one added was The Daily Beast which had the a negative take that demeans Tim Pool. I expected this in my little behaviorial experiment.
@FactOrOpinion, as to a GREL news source saying he was here illegally in 2025, I can find no such source other than opinion. Thus the details shouldn't change in that sentence. Mkstokes (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who deleted the references for all of the "Maryland man" news organizations named in Losonczi's Hungarian Conservative opinion piece, and I explained why in my edit summary (the sentence said "It cites articles from Politico, ..." when it didn't cite any articles; it only named news organizations, so it's OR to introduce citations for specific articles published by those organizations). If you disagree, you're free to discuss that here. Magazines are not disallowed, but the issue of whether it's a minor publication is relevant to whether all of the content is DUE. Re: the references for the Tim Pool content, just switch the Daily Beast out for a better source (probably Newsweek; at least 2 of your sources are GUNREL at WP:RSN, and at least one other needs to be attributed). Just make sure that it has the quotes that are currently used, or adjust the WP text as needed. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Beast article is good, though the subtitle is a bit unkind. It's important that the source notes that Pool is a paid propagandist and took money from Russia to spread lies, and that his speech/question and the press secretary's response both included a number of lies about this case.
@MilesVorkosigan 🤣. So let me get this straight. Whenever we cite anyone on an article, it is "misinformation" if we don't reference the background of the individuals and provide context into the "kind of person" they are. That's great! So, we then need to look into the backgrounds of the following individuals: Jennifer Vasquez Sura, Cesar Abrego, Judge Paula Xinis, Judge David M. Jones, Erez Reuveni, August “Auggie” Flentje, Pam Bondi, Karoline Leavitt, Sebastian Gorka, JD Vance, Kristi Noem, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Stephanie Thacker, Judge Harvie Wilkinson III, Judge Robert King, Ivan Mendez, Nayib Bukele, Senator Chris Van Hollen, Representative Maxwell Frost, Representative Robert Garcia, Representative Yassamin Ansari, Representative Maxine Dexter, Governor Wes Moore, Governor JB Pritzker, Mark Joseph Stern, Jon Stewart, Elizabeth Shackelford, and Michael Coleman. So you're okay with, for instance adding citation about Jon Stewart honoring a member of the neo-Nazi Ukrainian Azov Batallion with a "Heart of the Team" award so were "clear about the kind of person" he is? This is on an article that supposed to be about the Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and not Russia? 😂🤣 Thank you, I needed that laugh. I'll go ahead and add another citation. You're hilarious!!! Mkstokes (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite a story you've made up to be angry about, fascinating! It is at least funnier than yesterday when you lied and pretended I'd added something to the article, I guess.
You said you were going to take some time off and try to calm down. You didn't take enough time off.
But yes, if you find out that Judge Xinis has been paid by a foreign enemy to spread misinformation the way Pool has, I'd say you should feel free to add it to the article, as long as it is relevant to the case and comes from a reliable source. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MilesVorkosigan, I disagree that "It's important that the source notes that Pool is a paid propagandist and took money from Russia to spread lies." The text is wikilinked to Pool's WP article, and I bet that readers are as likely to click through to that as they are to click through to the source (namely: not likely to do either one). On the other hand, the Newsweek article mentioned above doesn't have the "Maryland man hoax" or "false narratives" quotes, so it doesn't work if we want to include those. If the quotes are important, the only choices are the Daily Beast and Mediaite; the former has more info / less transcript.
Mkstokes, of the 8 sources that you suggested, 5 are GUNREL per WP:RSP and the other 3 are marginally reliable (you should check on these things before suggesting sources). Also: making straw man comments about other editors is disruptive. Stop doing it.FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FactOrOpinion, I purposely listed a mix of sources to see which one would be suggested as an experiment. I honestly want the most relevant listed, so please modify as you wish. I knew either The Daily Beast or Daily Kos would be chosen based on history. Experiment over. Back to conformity. Mkstokes (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to your statement "It's important that the source notes that Pool is a paid propagandist and took money from Russia to spread lies, and that his speech/question and the press secretary's response both included a number of lies about this case." My point was that I don't think it's important for the source to do that. The source needs to be a reliable source for the content that's introduced into the article, and we weren't introducing content about that other stuff. Most readers never click through to read the source. They can also click the wikilink on his name (in the text about him in this article), though they're not likely to do that either.
I probably should have placed the text "On the other hand, the Newsweek article ..." in my response to Mkstokes rather than you. My mistake. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Angry? Naw, but I did see you didn't respond to the Jon Stewart comment, but rather deflected to Judge Xinis. Lovely tactic, I believe writer Saul Alinsky would be proud! I wonder why out of the 25 names listed you chose that one rather than the 3 media sources listed (Mark Stern, Jon Stewart, Elizabeth Shackelford)? Of course I know why. 🫡 Mkstokes (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's because your comment about Stewart was irrelevant ranting. I have no idea what you mean about the significance of 3 media sources.
Please try to restrict yourself to less emotional comments that have something to do with the article, we are not here for your Facebook-like ranting about unrelated politics or for you making up weird conspiracy theories about other editors. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Tim Pool info and never saw your comment with sources. I simply googled Tim Pool and sifted through the news articles, which were limited. I overlooked the Newsweek article because it only mentioned his clothing+backlash to it in the headline, not his comments. I specifically said in my edit that I used the best source I could find- because I knew the article was very obviously biased. I only really intended for it to be a placeholder until it was inevitably covered by a better source. Mason7512 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we got distracted from talking about where to move it. I'd suggest to Reactions or possibly under False and Misleading Information.
We might want to try to get a better quote from Tim Pool as well, because this one makes him look like a moron, he claims that it is a 'hoax' to say that the person who lived in Maryland was... living in Maryland. Maybe a better source, I'm sure somebody has done a better job explaining that right-wingers want the man to be described as a criminal for political reasons. I'll see what I can google.
Also, the link to a WP:GUNREL source, NewsBusters, is still in the section. I checked the article, it's mostly about the rest of the press conference and repeats the lie that someone, somewhere, is saying that the victim is Father of the Year. If that's actually happening, let's link to the actual soure. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found the following quote from a site called "AllSides" that seems less partisan and less hysterical than Pool, what do we think of this?
Many media outlets on the left wrote that Abrego Garcia was “wrongly” deported, though some used “mistakenly” as well. They’ve also sought to portray him sympathetically as a “Maryland man” or, in some cases, a “Maryland father.”
I've removed the Newsbusters source. I think the quote with "hoax" is relevant: Pool is arguing that it's a hoax to refer to A.G. as a "Maryland man" because it places the emphasis on where he was living when Pool thinks the emphasis should be that he's "an MS-13 gang member". I've added that second phrase to make his contrast clearer. Allsides is another middling source. Their assessments of which outlets are left/center/right should be treated as opinion (their rating process is problematic), and they ignore the fact that SCOTUS/other courts found the deportation illegal, which explains why some outlets say "wrongly" deported. If we use it, then it should be attributed and also summarize what they say about sources in the center and on the right (in the left / center / right bulleted lists). Perhaps it makes sense to open the paragraph with their summary and then give Pool's and Losonczi's comments as examples of what those on the right are saying about media to their left, in which case we should see whether we can also find examples of what those on the left are saying about media to their right (an example, again from a middling biased source).
As for where to place it, I'm actually more inclined to leave Media coverage as a separate section but maybe call it something like Media framings (or maybe Media framings and commentary, or maybe something else would be better), and remove the Maryland man sub-heading. I'm still uncertain about the Media commentators subsection of Reactions (that subsection should probably be moved into Media coverage), such as how we're deciding whose commentary to include. I'd remove the MJS quote, since we have lots of reporting that the courts have found it illegal. It would be good to find a right-leaning perspective to add, per NPOV. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, though, that it isn't a 'hoax'. He really has been living in Maryland, he really is a man, he really is a father. They just disagree about the framing and think that it should be centered that he came to the country illegally or that the government has falsely accused him of being a terrorist. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize all of that, and that's party why I suggested changing the section title to something like Media framings and commentary. We're not presenting all of these framings/commentary as factually correct, we're simply noting that they're out there in the media landscape. Here are some distinct dimensions where Allsides notes that the media are characterizing things in different ways (though Allsides didn't separate them out / categorize them in quite this way, and they don't ever note the court rulings saying the deportation was illegal):
Maryland man vs. migrant from El Salvador vs. no mention
currently an illegal alien vs. illegal entrance but not currently in the country illegally vs. no mention
MS-13 member/violent vs. a dad and union worker
the deportation having been illegal vs. having been done "wrongfully" vs. "mistakenly" vs. "administrative error" vs. no mention (and possibly some arguing that it was a legal deportation, as has occurred with some people's claims on this talk page)
sympathetic vs. unsympathetic portrayals
There are probably other dimensions, such as:
how the Trump admin's responses are being characterized (flouting the law vs. justified vs. no mention) and
whether there's a bigger legal issue / what it is (due process vs. presidential authority to conduct foreign affairs vs. no mention).
I personally am not familiar enough with immigration to comment on illegal entrance vs here legally after 2019.
I think sympathetic vs unsympathetic is part of the 'Maryland man' vs 'deportable' axis, this is standard right-wing 'No angel' propaganda to convince people that it's okay to murder black people/deport Latino people without due process because they don't deserve the same protections.
I don't know if there's been a lot published on it, but the new Atlantic article does indirectly talk about the difference between the claims the Trump admin is making in court when they are under oath, and the wild lies they are telling outside of court? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In its statement of facts, the 4th Circuit wrote "Abrego Garcia is an El Salvadoran national who has been lawfully present in the United States since 2019, when he was granted withholding of removal to El Salvador" (ruling). That's good enough for me. I haven't seen any RSs that have quoted that, though some have quoted related things that they said: the "United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process.” (examples: CNN, NPR). I haven't read The Atlantic article but will take a look. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good find, and the 'who is lawfully present' from two sources seems sufficient.
Interesting info on when administration higher-ups stepped in to stop any discussion of returning him and fired the attorney who admitted to the truth. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually wondering if the Trump admin. has reconsidered asking for A.G.'s release. The discovery had started, had been largely non-responsive, Xinis repeated her order and was considering contempt charges, and then the DOJ lawyers filed a new motion for a stay under seal and A.G.'s lawyers opposed it under seal (see the summaries for docs 101 and 102 here), and Xinis stayed discovery for a week. But the reason is under wraps right now. I can certainly imagine that the Trump admin. would rather that A.G. return to the US (and immediately move to deport him to another country) than have to share all of the discovery docs / have people answer all of the interrogatories under oath, but that's only a conjecture on my part.
FWIW, more than one attorney stated that it was an "administrative error," including Cerna and Sauer. I'm guessing that Reuveni was fired because of what he said in court, but I don't know. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the quote with "hoax" is relevant as well because of the framing emphasis. Despite his previous residency and fatherhood, he is an El Salvadorian national, but the media hasn't chosen to highlight that truth, and that's Tim Pool's point. He's married to a U.S. citizen, all of his children are U.S. citizens, and even his brother is a U.S. citizen, but he has never applied for U.S. citizenship in the several years that he's been married to a U.S. citizen, which, upon acceptance, would have made this entire story moot. He was just a Form I-130, Form I-601A Waiver, and Consular Process away from being a citizen! However, he chose either directly or through inaction to remain an El Salvadorian citizen. This is after being told in 2019 he could be deported to any other country in the world except El Salvador. As to his membership in MS-13, that is still not resolved and hardly a "false[] accus[ation]" and no court has said it was false. Rather, two immigration judges said it "appears to be trustworthy and is supported by other evidence in the record," and it was an "appropriately considered allegation[] of gang affiliation." While the U.S. District Court said the government relied on a "singular unsubstantiated allegation" and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said the government's assertion that Abrego Garcia was a member of a gang was "thin, to say the least" and they should have made a better case in the District Court regarding his MS-13 status. None of those statements says the evidence was FALSE, but I agree they should have done more to make their case in court. Mkstokes (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"he is a El Salavdor national but the media hasn't chosen to highlight that truth"
Pick any MSM outlet you want and let's test your claim.
"he as never applied for U.S. citizenship"
He's not eligible to become an legal permanent resident due to his withholding of removal status and therefore could not apply for citizenship, since he'd have needed to be an LPR for several years first. "Withholding of Removal does not provide permanent status or a pathway to citizenship" (source)
"He was just a Form I-130, Form I-601A Waiver, and Consular Process away from being a citizen!"
BS.
"two immigrations judges said it "appears to be trustworthy and is supported by other evidence in the record" and it was an "appropriately considered allegations of gang affiliation.""
One immigration judge said that the government's documentation "appears to be trustworthy and is supported by other evidence in the record". The other judge only said that the first judge (she, not "it") "appropriately considered allegations of gang affiliation against the respondent in determining that he has not demonstrated that he is not a danger to property or persons" for purposes of bail. The second judge did not independently assess whether the government documentation was trustworthy.
"no court has said it was false"
No, but it's implied by his having been granted withholding of removal (source):
An alien is ineligible for withholding of removal if
the alien ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of another individual;
the alien was convicted of a particularly serious crime and is a danger to the community;
there is serious reason to believe that the alien committed a serious nonpolitical crime before arriving in the United States; or
there are reasonable grounds to believe that the alien presents a security risk to the United States.
So the government didn't present "reasonable grounds to believe that the alien presents a security risk or "is a danger to the community," as they should be able to if he were actually a trans-national gang member. Xinis also said "Defendants have offered no evidence linking Abrego Garcia to MS-13 or to any terrorist activity" (emphasis added) and referred to their claims as "vague allegations of gang association." FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I pick MSNBC. Try using either ChatGPT or Grok with the following prompt: "Does MSNBC reference Abrego Garcia as either a El Salvadorian "national" or "citizen," and if so can you provide at least 5 examples of this?"
Can someone with Withholding of Removal apply for permanent residency? No, someone granted Withholding of Removal cannot DIRECTLY apply for permanent residency. However, they may be able to apply for other forms of relief that could lead to PERMANENT RESIDENCY, such as adjustment of status or cancellation of removal. This process is complex and requires assistance from an experienced immigration attorney.
So, even your own cited source says it's possible, but is the "process is complex." As to the remaining points, I definitely agree it's implied, and the Federal Government should have done better. Going forward, might I suggest that you fully read your source materials before you cite it. Mkstokes (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I know how to search, and I have zero interest in using AI to help me find information. Here are five MSNBC examples:
example 1: "The deportation of Salvadoran national and Maryland resident, Kilmar Abrego Garcia ..."
example 2: Quoting Rubio from a Washington Post article: "This individual is a citizen of El Salvador."
example 3: "Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran citizen..."
example 4: Summarizing part of the government's argument, "He is an El Salvadoran citizen in custody in El Salvador, and we don’t have the power to order whoever runs that prison or the president of El Salvador. We don’t have the power to order him to return his own citizen."
example 5: Highlighting/answering a viewer's question, "In the Garcia case and the deportations of [alleged] Venezuelan gang members: How can there be a constitutional violation? They are not citizens, so they should not be protected by the Constitution." The answer says in part "Indeed, the courts wouldn’t be going through all this litigation if noncitizens had no rights. The Supreme Court’s recent orders on the Alien Enemies Act and Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s case take due process as a given."
Reread what you quoted: "Can someone with Withholding of Removal apply for permanent residency? No." Which is what I said: "He's not eligible to become an legal permanent resident due to his withholding of removal status." I did not say or imply that it was impossible for his status to change. You apparently inferred that, despite it not being my actual statement. Yes, it's possible that his status could change, though there's also no guarantee that the government would approve that if he attempted it. And even if his status eventually changed, as I noted, "he'd have needed to be an LPR for several years" before he'd have become eligible to apply for citizenship. BTW, when someone provides me with evidence that I've made a mistake, I always try to acknowledge it. (An example: "I assumed that "illegally" was a slip, which turned out to have been a mistaken assumption on my end; thanks for correcting me.") Your claim "He was just a Form I-130, Form I-601A Waiver, and Consular Process away from being a citizen!" was mistaken, and hopefully you understand that now.
Example 1: is a caption attached to a video. Can we start citing captions now? If so, I have several captioned video and pictures I'd love to add to this article. Example 2: is a quote of a statement made by someone else in a separate Washington Post article and not a highlight or statement from the MSNBC. So, yes, Marco Rubio has highlighted it. Example 3: is an opinion piece written by "Ray Brescia, professor of law, Albany Law School." Is this professor a part of the mainstream media? Nope! Example 4: is a transcript of a PODCAST where Mary B. McCord makes the statement you've provided. She is not a member of the mainstream media, certainly doesn't work for MSNBC, and the views she expresses are her own, not a mainstream media view. What you seem to be implying is that because someone participated in a podcast and MSNBC provided the full transcript of that podcast, it is MSNBC overt decision to "highlight" it. Now that's REALLY thin. 🤣 Finally, Example 5: doesn't even mention El Salvador anywhere in the text, so I have no idea why you added this as an example.
As for your citation of the source, you left out the part after "No" and I don't know why. It is a qualified no, which is why I included the entire context. Let me provide it again. It actually says, "No, someone granted Withholding of Removal cannot DIRECTLY apply for permanent residency." This is a good lesson is reading comprehension. Note the reference to "...cannot DIRECTLY apply for permanent residency." Well, if they cannot apply DIRECTLY, then can they apply INDIRECTLY? Unequivocally YES, they can!!! If he can INDIRECTLY apply for permanent residency, then your statement that "He's not eligible to become an legal permanent resident due to his withholding of removal status" is factually incorrect, period. The accurate statement would be "He's eligible to become an legal permanent resident despite his withholding of removal status." It's possible I'm wrong about the forms and process one needs to go through with Abrego Garcia's status. The steps are not necessarily in the order I provided and I admit it's a very complex process, but it possible. Mkstokes (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop claiming that *other* users are having trouble reading. The reason that last example was included was clearly because it states right in the quoted text that they are not citizens of Maryland.
Your response to the examples also forgets that you were the one who asked for them, to show that literally everyone knows that the victim is, again, not a citizen of the US or Maryland. Remember? You said you wanted people to find evidence addressing the fake hoax you're arguing to include in the article? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: MSNBC, you're moving the goalposts. You proposed the prompt Does MSNBC reference Abrego Garcia as either a El Salvadorian "national" or "citizen," and if so can you provide at least 5 examples of this?, and I gave you four examples that clearly satisfy that and a fifth that makes clear that he wasn't a US citizen. I you want to reject the last, fine, switch it out for this video segment referring to him as a "Salvadoran national" (~1:42), and now you've got five that satisfy your prompt. I'm not going to listen to hours of their transcript-less videos to come up with more examples. We tested your claim with an MSM outlet of your choosing and a prompt of your choosing. I don't have the burden of proof to prove your claim wrong; you have the burden of proof to prove your claim true.
As for your citation of the source, you left out the part after "No" and I don't know why. Because the rest of it wasn't relevant to my actual claim. Again: I did not say or imply that it was impossible for his status to change or impossible for him to ever apply for citizenship. You may have interpreted what I wrote that way, but it's not what I said.
if they cannot apply DIRECTLY, then can they apply INDIRECTLY? The answer is no. There is no such thing as an indirect application for LPR. If he can INDIRECTLY apply for permanent residency, then your statement that "He's not eligible to become an legal permanent resident due to his withholding of removal status" is factually incorrect But he can't apply indirectly. He could apply to end his WOR status, but then he would likely be deported to El Salvador, since he had a deportation order. He could choose to leave the country, which cancels WOR, but then he likely would not be allowed to reenter legally. He could do one of those, all in the hopes that if he then applied for LPR, it would be approved, but I doubt any immigration lawyer would recommend it, as there being a bunch of other reasons that LPR applications can be rejected, including things that apply to him. The accurate statement would be "He's eligible to become an legal permanent resident despite his withholding of removal status." No. As long as he has withholding of removal status, he's not eligible to apply for LPR, much less become one. And the absence of WOR doesn't automatically make someone "eligible" to become an LPR, as there are a variety of other things besides WOR that can make people ineligible.
an editor has suggested it was included because it notes Abrego Garcia is not a "citizen[] of Maryland." That's not why I included it, nor would I ever suggest that someone is a citizen of a US state, so save the condescending choice to point out facts like "Citizenship and residency are two vastly different things," as if I didn't know or had suggested otherwise.
Truly, why do you so often choose to address people in counterproductive ways? Do you not understand that they're counterproductive? Or do you recognize that but choose to do it anyway? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between MSNBC highlighing something and them quoting someone else. However, this site has done a study regarding the "Maryland man" issue. Based on their analysis, I'll concede they mention it much more than I thought, but it's still woefully inadequate. Win for you!
"Both networks together mentioned Garcia’s El Salvadoran nationality in just under one third of all reports: 102 times total across 506 segments. In other words, they were nearly five times more likely to describe Garcia as being from Maryland than they were to correctly identify his country of origin."
As for the indirect action, just pick up a law dictionary.
In Black's Law Dictionary, "indirect action" generally refers to a legal proceeding or course of action that is not direct or straightforward. It can describe a situation where multiple steps or actions are required to achieve a specific legal outcome, rather than a single, immediate action.
So from a legal standpoint, your comment is 100% wrong, so just give that one up. There's a reason they use the word "directly," but because its beyond your expertise I think the concept eludes you. I'm trying to help you understand, but it's possible the Dunning-Kruger effect, "a cognitive bias where individuals with low competence in a particular area tend to overestimate their abilities" is in play.
As for the citizen vs resident thing it wasn't directed at you and I agree with you so I have no idea why you're so pissy about it. I give up. Mkstokes (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "it wasn't directed at you," the comment of yours that I quoted from re: citizens vs. residents is explicitly directed at me. And it doesn't actually matter whether you're making counterproductive statements to me or to someone else. It's disruptive either way.
As for "indirect action," I suspect that your purported quote is an AI hallucination. If I'm wrong about that, just link to the source of your quote. I'd also appreciate an explanation of how you think the issue of whether he was or wasn't able to apply for citizenship will improve the article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you don't know how this works based on that request. Black's Law Dictionary access is very expensive and typically one needs either access to something like Westlaw legal database or a legal library. In addition, one looks up the components of a phrase, not the phrase. Thus, you'd look up indirect or direct.
Indirect: "Not direct in relation or connection; not having an immediate bearing or application; collateral."
Direct: "Straight; undeviating; the opposite of indirect. Immediate; proximate; by the shortest course; without circuity; operating by an immediate connection or relation, instead of through a medium; the opposite of remote."
Then look up action.
Action: 1. A civil or criminal judicial proceeding. 2. A formal demand for enforcement of one’s legal rights.
Then you use those definition to come up with the definition of "indirect action." You really need to stop because you're well out of your depth here and obviously have no background whatsoever in American jurisprudence or the basics of law or legal theory. I understand cognitive dissonance and the overwhelming need to be correct. As you can see by previous posts, I don't suffer from that and am completely willing to admit when I'm wrong.
As for your other query, it's not about his ability to apply for citizenship. Rather, it's that he NEVER had any intention of applying despite everyone in his immediate family in the U.S. (brother, wife, kids) being U.S. citizens. His desire to never want citizenship is speculation, but he got caught in 2019 after being here for 8 years without seeking legal status. Only then, when he realized he'd likely be deported did he decide to provide a story that would have given him asylum. He was, of course, rejected asylum. His brother, César Abrego García, also came here illegal and likely used the same Barrio 18 gang story to obtain U.S. citizenship (since his parents said they sent him to the U.S. for that reason according to court records) and Kilmar moved here to live with his brother and could have used the same process! So why did he wait 8 years? We should provide all that information and let others make up their own mind as all of it is relevant to the Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia in my opinion, except of course the original research. Mkstokes (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do know how it works. You purported to quote something, and I said that I suspected that it's an AI hallucination, but could be dissuaded from that if you simply linked to the source of your purported quote. You haven't done so, and your response now implies that it's not a quote, so you shouldn't have presented it as one. Furthermore, you're still insulting me about it, which I'll again note is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Stop doing it, with me or with anyone else.
"one looks up the components of a phrase, not the phrase" Nonsense. There are many legal phrases that are defined as phrases (e.g., "due process"). Your purported quote even put it in quotation marks as a phrase.
"he NEVER had any intention of applying ... His desire to never want citizenship is speculation" It's not our place to speculate about his intentions and desires.
"We should provide all that information and let others make up their own mind" We only provide information discussed in RSs (and then, only if it's consistent with other policies, e.g., is DUE, is consistent with BLP). If you have acceptable sourcing for all of this, then present it or make an appropriate edit to the article. Otherwise, there's no point in discussing it further, per WP:NOTFORUM. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, @FactOrOpinion, you're right, this is completely unproductive. You're discussing semantics and ignoring substance. You might as well say it's italic text instead of highlighted text. Regardless if it's a quote or not, IS IT ACCURATE?!? Ad arguendo, I'll stipulate it's a quote provided by AI. However, per AI hallucination, does it "contain[] false or misleading information presented as fact?" Clearly not. Did you even look or trying reading your own citation? Did you note the statement that "...analysts estimated that chatbots hallucinate as much as 27% of the time, meaning there a 73% chance it's right? And you've decided to place your bet on the long shot and then challenge me to prove it? 🤣 So you win the semantic argument but on substance I believe you're wrong. But if you want to believe you're right, be my guest. Believe the phrase "cannot DIRECTLY apply for permanent residency" means the same thing without the word "DIRECTLY" in it. Hell, though you haven't mentioned it, you can go ahead and assume if you remove "permanent" from the sentence it still has the same meaning. Ignore the Supreme Court interpretive rules when analyzing sentence structure like the Rule Against Surplusage (every word and clause should be given a meaning and effect if possible), and the Plain Meaning Rule. My God, talk about straying way off topic! 🤦🏾♂️ Mkstokes (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FactOrOpinion I will admit that the phrase "highlight that truth" is subjective and thus based on opinion, not fact. However, in regards to Example #5, an editor has suggested it was included because it notes Abrego Garcia is not a "citizen[] of Maryland." Coincidently, no one can be a citizen of Maryland because the State of Maryland, along with the other 49 states, does not confer citizenship status. There is no such thing as a citizen of a state! Rather, the Federal government in conjunction with the 14th Amendment, Section 1, defines and manages birthright and naturalized citizenship. With that in mind, Abrego Garcia unquestionably established residency in Maryland; as you have said previously, details matter. Citizenship and residency are two vastly different things. 🫡 Mkstokes (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank the lord, you finally figured out why complaining about him being called a 'Maryland man' is silly, even if you tripped over it while trying to be snarky.
I'm glad we agree now that residing in Maryland does not, by itself, imply any kind of citizenship, especially when the articles are all very clear that the victim here is *not* a US citizen and came into the country without permission. As demonstrated in the example links that you asked other people to find for you, while not trying to find any articles that support your claims about the hoax. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But, as you know, the part about the media not "highlighting" it is just a fantasy, that's why the only sources you can find discussing it are unserious and unreliable like Tim Pool, the guy who took money from a foreign enemy to spread misinformation harming his country. There is nobody who thinks that the victim is a citizen of Maryland or something who can't be deported. The fact that he came here illegally is mentioned everywhere.
Also, of course, you're quoting the 2019 judges out of context and deliberately ignoring the part where the judge said they were reluctant to accept such thin evidence.
And, you might not be familiar with naturalization, but it is nowhere near as easy as you pretend.
I think this belongs on the Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia because it is specifically about the deportation of Abrego Garcia and not the Trump administration. In fact, the Trump administration isn't barely mentioned in the section, so I don't know why it would be moved there. I do think it should be changed to "Framing" rather than "Media Narrative," so please make that change again. Sorry, but as we were editing at the same time that change got lost. Mkstokes (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal to send Americans to CECOT is only tangentially connected to Abrego Garcia (both involve CECOT, both involve the US-Salvadoran agreement). It can certainly be moved to Second Trump administration: Trump is the one proposing it. There is also discussion among editors about creating a page about all deportations to CECOT, and it could go there. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need a large section or explanation here, but I think that the government saying that they can send people to the torture prison without due process and without any way to get them back is the connection. A link seems relevant. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most obvious link is Sotamayor’s linking the two things and then Trump pontificating on the idea during a related time. Not sure it needs a whole section this big though. I’d move to its own article. Remember (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to something other than the section referenced. Yes, I agree that this doesn't belong here as it has absolutely nothing to do with the Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. As I have said before, he is not and has never been a U.S. citizen so this doesn't apply to him. Why we would have information on this page that doesn't apply at all to the subject of this page is beyond me and I seen zero justification for providing it here. Even the reference to Sotomayor's comments in her statement doesn't justify having an entire section devoted to this. If it's kept, you might as well as every immigration proposal from the Trump administration to this page. Mkstokes (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TNR is reporting that Abragio Garcia’a wife has had to go into hiding. I don’t have time to add this now is someone else wants to get to it. [4]Remember (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it. I'm not sure that I put it in the best place (it's just below her response to the DHS releasing her temporary protective order request, since that's the document with her home address). I said at the time that the DHS should have redacted the addresses and their son's full name.
WBFF (FOX45 News), a TV station in Baltimore whose article says it's affiliated with Fox and MyNetworkTV, published an article saying that during Abrego Garcia's 2022 traffic stop he was driving a car owned by his boss, who was convicted of human smuggling. I'm still a bit hazy on how affiliate stations work, but previously on Wikipedia's coverage of the deportations an affiliate with a reliable source was deemed reliable thanks to that affiliation, so I removed this from the article since Fox News is not a reliable source. Still wanted to bring it up here. The claim's been picked up by the usual suspects that we can't use either. It may be of interest that FOX45 reports that DHS confirmed this to FOX45 directly. --Kizor17:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the Wikipedia consensus is that Fox is not a reliable source on politics. Plus the entire claim here is attributed to unnamed DHS sources. If DHS wants to go on record making this claim, that we could cite, as a Trump administration claim. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually raised this issue at WP:RSN § Does WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS also apply to an affiliate doing original reporting on national political news? earlier today, since it's sourced to a Fox affiliate rather than the national Fox News, and the Fox affiliate seems to be the original source rather than just republishing the national Fox News. Responses are that WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS doesn't apply to affiliates. That doesn't guarantee that it's an RS for the content sourced to it, but does mean it's not automatically GUNREL. But I still have some questions. The first two are about whether the Fox affiliate [article] is an RS for this content:
Is the Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes alleged to be the car's owner is the same Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes who was convicted of human trafficking in 2020? The Fox affiliate wrote that an unnamed DHS source says they're the same person, but provided no evidence other than the claim of the unnamed source.
Was he was really the car's owner? The DOJ statement about the Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes who was convicted of human trafficking says that the minivan he was driving was rented.
Is the content DUE? Content from a local news source may not be DUE for an article addressing national/international issues, and the only national sources reporting about this that I've found so far are GUNREL. Also, the allegation is about the car's owner, not about A.G.
My understanding is that the rented vehicle, driven by H-R and stopped in Mississippi, is not the same as the one driven by A.G. and stopped in Tennessee. 18:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
The A.G.-driven vehicle stop in Tennessee was in 2022, as written in this article, now reported as owned by H-R. Several GUNREL sources (including Fox News, but not WBFF) say it was a black Chevy Suburban.
The vehicle stop in Mississippi was in 2019, per this DOJ press release, a rented "white Dodge Caravan" driven by H-R.
Both vehicles were over-occupied on multi-day travel without luggage, and were operated without valid driver's licenses. —ADavidB07:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification; I initially thought that it was the same car. In August 2020, H.R. was sentenced to 18 months in prison, and given that he was in the country illegally, he should have been deported after his release (early 2022). A.G. claimed at the stop in December 2022 that he was driving his boss's car. Was H-R his boss in Dec. 2022? That would imply that either H-R wasn't deported or was he back in the US after being deported. If H-R wasn't A.G.'s boss, did H-R sell the car to A.G.'s boss prior to being deported? Given all of the material that the government has released to try to argue their case that A.G. is a dangerous person, I think that if the car A.G. drove in 2022 was owned by H-R, the Trump admin. would release something official about it. If all we have are GUNREL sources, we don't include the purported link to H-R. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd want to have some more information on it before adding it, such as was it actually a trafficking situation, or was he giving a ride to some guys? And if it was trafficking, why wasn't he charged? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that DHS press release was issued several days ago, whereas the bit about trafficking is new today, and I don't know if DHS has released anything about it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New Atlantic article
Does anyone have access to this Atlantic article - [5]? It states that the government was going to bring back Abregio Garcia, but then Trump stopped them. Remember (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I added info from the article but there is still a lot of other useful reporting in that article that can be incorporated into the wiki article. I don’t have time to do it now in case someone else has time.Remember (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great news story, but I don't think it adds anything that isn't already in the article. I also don't think that the fact that News4 broke the story, in and of itself, is worth including in the article unless another source finds it notable. Nowa (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuilt the lede
To more appropriately align the article as one about the event, instead of the individual, I have redone the lede. I have retained the information about his wife and children, inasmuch as it was appropriate to do so for to provide an effective summation of the event's significance. I dispensed with some other nuanced information that was not really useful as summary, and to avoid having an article within an article. It's much more effective now, though reciting may be required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:b07b:9700:3c85:a9af:dac7:d82c (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an extremely contentious subject (especially issues in the lead) so please don’t rewrite the whole lead without bringing it here to discuss first. Your revisions to the lead were incorrect or misleading in a number of ways. Happy to discuss this further if you want to make changes to the lead. Also this section should be at the end since it is the newest and not the beginning. Talk pages present sections chronologically downward. So I am moving it to the end. Remember (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so you would rather have a garbage lede that is 100% inappropriate for the subject matter as a result of moving the article to a different title? In case you haven't noticed, this isn't a biographical article anymore, it's an event article. Plus, it's clearly established elsewhere in the talk that the lede needs to be redone to reflect that. So that is what I have done. As for incorrect information, no I have not put any incorrect information. Don't lie. By and large, the information was what was already present in the lede, and was just reorganized. Reorganized information cannot be "wrong" just because it fails to prioritize sensationalist points that you might want to emphasize. If this subject is contentious it's because morons like you are hellbent on casting particular lights based on agendas. I've changed it back. If there's a particular nuance that you really find to be inaccurate than modify that nuance and cite it. It's very simple. But leaving a fully garbage lede in place makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:b07b:9700:1c75:46b4:3a05:ba50 (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to discuss issues with your lead. Here is your lead:
The deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was conducted by the United States on March 15, 2025 as part of the Trump Administration's wider mass deportation of Venezuelans alleged to be members of Tren de Aragua to El Salvador, and their confinement in the Salvadoran maximum security Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT). Abrego Garcia's case in particular rose to prominence because he is not from Venezuela, but is himself Salvadoran, and because he is married to an American citizen and is father to American citizen children. Abrego Garcia grew up in El Salvador, and illegally entered the United States in 2011, at the age of 16, to escape gang threats. In 2019, an immigration judge ruled that he should not face removal due to the danger he faced from gang violence if he returned to El Salvador. At the time of his deportation in 2025, he lived in Maryland and was complying with annual check-ins with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Abrego Garcia's deportation among a group of Venezuelans was attributed to an administrative error" by the Trump administration. The administration nevertheless defended the action by accusing him of being a member of MS-13, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. On April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled that Abrego Garcia's removal to El Salvador was illegal. The Supreme Court required the U.S. to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's return to the United States. However the Trump administration has refused, based on their interpretation of the court's requirements. Abrego Garcia's case has become a focal point for public debate in the United States over the Trump administration's efforts to rapidly arrest and deport individuals without adhering to normal judicial processes.
Here is what is wrong with your lead: (1) First, you deleted the note on the name which helps explain the differences in the spelling of the name in different media sources, which creates more confusion; (2) you assert the deportation was part of the "mass deportation of Venezuelans alleged to be Tren de Aragua " but we don't have a citation to support that he was grabbed and then deported as part of a Venezuelan focused effort, which is what is implied; (3) you forgot a comma after the year 2025; (4) you allege that the case rose in prominence because "he is not from Venezuela" (which we have no source to support) and because "he is married to an American citizen and is father to American citizen children" but that isn't why the case rose to prominence and you have no citation to support that. It rose to prominence mainly because the Trump administration said they deported in in "error" in violation of a court order and was the first case where the administration admitted an error; (5) the court didn't just say he "should not" face removal, instead it would be illegal to remove him in violation of a court order; (6) you didn't have quotation marks at the beginning of "administrative error"; (7) you deleted citations that now lead to dead ends without fixing; (8) the Trump administration does not claim to refuse to "facilitate" the return, they claim that they are facilitating it but that forcing El Salvador to release the prisoner is not part of "facilitating"; and (9) the last sentence appears to be original synthesis unless you have a citation for that claim. Lastly, as a general note people put certain information in the lead for a reason. You may not like that reason or think it is dumb but it is all there for a reasons so don't go removing things before you understand why they are there.
I appreciating you wanted to contribute and I'm happy to acknowledge that we can make the lead better. But the way you are doing it is causing more work than is helping. Please propose things on the talk page and we can figure it out here before you start massively revising things on the page. If you continue to simple try to enforce your will of how you think things should be on this page through reverting without trying to reach consensus, you most likely will be blocked or banned so please choose a different method by which to engage. Remember (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(1) So add it. It's not a big deal. (2) Uh....it was. This is plainly obvious. Have you been under a rock? If you want a citation, fine. I said myself reciting probably is needed. But if you don't actually know that fact, then why are you even bothering to be involved in this at all? (3) HOLY SHIT A COMMA! STOP THE TRAIN, LOCK THE DOORS, WE NEED A FUCKING COMMA! THOW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATH WATER WE NEED A COMMA! Or you could just add damn comma. (4) So cite it. Again, have you been under a rock? Is the word "because" your big issue? You want to reword it, maybe to something like "it rose to prominence after it was discovered"? Then knock yourself out. (5) Says you. But even your claim is true, what I wrote is still true. It's not the full nitty, gritty every last miniscule detail because that's what the article is for. (6) HOLY SHIT QUOTATION MARKS!?!? STOP THE TRAIN, LOCK THE DOORS, WE NEED A FUCKING COMMA! THOW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATH WATER WE NEED A QUOTATIONS MARKS! Or you could just add some damn quotation marks. (7) I said that reciting should happen. (8) You're playing word games. Which is, in fact, every last thing you've said, and is fully the explanation for all of you who are having slap fests with each other about this article. I really don't give one care about your stupid word games. If you want to elaborate within the article, and then have more slapfests with other equally stupid people to dissect what the definition of is is, I really don't care. (9) Look around you. The fact that this is, according to your own works, a "contentious issue" demonstrates the last sentence. It is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty that you justify undoing my rewrite based on such meaningless things as needing to add a comma or quotation marks. I would say you're failing to see the forest from the trees, except that it's clearly intentional on your part. The purpose of the lede should be, in a nutshell, to provide a quick overview of the subject and why it is relevant enough to discuss. And that is what I have accomplished. The lede, as previously written, was 100% inappropriate for this article, as it was written for a biography of an individual. I have reshaped the lede to introduce an event of significance. But your intention is to do everything you can to try to ensure that everything carefully insinuates the agenda you want to push. You're desperately trying to put as much info into the lede as possible, no matter how inappropriate it may be to have it there. You need to learn how to have ORGANIZED THOUGHTS. All you are doing is arguing in favor of DISORGANIZATION because you want certain things to be seen first. You're a pathetic joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:b07b:9700:1c75:46b4:3a05:ba50 (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the following comment with your edit [6]. I am putting back on here below. In general I’m under no obligation to engage with anonymous editors that berate and insult me. If you want to edit the article, you will need to make an account to make edits to the page. You can try to convince people on the talk page to make edits anonymously but you probably should change your approach if you want to get results. Good day. Remember (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Per the notification at the top of this talk page,
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)...
Agreed 100%! Why is this IP that's only been online for a day editing a contentious topics article? There doesn't need to be a discussion. All of those edited should be reverted, period. Obviously this person is vandalizing the article. I'll author the 1st warning myself. Mkstokes (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing being rejected is people not wanting to relinquish their god complex. I reject THEIR edits, because there is absolutely no good faith in it whatsoever. We can go back and fucking forth all day about this, but if malicious stubbornness is going to be permitted to be determinative, then ANY version is inherently arbitariy. You should note that I took it upon myself to include an explanation here of what I had done, why, and invited others to make additional contributions that would further improve it even more. But instead, people allege to drop nukes over missing commas, when in fact they simply want to preserve garbage. And that is what it is. If the article is going to be biography, it should be moved back. If it's not going to be a biography, then the lede has to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:B07B:9700:1C75:46B4:3A05:BA50 (talk • contribs)
That's it. Wikipedia is a collaboration, and it requires some amount of cooperation. I'm not asking you to agree that there's no I in team, nor to be all sweetness and light in the infuriating situation when you know what an article should say but those [unkind word] won't let you get it right - we've all been there - but not hurling abuse at other editors would be a start. You have to be able to deal with frustrating pedants without blowing your top, an insult not intended at the people in this conversation, but intended at every Wikipedia editor ever and myself in particular. I'm holding off on blocking you, since it'd be a dick move to do the routine where a newcomer arrives with the best intentions, meets resistance due to not knowing the local customs, gets frustrated, loses their cool, and gets banned for losing their cool. But the insults need to stop. Take a breather, then explain in more detail, preferably one by one, how the changes you've made improve the article by making the lead about an event instead of biographical, and what information should be removed to avoid having an article within an article. Your message that opened this section was on the right track, but it wasn't possible to follow your reasoning on why you made the changes you did. Stubbornness is a factor in what gets to an article - hell, I've been pushy this whole time I've written for this one - but the people are more reasonable than you think once you get a handle on the social norms, such as not going "This article sucked I've made it good" more than once without going into more detail on the how than you have. --Kizor23:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be more blunt. You're being a dick. You want to sweep in and make dramatic changes based on your opinion of what's right without building consensus because you feel you're right and everyone else is wrong. That's not how this works, dude. So, stop being a dick and you won't be treated as a dick. Just so you know, I have a libertarian conservative viewpoint but still realize you're being a dick, so while your points might even make sense to me, being a dick about it ruins it all. Grow up and either get with it or move on whoever you are. Otherwise, I'm sure you need to be blocked permanently. Mkstokes (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the protection log, an administrator has protected this article upon request for another 30 days. It apparently expired after a former protection. —ADavidB21:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some discussion of the polling and how popular bypassing due process is, but I think more importantly, especially at the end of the article, it explains *why* MAGA has been programmed to be so emotional about yelling that the man in a gang member and therefore doesn't deserve due process.
That is an incredibly partisan article so I’m not sure if we are able to use it as a source, but I’ll find out and get back to you. Juju376 (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2025
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.
This is all covered in the article but to make it clear: First, he was illegally deported as even the Trump administration originally admitted and the Supreme Court affirmed because he could be deported in the manner that he was. Second, while he illegally entered the country he had status to be legally working and living in America at the time of his illegal deportation. Third, even if he was an illegal immigrant that doesn’t mean the individual has no rights under the law so an analysis of what can be done with him does not end with the fact that he entered the country illegally. Remember (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the way it works in authoritarian countries without the rule of law, but in the United States the Founders decided that the Constitution applies to everyone. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly noted 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. The Supreme Court has long been deemed to be the final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional, since the Marbury v. Madison decision where John Marshall said "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." However, contrary to popular belief, the Founding Fathers did not decide that the U.S. Constitution applies to everyone. Rather, the Constitution primarily protected the rights of a limited group which were white, male, property-owning citizens. If it had applied to everyone, then there would have been no need to have a 13th Amendment to abolish slavery, 14th Amendment for birthright citizenship and equal protection, and a 15th Amendment prohibiting racial discrimination in vote or many of the other amendment. Application to everyone is a very modern interpretation and has absolutely nothing to do with the Founding Fathers, period. Mkstokes (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want us to not interact, perhaps it would be a good idea to not reply to my posts with snarky irrelevancies. Please focus on the topic of the article. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you get a reply notification? I didn't reply to your comment. I replied to someone else's comment. What you saw was a representation of factual information to clarify someone else's point that Abrego Garcia's deportation wasn't illegal with an additional reference to SCOTUS and the Constitution. There is absolutely nothing that's irrelevant in my post, unless the Constitutional reference in your post is also irrelevant. Mkstokes (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not touching you" is not a particularly mature attitude.
You said that you needed to stop interacting, if you were telling the truth about that, then you'll need to develop some self-control and stop doing so, even if you enjoy being snarky and discussing things that aren't relevant to the article.
Text Regarding Washington Examiner Article says "hypothesized" but incorrect
There is absolutely nothing in this article that says the author "hypothesized that Sandoval-Moshenberg was referring to DOJ and Suffolk County press releases." Rather is clearly says "Sandoval-Moshenberg CITED the DOJ and the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office" Cited means that he specifically referenced those sources. Hypothesized means she made an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. These terms are vastly different and this needs to be changed to "cited." In addition, the 2011 date is irrelevant to this citation of current events because the citation in Abrego Garcia's court documents are dated April 25, 2025 (i.e., current) Basically, the current version sanitizes this revelation to make it seem insignificant. It needs to be reverted to it's original form. Mkstokes (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Her article doesn't use the word "hypothesized," but "hypothesized" is an accurate paraphrase of what she did write. You simply cut the quote off before the most relevant part:
Sandoval-Moshenberg cited the DOJ and the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, appearing to reference the 2011 execution-style murder of Ricardo Ceron, a Western clique member, in Long Island by the Brentwood Locos Salvatruchas clique. Ceron’s killers were federally prosecuted, and the U.S. attorney’s office published a pair of press releases publicizing the criminal proceedings at the time. The releases do not indicate that the DOJ said the Western clique’s operations are limited to New York. However, they simply say that a Western clique member was once killed in Brentwood, his hometown, per a Suffolk County Police Department press statement.
Does Cathell present any evidence that Sandoval-Moshenberg was, in fact, referring to Ceron's murder and specifically to the press releases from the DOJ and Suffolk County PD that she relies on? No, none at all. It's totally a conjecture on her part. Did she attempt to contact Sandoval-Moshenberg and ask him to clarify DOJ and SCPD info he was referring to? If she did, she didn't say so. Did she look for any other DOJ and SCPD info that refers to the Westerns clique. Again, she doesn't say. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abrego Garcia's lawyer, Sandoval-Moshenberg, says in their "Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Declaratory Judgement" the following: "According to the Department of Justice and the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, the “Westerns” clique operates in Brentwood, Long Island, in New York." Oh really, the DOJ and Suffolk County District Attorney's Office says that? Where? Does Sandoval-Moshenberg present any evidence that this is the position of DOJ and the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office? No, none at all. It's totally conjecture on the Abrego Garcia's lawyers part. Did he clarify anywhere where he got the notion that the DOJ and the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office believes the Westerns clique operations are limited to New York? I don't see it in his "COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT." Please show it to me. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.1.0_3.pdf
If you can't find it anywhere, it should be removed from this article because it is speculation, not fact. Yes, the lawyer says it, but that's it! Mkstokes (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've moved on from whether "hypothesized" is an appropriate word. Does that mean that you now agree that it's an acceptable paraphrase of what she wrote?
It's totally conjecture on the Abrego Garcia's lawyers part. Unlike Cathell's wording, "appears to reference," Sandoval-Moshenberg's wording doesn't suggest that his statement is a conjecture. Unlike Cathell's statements in her article, Sandoval-Moshenberg's statements to the court must abide by the rules for professional conduct of the MD Bar. Among those rules: he cannot knowingly make a false statement of material fact. More to the point: I haven't seen any RSs say that it's totally conjecture on the lawyer's part. (Unlike Cathell's article, which we can use directly, we cannot use S-M's motion directly. We have to rely on what RSs say about the motion's contents.)
Please show it to me. I do not have a burden of proof for things I haven't said.
If you can't find it anywhere, it should be removed from this article because it is speculation, not fact. Again, he didn't present it as speculation; and even if he had, there is no rule that speculation cannot be included in an article, as long as it's otherwise consistent with relevant policies. You'll notice that I didn't remove Cathell's speculation; I only worded it to identify it as speculation, as her text presents it as a conjecture ("appears to reference") rather than a fact.
Yes, the lawyer says it, but that's it! We summarize what RSs say. Cathell's piece is a secondary source, and can be used as a source, as long as its use is consistent with policies. S-M's court filing is a primary source, and because it's a court document, it's disallowed as a reference for content about A.G., a living person. So for any content about that, we have to turn to secondary sources. For example, the BBC source cited said "Lawyers for Mr Abrego Garcia's [sic] argued in court filings that the "westerns clique" is based in New York, where they say their client has never lived," and we can cite the BBC for what it wrote about S-M's statement to the court.
I've just removed the phrase you introduced, "without providing proof," as it's OR. If you want to introduce that into the article, you need to find an RS that notes this.
what you've done is removed references to the DOJ and SCDA Office saying MS-13 operates outside of New York and specifically in the area where Abrego Garcia lives... I don't see where the DOJ and SCDA Office sources I removed say anything close to "MS-13 operates outside of New York and specifically in the area where Abrego Garcia lives," so if you want to convince me that they said that, just quote what you're referring to in those two documents. Also, the text added to the article needs to be consistent with policies, including WP:DUE. You introduced a bunch of content that I don't think is DUE. We can use any of a variety of means to resolve our difference of opinion (see WP:DR).
... while letting stand that his lawyer has provided an citation with zero proof of that citation. The issue is whether the sentence accurately captures what RSs have said about it. It does. I quoted a BBC example above, and there are a number of other RSs that make similar statements.
No problem. I'll continue my search for the facts and make the appropriate updates. You keep citing Wikipedia policy, excluding facts, doing original research about rules for professional conduct of the MD Bar. Can you please provide a reliable source related to this issue that says what you said about professional conduct of the MD bar?ChatGPT OutputMkstokes (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm citing certain WP policies because they're relevant to editing the article and to our discussion. Facts that are out in the world are excluded all the time, see WP:VNOT. If you think that I've excluded something inappropriately, make a case for it. See what other editors think. Re: "doing original research," WP:NOR says "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. ... This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards" (emphasis added). I'm not trying to introduce anything about the MD Bar's rules of professional conduct into the article, only pointing it out in the discussion here in response to your claim that "It's totally conjecture on the Abrego Garcia's lawyers part."
The rules of MD courts mean nothing here. The Washington Examiner also has rules for editors and has a full staff of editors for their articles. Neither procedures prove false statements don't make it into news articles and courts. In fact, several attorneys have be prosecuted for lying to the court, so it does happen. In effect, you're saying because it's illegal, it doesn't happen. The FACT is, Sandoval-Moshenberg has presented zero evidence that MS-13's "Westerns" clique operates exclusively in New York, but the article presents it as a fact with zero proof. Merely the attorney's word. But we can't say Sandoval-Moshenberg provided no evidence of his assertion, but we can say Cathell is guessing, despite him not providing evidence because we have to wait until a secondary source says it. I provided a secondary source. Will Chamberlain on the Megyn Kelly podcast! Mkstokes (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sandoval-Moshenberg is a member of the MD bar and made the statement to a MD tribunal, so I don't understand your claim that "The rules of MD courts mean nothing here". I never suggested that any "procedures prove false statements don't make it into news articles and courts." The article doesn't "present[] it as a fact". It only presents it as S-M's claim. And as I said, if his statement is false, it's surprising that the government hasn't said so. They could even file a complaint with the MD bar.
"we can't say Sandoval-Moshenberg provided no evidence of his assertion" Asked and answered. As I said: if you want to introduce that into the article, you need to find an RS that notes this. But you cannot add it to the article as your own OR. As for using Megyn Kelly's show as a source, that looks self-published to me, which would mean it's disallowed under WP:BLPSPS. I'll open a separate discussion topic about that; you can also ask for guidance at WP:RSN re: whether it's SPS.
"In effect, you're saying because it's illegal, it doesn't happen." I'm not. And I am totally fed up with you attributing things to me that I don't believe. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, that's dubious. Why cite the Maryland Code and Court Rules if you simultaneously don't think it's controling? Your proof that Sandoval-Moshenberg is accurate seems to be because if he wasn't, the Maryland Code and Court Rules would go after make someone go after him. Rather than assuming, why don't you cite the reference that proves his statement? Why is him being a "member of the MD bar and made the statement to a MD tribunal" relevant and how is that not WP:OR? I don't see you citing a reliable source that says that Sandoval-Moshenberg is a member of the MD bar. What "reliable source" says that? Sounds like WP:OR to me. Or actually it's an assumption. What evidence have you provided from a "reliable source" that has said he's a member? Mkstokes (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the referent of "that" is in "that's dubious." I don't know what you mean for a code of conduct to be "controlling."
I did not say or imply that the fact that he's subject to the MD Bar's code of conduct was proof that his claim was accurate. (If you want to know what I did say, just reread what I wrote, and why I wrote it: in response to your assertion "It's totally conjecture on the Abrego Garcia's lawyers part.") I even noted above that I wasn't suggesting that it proves his statement to be true. So it's counterproductive to suggest that I was presenting it as proof, as this again gets us bogged down in an exchange where I'm spending time and energy countering your false characterizations of what I said. I'm fed up with this.
"why don't you cite the reference that proves his statement?" Again, I do not have a burden of proof for things I haven't claimed.
"Why is him being a 'member of the MD bar and made the statement to a MD tribunal' relevant ...?" I said that in response to your statement "The rules of MD courts mean nothing here." It's relevant to my point that the MD rules of conduct do mean something in MD courts / for lawyers with MD licenses. "and how is that not WP:OR?" I already pointed out that OR is allowed on talk pages.
"it's an assumption." No, it's based on the fact that he didn't ask to be allowed to participate pro hac vice and the fact that he gave his MD bar # in the filing we've been discussing. I'm pretty sure that he writes "D. Md. Bar no. 30965" every time he's the one who signs a filing.
No comment on most of that, but if anyone commenting here isn't familiar with the legal system and doesn't know about the Rules of Professional Conduct, the following link should help.
Yeah, I saw. Her order to stay discovery ends tomorrow at 5pm, so hopefully we'll learn something before too long. Van Hollen sent a letter to Trump today, and I should check if there's good reporting about it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FactOrOpinion what you don't seem to realize is that the false editing of Wikipedia directly contributes to the AI hallucination you lament. ChatGPT believes Abrego Garcia's lawyer is providing provable facts because THIS ARTICLE clearly implies it's a fact and the Large Language Model references Wikipedia as it's source. I have to teach it that it's wrong because of this article's incompetence. Mkstokes (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"THIS ARTICLE clearly implies it's a fact." This article clearly implies what is a fact? Please quote the text that you're referring to. For all I know, you're inferring something that is not implied. And if he made a false statement, I'm surprised that the DOJ hasn't countered it or reported him to the MD Bar. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The PGPD officer made the statement in 2019. The article already says "Mia Cathell of the Washington Examiner ... noted that in 2011, the Western clique was also active in the Washington, DC area." Your new article says that there was Western clique presence in MD in 2009. How is that relevant, given that A.G. was still living in El Salvador in 2009? FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually asking me how it's relevant that multiple sources have said MS-13's Western clique operates outside of the Brentwood, Long Island area in direct contradiction to what Abrego Garcia's lawyer said in a court document? You're doing WP:OR when you imply that it's irrelevant because he was in El Salvador in 2009. It doesn't matter where A.G. was. What matter is where MS-13's Western clique operates. I'll also note that his lawyer provided no timeframe in regards to his citation saying, "According to the Department of Justice and the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, the “Westerns” clique operates in Brentwood, Long Island, in New York." Furthermore, not a single OTHER reliable source cited on this article provides a timeframe. These two articles merely set up that MS-13's Western clique presence in MD has been noted as early as 2009 (actually, it's 2004 according to the Washington Examiner article). This means Abrego Garcia moved into an area where gang activity was well documented. This shouldn't be a surprising because he was arrested in 2019 while hanging out with two known MS-13 members. They were part of the "Sailor's clique," which just happens to be one of the 6 cliques mentioned in the Washington Times article. Mkstokes (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't asking you "how it's relevant that multiple sources have said MS-13's Western clique operates outside of the Brentwood, Long Island area." I was asking how information that was specifically about 2009 was relevant, given that A.G. didn't enter the country until 2011 or 2012 and the allegation that he "is an active member of MS-13 with the Westerns clique" was made in 2019. It would be more relevant if you had a source saying where the Western clique was active in 2019.
Re: "MS-13's Western clique presence in MD has been noted as early as 2009 (actually, it's 2004 according to the Washington Examiner article)," Cathell wrote "In 2004, law enforcement reportedly identified 13 different cliques in Maryland’s Montgomery County, another District of Columbia suburb," and linked to this DOJ document, which nowhere says that there were "13 different cliques" in Montgomery County (her claim), much less that the Western clique existed there in 2004 (your claim, citing her). The fact that she is factually inaccurate about what that DOJ summary said undermines the reliability of her article.
"You're doing WP:OR" As I pointed out to you earlier, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. ... This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards" (emphasis added). Do you understand this distinction in the policy?
You'd previously added a bunch of text into the article about a 2010/2011 indictment from a case that doesn't involve Abrego Garcia. I removed most of it, noting (in part) in my edit summary: "condensed material about where the MS-13 Westerns clique was active, removing most of the UNDUE content about 2011." To be clear, my edit left content that Cathell "noted that in 2011, the Western clique was also active in the Washington, DC area." I see that you've now reintroduced text about that 2010/2011 indictment. You clearly want there to be more text, but you haven't made any argument for why more text is DUE.
I'm not going to get into an edit war with you about this (as both of us have noted, this is a CTOP, and I don't engage in edit wars regardless). We are now in the D stage of WP:BRD (and it would have been better if you'd discussed it here before adding more text again). I do not believe that it is WP:DUE to devote several sentences to an indictment in a case that has nothing to do with Abrego Garcia. I think the text I'd left was sufficient. I'm OK with making it a bit longer, something like "Mia Cathell of the Washington Examiner hypothesized that Sandoval-Moshenberg was referring to DOJ and Suffolk County press releases about a 2011 murder of a Western clique member in Brentwood. She also pointed out a 2011 indictment in an unrelated case, which said that in 2011, six MS-13 cliques operated in the greater metropolitan area around Washington, DC, including the Western clique." If that works for you, great. If not, propose an alternative. If you're still pushing for more text, make a case for why more text is DUE. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll waste my time explaining. The pre-A.G. timeframe establishes three facts. 1. MS-13 is in Maryland 2. MS-13's Western clique, as well as 5 others have been in Maryland since at least 2004. 3. Contrary to A.G. lawyers citation, the DOJ explicitly says MS-13's Western clique is in Maryland, making his citation incorrect. It's funny how you expect Cathell article to site the specifics about when MS-13's Western clique was in Maryland, but you've made no mention that A.G. lawyer hasn't provided those same specifics nor has he provided evidence that the DOJ and SCDA Office said they operated in Brentwood, Long Island, in New York. I won't even go into your complete misreading of the WP:DUE policy. Right now, it's two sentences of a massive pro-Abrego Garcia article, but somehow, that's too much? You're focusing way to much on the case and not on the contradiction between Cathell and Sandoval-Moshenberg. Especially since one is providing detailed evidence and another has provided zero evidence, only an unverified statement. There's evidence MS-13's Western clique was in Maryland in 2004, 2009, 2011 (when A.G. arrived), and in 2024 and 2025 the DOJ references a RICO case that says MS-13 is still in Maryland and organized into various cliques. You've made no case as to why it matter when he arrived, seeming to imply that unless he arrived at a specific time where the DOJ says MS-13's Western clique was in Maryland, then we can assume it left Maryland? Are you asking for a yearly census of gangs in the Maryland area? I'd pay the $175 per year cost to get the Journal of Gang Research for you if I thought it would matter. But honestly, I don't think it does. Mkstokes (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, someone else has already cut some of your text; invite them into the discussion if their edit concerns you.
I asked you to work with me to come up with text that works for both of us. Are you willing to do that? If so, then as I said: If what I proposed doesn't work for you, propose an alternative. WP:MOS also says "Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate." This strikes me as an example of a quote that can easily be paraphrased more concisely without any loss of relevant info.
Isn't your primary point that the Western clique existed in the DC metro area in 2011? If so, there's no need to have a quote listing the names of the other 5 cliques. The text I proposed notes that the Western clique existed in the DC metro area in 2011, but if there's some other point that you think the text should address, or if you just dislike the way I worded it, just propose specific alternative text. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cloudjpk's clean up doesn't concern me that much. The substance of my concerns are still in the remaining text.
Government says he's in MS-13's Western clique.
A.G. lawyer says DOJ and the SCDA Office has indicated the MS-13's Western clique is "based in New York."
A.G. lawyer says A.G. has never lived in NY.
Washington Examiner provides evidence from 2011 that directly contradicts A.G. lawyer's claims about MS-13's Western clique being "based in New York" and his claim that the DOJ indicated this.
I would prefer if there were a statement saying Sandoval-Moshenberg provide no evidence of his claims, but I can wait until a reliable source says that. Furthermore, in the article it needs to reference that A.G. arrived in Maryland in 2011 because reliable sources and even his lawyer says in his compliant:
Sometime around 2011, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia entered the United States without inspection. He then made his way to the state of Maryland, where his older brother, a U.S. citizen, resided. In the United States, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia has only ever resided in Maryland.
Why the date of his arrival stated as a DOJ conclusion is beyond me since the referenced document says otherwise and the cited news article from NBC News doesn't say "According to the U.S. Department of Justice." I'll go and fix that right now. Also, I've looked at all the information his lawyer provided to the court and nowhere does he provide how he came to the conclusions he stated in his compliant regarding the location of MS-13's Western clique. I will reject any premise or reference implying that the government must prove MS-13's Western clique was in Maryland in 2019 or 2025. The burden of proof is on the A.G. in these administrative proceedings.
One last note. According to A.G., as documented in this Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien (Form I-213), is says:
Abrego-Garcia claimed to have walked across the desert for many days entering illegally into the United States near McAllen, Texas on or about March 25, 2012.
If you're OK with Cloudjpk's change, then my proposed text is: "Mia Cathell of the Washington Examiner pointed out a 2011 indictment in an unrelated case, which said that at the time, six MS-13 cliques operated in the greater metropolitan area around Washington, DC, including the Western clique."
I think that waters it down. Why do you want to remove "In contrast" when purpose of the entire cited article is to refute Sandoval-Moshenberg assertion that MS-13’s Western clique only? It's noteworthy that the gangs listed include Sailors clique because the two gang members arrested with Abrego Garcia were members of that clique. I'll note that no where in the article does it mention that he was arrested with two alleged gang members, despite several reliable sources saying so. Rather it says he and "...three other men were arrested by police...." One of those men, Christhyan Hernandez-Romero, was "found guilty of gang participation...in December 2018." Why is that left out? I'll of course add that in soon:
Her article cites several more references which indicate MS-13's Western clique was in D.C., but for the sake of expediancy I've accepted that all of them can't be added. As I said before, it's important that Sandoval-Moshenberg provide no evidence of his claims but Mia Cathell has cited multiple evidence for her claim. Why can't we just leave it as it is currently, despite it being incredibly sparse already? Mkstokes (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already asked you three times to propose the specific text that you want to use. If you do that, it would help all of this move forward more efficiently.
Re: the "purpose of the entire cited article is to refute Sandoval-Moshenberg assertion that MS-13’s Western clique only" (emphasis added) existed in New York, S-M did not say "only." It's a reasonable inference from what he wrote, but it's not his actual assertion.
Re: "Her article cites several more references which indicate MS-13's Western clique was in D.C," the 2011 indictment, which neither she nor Chamberlain links to, is already mentioned in our article. She also links to an InSight Crime article, which says "This story is reprinted with permission from Revista Factum," the story you already linked to above (all InsightCrime did was translate it into English). And guess what: that article just focuses on a different part of the very same indictment in the very same RICO case. What she (and you) quoted is from p. 5, and the other article refers to evidence on p. 15. She did not present any other citations re: the Western clique being in the DC area. I have to wonder why she linked to the InsightCrime article, when she could have just quoted another bit from the same indictment. (Did she not realize that it was the same indictment because she never read it? That's certainly what's suggested by her claim that InSight Crime was "echoing the FBI’s findings.")
If you want to name the Sailors clique too, OK, include it in the text that you propose. If "In contrast" is that important to you, OK, include it in the text that you propose. For example, the following text is fine with me:
"In contrast, Mia Cathell of the Washington Examiner pointed out that in an unrelated case, a 2011 DOJ indictment named six MS-13 cliques operating in the greater Washington, DC metropolitan area, including the Sailors and Western cliques." (It's important to me that it's clear that this case is unrelated.)
"Why can't we just leave it as it is currently, despite it being incredibly sparse already?" As I said earlier: WP:MOS says "Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate," and this strikes me as an example of a quote that can easily be paraphrased more concisely without any loss of relevant info. If you think we actually need to explain what a "clique" is, that should happen when the word first appears, earlier in the paragraph. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've now said it twice that I like it as-is. There is absolutely no reason to paraphrase a quote that's already short (320 characters). I don't see you asking to paraphrase other quotes like:
Justice Sotomayor statement which is very much longer (598 characters)
AP News quote which is longer (438 characters)
Presidents Trump and Bukele which is much longer (460 characters)
Vasquez Sura statement which is more than twice as long (749 characters)
Republican Senator Chuck Grassley statement which is twice as long (675 characters)
Jon Stewart quote is longer (444 characters)
But THIS quote needs to be shorter because it's WP:UNDUE or needs to follow WP:MOS? THIS quote needs to be "paraphrased" but no other. THIS quote you're fighting to change, but no other. Go ahead and add "in an unrelated case" even though there is no reliable source that says this. But I don't think your suggestion to remove the quote entirely and relegate it to approximately 125 characters is what the Manual of Style had in mind. I'd also like to add "without evidence" to Sandoval-Moshenberg assertion despite no reliable source explicitly saying that. It should read "Sandoval-Moshenberg cited the DOJ and the Suffolk County district attorney’s office regarding the western clique's location, without providing evidence." At least both Mia Cathell's article, the Megyn Kelly podcast, and Will Chamberlain make that assessment and it's in the public sphere. Fair? Mkstokes (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you like it as is. But the issue is whether we can work together to figure out text that works for both of us. As WP:CON notes, "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision-making. It involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." I've been trying to address your concerns (e.g., by providing sample text that added back in the "In contrast" that you wanted, and adding back in the mention of the Sailors clique, because you explained why you wanted it there, and that's a legitimate reason). I don't see you trying to address my concerns. Are you going to try?
"I don't think your suggestion to remove the quote entirely and relegate it to approximately 125 characters is what the Manual of Style had in mind." Why not? The vast majority of the article is paraphrased text, not quotes. (I'm not going to discuss the other quotes as part of this discussion, per WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL)
"Go ahead and add 'in an unrelated case' even though there is no reliable source that says this." I think Cathell makes it clear in her article: she names the "Abrego Garcia case," and she posts an image with the defendants in the other case. But if you don't want it there, I'm willing to drop that, again in an effort to find consensus. "I'd also like to add 'without evidence'" Find an RS that enables you to show that. (No, the court document is not an RS for this, per BLPPRIMARY.) "Mia Cathell's article ... make[s] that assessment." Where?
"the Megyn Kelly podcast, and Will Chamberlain" We haven't yet resolved whether that's self-published. Shall we ask for input at the RSN? FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It just occured to me that I already have a level of consensus. You're the only one requesting it to be shortened even further than it's already been shortened for what I believe is dubious reasoning. I didn't even write the current version, @Cloudjpk did. Why aren't you negotiating with that user? Of course you don't want to discuss the other quotes, because you LIKE them, but I don't think it's a coincidence you don't like this citation because it directly contradicts Abrego Garcia's lawyer, Sandoval-Moshenberg. You've already admitted is a "reasonable inference" that he's saying MS-13’s Western clique is only in New York. But as I keep saying, not only does he provide no evidence that the DOJ supports his assertion, but several people have provided direct evidence that contradicts this assertion he's made in a court document! Furthermore, several news outlets have printed his 100% incorrect assertion which makes them look bad as well. If I ask the most used AI platforms, they also say "No, MS-13’s "Westerns" clique is not exclusively based in New York." Are you interested in a fact-based article or one that only says what you want it to say? I can already see you're going down the path of "Yes, I know the truth, but since a news article didn't print it, it's not the truth despite what a court of law says." You're willing to editorialize "in an unrelated case" despite no reliable source saying it, but you won't editorialize saying "without providing evidence" despite there being no evidence of Sandoval-Moshenberg assertion and in fact there being detailed contradictory evidence that he's 100% wrong. I even met your request to prove that MS-13's Westerns clique was in Maryland at the same time A.G. arrived in Maryland in 2011! Mkstokes (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and now the true purpose is revealed! Thank you, @Iknowyoureadog for at least being honest about your desire to remove this information all together despite it's validity. The famous WP:DUE excuse that blanketly allow editors to remove any content they don't like from Wikipedia. It is the Trump card (pun intended) of this site and drives why the Reliable sources/Perennial sources page skews left. It clearly doesn't require original research because even the title of the article says, "Abrego Garcia case: MS-13 Western clique has history of activity in DC area!" That is its premise in black and white. How on earth is that relying on original research, especially when quote from the article says it all? Please explain. (I can't wait to hear this!) This is the #2 reason why the quote should not be removed. The next step is to disclaim what the article says and the final step is to use the WP:UNDUE policy to remove it!Mkstokes (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you caught me! I believe we should be following Wikipedia policies. Would you like me to lock myself in the pillory? Or would you prefer to do so? i know you're a dog18:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issue with including it, fine details of MS-13 are very important to lots of people now that MAGA people have been programmed to believe the lie that the victim here is a gang member. Including some of the pretenses they've offered seems relevant, we might as well keep the short version. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MilesVorkosigan, would you mind saying more about why you think it needs to be quoted and want to include that entire blockquote instead of just summarizing it? I consider this a tiny point, and proposed "In contrast, Mia Cathell of the Washington Examiner pointed out that in an unrelated case, a 2011 DOJ indictment named six MS-13 cliques operating in the greater Washington, DC metropolitan area, including the Sailors and Western cliques," which I think captures everything significant in the intro+blockquote. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was saying that in *some* version, I think it should be mentioned.
I have no problems with your suggestion.
Though seeing it worded that way, it reminds me that I'm curious how often members of different 'cliques' hang out together, because the other people from 2019 were supposedly in a different one. And, of course, how often members of dangerous and powerful gangs spend time hanging out looking for day-labor, but I haven't seen RS (or even Unrel) on either of those questions. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The burden of proof is on the A.G. in these administrative proceedings."
@FactOrOpinion, what you've done is removed references to the DOJ and SCDA Office saying MS-13 operates outside of New York and specifically in the area where Abrego Garcia lives while letting stand that his lawyer has provided an citation with zero proof of that citation. Mkstokes (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSP says "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, which should be handled by following the appropriate guideline."
Do we need a big section on whether he crossed the border in 2011 or 2012? I'm not seeing anything that's relevant to, either way he crossed the border without a visa and the date doesn't seem to have any connection to any issues with the lawsuit or deportation. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't see the need for a big section. There's some mildly conflicting info in RSs, and I think we just report what the RSs say: he entered the country illegally around 2011 or early 2012, citing appropriate RSs.
FWIW, here's my own take on what's going with the difference in dates:
I don't think there's anyone other than A.G. who could know when he entered (it's not as if there's a record of his entry), and he may not know/remember the precise date. As best I can tell, the news organizations are all relying on statements about it made by people in different legal documents. For example, on 3/29/2019, a day after A.G.'s arrest, the person who filled out a DHS I-213 form wrote "Abrego-Garcia claimed to have walked across the desert for many days entering illegally into the United States near McAllen, Texas on or about March 25, 2012." "On or about" means that they don't have a precise date, and for all I know, A.G. said something like "I entered the U.S. about 5 years ago," and the officer is the one who turned that into "on or about March 25, 2012." A.G.'s lawyer wrote "Sometime around 2011, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia entered the United States without inspection." Again, "around 2011" could include early 2012. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FactOrOpinion the error you noted above is not an error. Rather, it is your misreading of the provided hyperlink. You are correct that it doesn't have text saying there were "13 different cliques" in Montgomery County. That's because, contrary to your reply, this is not a link to a "DOJ document." Rather, it is a link to the "National Criminal Justice Reference Service Virtual Library." The information provided is an abstract (i.e., summary) of referenced information which is actually in the Journal of Gang Research Volume: 11 Issue: 2 Dated: Winter 2004 Pages: 23-28. So your assertion saying, "The fact that she is factually inaccurate about what that DOJ summary said undermines the reliability of her article" actually might undermine YOUR research credibility, not her article, but that remains to be seen. That's why I previously said "I'd pay the $175 per year cost to get the Journal of Gang Research for you if I thought it would matter. But honestly, I don't think it does." Harvard University seems to have it in bound form. I can attempt to have them pull it from storage if you like in order to validate the statement in her article? https://id.lib.harvard.edu/alma/990090538140203941/catalogMkstokes (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Megyn Kelly show self-published? (BLPSPS question)
Content was added to the media commentators section sourced to the Megyn Kelly show. My question: is that show self-published? It seems that way to me, as it's her media company creating the show and then distributing it through various podcast platforms and Youtube. The reason I'm asking: WP:BLPSPS does not allow self-published sources to be used for content about living persons (in this case, about Abrego Garcia's lawyer, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg), unless published by that living person themself. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually produced by a company called Res Seat Ventures which was acquired by Fox Corp. in February 2025. According to this article, "Res Seat Ventures produces audio and video podcasts and other programming with talent that includes a slew of former Fox and cable news stars.
Among Red Seat’s clients are Megyn Kelly, whose show streams on YouTube and runs on SiriusXM, and Tucker Carlson, who was ousted by Fox two years ago."
Thanks, but I wasn't asking about the producer. I was asking about the publisher. The two terms aren't synonyms. This article indicates that Red Seat is not the producer for her show, and is instead "a digital media company that helps manage business concerns for a bevy of news personalities who have gone independent." It goes on to say "Kelly and others who work with Red Seat will remain independent from Fox Corp., she said in a comment posted Monday via social media. Kelly said her program 'is owned 100% by me. Happy for Fox & Red Seat but it has virtually nothing to do with me.'" Here's her tweet about it, where she says that "Red Seat sells ads for our show." That's not a publisher. Her tweet only further suggests that her show is self-published. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know nomination
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
QPQ: Overall: Article new and long enough. Passes earwig, no close paraphrasing was found, and the hook is interesting, cited inline, and verified. QPQ not done. Get QPQ done before I can give final approval. And also, insert the citation which you used for the article's nomination within the article as that is also missing. Toadboy123 (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadboy123: The link is in the article--it is currently the first link (found in the lede). And, as noted, this is my first nom (as far as I can recall) so I don't think the QPQ is required. Once I get through this process I will probably do some DYK reviews (though not until the semester is done, life is crazy right now). Hobit (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A sentence in this section now reads "Court documents indicate that around 2011 or 2012, he illegally crossed the Mexico–U.S. border near McAllen, Texas." This is not only factually inaccurate but it erases the previous 100% accurate information and glosses over a contradiction which stated "According to a U.S. Department of Justice filing, Abrego Garcia claims he illegally crossed the Mexico–U.S. border near McAllen, Texas, in March 2012. His claim contradicts news sources stating he illegally entered the United States in 2011." No document exists that says Abrego Garcia came here illegally "around 2011 or 2012" and the Politifact article is false in this regard. It says "Abrego Garcia crossed the U.S. border illegally around 2011 or 2012, according to court documents." and cites two documents. The first document says:
22. Sometime around 2011, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia entered the United States without inspection. He then made his way to the state of Maryland, where his older brother, a U.S. citizen, resided. In the United States, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia has only ever resided in Maryland.
The other document, which is an I-213 form, says:
Abrego-Garcia claimed to have walked across the desert for many days entering illegally into the United States near McAllen, Texas on or about March 25, 2012.
Abrego Garcia's claim clearly contradicts what SEVERAL news sources have stated, which is why this sentence said so. But now this glosses over that fact by quoting an article that has gotten it's facts wrong. Wikipedia's Verifiability policy states "If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." This new text clearly only presents the Politifact article and not the numerous other articles otherwise. It even contradicts what's said in the court materals that it cites! This needs to be reverted to it's original form. I know that we can't cite court documents in Wikipedia mainspace, but that doesn't mean we have to cite inaccurate information from reliable sources just because they printed it. Or as one editor said, "The fact that she is factually inaccurate about what [the court documents] said undermines the reliability of her article." Mkstokes (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editor here has threatened to complain to the administrators if I keep pointing out when he lies or pushes propaganda, could someone neutral ask him what he thinks the 'falsehood' is when saying 'in 2011 or 2012' or 'around 2012' when different sources offer both dates?
And, more importantly, what is the importance or relevance of talking about this when it has literally no connection to anything having to do with the deportation? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkstokes, your argument is that "No document exists that says Abrego Garcia came here illegally 'around 2011 or 2012'" and to support that position, you quote a document that states "Sometime around 2011, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia entered the United States". I am confused about what you are trying to argue. Are you saying the I-213 is known to be correct and the other document is known to be wrong? I don't think we get to be the arbiter of what is right and wrong. We just note what sources say. So I would assume one way to deal with it is to just have a note about the issue like they do with Shakespear's birth date. [7]. Remember (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remember Yes, a note "similar to Shakespear's birth date" would be very helpful. However, if the goal is to "note what sources say" then we should note what the overwhelming majority of sources say per WP:DUE (i.e., "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." Almost every reliable news source cited in this article sets the date at 2011 including:
2011 citations
1. ABC News: "where his attorneys say he escaped political violence in 2011" [8]
2. Newsweek: "Abrego-Garcia, who came to the U.S. at age 16 in 2011" [9]
3. AP News: "Abrego Garcia came to the U.S. illegally from El Salvador around 2011" [10]
4. ABC News: "Abrego Garcia entered the United States in 2011 when he was 16 to escape gang violence in El Salvador, according to his lawyers." [11]
5. ABC News: "Trump administration officials say Abrego Garcia, who escaped political violence in El Salvador 2011" [12]
6. ABC News: "Abrego Garcia fled to the U.S. illegally around 2011, according to documents filed in his immigration case." [13]
7. Politico: "The Salvadoran native entered the country illegally around 2011 and had been living in Maryland." [14]
8. The Atlantic: "Court filings show that Abrego Garcia came to the United States at age 16 in 2011." [15]
9. The Guardian: "Ábrego García, 29, is a Salvadorian immigrant who entered the US illegally around 2011 because he and his family were facing threats by local gangs." [16]
10. CBS News: "Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who entered the U.S. illegally around 2011 when he was 16" [17]
11. Washington Post: "After multiple death threats from the gang, known as Barrio 18, he crossed the southern border illegally around 2011 and set off in search of a better life, court records show." [18]
12. AP News: "Abrego Garcia came to the U.S. illegally from El Salvador around 2011, according to his lawyers." [19]
13. AP News: "Abrego Garcia fled to the U.S. illegally around 2011, the year he turned 16, according to documents in his immigration case." [20]
14: Politico: "Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. illegally around 2011." [21]
2012 citations
1. NBC News: "He crossed the border illegally near McAllen, Texas, in March 2012 when he was 16 years old, according to documents posted on X by Attorney General Pam Bondi." [22]
2. BBC: "Mr Abrego Garcia has acknowledged entering the US illegally in 2012, according to court documents." [23]
3. The Hill: "Abrego Garcia, a native of El Salvador, says he entered the United States in 2012." [24]
4. AllSides: "...Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man from El Salvador who lived in Maryland and entered the US unlawfully around March 2012. [25]
2011 and 2012
1. Newsweek: "They eventually sent him to the U.S. as well in around 2011 or 2012." [26]
2. Politifact: "Abrego Garcia crossed the U.S. border illegally around 2011 or 2012, according to court documents." [27]
But which citation makes it into the Wikipedia mainspace? The minority view! I'll note that Newsweek even contradicts itself. There are clearly two court documents at play here, which was noted in the old text. The I-213 form and the complaint filed by Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, Abrego Garcia's attorney. I've noted what they each say above. The first is a claim by Abrego Garcia, the second is a claim by his lawyer. I don't know why the lawyer contradicts his client's statement, but that's not for us to decided. I think we are just supposed to present both points, give readers the full context, and let them decide. I just know there is no court document that says, "Abrego Garcia crossed the U.S. border illegally around 2011 or 2012." That is a falsehood. It's partially relevant because @FactOrOpinion said "Your new article says that there was Western clique presence in MD in 2009. How is that relevant, given that A.G. was still living in El Salvador in 2009?" This, to me, implies the time where there is a confirmed MS-13's Western clique presence in Maryland at the time Abrego Garcia was in Maryland. Especially since @iknowyoureadog already wants to remove the source that confirmed MS-13's Western clique presence in Maryland. Mkstokes (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2025 and 23 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Evelynbennett (article contribs).
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.
Article new and long enough. Passes earwig, no close paraphrasing was found, and the hook is interesting, cited inline, and verified. QPQ not done. Get QPQ done before I can give final approval. And also, insert the citation which you used for the article's nomination within the article as that is also missing. Toadboy123 (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
I did a recheck again and citation is in the lede. Apologies from my side regarding the QPQ request. Article is good to go. Toadboy123 (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)