Talk:CECOT

Repeated removal of the Human Rights Watch & Cristosal investigation

This seems to be the most detailed investigation so far, is the fact that "the conclusion is the same" (PizzaKing13) a good reason to not include it? MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't it also be beneficial to have more recent research like that report included even if the results are similar? I certainly can't think of any downsides. Liberscriptus19 (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why both shouldn't be cited in sequential order. This article isn't anywhere near the word count limit, and reference to both sources shows increasing and reinforced evidence by investigation over time, which is necessarily relevant to its history. Ignoring that argument entirely, both have still been widely covered by reliable secondary sources, which justifies inclusion of its own right.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Detention of foreign prisoners section move proposal

I propose splitting moving the Detention of foreign prisoners subsection into the Immigration detention in the second Trump administration article. The content of subsection only discusses foreign prisoners from the United States and during the second Trump administration. The subsection is only 862 words, the Immigration detention in the second Trump administration article is currently only 6,186 words (with a section in the latter article is being proposed for splitting into a separate new article), so merging the articles subsection into that article would be consistent with the article size guideline. The subsection and that the Immigration detention in the Trump administration article have overlapping scopes. It would not clearly be providing the subsection's content undue weight under the neutral point of view policy in the Immigration detention in the United States article, and a sentence with a link to the Immigration detention in the United States article could be retained in the Terrorism Confinement Center article to avoid undue weight in this article (since U.S. prisoners being detained at CECOT should probably still be mentioned in this article). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@CommonKnowledgeCreator I agree that this should be listed at the article you've mentioned, but I think it would be better served as a long excerpt as opposed to a wholesale move, as it's necessarily relevant to both pages and is more directly relevant to this one, as Immigration detention in the second Trump administration is very broadly based. Let me know what your thoughts are.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the content is more relevant to the Immigration detention in the second Trump administration article than this one. As the article is currently 3,781 words, more than three-quarters of its word count along with its scope is about the prison itself rather than the second Trump administration's use of the prison. Also, the article was created in February 2023, so the article was not created in response to the second Trump administration's use of the prison. I'm also not sure what you mean by "broadly-based". Do you mean something analogous to a broad-concept article? The Immigration raids section of the Immigration detention in the second Trump administration article is currently being proposed for a split into a separate article on Immigration policing tactics during the second Trump administration, so it's scope is going to narrowed somewhat. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @CommonKnowledgeCreator, that's (Do you mean something analogous to a broad-concept article?) exactly what I meant, appreciate the policy citation. My thinking behind basing it here, though, is the fact that the detention and reported torture of those individuals physically happened at this location, which I feel overrides subject specific relevance. I don't disagree with you that it's equally relevant to the Immigration detention article; however, since the event happened outside of US detention facilities, I feel its best maintained as an excerpt on that page, especially given that there's quite a bit more room for an extra 7,000 words to be written on that page than this one, and thus, long term, its more likely to be preserved in long form here. I might ask for the thoughts of another editor to see what broader opinions are.

CSGinger14 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14 If I understood correctly, there's no disagreement on the claim that, as of right now, the content of that (sub)section is more within the scope of the Immigration policy of the second Donald Trump administration page. As for whether it should be moved or excerpted, I don't think the latter is worth the inconvenience posed to future editors having to care not to off-scope the target page. (I mean even for edits within the div tags). Even though such "inconvenience" is usually not a big deal, it may be the case that leaving the 'Detention of foreign prisoners' section here empty for now (perhaps with a hatnote indicating the other page) will encourage a more cecot-focused rewriting of the same thing, while also observing the broader sense implied by the section header.Myselfthethird (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Outdated Research

In this section: From 2019 to 2020, El Salvador's homicide rate decreased by up to 62 percent.[1]: 19  Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele credited the decrease to his Territorial Control Plan, but a 2020 analysis by the International Crisis Group (ICG) found "no causal relationship" between the decrease in homicides and the Territorial Control Plan.[1]: 20  Instead, the ICG attributed the decrease to "quiet, informal understandings between gangs and the government"; the Salvadoran government denied the claim.[7] In December 2021, the United States Department of the Treasury accused Bukele's government of negotiating with the gangs to reduce homicides; Bukele denied the accusation.[8]

Wikipedia cites a 2020 study by the ICG, this study occurred before mass incarceration. The information listed here is somewhat irrelevant unless limited to a brief timeline overview. I suggest that editors interested, should overhaul this section and others like it with more recent data. It doesn't accurately reflect the modern reality which is that currently the crime rates have dropped significantly. This should be clearly illustrated and properly attributed in addition to other relevant information like the human rights violations that have been carried out. Aertt (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 6 September 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:25, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

---

Terrorism Confinement Center → CECOT – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Most sources call it CECOT. Szxq (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 17:31, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom. As someone who has worked extensively with articles and templates referencing the center as CECOT, I have never seen it referred to as anything other than "CECOT" as far as I can remember. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I think a WP:BOLD move is fully appropriate and uncontroversial here. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Since a close variation failed at Talk:Terrorism_Confinement_Center/Archive_1#Requested_move_3_February_2025 it's by definition not uncontroversial. And I'd need to see a refutation to the comments there before I'm convinced it's a good idea either. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:18, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I queried the string "Terrorism Confinement Center" from Jan 1 2025 to Sep 12 2026 in the NOW Corpus (News on the Web). The string "Terrorism Confinement Center" has been used 873 times in that time period by news sources. In the same duration, the string "CECOT" has been used 3867 times by news sources.

The NOW Corpus requires academic credentials or a subscription so my claim is not easily verifiable, but if anyone else has a valid account they can feel free to verify the above.

Does this resolve WP:COMMONNAME concerns? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment -- How often is it that we name articles based on their abbreviation and not their full organizational label? Cause at the very least it seems as though other organizations that are typically referred to primarily by their acronym are nonetheless listed here by their full title. Under the same premise doesn't it make more sense to revert to its Spanish name?

CSGinger14 (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

PRISM, ACT-R, and 26 Federal Plaza are three examples off the top of my head of articles that use an abbreviation instead of the full name. WP:COMMONNAME applies if people are unlikely to recognize "terrorism confinement center" but are likely to recognize "CECOT" (Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used). Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

26 Federal Plaza is an address, not an abbreviation. DVD, HIV, HIV/AIDS, IBM, KFC, NASA, NATO, NPR, SIDS and COVID-19 are some others. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Not an abbreviation but the principle applies. And I like the rest of the examples you provided. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I would like the query answered. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 17:31, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force, WikiProject El Salvador, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Law Enforcement, WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, WikiProject Latin America, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Venezuela, WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject United States, and WikiProject Central America have been notified of this discussion. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 17:32, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.