Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Shibumi2's proposed new article lead

This is my proposal for the new article lead. Please consider it in spirit of cooperation and consensus upon which Wikipedia was founded.

Waterboarding consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, in many cases with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. It is considered by most sources to be a form of torture. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the sensation of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, Human Rights Watch has claimed that it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.

Waterboarding has been used in interrogations to obtain information and coerce confessions at least as early as the Spanish Inquisition. It has also been used to punish and intimidate. Today it is considered to be torture by a majority of expert authorities, including legal experts, politicians, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations. However, some noteworthy legal experts, including Stanford Law professor and former US deputy assistant attorney general John Yoo and former US Justice Department prosecutor Andrew McCarthy argue that waterboarding is not torture in all cases.

Waterboarding gained recent attention and notoriety in the United States when the press reported that the CIA had used waterboarding in the interrogation of certain extrajudicial prisoners and that the Justice Department had authorized this procedure. The new controversy surrounded the alleged use of waterboarding by the CIA on terrorist leaders, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and whether the practice was acceptable.

Please indicate below whether you support or oppose this version of the article lead.

• Strongly support. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. As per reasoning and 2 months of discussion above and in archives. Not repeating myself here - it's already on this page. See all the leads proposed in Nov/Dev 2007 here: PROPOSED LEADS for more information - but please do not edit the archive. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly support - This article, as it now stands is a WP:COATRACK. That's an essay, not a policy; but it describes with pinpoint accuracy the strategy that has been used here to do an end run around WP:NPOV, which is bedrock Wiki policy. If a dozen POV pushers are on one side in a consensus, and one editor like Shibunie stands up for NPOV, policy is more important than consensus. 68.29.221.171 (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose - The current lead, which is accurate and well sourced, was created over a period of months, with many editors considering all available sources and developing consensus. Badagnani (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is encyclopedia article. It is not inventory of everything editor does not like about Bush Administration. Language used must be strictly neutral. Facts must be verified. Reputation of Wikipedia project is more important than any editor's agenda. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I object to the sentence: "Expert opinion is divided on the issue of whether waterboarding is torture." for the reasons discussed above. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed that sentence. Please reconsider your vote. Shibumi2 (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It is better. But it is still too heavily focused on the United States. This should be an article primarily about waterboarding now and throughout history, not about "waterboarding as practiced by the United States" or "waterboarding as viewed by the United States." Your proposed lead devotes about one-third of its 300 words to United States opinions and controversy; the current lead is more balanced. John Yoo and Andrew McCarthy do not belong in the lead. I would not object to a sentence such as "However, certain U. S. attorneys have argued that waterboarding is not torture in all cases." Further details on the U. S. controversy should go in their own section. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, this lead misrepresents the Bybee memo (cited after "John Yoo"). The memo argues for definitions of "severe physical pain" and "severe mental pain" but does not mention waterboarding anywhere as far as I can tell. If I am in error, please point to the part of the memo that "argues that waterboarding is not torture in all cases". Otherwise, John Yoo should be removed from the lead. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Neither oppose or support. There are errors of fact and an unbalanced perspective. But it is better than the current lead. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please recommend changes to satisfy your concerns about errors of fact and unbalanced perspective Blue Tie. I would like to win your support for this change. As you say it is better than current lead. Shibumi2 (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I disagree with a few items but it comes closest to being objective. -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support This version is still biased against the government but it is the best of a bad lot. PennState21 (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly support. This was exquisitely crafted by someone who is not a native speaker of English. It accommodates all concerns expressed on this Talk page except one: the desire to pretend that there is no dispute about the "waterboarding is torture" claim, and that the opinions of former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, Stanford Law professor John Yoo, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Judge Advocate General Thomas Hartmann, Congressman Tom Tancredo, Congressman Ted Poe, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, law professor Jeffrey Addicott, waterboarding victim Matt Margolis, and 29% of the American people should all be ignored. Neutral Good (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your list of sources considerably exaggerates the facts. Tancredo and Poe have said outright that waterboarding is not torture; that is true. The WSJ editorial implies that waterboarding is not torture. McCarthy said repeated waterboarding is torture but once or twice probably isn't. Yoo did not give an opinion on waterboarding in the Bybee memo. Mukasey refused to give an opinion. Hartmann refused to give an opinion. Addicott did not say anything about waterboarding either. And you have mis-cited Matt Margolis: he does not himself claim to be a waterboarding victim; he presents quotations from an anonymous source who claims to have been waterboarded. In summary, this is what you have:

• Two congressmen, a newspaper editorial, and an anonymous friend of a political blogger who say waterboarding is not torture.
• One former prosecutor who says repeated waterboarding is torture but isolated instances may not be torture.
• A telephone poll in the United States in which 69% say waterboarding is torture and 29% say it isn't.

Notice also that all of this is only within the United States, and it is quite thin on legal expertise. On the other side of the issue you have over 110 legal experts, not to mention all the other sources researched so far. Therefore, the lead and the article must reflect the general understanding, both within and outside of the United States, both in the present and in history, that waterboarding is torture. I am not opposed to a brief mention of the opposing viewpoint in the lead — a single sentence such as "Certain United States politicians have recently stated that waterboarding is not torture" would be fine with me — but it would be biased to go any further than that in the lead; that would unquestionably constitute undue weight. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your post can be summarized as follows: All of these sources, including several very prominent legal authorities, are saying that waterboarding cannot be stated with certainty to be torture, as the America haters are insisting the lead sentenceshould say. Some of these legal authorities go farther by saying with certainty that waterboarding is not torture in all cases. A few go even farther by saying waterboarding is not torture in ANY case. But all of them agree, in effect, that the lead sentence of this article is not an accurate statement of fact. It is a significant, substantial dispute. Neutral Good (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is some of the most amazing spin-doctoring of others' comments. Please argue based on policy, not ad hominems. Lawrence Cohen 14:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The expert divided wording is simply not acceptable, as it's not accurate or supported. What sources say "expert opinion" is divided on the is/isn't torture matter? Lawrence Cohen 04:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose No experts say it is not torture, only the opinion of two politicians who support the right of their government to torture. So i agree with "Certain United States politicians have recently stated that waterboarding is not torture" but thats it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. The first sentence is a description, instead of a definition. The intro attempts to muddle muddles the issue of torture by breaking WP:UNDUE. I said it once before: imagine Moon landing article intro saying that "Moon landing is considered by most sources to have actually happened, and was not a hoax". I don't like the inclusion of current issues (US administration, etc.) in the intro either. GregorB (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The moon landing comparison is the best, most perfect one so far. Another would be the flat earth ultra-minority of "experts" who feel the world is indeed flat for whatever religious or other reasons. Lawrence Cohen 14:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just one important correction to what I've written above: I think the intro muddles the issue, but is unfair, though, to say it "attempts to", as that would imply a malicious intent. GregorB (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any justice minister of any major government power that disputed whether or not the moon landing had happened.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but notability of sources does not equal reliability. The opposing views are invariably American government viewpoints, not exactly impartial in this story (cui bono, one might ask) which makes them far less reliable than views of neutral parties (while still indisputably notable and important). GregorB (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There aren't that many neutral parties. Just look at the sources. The lawyers who say that it is torture tend to be critics of U.S. policy (regardless of whatever that policy may be), and some are at the extreme end. I don't say Andrew C. McCarthy is objective but it's wrong for WP to say that those on the other side are.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -- I know there has been a contentitious discussion going on about this, but I haven't been paying a lot of attention. I have no problem with this particular lead. However, since it too may be controversial, I am going to suggest three changes.
  • Basically, this lead would be perfectly fine, and less likely to stir controversy, if it did not mention torture, at all.
  • Cut, the second sentence "It is considered by most sources to be a form of torture." -- and all other explicit references to torture from the lead.
  • The third sentence currently states: "Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the sensation of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent." Replace with something like: "Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the first stages of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent." -- or: "Through forced inhalation of water, the subject experiences the first stages of drowning and imminent death."
  • Shorten and combine the last two paragraphs, so the lead reads something like:

"Waterboarding consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, in many cases with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the first stages of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, Human Rights Watch has claimed that it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure. "Waterboarding has been used in interrogations to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish and intimidate from at least as early as the Spanish Inquisition. Waterboarding gained recent attention and notoriety the CIA acknowledged using waterboarding in the interrogation of certain extrajudicial prisoners."

• • The policy on neutrality says we don't have to say "Hitler was evil". We can describe his statements and actions and let the intelligent reader reach their own conclusion. Similarly a lead that neutrally but unequivocally describes waterboarding lets intelligent readers make up their own minds as to whether or not it is torture. Geo Swan (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Note that "evil" is a matter of description (and rather subjective at that), while "torture" is a matter of definition. Waterboarding is "torture" in the same way flute is a "musical instrument". It wouldn't make much sense to say: "Let's just describe the flute, what it does and how it works, and let the intelligent reader reach his own conclusion as to whether it's a musical instrument or not". GregorB (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Any absence of 'torture' in the main definition is due to political influence only.

Before it was discovered that US was performing this, would anyone be arguing against the torture label? If the US admitted to using other types torture, would those pages need to be un-tortured as well?

I agree with GregorB with the "Moon landing is considered by most sources to have actually happened" comparison.

Please look at the bigger picture.

This type of torture was used in the 1400's by the Spanish Inqusition, in the 1620s by the colonial Dutch East India Company, by the Japanese and the Germans during WW2, by the US in the late 1960s in Vietnam, by Cambodia in the 1970s, countries in Central America in the 1980s, and by the US in the early 2000s. In general, it is hard to argue against waterboarding being torture, as our society has defined it that way for a long time. (It may be easier to argue that the CIA technique is not waterboarding.... That may be helped by the lack of evidence/tapes). Historically waterboarding was torture. And historically will always be considered torture by a civilized society. Even if political press in a country convinces people to temporarily update the wikipedia page to say it is no more harmful than taking a shower. Eventually it would be corrected, in government and in public opinion. Hopefully, otherwise interrogation by US police or military may be taking steps back, centuries at a time. Nospam150 (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

editorial

Based on comments of Neutral Good in paragraphs above I suggest it is safe to assume he supports this change. I suggest this only due to announced holiday departure by Neutral Good for four days. This should not be decided without his voice heard. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a democracy - it is about consensus and persuasion, we can read his comments for ourselves above without you reposting on behalf of other editors. It is not like we will close this with a mass vote in the next few days - consensus takes time, he/she will get his/her chance. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on comments on Talk and archives, 30+ strongly oppose - so what - they can speak for themselves if they wish.Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

I've returned from my holiday and I see that we have a consensus supporting Shibumi2's proposed lead. I am asking WP:ANI to make the proposed edit.

I also see that in my absence, a good editor was blocked for 24 hours for trying to help, full protection has been restored and a false sock puppet accusation has been made. In spite of this misconduct, I hope that we can continue to work together to make this a Good Article. Neutral Good (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that there is no consensus for this and left a note on ANI. Lawrence Cohen 04:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appeared that there was a consensus last night. Neutral Good (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Lawrence on this. It's interesting to note that User:Neutral Good's contributions have so far been limited to editing this page, and that they appear to have instantly grasped Wikipedia's social and technical conventions without any learning curve, strongly suggesting that this is a single-purpose account created by an experienced editor for the purpose of astroturfing this page. Over to ANI... -- The Anome (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

...and see also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Haizum. -- The Anome (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see how that works out for you. Neutral Good (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet more people who say its torture

• American Psychological Association :- [1]
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy :- [2]

Thats a few hundred more Ph.d's. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't the APA. It's just Division 39 of the APA, representing New York City, one of the most liberal cities in North America. One might as well pretend that the next presidential election will be decided by counting the votes of registered members of the Socialist Workers' Party. I will remind you that the APA, alone among the many affected professional organizations, has decided to allow its members to be present during CIA interrogations. That may guive you a clue about how the APA as a whole would decide the question of whether waterboarding is torture. For the Stanford Encyclopedia, there appear to be only two people who contributed the torture definition for the article: Michael Davis and David Sussman. Neutral Good (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh they are from New york well that explains it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Inertia Tensors proposed Lead

thumb|right|300px|Painting of waterboarding from Cambodia's Tuol Sleng Prison Waterboarding is a form of torture which consists of immobilizing an individual and pouring water over his or her face to simulate drowning. Waterboarding has been used to coerce information and confessions, punish and/or intimidate. It elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe his or her death is imminent while not causing physical evidence of torture.

The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006 when further reports charged that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States, often referred to as "detainees" in the U.S. war on terror. ABC News reported that current and former CIA officers stated that "there is a presidential finding, signed in 2002, by President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft approving the 'enhanced' interrogation techniques, including water boarding."

• Strongly support. Inertia Tensor (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - It is not made clear what (if anything) the editor believes is wrong with the current lead. Badagnani (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It drones on, I'd rather support torture with refs linking below, not extra paragraphs. Inertia Tensor (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Factually incorrect and biased. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Factually incorrect and biased. Shibumi2 (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose
  • I don't care whether the lead explicitly states waterboarding is torture. I like Shibumi's version, that mentioned its use by the Spanish Inquisition. I liked that his version offered a clearer description than this one.
  • But I am very concerned over any lead that perpetuates the deceit that waterboarding "simulates drowning". Waterboarding is drowning. The individual experiences the first stages of drowning. Their lungs fill with water. If waterboarding merely "simulated drowning" then not breaking off the technique would not put the subject at any risk. I think we all know this is not true.
  • This version of the lead states "...the subject feels their death is imminent". I think we all know that if the technique is not broken off the subject's death would be imminent. Geo Swan (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A reminder

Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue weight

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

The position currently put forward in an energetic, yet notably source-poor mode, that "waterboarding is not a form of torture" and should not be described as such, clearly fails these criteria in light of the massive weight of evidence and sources stating that it is and has been considered a form of torture since the Spanish Inquisition and up to the Vietnam War (when at least one U.S. soldier was courtmartialed for conducting waterboarding) and Khmer Rouge era, yet we do include these viewpoints (by those either conducting or wishing to facilitate conducting it, either by twisting the English language or making a legalistic "end run" around international law) in the article. Thus, there seems to be no problem here. Badagnani (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment per the standard put forth by Badagnani, the level of the viewpoint is significant minority because it is easy to name prominent adherents. In addition, this policy needs to be read in conjunction with WP:ASF which clearly defines the statement "Waterboarding is a form of torture" as NOT A FACT. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Where are commonly accepted reference texts to prove "waterboarding is torture" viewpoint is in majority? Current collection being called "overwhelming majority" by Badagnani and Inertia Tensor. These may be "vocal minority" not majority. How can we be sure? Do we have survey of all doctors and lawyers? If we make mistake it should be due to caution not recklessness. We must be neutral. Shibumi2 (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For some reason there is a dispute over what the facts are. Some observations.

1. Waterboarding during the Spanish Inquisition is considered torture: fact.
2. The US itself has prosecuted people for implementing an activity we today call waterboarding: fact.
3. Prior to the Bush administration nobody, at least officially, voiced any doubts as to whether waterboarding is torture: fact.
4. Currently a huge majority of experts, and others, state that waterboarding is torture: fact.

With the above in mind it is difficult to understand on what grounds "waterboarding is torture" is considered controversial, i.e. not a fact.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You are apparently not reading the page here very well. Let me quote wikipedia policy about what a fact is: "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." You can read it yourself at WP:ASF. That waterboarding is torture is seriously disputed. So it is not a fact per wikipedia policy.

I add the following regarding your list of "facts":

1. Is it a fact that everyone considers waterboarding from the Spanish Inquisition to be torture? Is it a fact that the way that the inquisitors did it was the same as it is done today? Sources please for the answers to these questions. (Note that I am not asking for sources that say someone, somewhere thinks that the waterboarding during the Inquisition was torture. I am looking for sources that answer the questions I asked which is different).
2. Source please, that nobody, at least officially voiced any doubts as to whether waterboarding is torture. Where is the poll that proves this "fact"?
3. Agree. But also, others dispute it. That makes it not a "fact" per wikipedia policy.

--Blue Tie (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The teach the controversy-crowd should understand that when a very small group of people advocate this is not torture, however vehemently, that does not a controversy make. Based on the figures -how many say it is and how many say it is not torture?- there is no dispute.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please cite the passage in wikipedia policy that says something is not disputed because of the size of the group disputing it? According to polls it is a minority - about 29% to 65% of the public as I recall. According to Jimbo it is a significant minority with notable members. According to policy the statement "Waterboarding is torture" is disputed. One only has to read numerous new articles on the topic to realize it is disputed. According to policy the statement is not a fact if it is disputed. That is the logic and it fits with wikipedia policy. How does your view fit with wikipedia policy? (Note that I have already covered the nature of the minority position as a notable or significant minority.) --Blue Tie (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

To adopt your logic means that when some clever PR-trick convinces 56% of the people that the earth is flat we then can no longer state it is not. Luckily in these matters public opinion is irrelevant and we only base our view of the world on expert opinion.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Two elements to add to article

Rather than deciding what *not* to include in the article, here are some elements to add, to help fill out the pre-2004 use of waterboarding, which does need more detail.

• The U.S. soldier courtmartialed for waterboarding in 1968 was part of the U.S. Army's 1st Cavalry Division.
• Waterboarding was identified as a crime in 1901, when the Army judge advocate general court-martialed Major Edwin Glenn of the 5th U.S. Infantry for waterboarding, a technique he called "torture." Badagnani (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS for the second claim, please? Thanks. Neutral Good (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The Glenn practice may have been water cure; this needs to be cross-checked with contemporaneous sources. This will likely take some library research; do you have access to a library containing microfilms of major U.S. newspapers from 1901? It would be great if we could all collaborate on making this the best, most comprehensive and well-sourced article possible, not focusing entirely on the post-2004 uses of this practice. Badagnani (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I see--a detailed description from that time period is here. It appears nearly identical to waterboarding, save for the stick or carbine barrel being jammed into the mouth to keep the mouth open, rather than using a rag or cloth for this purpose, and the large volume (up to many gallons) of water. The same description is already in the Water cure article. Badagnani (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Alllll rightee then. You are more than welcome to add this to the Water cure article, where it belongs. Thanks. Neutral Good (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I had said, just two inches above, that "the same description is already in the Water cure article." Thus, your recommendation that I do so would not be necessary, as it is already there. Badagnani (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that some of the examples in both this article and the water cure article are misclassified. I brought the issue up last week on this Talk page but the discussion has already been archived by someone (even though it was active). I was waiting for this page to be unprotected before swapping them over, but it appears that could be a while. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RFC?

Seeing the utter lack of respect for consensus among sources and editors here would it be an idea to start a RFC where we again present how many sources say it is and how many explicitly say it is not torture? Then we can ask outside input as to whether or not a multitude of sources are sufficient to state in the lead it is torture.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably. It appears that politics are more important than policy here, so perhaps more people need to be brought in. Lawrence Cohen 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

One question to all contributors here: does anybody deny that the overwhelming majority of experts, not citizens, state it is torture? Is it not at least 100:1? Unless we can agree on that I am going to start a RFC explicitly aimed at determining

1. how many experts exactly say it is and how many say it is not?
2. that, if most experts think it is torture (see point 1) would keeping it out of the lead not violate WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE? See Intelligent Design for how that article adopts the view of a tiny, extremely vocal minority.

Respectfully Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." I think there is a notable controversy in the U.S. about use of waterboarding and it should be mentioned in the lead. We don't have to say experts are divided about whether it is torture, but I think we should say supporters of the Bush administration position are arguing that waterboarding is acceptable in some situations. The details should be fleshed out in the body of the article.--agr (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The number of verifiable supporters of a POV makes that POV popular, or not popular; it does not make that POV into an NPOV. Both "Waterboarding is torture" and "Waterboarding is not torture" are POV. The statement "Waterboarding is considered to be torture by many" is less POV, because it reveals that it is opinion, not being, that is being discussed. htom (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This is utter nonsense, as waterboarding is torture by definition, having been considered as such by every nation dating back to the Spanish Inquisition. This is sourced and verifiable. It's now time to move on and actually improve/expand the article (particularly historical uses of this technique, which need more detail and sources), as was requested yesterday. You did not take me up on this offer, and I will make it again. Badagnani (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree it could be 100:1 if we acknowledge that we're really only talking about vocal critics. Of those (like the 100 law profs), most tend to be left wing, and a few are extremists. They would be criticizing U.S. policy anyway no matter what it is. And so 100:1 is to be expected.

Who believes that's good enough for Wikipedia?

In reality, most of the critics we're talking about are detatched from the reality of any consequences from their actions. We've seen that some of these same critics had supported waterboarding when it was secret, and they say they assumed it was legal. But put it out in the open and they'll suddenly follow the political winds.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am confused. Are you saying

1. The fact experts say it is torture proves they are radical leftwing fundamentalists?
2. The fact people, when confronted with disclosure of actions that are possibly war crimes tend to distance themselves, in an attempt to limit their culpability, proves these actions are certainly not war crimes?

Where in WP policy does it say that we should ignore a majority of experts simply to be fair and balanced to a limited group of extremists?

SincerelyNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that; Randy's stance is supported on the level it is supported to say the current US President ordered the destruction of the World Trade Center or that Castro was responsible for JFK. Per Wikipedia policy it is a minority fringe viewpoint. If that isn't liked, go change policy. Lawrence Cohen 16:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, my statement was in accordance with previously cited sources (like Pelosi's approval, and the 100 law profs). While your position isn't claiming that Bush supported the destruction of the WTC, you are claiming that the lawyers at the USDOJ approved torture. That's POV, and now that you mention it, perhaps a BLP violation as well.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, your statement is a deliberate attempt at slow vandalism and harm to Wikipedia, by distorting encyclopediac content outside of policy, by virtue of elevating your personal politics to be more important. Shall I provide a dozen diffs showing your dismissive tone to anything not pro-United States? Please also cite where I said "that the lawyers at the USDOJ approved torture" or redact this. I think it's past time that inflammatory political statements on this page be clamped down on, and treated as disruption. Disruption and POV pushing are blockable offenses. Lawrence Cohen 16:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying your personal politics hasn't come into this? WP policy is supposed to guide us regardless of our politics. As for mine, nowhere have I asked that we clean up verifiable actions by the U.S.

We have references that say waterboarding was approved by the USDOJ. How can it be torture without saying that they approved torture?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it works, and our role is not to defend people--our role is to report what sources say. If we have sources that say waterboarding is torture, and sources that say the USDOJ approved waterboarding, there is *NO* issue or concern in having both in the article. Is that your big concern? If it is, say so. Because that is a violation of nothing, so long as we don't explicitely say "The USDOJ approved torture" without independent sourcing of that fact. It is not a BLP concern. Our role is to literally regurgitate what reliable sources say. If the ulimate conclusion when taken in whole of that regurgitation is unappealing to some for whatever political, religious, or ideological reason, there are a variety of "oh well" phrases that can cover that possibility. Lawrence Cohen 16:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

But you're not saying that sources call it torture. You want to say that Wikipedia calls it torture.

I fail to see how we can say it's torture, and that the USDOJ approved it, that that's not saying the USDOJ approved torture. At best you're saying the USDOJ is either stupid or lying.

I welcome admin oversight. If Wikipedia calls it torture, at least it can be said that they officially called it torture.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, the sources are calling it torture. If the article cites a hundred sources, and the page says "waterboarding is a form of torture[1-100]" that isn't Wikipedia saying it is, it's reporting what 100+ sources say. As for whether or not it makes a group like the USDOJ look foolish, divine, righteous, or whatever, why is that our concern as an encyclopedia? Lawrence Cohen 17:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please cite the exact policy that supports your political stance written here, the supports giving less weight to this multitude of sources. If you cannot, you will need to stop trolling this page. Consider this a warning for disruption. We write articles based on policy alone, not irrelevant personal politics. Lawrence Cohen 16:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The exact policy is WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves. That's all I'm asking for.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats what we've been doing, Randy. But that one facet of NPOV will not trump WP:WEIGHT, not the rest of NPOV, nor other policies like RS. We can let the facts speak for themselves, except when we don't like what they say (i.e., 100+ people, US legal decisions on Japanese prisoners, and historical records saying waterboarding is torture)? You can't have it both ways. You want the article to include things like "expert opinion is divided" or that it's not torture, the impetus is on *you* to provide equivalent sourcing and evidence. Whoever wants to include some phrase, or POV, or fact in an article when challenged has to offer a demonstration that is communally accepted of why it must be included. The people here have demonstrated ad nauseum with literally 100+ verifiable sources that "Waterboarding is torture". You need to put up now, or something. Get to it, and come back when you have something, and kindly stop wasting everyone's time so that an encyclopedia can be written free of your political stances. Lawrence Cohen 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As explained previously, the examples you're giving aren't precisely the same.

It seems to me that the USDOJ is the only source we have that's reviewed both the law, and the exact technique itself. That should satisfy WEIGHT.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe specific to the United States only, but is this article Waterboarding in the United States? Why on Earth would a practice used throughout history by a variety of countries and religious groups have it's entire tone determined by what the modern 21st century USDOJ may or may not consider waterboarding--and we *still* have no evidence of whether the current US Government considers it torture, because they won't say if they do or not. Why are we suggesting using this article to defend a nation's politics? Lawrence Cohen 17:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there's a campaign by certain editors to transform this into an article that should be called Waterboarding in the United States. Those previous comments about WP:COATRACK are very accurate. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right, and a handful are trying to ensure that nationalism play no role in the encyclopedia content, and only sources, by-the-policy-books sourcing instead. If we made the article Waterboarding in the United States, there probably wouldn't be a sourced need to call it torture in the lead. This article is Waterboarding, however, which covers waterboarding from midevil times, through all it's global world-wide history and usage, through today. The United States is a small recent part of that history, and no more than that. The US portions of the article, therefore, should have less weight. Lawrence Cohen 17:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP and this page

Note: WP:BLP is an absolutely non-negotiable policy that applies to every inch of Wikipedia, in every name space. Repeatedly violating BLP has gotten people permanently and indefinitely blocked. I just caught one BLP violation by Neutral Good here that was unacceptable and refactored it. Watch yourselves, BLP is one of our singular most important policies. Lawrence Cohen 16:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding is torture?

Is this the main issue in dispute here? If so, I recommend we start a requests for comment to see if "waterboarding is torture" or something else needs to be said in the article. Jehochman ^Talk 17:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's only half the problem now. The larger issue is that people seem to feel that sources can be excluded based on their own personal political viewpoints. If allowed, that would compromise Wikipedia article content and be akin to vandalism. But yes, an RFC is a start. People need to understand yesterday that policies don't get trumped by their personal POV. Lawrence Cohen 17:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Because the issue of whether "waterboarding is torture" is so contentious can we at least agree to add a link in the lead to the section later in the article that discusses this classification (or non-classification if consensus goes that way). By adding such a link, I think those that want to fully understand the full intricacies of the issue will be able to quickly find how this classification is viewed by various individuals and organizations and the article will be fully acknowledging the debate by some about this issue. What do others think? Remember (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That is already covered in the article. We have the comments of a former U.S. attorney, made in National Review, as well as the brief comments of a not particularly notable Internet columnist. We don't yet have the comments of the two Republican politicians. Badagnani (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you saying you don't want a link in the lead to the section later in the article that fully discusses this topic? If so, why? Remember (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's very clear what is going on here with this "debate," as I've seen it many times before. The aim is to hammer an issue until the text shows ambiguity regarding its definition, and the illusion of a debate over the very definition of a thing. This is, in the minds of those wishing to make this technique available, a battle for public opinion, and Wikipedia, which is the 8th most visited website in the world and constantly used as a reference, is seen as a key battleground. By abusing the high value we place on working together and consensus, even small concessions such as acknowledging in the lead that there is a significant debate whether this form of torture really is a form of torture--even with a link to this "debate" later in the article is a victory of sorts. Most of the public never feels strongly one way or another about any subject, and if they can be desensitized to this one by reading text saying something like "within the United States, there is a healthy debate whether it really is torture," then the side favoring the technique's use has again scored a victory, as most of those reading that text may simply shrug their shoulders and move on to other things. You see, the aim of the hammering is not actually to get a redefinition, but to create just enough ambivalence/ambiguity to engender this "shoulder-shrugging" effect among the general public. Badagnani (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no you don't want a link to appear in the lead." Just so you know, what I was proposing was something like "Waterboarding is a form of torture (see classification as torture) that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passage." I don't think that this causes the problems that you highlight above, but to each his own. Any other opinions? Remember (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I thought you meant you were going to link, in the lead, to a section about the "debate." Badagnani (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So are you still against this idea? Remember (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I just looked at that section and I feel the first sentence gives undue weight to the purported ambiguity/ambivalence whether waterboarding is torture. Badagnani (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with User:Remember's proposal here. I feel optimistic that we can work together to edit the "classification as torture" section to provide a balanced representation of the opinions on the issue. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember, I like your approach to trying to solve the issue. I think wikipedia manual of style would object though. Not sure, I would have to research it. But in my experience, we do not in-line link to other wikipedia articles or to our own article. Bad form.

One of the problems with this debate is that we are debating the lead when the article needs to be improved and THEN the lead re-written to summarize the article (not to summarize a pov).--Blue Tie (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Spliting this article

This article is taking on a real recentist and US bias so i'm going to cut off the US section and create Torture during the War on Terror. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Done ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone with admin privalages could repeat my cut and paste so all the refs and wikilinks are real that would be wonderful. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You did that without consensus. I object. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Objection overruled, anyone can start a page on wikipedia and this article is protected from edits so i can't get rid of the recentism YET. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article is too recentist and U.S. centric, and splitting it into two articles might not be a bad idea (I personally like it), but lets not do it while the article is protected and without prior discussion. We would also need to think of a suitable title. For those reasons, I've deleted Torture durring the War on Terror for now, but with no prejudice towards trying the idea in the future. I would suggest we start a discussion here first on how this can be accomplished though. henrik•talk 17:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, I agree with Blue Tie on this. While a reasonable case can be made for a split, Torture during the War on Terror is an absolutely awful title, with the controversy built right into the title. Before we do anything like this, we should try to achieve consensus that it should be done, and find a new, more NPOV, title. What that title should be, I can't currently imagine. -- The Anome (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How is that title not neutral? There no commentary in it. --neonwhite user page talk 17:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of that title was so we could include al qeada and militias "enhanced interrogation techniques" in one article. Something Randi suggested actually. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the concept is notable and reasonable for an encyclopedia. At first I did not have a problem with the title but upon reflection, I think it may not be a good one. But something like that article is a good idea. however...The way the article was created was unbalanced and biased. The timing was entirely wrong. I would be in favor of an article of that nature though, if it were NPOV. I think its an interesting and encyclopedic topic. Are we sure there isn't an article already serving that purpose? --Blue Tie (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Then spend some time looking for sources about the torture chambers run by the militias et al. Heres one to start you. [3] ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Cut it out. This is not a WP:SOAPBOX. And...again, your suggestion is irrelevant to the question: Is there already an article that serves this purpose? --Blue Tie (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Refactored. Inappropriate and did not assume good faith. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the link? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There is significant controversy about the UK deportation of suspects to countries widely known to use torture. [4] --neonwhite user page talk 17:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes and because of gitmo and ER the Canadian supreme court has said the USA is not a safe transit country (this means they cant extradite anyone to the US at the moment). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually they can and do extradite people to the US. Its happening as we speak. But that is irrelevant to this topic.--Blue Tie (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There's already Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Bagram torture and prisoner abuse, Torture and the United States and Criticisms of the War on Terrorism. Torture durring the War on Terror would be redundant, and is going to be a slugfest if you have US vs Al Qaeda tortures on the same page. It is also overly broad. United States waterboarding controversy may be better. On the other hand, I can easily see a POV-fork here: the US article will end up saying that waterboarding is a legitimate interrogation technique that saves the world from terrorists, and the other article is going to say that waterboarding is torture. You will resolve the arguments over this article, but create new arguments. Having said that, this article is overly US-centric and recentist, focussing as it does so much on a couple of years of political argument instead of hundreds of years of history, and splitting it may be one way to solve that problem. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's spelled "Splitting." Oppose splitting - unnecessary and this article is not yet too long. Badagnani (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chris, above; United States waterboarding controversy is probably the best title I've seen for a split-off article on the controversy itself. However, I remain to be convinced that a split is appropriate at this time, as I believe the controversy is not independently notable in itself, other than as a subtopic of a main waterboarding article. -- The Anome (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chris for finding somewhere for this arguement to go, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_States#Authorization_and_methods_of_torture_and_abuse which is about what the USA does at Gitmo etc. Now we can cut down the USA section to a they use it and see here for more info. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The goal is to create a good article, not to win the argument

Please, everybody, as we participate in these heated discussions — keep in mind that our main goal here is to come up with an article that we can all (or nearly all) live with, not to convince each other to adopt our points of view. For example, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will persuade me that waterboarding is not torture. And I don't expect to ever persuade everyone in this discussion that waterboarding is torture. But neither of these things are necessary in order to achieve the main goal. So, arguing to convince each other (although it's an engaging and perhaps addictive activity) is often a waste of effort; it's also vastly harder than what we actually need to accomplish, and probably impossible.

I have made this mistake myself several times, so I don't claim innocence here. I'm just suggesting that we might be able to make better progress if we choose actions based more on trying to improve the article and less on trying to prove each other wrong. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My only goal is a good article. My criticisms of the article have only been in that direction. I am not interested in getting anyone to believe one way or the other about waterboarding. The only argument I would try to win is to use wikipedia standards, particularly neutralility. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding is torture is not a point a veiw, it's a fact. --Can Not (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide sources, please add them to the ongoing RfC at Talk:Waterboarding/Definition. Jehochman ^Talk 19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought we already sourced the ENGLISH LANGUAGE and the DICTIONARY. The definition of torture actually covers the effects of waterTORTUREboarding. If US officials want to say its not torture, don't lie about it and say its not torture. Just say somewhere in the article that "US officials deny that this specific type of torture is torture." then we'll have fact infested article thats neutral and gives US their fair side of the story.--Can Not (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of Zubaida/Zubaydah

In subsection 4.2 of this article, the name of this individual is spelled as "Abu Zubaida". This spelling is used in a number of places in the subsection including the title. In one instance however, the name is spelled as "Abu Zubaydah".

It is my opinion that this is unencyclopedic and that it should be changed to a consistent spelling. I propose that the spelling be "Zubaida", as this spelling appears most frequently in the article, and as this is the current spelling of the title. If a source is every revealed that shows the other spelling to be more appropriate, then at that point the spelling could be changed throughout. Anber (talk) 06:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There are far more contentious issues on this article. We should all try to find common ground wherever we can. 68.29.170.105 (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this hasn't been acted on? It's really a no brainer IMO. Anber (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Shibumi2 second attempt at new article lead

Neutral Good invite me to come back. I try again to make article lead with concerns of Geo Swan and Ka-Ping Yee addressed. I also address concerns of Blue Tie.

Waterboarding consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, in many cases with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, Human Rights Watch has claimed that it carries the risks of pain, physical injuries, and even death. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.

Waterboarding has been used in interrogations to obtain information and coerce confessions at least as early as the Spanish Inquisition. It has also been used to punish and intimidate. Waterboarding gained recent attention and notoriety in the United States when the press reported that the CIA had used waterboarding in the interrogation of terrorist leaders, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaidah. and that the Justice Department had authorized this procedure.

Please indicate below whether you support or oppose this version of the article lead.

Statements of support or opposition, December 27-28

• Strongly support. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'd just like to say that every honest hard working wikipedian like Shibumi2 should be made to feel welcome and i want you to stay and edit wikipedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Lawrence Cohen 00:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Welcome back! htom (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - This is most unsatisfactory as the first sentence does not say what it is (a form of torture); saying what it is should precede its description, just as an article about the xylophone would not begin "The xylophone is a collection of hardwood bars on a frame, that are struck with sticks"; instead, it would more logically say "The xylophone is a mallet percussion instrument, consisting of a collection of hardwood bars on a frame, that are struck with sticks." From an examination of the proposing editor's earlier discussion, both here and in this discussion page's archive, s/he does not wish the word "torture" to be included, for the apparent, strongly POV reason that if the U.S. is currently practicing this, it cannot possibly be a form of torture, because the U.S. would presumably be doing it for "good" purposes, against "bad people," in a very special manner that is completely different, "better," and significantly "less cruel" than when it is practiced by agents of the Khmer Rouge, Imperial Japan, or other foreign nations. This is all politically driven POV, which can be analyzed in other portions of the article, but the willful exclusion of the term "torture" from the lead would be an unacceptable privileging of a fringe, political, POV opinion regarding this well-understood and well-documented subject. It's time to stop this POV and actually get around to filling this article out with well sourced, historical documentation about this practice, to make the article even better. Months and months of constant, strongly political/POV attempts to remove a word that represents the very definition of this practice (i.e., "torture") is unhelpful and keeping the article from significant improvement. Badagnani (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Again, excluding all references to torture as an accepted description of what the practice is, keeps this from moving past POV to NPOV. Lawrence Cohen 00:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support!! Best effort so far. All sources cited and discussed in the previous lead can be discussed farther down in the article. Thanks for coming back, Shibumi2. They can't keep a good man down. 70.9.160.37 (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC) — 70.9.160.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong Support Only by eliminating POV can the article's lead be made NPOV. That you happen to agree with the POV doesn't mean that it's not a POV. If you must have "torture" and condemnation of the activity as the subject of the third or fourth paragraph that might make more sense. Defining or describing something as torture is POV. Describe the activity, and then condemn the use of it. Don't confuse or confound the two. htom (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The statement "describing something as torture is POV" is as illogical as stating that "describing something as a musical instrument is POV." It is certainly not POV, it is NPOV and encyclopedic because it is verifiable. If you feel so strongly about this, you should probably attempt to change the title of Rack (torture). If Wikipedia existed during the Spanish Inquisition and editors affiliated with the official Inquisitors of the Roman Catholic Church began contributing to the discussion page and asserting that since this technique was being used for a greater good (purging the Church of heresy), and should not be considered torture, we might note this opinion in the section about the technique's use during the Spanish Inquisition, but we would not then (as now) privilege this fringe, POV, opinion, as held by its practitioners, in the lead, as against the verifiable definition of the practice. Badagnani (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• CommentIt would make more sense to change this article to Waterboarding (Torture), then you could just assume that people coming to the article know what the activity is. Saying that it is torture is not descriptive of the action, it is POV about the action. htom (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - This would be illogical and unnecessary, as the term "waterboarding" has only one meaning in the English language (a well known form of torture dating back to the Spanish Inquisition), while "rack" has multiple meanings, necessitating that article title for the meaning that is a form of torture. Badagnani (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I take that back; I'd forgotten that the "Uncyclopedia" defines waterboarding as an extreme sport similar to surfing, which is practiced off the coast of the Gaza Strip. I'm not sure if that's true, though, as from what I have heard Uncyclopedia's standards are not as stringent regarding verifiability as are Wikipedia's. Badagnani (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Expert opinions differ on the issue of whether waterboarding is torture. Expert opinions do not differ on whether a xylophone is a musical instrument. Neutral Good (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Having one or two experts voicing opposition against a 100+ other experts cannot be described as Expert opinions differ, it simply does not a controversy make!Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• CommentThat there is verifiable support by thousands of a POV does not make that not a POV.htom (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• At the same end, we will not give voice to minority viewpoints above what is accepted, sourced consensus outside of Wikipedia's editors politics. Or else, articles such as Intellegient Design would be filled with pro-religion rubbish. Lawrence Cohen 16:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly support. The question of whether it's torture or not can be discussed in the body of the article. This is the lead. It must be as neutral as possible. Welcome back, Shibumi2. Neutral Good (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC) — Neutral Good (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment - That is exactly why we are excluding politically motivated, POV fringe opinions that are at odds with the very definition of this practice from the lead, per WP policy. Badagnani (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - You mean politically motivated, POV fringe opinions like Human Rights Watch? Or politically motivated, fringe opinions from 100 law professors whose previously published writings indicate membership in the lunatic left-wing fringe? You mean politically motivated, POV fringe opinions like those? Neutral Good (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be inclined to take your classification of these opinions seriously when you can present any reliable evidence that most or all of these 110 or so law professors belong to the "lunatic left-wing fringe". Name-calling isn't going to convince anyone. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - If I had meant those opinions, I would not have added "that are at odds with the very definition of this practice," because those opinions are consistent with the very definition of this practice. The political motivations to which I was referring are those commentators (for National Review and similar publications, and two known Republican U.S. legislators), who are claiming waterboarding to not be a form of torture, against the well-understood definition of the practice, simply because they wish the U.S. to be able to use the technique against "bad" people, and not be prosecuted for it (the way all four branches of the U.S. military prosecutes its own personnel for doing). Badagnani (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Odd how you had to use quotes around "bad" as though that needed to be qualified as opinion, and yet you want waterboarding to be defined as torture without qualifications. -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that too, Randy. Putting quotation marks around a word like that indicates that the author doesn't believe use of that word is legitimate in this context. For God's sake, I don't think any reasonable person doubts for a moment that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 atacks, (refactor WP:BLP violation). Neutral Good (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Its called sarcasm americans! IF Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is so guilty you should be able to get a conviction in a quaint british tradition called "A fair trial". If you knew anything about say Khalid El-Masri or Lotfi Raissi you know why no-one trusts a thing the USA gov says on terrorism. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The laws of war are also part of the British tradition. If you actually read them (alas, few people do read them beyond the "competent tribunal" part) you might notice that a fair trial is required for punishment, not interrogation or detainment.

That's a separate issue, of course, but it shows how far from the texts your position is.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to jus in bello untill a detainee has been brought before a competent tribunal he/she is considered to be a POW. AFAIK all POW's are protected by Geneca and as such any so-called enhanced interrogation is considered a war crime. Which of course explains the sudden need to muddy the waters and why coincidentally the evidence of possible war crimes appears to have been destroyed. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed hasn't already been brought before a competent tribunal? The Third Geneva Convention doesn't require that the tribunal must be announced in advance in The Guardian, or that it must be open to reporters from The Guardian, or even that results must be announced to The Guardian. It only requires that the detainee's status must be decided by a competent tribunal. Call it a secret court if you insist on that innuendo, but that is all the law requires. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of a competent tribunal is to be open to groups like the ICRC, with three officers putting their names (and hence reputations) to the proceeding so we know who passed judgement. KSM has not had a compitent tribunal otherwise the US Gov would say if he is a Combatant or a Civilian, the ONLY two things you can be classified under GCIII. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"The laws of war are also part of the British tradition" Which were violated in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed by his disapperence into the CIA's black sites by not allowing him (and the others) access to ICRC personnel (something even the nazis managed). I bet you can't even name what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's status is under the GCIII? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

At most, KSM's status under the GCs might be a "detainee" under GC4.

Even if the Supreme Court had said the whole of the GCs applied (which they haven't), a competent tribunal is not the same thing as a fair trial. It's not even close.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. 68.29.174.61 (talk) — 68.29.174.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strongly support. -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly support. PennState21 (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC) — PennState21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose. I'll take up the proposed changes in this lead one at a time. This new lead:

• Deletes the sentence: "Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent." I object. This is a factual statement that describes the process and experience of waterboarding; there is no good reason to remove it.
• Deletes the sentence: "In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex." I object, again for the same reason. This sentence is significant because of the common confusion between waterboarding and dunking in water; that distinction is an important part of understanding what waterboarding is.
• Replaces: "it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death" with "Human Rights Watch has claimed that it carries the risks of pain, physical injuries, and even death." I object, though in a qualified manner. The original sentence could be improved, as it is not an exact representation of the cited source (the HRW letter). But it is also closer to a true description of the effects of waterboarding than the new sentence. The best option would be to bring the sentence and the citation into agreement by using a directly supported quotation such as "According to Dr. Allen S. Keller, Director of the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture, waterboarding carries the 'real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water'. [5]
• Collapses: "Waterboarding has been used in interrogations at least as early as the Spanish Inquisition. It has been used for interrogation purposes, to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate." into "Waterboarding has been used in interrogations to obtain information and coerce confessions at least as early as the Spanish Inquisition. It has also been used to punish and intimidate." I don't have any problems with this.
• Deletes the sentence: "Today it is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts, politicians, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations." I strongly object. This whitewashes the article of the established majority consensus on the issue.
• Replaces: "certain extrajudicial prisoners" with "terrorist leaders, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaidah." I don't see why these need to be mentioned by name in the lead. This is too much detail on the U.S.-specific controversy rather than the procedure itself. It seems wrong to me to add the names of individual prisoners and yet have no references to experts on torture, interrogation, or the law.
• Deletes the sentence: "The new controversy surrounded the confirmed use of waterboarding by the United States government on alleged terrorists, and whether the practice was acceptable." This is fine with me.

On the whole I oppose this new lead; the present lead is much better at describing the procedure and its effects in a clear and accurate way. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons stated above by Ka-Ping Yee. Remember (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see nothing at all wrong with the current lead section. It is properly sourced and has no POV issues i can see. I think some people involved in this discussion need to be reminded that NPOV does not mean no point of view it means neutral point of view. The policy means that an article should not express views of editors this doesnt mean it cannot express views of sources as long as none are given undue weight. --neonwhite user page talk 05:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose The new lead effectively says ' one group of whiny bitches say it's torture, but it's been around for years, and the US of A (rah rah) Only uses it on Bad People(tm).'. There's a stack of citations calling it torture, and none which actually flat out say 'waterboarding is not torture'. Even the US Gov't is famously good at dodging that issue. Almost everyone asked has stated they aren't the right person to ask about that, not definitive 'no it's not' answers. That it's torture belongs in the lead. ThuranX (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment "... and none which actually flat out say 'waterboarding is not torture'." You're lying. Both Congressman Poe and Congressman Tancredo have said flat out that waterboarding is not torture. In a survey, 29% of the American people have said flat out that waterboarding is not torture. There are no surveys of other population groups to support a claim that "everyone else agrees that it's torture." Neutral Good (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• In his book Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan writes that, in a 1989 US survey, when asked whether an automobile tire can feel anything, only 73 percent of the respondents said "no" (Sagan also notes that's down from 90% in 1954). So much for popular opinion. Frankly, I can't imagine what would tire article look like if this "fact" was used in its intro (or anywhere, for that matter). GregorB (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please point out the memo that says that the vox populi and not experts (i.e. lawyers, doctors, et cetera) that get to decide what is and what is not torture? Or should we ignore that observation as being a logical fallacy?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose whenever it takes the lead 5 pages (hyperbole) merely to avoid the elephant in the room from appearing in that lead we can conclude 1 the article deteriorates because what could be a succinct statement becaomes a tortured (pun intended) grammatical disaster, 2 not mentioning what every expert refusing to protect the Bush administration states as fact is a violation of WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SPAM and above all common sense.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose All the reasons mentioned above and for the last month. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• CommentOppose The statement "waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage" requires a reliable medical source, which I doubt you will find, for the simple reason that it is impossible to perform any physical act of violence in a way that guarantees no physical damage. What if the victim has a weak heart, or genetic susceptibility to heart attack? An accurate statement might be "waterboarding may or may not result in lasting physical damage, or even death, depending on the severity of the attack, and victim's constitution and disposition". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Good in some respects (brief and to the point, if anything), seriously flawed in other: 1) no mention of suffocation, the essence of waterboarding, 2) current events trivia - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaidah - why are their names important here? (Still, the current events bit is brief, which I think is good.) And finally: we learn that waterboarding "carries the risks of pain, physical injuries, and even death" and that psychological effects "can last for years after the procedure" - which is funny, because that's just like torture. GregorB (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There are different waterboarding techniques. If done with great care for the safety of the detainee, it appears to me that there is no risk of physical pain, injury or death. Which is funny because that's absolutely nothing like torture at all. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

. We won't build articles on editor opinions. Source? Lawrence Cohen 17:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous editor was probably referring to mock execution, another non-torture method. (Sorry about the sarcasm, I sometimes can't resist...) GregorB (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Same problems. The avoidance of 'torture' avoids the actual definition of waterboarding. Waterboarding was defined as a form of torture around the world (and even in the US prior to 2001 or 2002). After it was discovered that the US was using waterboarding was when a redefinition was attempted. Torture was a bad word, so it was desired that it be called an "enhanced interrogation technique" (a euphemism for torture). If the procedure that the CIA uses another technique that is not painful and is not intended to coerce confessions, then perhaps a new page should be created: Waterboarding (Post 2001 CIA interrogation technique). Such a page would require sources that explain how it is different from past waterboarding, and what precise parts of the definition of torture does it fail to meet.Nospam150 (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

CommentFirst of all, I think all this focus on the lead is a mistake. The body of the article should be written first and then the lead can take shape more easily. BUT, recognizing the attention given to the lead, I would say this current lead is "OK' in what it says but not OK in what it does not say. It states that waterboarding always involves pouring water into the breathing passages. Yet the article and the references do not support that statement. The article (and the lead) fail to review evidence of its effectiveness. Also, this new lead completely ignores the dynamic and strong debate over whether or when Waterboarding is torture. This should be included because it is such an important part of the story. I believe it should be a final paragraph. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"dynamic and strong debate over whether or when Waterboarding is torture"?? I think I saw that debate. One side said it was torture, and the other refused to answer the question for reasons of national security. As for the debate about 'When' it is torture, well there is no debate, right? Before the year 2001, it is torture, after 2001, it is interrogation. Or does someone have a source before 2001 claiming that it is not torture? Sorry for the sarcasm. As for the first point, perhaps you have a point if the primary definition does not generally match the historical uses of the waterboarding term. But I would also hope that meaningless concepts like "drowning simulations" also be avoided. Nospam150 (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Statements of support or opposition, December 29-30

• ’’’Support.’’’ 69.204.119.171 (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC) — 69.204.119.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment That vote makes it 9-8 in favor of the new lead. I do not know how much of a majority we need for the America bashers to admit that we have a consensus, but it's time to start discussing that question. Neutral Good (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't vote on content on Wikipedia. Lawrence Cohen 02:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I consider being called an "American basher" a personal attack. Lawrence Cohen 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. For the reasons above. I cannot fathom that this discussion is even taking place. Perhaps a link to denialism is in order... Archer3 (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, it works by consensus. I would be a good idea for you to read WP:CON to gain a better understanding of what a consensus is. You're quite blatent bias is extremely harmful to your argument as it makes it look very much like you are pushing a non-neutral POV. This article is not about the US, the US only features in minor parts of the article. There are no policy issues with the lead so i can see no reason to change it. It reads very well. --neonwhite<;;;small> user page talk 03:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• ’’’Support.’’’ - Qualified support. The term "torture" in this context is not an objective noun, but a subjective word with a decidedly negative implication of illegality. I do tend to agree with the "opposed" comment above which said that the description from the HRW should be more exactly provided as a quotation with citation; I support fixing it so that it's clear the description is FROM a source, rather than an objective fact. Maybe some people would like to pretend "torture" is simply a descriptive word, but the real elephant in the room isn't that the technique is a clearly coercive technique, but that labelling it "torture" is tantamount to passing judgment on the morality of it's use, and it is THAT connotation that makes the lead as it now stands a biased POV. You can put the facts in the article, everybody will come to their own conclusions, and nobody will read the first line and think "I hate how the left has taken over Wiki". Seems like a win-win to me.71.114.17.179 (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC) — 71.114.17.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Any negative understanding of the word is a personal POV only, at no point does the article express any POV on it. It has a defintion that fits. A word does not have any morality. A person bases that on their own morality and we are not here to decide how people interpret a particular word. The lead is completely neutral in tone. --neonwhite user page talk 06:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - If you feel so strongly that "torture" is not a word with a clear and well-understood definition in the English language, and that the definition of every form of torture, regardless of its historical consideration as such, may be redefined either as torture, or not, according to the individual, you had better try to change the title of the article Rack (torture). You should also eliminate most of the text from the Torture article, which does define torture quite clearly. Badagnani (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And if he supports the war in Iraq he should trot right down to a recruiting office, right? Because if he doesn't head off to boot camp right away, he's a hypocrite, right? Pardon me, but each individual has the right to express an opinion and take action of his own choosing, and at a time of his own choosing, supporting that opinion (or take no action at all). Neutral Good (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have marked all the single purpose accounts who voted on the proposal. This is not a vote, and there is a definite possibility of sock puppetry going on here for the purpose of vote stacking. If we disregard the SPAs, there is a strong consensus against the new lede. Jehochman ^Talk 05:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The topic of waterboarding is "in the news." Frankly, I'm surprised that we don't have a lot more so-called SPA IP accounts editing on this page. Also, IP editors could be using an ISP that is highly dynamic. On one evening, we saw four different IPs starting with "68" editing on this page, all exhibiting the same consistent train of thought; and only one of them voted in consensus. (Thanks to the body cavity search that is now being performed on every editor who disagrees with Lawrence Cohen, everyone now knows that I am  Unrelated to all of them.) An IP editor (or a new account like mine) that appears to have only a few previous edits (or none at all) could have an extensive editing history under other IPs (like me).

But those who prefer to believe that a conspiracy exists will always believe that a conspiracy exists, and will continue to pretend that WP:BITE and WP:AGF and WP:NPOV are not Wikipedia policy - or, at least, that such policies do not apply to them. Neutral Good (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

First, there is absolutely nothing wrong with an SPA. We welcome new editors and are pleased to have them. However, new editors may not be so familiar with policy, and occasionally they are recruited in hopes that they will edit to a particular point of view. As a new editor, if you need an help editing Wikipedia or understanding policies, feel free to visit my talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 06:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You said, "If we disregard the SPAs, there is a strong consensus against the new lede." If "there is absolutely nothing wrong with an SPA," why are you suggesting that they should be disregarded? Neutral Good (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Its called meatpuppetry Neutral, of the new IPs and Users suddenly all turning up here only PennState looks like a real person. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's called "In The News," Hypnosadist. Because the subject of waterboarding is In The News, Internet users who have never used Wiki before are looking up "waterboarding" with Google and other search engines, and finding this Wikipedia article prominently listed. Since it's In The News, there may even be a university professor or two (or more) using this article as a class assignment for his students. But they can't edit the article to correct the POV bias in the lead, despite the claim that this is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Some of them are curious enough to start clicking on those blue-labeled tabs across the top of the article mainspace page, and 1find their way here.

There are going to be some Senate hearings investigated the CIA's destruction of the videotapes taken when two high-value detainees were waterboarded in 2002. When those Senate hearings are broadcast live on C-SPAN, and the most mean-spirited soundbites are packaged and broadcast on every news broadcast in the Western world, you can expect another wave of new editors here. That is the nature of editing an article about a controversy as the controversy unfolds. Neutral Good (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"That is the nature of editing an article about a controversy as the controversy unfolds" Thats the problem right there, this page should not be about some political wrangle in the US, but about the method of torture called waterboarding. Not if waterboarding is torture under US law. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are correct, then the distribution of voting amongst the new SPAs will be not be radically different from longterm editors. If, however, the vast majority of new SPAs are voting one particular way, then votestacking is clearly taking place. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the distribution of voting amongst the new SPAs is radically different from long-term editors, because a group of POV-pushing long-term editors here is trying to WP:OWN the article. In other words, perhaps it's the sample of long-term editors that's skewed, rather than the sample of new SPAs. Isn't that a possibility, Chris? After all, look at some of the comments on the RFC by Wandalstouring, Terraxos and Roger Davies. Neutral Good (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As is pointed out on WP:MEAT, meatpuppetry is pointless as wikipedia works by consensus not by votes. New users who demonstrate misunderstanding and unfamiliarity with wikipedia policies are unlikely to add much weight to a consensus and will likely have their opinions disregarded. Experienced editors with a history of good editing are likely to have their opinion taked more seriously. Your accusations of POV are very unwise, as the says goes 'don't throw stones if you live in a glass house'. --neonwhite user page talk 15:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is flagrant sockpuppetry. Notice how all these new SPAs are all signing ’’’Support.’’’ with that exact same formatting. I haven't seen that formatting used before on any page here, and suddenly three different people do it within a short time period of each other, is a sign of something being done that is untoward. Three random, unrelated people all have the same typo is beyond the realm of possibility. Perhaps someone will want to post to WP:ANI, indicating the problem here. Lawrence Cohen 15:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry is unknown, i agree that it seems unlikely that a new user would randomly arrive at this talk page as a beginning but it is not impossible for a new user to create an account to add a comment to a particular discussion they feel strongly about. Though on studying the page i think it is very likely and there is significant evidence for a notice board report considering the repeated erroneous formatting. --neonwhite user page talk 15:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• ’’’Support.’’’ GooseCreek (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice to have you editing again after 8 months. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• ’’’Support.’’’ 71.225.55.193 (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC) — 71.225.55.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thanks for making your first edit here. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Reluctant support. Although my opinion is that the Bush Administration is the rise of a new fascism, and that waterboarding is indeed torture, we cannot editorialise in an encyclopaedia. Some experts say that it isn't torture in all cases, or that they are uncertain. An encyclopaedia, if it is truly neutral, must be uncertain as well. Harry Lives! (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oi! If I'm to be labeled a 'single purpose account,' then my single purpose is making Harry Potter articles even more brilliant. I found this one on Recent Changes. Thanks. Harry Lives! (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment That makes it 13-9 in favor of the new lead. Even if we concede the sock puppetry allegation by Lawrence (who has been proven to make false accusations of sock puppetry) and disregard the IP editors who are all making the same typo, it's still 10-9 in favor of the new lead. Neutral Good (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And its still not a vote! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Good, you are being disruptive. Please stop this now. There is no consensus for a new lead. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 17:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. I believe that to be neutral, the lead must mention the word 'torture' somewhere. It doesn't have to say 'waterboarding is torture' - indeed, it shouldn't, as that would be non-neutral. But to ignore the word altogether is to ignore the very thing that makes it controversial. It should say 'waterboarding is considered by many (references) to be a form of torture' or something along those lines; anything less would look like it was trying to escape the real issue here. Terraxos (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(If it's worth mentioning, I was invited to comment on this poll by User:Neutral Good.) Terraxos (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Multiple accounts, including Shibumi2 (talk · contribs) have been blocked for sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek. The above discussion is probably tainted and should not be used to establish consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 19:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What you've probably got there is a university professor who assigned this article as some sort of class project. That would explain the shared IP address, the choice of the name "PennState21" by one editor, and Shibumi2's unexplained departure from his usual focus on Japanese Navy articles. I observe for the record that once again, I have been found to be  Unrelated to any sock puppet activity; and of the nine editors who were dragged over to RFCU, only four were found to be related. (That means that each and every one of the other five are  Unrelated if you are math challenged.) Thanks for your obedience to WP:AGF and WP:BITE, by the way. Neutral Good (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr Bainbridge's proposal

Since it seems like everyone else is having a crack at this, I thought I'd have a go. Please consider your response to this: unless you plan on taking this to an arbitration decision, or plan on logging in every day for the rest of your life to revert each other, there has to be compromise on both sides.

Waterboarding is the practice of subjecting a person to a form of artificial drowning. The head of the subject is inclinded backwards, and water is poured over the face and into the breathing passages. A cloth or other object is often placed over the face, or in the mouth, in order to both inhibit breathing and stimulate the gag reflex. The simultaneous sensations of suffocation and the lungs being filled with water cause the victim to slowly drown, eliciting an uncontrollable physical response of extreme panic, gagging, and flailing. The procedure has been popularly used as a covert third degree interrogation technique, since it often leaves no lasting evidence of physical abuse. However, it can cause damage to the lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, injuries due to struggling against restraints, and even death. Some subjects have reported that the procedure is extremely painful, and some have reported that it isn't so painful, but the common experience suggests that it is extremely unpleasant, and subjects will resort to providing a (possibly false) confession or information rather than endure the threat of further waterboarding.

Waterboarding is a historic practice, with the earliest documentation of its use dating back to the Spanish Inquisition in 1492. Since then, it has been widely documented as a method of torture, and in the last century it has been classified as a torture technique by both international and national courts, including the prosecution of Japanese interrogators by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East following World War II, the prosecution of police officers within the United States, and the prosecution of soldiers in Vietnam. It's use is prohibited by many military forces, and it is explicility prohibited by the U.S. Army. The authorisation and use of the technique by the Central Intelligence Agency since 2002 has led to discussion and controversy, and moves by some U.S. Senators to introduce a law that would explicitly ban its use by all government agencies.

Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The more the merrier. I like this proposal. It is factual and avoids the T-word in the first paragraph in favor of dispassionately describing the act. What do you think of would changing "cause the victim to slowly drown" to something like "cause the experience/sensation of slowly drowning" since the victims aren't meant to actually drown? henrik•talk 19:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason why the word shouldn't be used. We can't let editors effect the way wikipedia reads and alter facts because of political motivations. That's is clearly against the whole purpose of wikipedia. --neonwhite user page talk 20:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but sometimes understatement can be effective. I think the initial paragraph here gives a good overview of how unpleasant and repugnant the practice is even without using the word "torture". And the second paragraphs leads with it. henrik•talk 20:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We have several references that say that it is actually drowning - the lungs really do fill with water. It is definitely not just the sensation of drowning. I think that the paragraph is clear that the person isn't usually meant to die, if that's the interpretation that you're worrying about? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. henrik•talk 20:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Do not Support This. But I prefer not to say "oppose" because I like the effort and there are many things I like about your solution (much less out of policy things at first glance). But I prefer summaries for leads and there is a great deal of detail here-- details I believe might be better in the actual article. And with details comes LOTS of area for contention. As just a brief example, sometimes it does not come close to even artificial drowning and sometimes it goes beyond artificial, to actual drowning with resuscitation. Yet we declare it to be a form of artificial drowning.. just like that. And you say the "head is inclined backwards". That could be sitting up. So there are lots of areas of detail that are not right. But the idea is better than many I have seen. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the details need ironing out, but this is a good start. Perhaps we can try to work together to wordsmith this into something both factual and neutral, by suggesting specific improvements? henrik•talk 19:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am willing but I think we should see how others weigh in. I also have another proposal at the bottom of the page. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The tilting of the head back is the only common definition that we have. The technique relies on opening the throat by tilting of the head with respect to the body. Yes, that means it could hypothetically be performed on someone sitting down, although it would be an odd way to do it. Likewise, the technique can be done through complete submersion of the head, or partial submersion of the face. I tried to find a definition for the lead that captures all of these possibilities. I'm open to other suggestions. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the only common features of all accounts that I have read involve pouring water over the face while the person is constrained in some roughly horizontal position. I have never seen submersion per-se, but maybe. However, discussion over details is an example of the problem I was really objecting to: Too many details. We need to work those out in the article and then do the lead as a summary. I will say however, I do not see fundamental objections to your lead based upon policy. I think you did a pretty good job in that regard. I have some objections in that area but not nearly as big as the ones I have with the current lead. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As you point out below, little steps will eventually lead to a better article. Most, if not all, of the argument has been over the lead - if we can find a version that most people can live with, then that will be a great advance over the present situation. No solution is perfect, and nobody is going to be completely satisfied; the important thing is that nobody has any major objections. There are two reliably sourced references to immersion waterboarding in Talk:Waterboarding/Definition, under "U.S. Department of State" Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - If there is a "standard" method, describe that and say "usually." There is no need to describe dozens of variations on this well-understood method of torture in the lead, which should be a concise summary. It can also be done by putting the head under a running water faucet/tap. Badagnani (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no standard version. No rag in mouth, Rag in mouth, plastic wrap, Level, inclined, lots of water, little water, in the nose, in the mouth, just on the face, etc. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of variations. I managed to condense them to a 46 word description. As far as I can see it is factually correct. Whether it is concise or not is relative - for example, the lead of global warming is five paragraphs long, and there are probably longer examples. Having said that, I'm open to alternative suggestions. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Almost support. This is nicely done. In general, I support the approach of giving a detailed description in the first paragraph and briefly explaining the historical context and status as torture in the second paragraph. The only thing that I have a problem with is the phrase "artificial drowning" in the first sentence. Waterboarding isn't "artificial"; it isn't an illusion; water really enters the person's breathing passages, and the person really will drown to death if the process isn't promptly halted. Much better would be "controlled drowning" or "interrupted drowning." —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I use artificial in the sense of "not natural" "product of man" etc. and the paragraph does go on to explicitly state that the lungs fill with water causing the subject to slowly drown. It is also the terminology used by Wallace in one of the few academic references to deal with the legality of waterboarding (see ). Having said that, I can see your point that people might interpret "artificial" as meaning "not real". "Controlled drowning" suggests to me a level of control that isn't present - once the lungs are filled with water, there's no guarantee that you'll be able to empty them, which doesn't sound too controlled. "Interrupted drowning" isn't as descriptive, as there is only a single interruption at the end of the whole process. We could just say "a form of drowning"? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving (again)

This page is now approaching 400 KB in length and is taking several seconds to load. Editors using wireless accounts may be unable to edit it effectively. Am I going to be blocked for archiving older sections of it that are no longer active? Neutral Good (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I was meaning to bring this up. We should not block editors for archiving long pages. Automatic archiving does not work on such an active page. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The page is archived automatically, by a bot, as you know. Badagnani (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The bot isn't keeping up, as you know. As Blue Tie says, "Automatic archiving does not work on such an active page." I repeat: it's nearly 400 KB in size. Editors using wireless accounts may be unable to edit it effectively. Insisting on such a gigantic Talk page is a form of elitism. Only affluent editors with the money to spend on high-speed Internet connections are allowed to participate fully. This is supposed to be "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Neutral Good (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The editor blocked was blocked for a good reason. S/he was selectively archiving text under active discussion, after having been asked not to do so, then, to make a WP:POINT, began to reinsert text from months earlier. This has been explained twice before; I now see the pattern here; editors pretend not to have read earlier discussion, then fill the page with more and more text that disregards that earlier discussion, eliminating significant discussion from just a few days ago as the new text fills up the page. This is analagous to the current discussion about the lead--with many editors insisting that WP disregard 600 years of history about this practice and privileging the statments of fewer than 5 conservative politicians and opinion columnists from a single nation, whose administration is attempting to redefine, in Newspeak-like manner, a well-defined and well-understood practice. Badagnani (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You should assume good faith. I have not understood why Shibimi was blocked. To me it had something to do with what might have been an honest error. But I really do not know why. However, long pages should be archived. That is reasonable. But I do not know why the other editor was blocked and you should not assume otherwise. You should assume good faith. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the earlier discussion, thanks. It was clearly explained earlier, more than once, in much the same terms as I used here. Badagnani (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to the requirement to assume good faith. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand now why Shibimi was blocked? --Iamunknown 19:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There are different methods of waterboarding and some are far more harsh than others, as one of your own sources (Wallach) points out. You want a world that is black and white on this issue. There are a thousand shades of gray. We should archive the page to allow people who don't have T1 and T3 cables to participate fully. Neutral Good (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

All versions (whether "less cruel" or "more cruel") involve strapping to a board, inclining the board, and pouring water over the face. They are all forms of torture. The international definition of torture, as stated by Wikipedia, is clear. If you feel so strongly that the English word torture must be flexible according to personal feeling, you should attempt to change the title of the article Rack (torture), as well as the international definition of torture, as those wouldn't allow individuals to make up their own minds about these things. Badagnani (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Some errors of fact. It does NOT always involve strapping to a board. It does NOT always involve inclining. You may have other errors as well. Do not assume you are right on all things when you are able to be wrong so often. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is called "waterboarding," as you know, because the "classic" version utilizes a board--although "ad hoc" versions may be performed without a board. This would be akin to playing a piano sonata on a toy piano when a real piano is unavailable. However, the existence of such "ad hoc" variants does not change the definition of "playing the piano." Nor does it mean that a piano is "not a musical instrument," because fewer than five individuals wrote opinion columns stating that they don't believe the piano really is a musical instrument. Badagnani (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then you have described different versions. Yet you said ALL of them do X. You are not generally correct when you get expansive that way. Yet much of your logic and reasoning follow that trend. For example, just above you say that "All sources since the 1500's say that waterboarding is torture". Do they really? How many have you personally read? You are entirely capable of error yet you are full of certainty on your facts. Some humility would help produce consensus. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, you beat me to it. We have photographic evidence from January 1968, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US waterboarding technique does not involved strapping to a board and only uses one canteen of water, eliminating any possibility of death by drowning. The inclined board and the much larger amounts of water used in other techniques make them far more abusive. Badagnani, kindly acknowledge this distinction in your future discussion on this Talk page. Thanks. Neutral Good (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The soldier in that photo was courtmartialed for conducting this "less cruel" form of torture. The "more abusive" version of waterboarding is a form of torture, and the "less abusive" version of waterboarding is also a form of torture. That is well understood, and has been for at least 600 years. Badagnani (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Now let's try to keep this section on topic. The topic for this section is archiving. This page is nearly 400 KB in size and the bot just can't keep up. People with wireless Internet connections cannot effectively participate. I suggest archiving. Is anyone going to trot off to WP:ANI and demand that I must be blocked for it? Neutral Good (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The page is archived automatically, by a bot. This has already been explained, at least three times so far. Badagnani (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And the bot can't keep up with a page this active. This has already been explained, at least three times so far. It is a form of elitism and an attempt to WP:OWN the Talk page to insist on keeping it this large. Neutral Good (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been one of the people who lengthens the page so much. Please keep comments concise and avoid repetition and needless argumentation. If necessary, we can reduce the bot to 7 days. Jehochman ^Talk 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support 7 days or more than 150KB. The frequency of archiving on a talk page is per consensus. I would suggest that policy be followed in that regard. I would support a frequency of 7 days and I would like to add a limit of 150KB as well for users with dial up. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support 14 days and request editors to avoid posting the same fringe opinions over and over, in an effort to fill up the page so that significant earlier discussion and consensus gets moved to the archives. Badagnani (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I support 7 days. There are no IP addresses or new accounts voting here, so you can't Wikilawyer your way out of it; and if Jehochman can be taken as a vote of support, that makes it 3-1 in favor of a 7-day setting. Neutral Good (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Except the IPs and users now banned for sockpuppetry and abuse. Support 7 days, also. Lawrence Cohen 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to 7 days for now. Neutral Good, Again: please note that wikipedia works by rough consensus, not vote tallying. How many people voting for a specific proposal really isn't the issue. henrik•talk 20:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Is waterboarding a form of torture, based on sources?

See Talk:Waterboarding/Definition for the discussion and place your comments there.

Many notable sources say it is and that's enough for wikipedia, i don't see why this debate is still going on. --neonwhite user page talk 15:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is going on because it is a pov. Wikipedia should be written NPOV. The debate for me is not about waterboarding. It is about wikipedia policies being applied to an article on waterboarding--Blue Tie (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No its about you and your mates running blocking coverage for the CIA. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I request that you refactor that statement and avoid personal attack. Assume Good Faith. After you do, then you can remove this request too. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact and it is allowed to run out especially with POV warriors supporting warcrimes. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hypnosadist, you need to retract that allegation, prove it, or go away from this discussion. Proving it will not be possible, and I'm unlikely to forget. htom (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's verifiable, extremely so. NPOV does not mean No point of view. There isn't POV issue here. Intensely policital based statements can't be given too much weight. They are mentioned, that's enough. There is no commentary on it that i can see. --neonwhite user page talk 16:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are saying but I agree that NPOV does not mean NO point of view. There is, however, a POV issue here. Sources are being rejected based upon personal pov of editors. That is a pov issue--Blue Tie (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What sources? --neonwhite user page talk 17:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your sources are useless, no medical evidence (we have), your legal sources don't say waterboarding isn't torture and they only consist of the minority opinion in one county in the world and claim only to apply after 9/11. So they are useless, recentist and biased to about 23% of 1 nation in the world. Thats a finge theory on wikipedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The sources you have of wikipedia quality are the OPINIONS of two Congressmen and the legal advice of a wanted warcriminal who says that POTUS can define the word "Torture" to mean anything he wants. Thats it and thats a fringe theory. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's largely the case, we are looking at a limited amount of comments that are very clearly politically motivated, in one of the cases contradictory, often erroneous and deliberately vage. Compare this to sources like UNHCR and all the historical sources available. The article does include opinions and texts on the controversy of it's use. The fact that US politicians often skate around the issue and give ambiguous answers when questioned in public doesn't change the definition. --neonwhite user page talk 17:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There are absolutely NO SOURCES that say "THERE IS NO DISPUTE". There ARE sources that say that there is a Dispute. There are also sources that, while not saying there is a dispute strongly support that notion. There are no sources that do not support that notion. The issue is not "Is Waterboarding Torture?". The issue is: "Is it disputed that Waterboarding is torture?". If you mix up, miscount and mis-characterize my sources as hypnosadist has done, it invalidates your point. If you also do not recognize the actual issue and continue to ask the question "Is Waterboarding Torture?" you are not even addressing the problem. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"mix up, miscount and mis-characterize my sources as hypnosadist has done" Please enlighten me, what am i mixing up? Miscounting? Mis-characteriseing? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Neon actually most of the presidential candidates have said it is torture, with a few of the republican candidates like Rudy saying its neccecary. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Some have said that it is not torture depending....--Blue Tie (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely it would help the discussion if contributors firts acquaint themselves with WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT before commenting.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Fringe pertains chiefly to science or pseudo science -- not to this type of article. Weight applies for sure but editors should also be familiar with the the co-equal (or possibly superior) WP:ASF and consider that the debate over the issue includes a NOTABLE and significant or more than trivial minority. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you quoting: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In which it clearly states that a non-dispute can be prtesented as fact, i.e. ID. Hmmm, I wonder, does a 100+ consensus:1 represent a dispute?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fringe theories apply to any article. all significant views are represented fairly and without bias, with representation in proportion to their prominence. This article complies with that. --neonwhite user page talk 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are quoting NPOV. That is a different policy. (Fringe is actually a guideline not a policy and does not hold the same weight). --Blue Tie (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quote from WP:FRINGE:

"We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.[3] Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth."

There is no restriction to solely fields of scientific endeavor -- and, in my opinion, "waterboarding is not torture" certainly qualifies as a "novel re-interpretation of history". -- The Anome (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

But that is its focus. And ... As a guideline , it does not trump WP:ASF. There are lots of other issues too.. and one of them is that it is focused on scientific or at least testable issues. Our issue here... whether the notion that "waterboarding is torture is a disputed" concept does not hinge around Fringe. It is not a widely and scientifically disproved fringe theory that there is a dispute on this matter. On the other hand, this issue does hinge on WP:OR which is not just a guideline as I recall, but an actual policy. In particular, people who say it is not disputed ought to be required to show evidence that it is not disputed. I have given evidence that it is. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The views are represented in the articles, this whole discussion is pointless. 'waterboarding is torture' is not disputed by any notable sources. It is clearly a tiny minority fringe theory and should not be given undue weight. You're starting to talk nonsense. No-one has to prove something isnt disputed. If there is no significant contrary sources then there is no issue. A handful of politically motivated half comments are not evidence of a challenge to mainstream views. --neonwhite user page talk 17:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Objectively, per Jimbo Wales criteria, you are wrong. It is disputed by notable sources. Quantitatively, a 1:2 difference is not "Fringe". You can always find people in polls who will answer "Yes sex with three year olds is great" and this number hovers around 3 to 8 percent depending upon the question. The number in a poll that is used as a source for the debate is 29% -- at least 4 times larger than I would agree is a tiny or insignificant group. There is definitely a dispute. Notable and significant. Population-wise, it is about the same ratio as the dispute called the Civil War. You may consider the confederacy to have been tiny or insignificant, but that would be an odd view and probably a weird reinterpretation of history -- or in other words, a Fringe viewpoint. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Poll, I'm 99% sure, are not valid RS for this sort of thing, but I have asked on the reliable sources noticeboard to settle this one or the other. If consensus there agrees that general/random polls are not acceptable, will you back down? Lawrence Cohen 17:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would back down ONLY on the condition that I am the one who submits the wording about what the poll is used for. It is in the context of what it is used for that its validity stands or falls and I do not trust anyone else to present that correctly. I have not looked but I suspect you have not done so this time. If you have failed to mention that the poll was used to establish the degree of minority or majority of an opinion, that would be a mistake. If you failed to mention that the minority is described as tiny or insignificant and the poll was used to measure its size, that would be a mistake. If you failed to mention that the poll was used to support the sense that there is a dispute underway, that would be a mistake. If, however, you put the poll forward as a measure of the "truth" of whether waterboarding is torture, (which is how I suspect it would be read or worded), you would also be making a mistake. Which is why I would want to word the issue. Otherwise I will say that you mischaracterized the issue. And I am tired of saying it but I really do not think anyone is getting it. So it bears repeating. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing a poll can be used for is to cite the result of a poll and it would have to be a notable one to be relevant content for any article. False analogies are not helping your arguement. In this case we have an overwhelming amount of evidence and sources for one viewpoint and a small amount of very dodging sources for another. In my opinion, if anything these have too much weight in the article. Policy specifically says not to give undue weight and considering the lack of significance of the minority view it does not warrant anything more than a few lines. --neonwhite user page talk 23:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I use the poll for is to cite the results of the poll. It is a notable poll, so it is relevant. I agree that false analogies are not helpful, but I did not make any false analogies. You are wrong about the overwhelming support for one viewpoint and a small amount of very dodging sources for another UNLESS you are missing the issue. If you think the issue is "Is Waterboarding Torture" then you are missing the issue. If you realize that the issue is: "Is waterboarding's status as torture disputed" then you are wrong about sources because there is not a single reliable source quoted so far that says it is not disputed. And many that say it is. I believe you are not recognizing the issue and are caught up in trying to answer the wrong question. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you are trying to use the result of a non significant unverfied poll to further your POV. The multiple sources speak for themselves, it has been said many times. Do not disrupt the discussion by denying what is obvious. The issue is that you are trying to give undue weight to a small minority opinion that is barely significant to include at all. --neonwhite user page talk 05:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The poll is significant. The poll does not need to be verified by an independent source to be a reliable source per wikipedia (otherwise I need to require that ALL of your proposed references must ALSO be verified by a separate independent source) per wikipedia standards and policy. What you are asking for there is over the top. You claim multiple sources. But you have not even provided even one source. Not even one. There is no such thing as disruption on my part when I am the only one to offer cites and references for my position. On the other hand, if anyone is disrupting it is the person who is refusing to acknowledge these references and sources while providing none themselves. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

20% of the population believe the moon landings were faked[6], 39% believe that humans were "definitely created" in the last 10 000 years[7], 80% believe the government is hiding aliens[8]. 60% couldn't find Iraq on a map[9], 75% believe english is the most widely spoken native language[10] Clearly, the public (at least when asked in polls) is wildly unreliable when it comes to factual matters. henrik•talk 18:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is your OPINION that the public is wildly unreliable when it comes to what you consider to be factual matters. However, you are missing the point. The issue is not "Is Waterboarding Torture?". The issue is : "Is it disputed that Waterboarding is Torture?". In that question a poll is a good source for showing it is disputed. But if it is not good enough, I have also produced a news report saying that the issue of waterboarding being torture is disputed. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically the people who took the poll aren't verifiable sources. --neonwhite user page talk 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is untrue. The people who took the poll are considered a reliable source and the poll itself is verifiable. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If public opinion is such a reliable source of information why do we have the scientific method, evidence based medicine and do we consider invoking vox populi a logical fallacy? Here is why: public opinion frequently/mostly differs from that of experts.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No they aren't, nobody knows who they are, let alone if they are verifiable sources. Their opinions are not relevant. --neonwhite user page talk 05:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You (Nescio and Neon) are not authorized to change wikipedia policy on Reliable Sources by yourself. You must obtain consensus. Your views are valued. You should go make them known on the Pump and see if they are accepted as new policy. But until then they are not. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Henrik, you've claimed that "75% [of the population] believe english is the most widely spoken native language." That poll wasn't taken from the entire population. That poll was taken from 18- to 24-year-olds. That's the first one I checked and you made a false statement about it,. so I feel no need to explore your misrepresentations any farther. Kindly stop misrepresenting the evidence. Thanks. Neutral Good (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem and distraction. Henrik's character is not at issue; people's beliefs about English are not at issue. The issue is whether public opinion polls are admissible as reliable sources. The matter is settled: they are not. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Totally bogus. Polls are used regularly in wikipedia. You cannot unilaterally declare a source to be bad because you do not like it. And the REAL ISSUE that we should be focusing on is related to the article. It is: "Is the Notion that Waterboarding is Torture, Seriously Disputed?" There is evidence that it is and cited, reliable sources saying so. There is no evidence that it is not disputed. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to provide any such evidence that suggests your view is more than a minority view and warrants any more weight than it already has, repeating it over and over wont make it true. We do not attempt prove negatives on wikipedia. --neonwhite user page talk 05:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to provide ANY evidence at all. None. Zip. Nada. At least I have provided evidence that my position is valid. You have not provided ANY to the contrary.--Blue Tie (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't that it is disputed by members of the US general public in 2007. The issue is whether that should be allowed to influence an article about a practice that predates the founding of the United States itself. However, you have already stated that you think that historical references from before the current U.S. controversy are irrelevant, so I don't think that it will be possible to achieve a global consensus on this point. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not the issue. Because that issue is already decided by wikipedia policy. We are not allowed to circumvent that policy. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately here, one has to remember to avoid recentism, personally motivated comments by politians during the last few years has only limited importance against the clear historical understanding and definition. This is not an artical about the recent controversies, they are only a small part of it. --neonwhite user page talk 06:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy about recentism that trumps WP:NPOV. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We aren't playing cards here. Recentism is not a neutral point of view, it's a point of view based solely on recent events ignoring historical context, therefore policy forbids it. --neonwhite user page talk 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I also would object to recentism as you describe it. From that perspective, many things we now label torture should not be called torture, because it has only been recently (last 50 years) that they have been so labeled. However, I would suggest to you that we cannot entirely avoid "recentism". We live recently. Our experiences are recent. Most books were published "recently". I can appreciate and value an effort to look more widely but I question the ability of any modern editor to do so. Consequently I have a request: Please cite the policy on "Recentism" exactly as it appears in wikipedia policies. These have been decided upon by consensus and so they rule. An editors individual opinion of recentism does not quite count. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The word torture has been used for centuries. You are confusing the definition of the word with the morality and legality of the practice. With things that have existed for hundreds of years, modern views have to be given the correct weight. As this article covers the history of it. The recent controversies in one particular country aren't that important. As i said recentism is obviously a bias, a non-neutral point of view, the policy is WP:NPOV. --neonwhite user page talk 19:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh.. I asked you about the policy on Recentism. I did not need a polemic about your views. Is there a policy on recentism or is this something you have made up? This is a simple question.--Blue Tie (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

New Lawrence Cohen proposed first paragraph

"Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages and is considered a form of torture. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent.[2] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[3] Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[5] Since 2001, it's status as a form of torture has been contested by several Americans."

This seems absolutely factually accurate. Lawrence Cohen 17:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• I object. On the same grounds as I have objected previously. This lead immediately violates wikipedia neutrality policy, which is the most important article writing policy on wikipedia and cannot be compromised. It is also factually inaccurate or imprecise. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's factual accurate, pleas stop misrepresenting NPOV policy. It is becoming disruptive. --neonwhite user page talk 18:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh for Heaven's sake. I'm moving this to the main talk page for a proposed lead. Let's see what the actual editors have to say to this compromise. Remember that a few dissenting voices do not trump consensus, consensus is not "unanimous". Lawrence Cohen 17:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that I am not an actual editor? That my comments are invalid? Please also remember that consensus on a talk page cannot trump policy and that consensus is not majority rule. Thus a few dissenting voices may, in fact, be consensus. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the SPAs, as Jehochman has said repeatedly. Lawrence Cohen 18:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I must admit, I do not recall what an SPA is but I suppose it is good that I am not in that group?--Blue Tie (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am fine with this lead. Bluetie, if you object to this could you please propose something to replace it. It is difficult to reach an accord if you just object to things and don't put forth your own suggestion. - Remember

• Strongly oppose for the reasons repeatedly posted here. "waterboarding is a form of torture" is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. That it appears as the first six words of the article is an even more outrageously blatant violation of WP:NPOV. This is not negotiable. It is Wikipedia policy. Neutral Good (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Again misrepresenting policy is considered disruptive. If you dont understand the policy. Read it thorough or ask for explainations. There is nothing on WP:NPOV that even suggests this is not neutral. It states the facts accurately based on the sources. There is no commentary or personal views there. --neonwhite user page talk 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose c/2001 it's/2001 its/ More later; it does not describe the various different activities that are labeled "waterboarding", having one stand for all of them, which may be what causes the dispute about whether or not it's torture. htom (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Look again, renamed the section. We're really just talking about the first paragraph. Lawrence Cohen 18:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose -- that's not a compromise. You're basically saying that waterboarding is always torture although some people mistakenly think otherwise. That's clearly a POV. -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• We have no evidence of any dispute except by some Americans post 2001. Do we have any evidence of any dispute prior to that assertation that it is torture, dating back to around 1400 AD when the practice was first documented? Lawrence Cohen 18:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We also have no evidence that there was no dispute prior to 2001. Do you assert that there was no dispute? Validate it. Do you assert that there was a dispute? Validate it? Do you assert neither? Then neither should wikipedia. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

How exactly are we suppose to prove a negative (that there was no dispute prior to 2001) besides simply researching the issue and finding no such dispute?Remember (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not know, but if you assert something you must validate it with a reliable source that has researched this subject. It is ok with me not to assert something that we do not know.--Blue Tie (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This didn't really become a high profile legal matter until 2001 when treatment of unlawful combatants (a term in use long before this war, btw) became a political issue.

How about this: "is a form of abuse that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages and is considered a form of torture."

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The statement "waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage" requires a reliable medical source, which I doubt you will find, for the simple reason that it is impossible to perform any physical act of violence in a way that guarantees no physical damage. What if the victim has a weak heart, or genetic susceptibility to heart attack? An accurate statement might be "waterboarding may or may not result in lasting physical damage, or even death, depending on the severity of the attack, and victim's constitution and disposition". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Reluctantly oppose. I sympathise with the editor's position but cannot support it. In my opinion this awful practice of waterboarding is obviously torture. But this is not the place for our opinions. It is an encyclopaedia and it must be neutral. Harry Lives! (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. This is acceptable to me. I also support Chris Bainbridge's proposed adjustment. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

More information to be incorporated

Mark Bowden, writer of Black Hawk Down and Killing Pablo, recently wrote a editorial stating that waterboarding may be illegal but it ws justified in the case of Zubaydah. See link he clarifies his position here Link. Fairly notable example of a person who says it is illegal but justified. Remember (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Its hard to wrap your head around the idea of illegal but justified. However, sometimes maybe so. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Did he say that it's torture? Neutral Good (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

His exact words are "It is not torture in the traditional sense of inflicting pain; it inflicts fear, intense, visceral fear, without doing physical harm. It is a method calculated to straddle the definitions of coercion and torture, and as such merely proves that both methods inhabit the same slippery continuum. There is a difference between gouging out a man's eyes and keeping him awake, and waterboarding falls somewhere in between."Remember (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The first four words are, "It is not torture." Thanks. Neutral Good (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting the sources, the meaning is clear. "It is not torture in the traditional sense of inflicting pain" So its torture in an "untraditional sense" by inflicting something else, i wonder what that is? "it inflicts fear, intense, visceral fear," oh thanks for the info Mark Bowden, writer of Black Hawk Down and Killing Pablo. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Read it again. You cannot reduce that passage to four words; to attempt to do so deforms the actual meaning of the passage. Badagnani (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What he means is that it's an awful experience like torture, while at the same time it's still not technically torture. This is why USDOJ lawyers said it's not torture.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read it again. He does not say waterboarding is not a form of torture. He implies that he believes it is not a form of torture in the "traditional sense" (of inflicting pain), but instead in an "non-traditional sense" (by inflicting intense fear). As such, it is simply an opinion, and not one based on fact, because waterboarding is, according to the sources, capable of inflicting severe pain, as one is brought to the edge of death. Badagnani (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The range of waterboarding

One of the problems we, as editors, have with this article is that there is a large, majority group who declare that "waterboarding is torture" and another who declare that "maybe it is, maybe it isn't" and there is not much listening between the two viewpoints. I've come to the conclusion that some of you, especially in the majority, don't know what the range of actions covered by the term "waterboarding" really is.

One form has been done to willing "victims" in televised demonstrations; the victims lined up to be repeatedly "waterboarded". Again and again, they willingly submitted to this torture (or so they called it.)

I submit that any procedure for which "victims" repeatedly volunteer is not torture. It may look to an onlooker like torture, it may be unpleasant, but it's torture theatre; I doubt that the victims would be repeatedly volunteering for 120VAC stimulation of their sexual organs, or to have holes drilled in their kneecaps, amputations, or any of a number of other things that we would all agree were torture.

I'll preface the following fictional description of "real waterboarding" from the 1960s by saying that I don't know whether it was the CIA, KGB, or some other group that discovered that the real immersion was not needed, that wetting the skin in certain parts of the body, with some other conditions, would elicit the gag/vomit/drown reflexes. It is absolutely unpleasant, but I am not sure (see the line of people lining up to do it again and again) that it is so unpleasant as to be called torture.

This is. The subject is sleeping, after being kept awake several days. He is blindfolded and taken to a large room. His clothing is removed. He is bound face down to a diving board a few inches above the water in the strongly chlorinated pool, with his chin over the end of the board. Someone walks out on the board, immersing his face in the pool. After a brief time, signaled by people observing the subject, he walks back, allowing the face to emerge from the water, and the victim to breathe. This is done repeatedly, until the victim is unconscious. At this point, there may be a break in the proceeding, after which it resumes. Eventually, while unconscious, he is removed from the board and taken back to his room, where he is dried and dressed as he was before he was taken away. When he wakes, there is no evidence that any of this happened to him. It could have been a nightmare.

This may be done several times.

Finally, one day, when he's given water, it's heavily chlorinated, like the water in the pool. The smell ....

I do not think you would see people lining up to volunteer repeatedly to be subjected to this; and because this activity is called "waterboarding", that's why I wonder if all of the activities described as "waterboarding" should be called torture. I think that the differences are sufficient that some of them are probably not.

Thanks for reading. This is not only OR, it is original fiction. No one had anything done to them in the making of this post. You might be able to find some sources that describe this; I did not look. Verification is different than both reality and fantasy. htom (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC) ---

You say "any procedure for which "victims" repeatedly volunteer is not torture". I'm afraid that is easily disprovable. Look in any undergraduate psychology textbook. The fact that someone may not find the experience tortuous (as they have heavily trained, or just feel the torture is worth the publicity or whatever), or may have a goal that allows them to endure the torture (seeking fame again, or wanting to "prove" that it isn't torture). Also, anecdotes don't count as evidence. The fact is by any reasonable definition of torture, waterboarding is torture. Claiming that some forms of waterboarding are not torture is misleading in the extreme 86.146.119.116 (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My own opinion is that the primary reason that volunteers repeatedly subject themselves to whatever it is, is that they trust those doing the whatever, and feel that they are somehow "in control" during the procedure. In some of the cases, as well, it looks a bit like there's a safe word or jesture involved. In a torture situation, there is neither trust nor safety, and, as you point out, no reward. htom (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"in televised demonstrations; the victims lined up to be repeatedly "waterboarded"" What television programme is this? If you can provide a reliably sourced citation this is probably worth including in the article. However, it says nothing about whether it is torture or not, as the above commentator points out, there are some people who would willingly undergo torture in exchange for fame, money, proving a point etc. Also, due to legal and liability issues, it is extremely unlikely that a television programme would subject people to waterboarding as practiced by real interrogators, where it is possible (though perhaps unlikely) that the subject may suffer some permanent physical damage or even death. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Street theatre demonstrations; google "youtube waterboarding demonstrations", you'll have an assortment. The one I had seen was outside the Justice Department, but that one seems to have been taken down. htom (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCDs2JXA71U Video says it all! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning as part of the "US controversy" bit of the article. However, Youtube is a primary source and not a reliable source. Please provide some citations to reliable sources discussing these demonstrations. Also, the narrator himself says that this isn't waterboarding as practiced for real - he says they're using a sheet of plastic below the towel to mostly block the inhalation of water; this is a theatrical production, and should be cited as such. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguments from Synthesis

The wikipedia policy on Original Research says:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Here is how this error can and does occur on this page.

Starting with A = “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control

Next is B = Human Rights Watch has claimed that it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[5] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure

Our Conclusion is C = Waterboarding is defined as torture

We state: A and B therefore C. A specific example from above: Waterboarding is torture, and it's horrifying that any discussion is required about this point. To see how another online encyclopedia handles this, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on torture. (Implication -- a source describes torture, waterboarding meets that description, therefore waterboarding is torture)

Another example from above: SEP says, "[T]orture is the infliction of extreme physical suffering[.]" But in Evan Wallach's article in the Washington Post, also cited by "waterboarding is torture" advocates, a Filipino waterboarding subject was interviewed: Q. Was it painful? A. Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious. Like drowning in the water. Now let's go back to the SEP: "Is the intentional infliction of extreme mental suffering ... necessarily torture? Michael Davis thinks not ... So torture is the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering ..." (SEP says torture involves pain, other source says there is no pain, therefore waterboarding is not torture).

These are both versions of the same SYN problem.

This is in direct violation of the Synthesis portion of Original Research and cannot be used in article editing. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone actually reading the SEP entry? Apparently not. The relevant sentence is: "Torture includes such practices as searing with hot irons, burning at the stake, electric shock treatment to the genitals, cutting out parts of the body, e.g. tongue, entrails or genitals, severe beatings, suspending by the legs with arms tied behind back, applying thumbscrews, inserting a needle under the fingernails, drilling through an unanesthetized tooth, making a person crouch for hours in the ‘Z’ position, waterboarding (continuously immersing the head in water until close to point of drowning), and denying food, water or sleep for days or weeks on end."

Apparently, the use of the word "immersing" is a problem for some editors here. But the SEP is obviously describing the same technique that this article is about, and nitpicking about the definition of "immersing" doesn't change that. This isn't OR/SYN--the SEP explicitly says that waterboarding is torture. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not clear on why you chose this section to make this comment. This section is about bad synthesis. It is not about the SEP article. --Blue Tie (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's simple, Blue Tie; in your comment above, you say that I've engaged in original synthesis. I'm pointing out that the SEP explicitly says that waterboarding is torture. Therefore, I did not engage in original synthesis. This should have been obvious to anyone who read the SEP article, and therefore, I think you hadn't read it when you made the comment that starts this section. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the SEP was obviously describing the activity in my story above (continuously immersing the head in water until close to point of drowning), and not the splashing and pouring of water on the face being demonstrated in the various youtube videos. htom (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks htom. I would add that the SEP definition clearly excludes the CIA technique, since no RS describes the CIA technique as "submersion" or "immersion." That isn't a misrepresentation despite the claims by Akhilleus above. Nor is it a violation of WP:SYN. That policy specifically describes an allowance for making inescapable conclusions based on RS. Regards, Bob 68.31.74.100 (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is tendentious nitpicking. The SEP entry was written recently and relies on sources as recent as 2005. To pretend that the article is talking about something other than what's in the news right now is disingenuous. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing tendentious about it, and I'm not pretending. The SEP def specifies "immersion." No RS says that the CIA technique ever involved immersion. Regards, Bob 70.9.228.223 (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So you are seriously saying that you think the SEP article has no relevance to waterboarding? You actually think that someone writing about waterboarding in 2005 wouldn't be thinking about the CIA's interrogation techniques? That's ridiculous. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that the SEP article has waterboarding wrong. It does not involve continuous immersion in any other source that I have read, so I read the SEP citation with squinty eyes. --Blue Tie (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that when you read what it actually says, it supports Blue Tie's position. It's relevant, but not in the way you thought. Regards, Bob 68.29.181.8 (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

General Warning

I've had enough with the POV pushing, semantic nit picking and rules lawyering. We also have sock puppetry going on here. If the editors causing the disruption do not desist and engage in peaceful discussion, I am going to take stronger measures to control the situation. Jehochman ^Talk 17:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jonathan. I'm not sure that's the correct approach with a crowd like this. It's a very contentious topic and it's clear there are POV pushers on both sides. The split is about 50/50. The consequences are enormous, because it could define the government of the most powerful nation in the world as a gang of war criminals. And there are a lot of people at all levels of the CIA and DOD who would have to share that indictment. So the WP:BLP fallout could be devastating. Remember, Valerie Plame (another CIA employee) didn't hesitate to take legal action.

This is an area where the Wikipedia project needs to be very, very careful. Somebody in a position of authority needs to step in and cut this Gordian knot, resolve the dispute about this article in a careful and cautious manner in obedience to all policies, and liberate all the energy currently being invested in this fight to be used constructively elsewhere. Regards, Bob 68.31.7.232 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has 1400 administrators. We are the ones charged with maintaining order. If this problem becomes to much for me and my fellow administrators to handle, I will ask the Arbitration Committee for help. Jehochman ^Talk 19:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply otherwise, Jonathan. Explanation: this is clearly an impasse. Both sides are brandishing their own interpretations of Wikipedia policy. Would you please offer your own interpretation to resolve this matter? And if not, is there someone else who will do so, and who is in a sufficient position of authority that all will accept his ruling as final? This jury is deadlocked, Your Honor. Regards, Bob 68.31.74.100 (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the jury is not deadlocked. We don't decide based on votes. We decide based on consensus and the strength of arguments. My reading of the RfC results to date is that a vast majority of reliable sources state that waterboarding is a form of torture. Like it or not, as an encyclopedia we must rely upon what the secondary sources say. If reliable sources can be found, the article might contain a small section that explains who claims waterboarding is not torture, and explain their rationale with citations to references. The person opinion of editors does not matter. What matters is what the reliable sources say. If the RfC ends with the same results as we see now, those who continue to edit war against consensus may need to be banned from editing this article. Jehochman ^Talk 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there an RfC on this subject? Where may it be found? Badagnani (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Here: Talk:Waterboarding/Definition henrik•talk 20:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Jehochman on this issue, this article needs all editors to try to civilly and rationally work out the disagreements without throwing accusations, wikilawyering and relentlessly pushing their own view with no sign of willingness to find consensus. Those who can not abide by these terms and work constructively should probably edit other, less contentious, articles. henrik•talk 20:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how we could need any more input on this. I'll say again that this isn't about whether waterboarding is torture or is not torture. It's about whether it's "generally torture" or "always torture".

The contentious part is really whether the U.S. DOJ lawyers might have a valid argument after they've examined the process.

But, yet again, no one says it's never torture. The only question is whether Wikipedia says "generally" at the top. Everything else is something we can muddle through.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Article probation and sockpuppetry

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Article probation.

I see that article probation is now being potentially reviewed for this before the situation escalates to artibitration. I think this would be a wonderful idea, for administratively enforced probation on article and all talk pages. There is no reasonable evidence to believe these people are different. Most of the RFCU confirmed socks for the same IP all have history of working on the Free Republic article. That includes the IP of one of the worst trolls this site has apparently known, this Palatine character, who had that as his major problem. That IP, plus a host of others with the same language, tone and curious identical ```support``` language all arrive at once on the waterboarding talk page, at the same time, and all with the exact same stance? If not entirely sockpuppetry it's flagrant meatpuppetry. Either is a rules violation. Do you really think it's a coincidence that all' these unique human beings, all using the same ISP, all with matching political viewpoints, all with matching oddball habits of forming their ```support``` !votes, and all with basically the same language all arrived independent of each other, as soon as the "consensus" fight began to turn, and there were basically two people on the non-torture side of the debate? I've got a swell bridge for you too, that's only moderately used. Lawrence Cohen 19:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not know and I do not care about this issue. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if it is sockpuppetry and stacking the discussion, it's a major problem. No one editor is entitled to more weight in discussion than any other. It is a bannable offense to game the system this way. It must be stopped if and when it happens, as soon as possible, since it is destructive. Lawrence Cohen 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly where is "article probation is now being potentially reviewed for this before the situation escalates to artibitration"? Badagnani (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry, here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Article probation. Lawrence Cohen 20:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding is generally torture

User:Randy2063 has suggested a couple of times that the phrasing "is generally torture" might be a good compromise. I'm willing to go with that. So, how about it?

Waterboarding consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, usually with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1] It is generally considered a form of torture. [...rest of paragraph as is]

If this will put the current argument to rest, I think it will be a big step forward. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The "less cruel" form and the "more cruel" form of waterboarding are both forms of torture, and have been considered as such since the 15th century, by all but four U.S. Republican politicians and conservative opinion columnists. The proposed change is being forced for political/POV reasons, attempting to redefine a well understood term so as to create a sense that this practice is acceptable. As such, this is an abuse of Wikipedia's inclusive, consensus practice. Badagnani (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, governments that are involved in the use of torture can be expected to deny it. I'm sure the spanish inquisition, the japanese and french army, the VC etc all would have denied it too at the time but it doesn't really change the nature of it. Many war crimes are denied, hitler probably denied genoside and some people continue to deny but it does not change the verified facts presented in the article. --neonwhite user page talk 23:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that waterboarding is a form of torture, but I don't understand why this means the article can't say "waterboarding is generally considered torture." —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that only a extreme minority of people seem to feel it's only sometimes torture, based on the available sourcing, and all these individuals all appear to be from one geographic/political region, which further drives that opinion into the fringe category. If it were widely spread, or global, but alas... it's all from one country. Lawrence Cohen 01:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: one might be a worse torture than the other, but this does not change the fact that they are both torture. Lawrence also makes a good point above about the fringe nature of what might be referred to, for the want of a good existing shorthand term, as "torture denialism". -- The Anome (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment You see what's happening here, Randy? There are certain people who will never compromise. They will never accept a lead that doesn't start out by saying "Waterboarding is torture" in six words or less. Neutral Good (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Lawrence, you claimed "If it were widely spread, or global, but alas... it's all from one country." Do you have any proof that there is absolutely no one, anywhere but in the US, who isn't absolutely sure that each and every act that has ever been called "waterboarding" is torture? I must confess that I have grown sick and tired of people who continually misrepresent the state of the evidence. When you speak in absolutes, you invite demands for absolute proof. You think the world is all black and white, but there are shades of gray. This is one of them. Neutral Good (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• You're attacking a straw man. It is not necessary to prove the extreme absolute you describe, because no one is suggesting that the article should say, "There is absolutely no one outside the U. S. who isn't absolutely sure that each and every act that has ever been called 'waterboarding' is torture." You made that sentence up. What we must do as Wikipedia editors is gather the available evidence (so far we have found evidence of dissenting opinions in the U. S., and haven't found evidence of a significant dispute elsewhere) and then represent that evidence fairly (the article can say there exists recent dispute in the U. S., but it cannot give the impression that there is a general dispute everywhere). You've used this same straw man before, I believe — kindly put it to rest. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nor can you claim that in the entire world, except for the United States, it's well-settled that all forms of waterboarding are torture - which is what Lawrence just claimed, Ping. Allow me to present a hypothetical scenario. Little Timmy goes swimming at the community swimming pool. But there are a couple of big bad bullies from the sixth grade who feel like picking on him. One of them sneaks up behind Little Timmy and pins his arms behind his back. The other starts splashing water into Little Timmy's face, yelling "Say uncle! Say uncle!" (The lifeguard is too busy looking at pretty girls to notice.)

After about 15 seconds of thrashing around, Little Timmy splutters, "Uncle!" And the two big bad bullies let him go and wade away, laughing. Do you really think Little Timmy experienced severe physical suffering? Do you really think he will be emotionally scarred for life after 15 seconds of having water splashed in his face? If you can't answer "Yes" to either of those questions, Little Timmy wasn't tortured. Neutral Good (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely off-topic. Stick to the issue at hand, please. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 06:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all off-topic. The unwilling victim is forced to participate. htom (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

But not, apparently, waterboarded. Enough with the non-sequiturs, already. -- The Anome (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno about that. The much-discussed AP photo (Vietnam, January 1968) indicates that securing the person to a board is not required. All that is required to be called "waterboarding" is securing the person's limbs so that he cannot resist, and splashing water into his nose and mouth. And I notice that the "waterboarding is torture" advocates are eager to claim that the 1st Cavalry soldier who participated was court-martialed for "waterboarding," not some other offense. Was Little Timmy tortured? I can't help noticing that all the "waterboarding is torture" advocates are refusing to answer this question. Neutral Good (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

See Straw man. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(conflict)

One of the things the article should say is that before 2001 there was very little citable discussion of waterboarding, whether public, academic, or non-academic, disputatious or not, anywhere. A brief search of googlenews shows that in 1998-1999 the five stories are about an activity that seems related to barefoot waterskiing, none in 2000-2001, and six in 2002 (one of which is still about waterskiing.)htom (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

BS we have a french journalist from the fifties saying it was torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

BS we have the Mississippi Supreme Court in 1926 saying its torture. Now Stop misrepresenting the sources. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I said "very little", not "no". Your citations go to proving my point; there was very little discussion. Still waiting for that retraction, btw. htom (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliably sourced citation that there was "very little discussion before 2001"? For what it's worth, I actually agree that there was very little discussion - in Talk:Waterboarding/Definition we have several references to reliable sources before 2001 that all refer to the act as torture, and we have no references before 2001 that describe the act as not torture, or describe any "debate" over whether it is or isn't torture. But if you have some reliably sourced historic references that say it isn't, or it is debatable that it is, torture, then please add them to Talk:Waterboarding/Definition so that they can be considered along with the rest of the evidence. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not like it but I do not hate it. I think its not a very good sentence. Too vague. --Blue Tie (talk) 07:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We have no need to prove a negative. Negative values, or lack of information, don't matter here. If there is sourced information, it can be added. Unsourced information, if challenged, must be sorted. Simply put, lacking evidence provided to the contrary, we can only know that American sources dispute this torture matter. Lawrence Cohen 10:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a negative. You were affirmatively stating that nowhere, outside of the United States, is there anyone who disagrees that all forms of waterboarding are torture. Tempest in a teapot. Just don't misrepresent the evidence again. There is no proof to support such an absolute statement. Neutral Good (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Provide sources that demonstrate this disagreement is not a minority viewpoint limited to one geographic area. Lawrence Cohen 19:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Resuming statements of support or opposition on consensus

• Support - Let's get this over with. Neutral Good (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Cuts the Gordian knot. Regards, Bob 68.29.195.234 (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As said below, this RfC has already has had a clear consensus result (see practically every other part of this page for evidence) in favour of keeping the plain "is" wording. Re-opening vote after vote until you get the result you want from a tiny minority of those contributing, and then claiming consensus, is not the way to go. -- The Anome (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Tiny minority"???? Looks like about 50/50 to me. Neutral Good (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Moo I have not seen clear consensus from the RfC. But also I do not know what we are voting on here. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What we're voting on, Blue Tie, is the "generally" lead first proposed by Randy, and formally offered by Ping. I think it's a good idea and a big step in the right direction. And the RfC was very poorly constructed. Neutral Good (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - This does not need to be "resumed" as the discussion was already ongoing just above. However, if another statement is now necessary I will add it again. The "less cruel" form and the "more cruel" form of waterboarding are both forms of torture, and have been considered as such since the 15th century, by all but four U.S. Republican politicians and conservative opinion columnists. The proposed change is being forced for political/POV reasons, attempting to redefine a well understood term so as to create a sense that this practice is acceptable. As such, this is an abuse of Wikipedia's inclusive, consensus practice. Badagnani (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You already expressed opposition above and it is abundantly clear. Please delete. Neutral Good (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to discuss this in wartime

I feel that this page should be deleted until the current conflict in the Middle East is over. -Roofus (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether the US was at peacetime or war doesn't matter, and neither does a sensitive nature of a matter. If it is published in realible sources, it can be discussed here, forever. Lawrence Cohen 10:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Roofus, can you explain why you think this article should be deleted until that time? -- The Anome (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The answer is simple, the more we talk about this the less likely the CIA will be allowed to torture people. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That has really nothing to do with improving this article. Please focus on that, rather than making this discussion page a political forum. If you wish to influence US government policy, there are more appropriate venues. henrik•talk 13:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And no, this page isn't going to be deleted. henrik•talk 14:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

An Entirely New Proposal for PROCESS

How about this:

Waterboarding consists of restraining a person and pouring water over their mouth and nose to induce a fear of drowning. It is widely considered torture.

This is not to be construed as a permanent lead but as a temporary lead. We just let it sit. Then we outline and work on the rest of the article and fashion a lead that characterizes the rest of the article in summary fashion. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support --Blue Tie (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons stated earlier; this lead is most unsatisfactory in that it must first be stated what it is (a form of torture), then it can be described. Badagnani (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Widely considered is weasel words. It has no specific value. It needs to state who considers it? and again there has been no real arguement made that wasn't political motivated, suggesting it is as anything other than torture. I fail to see any arguement that international law it's a reliable source. --neonwhite user page talk 20:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To both Neon White and Badagnani: It is just temporary. No need for it to be perfect yet (though it must still accord with policy). That is the idea. Are you basically opposed to anything that is not perfect in your mind even before the article is right? In other words, is there no room for compromise? --Blue Tie (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There should be no compromise towards editors trying to use wikipedia articles to redefine defintions based on political or personal opinions contrary to a historical and popular defintion. That is a core policy. Personal opinions about the meaning of certain words are not relevant. Replacing a defintion with a more vague one is not improving the encyclopedia. Consider that this technique described is not used for any other reason. --neonwhite user page talk 20:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your tone and also with your subrosa allegation toward me. I also disgree that I am replacing any definitions. I am following wikipedia policy. I think you should assume good faith. But I believe you are saying you are unable to do that. Do I understand you correctly -- that you are unable to assume good faith toward me? If so, then of course, you are also unable to view anything I do with an eye toward compromise. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Asuming good faith does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary None of my comments were any allegations, they were an assertion of core policy. --neonwhite user page talk 20:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but the question remains: Can you assume good faith toward me? I know the policy does not require that you assume it when someone has done badly, but what about in my case? --Blue Tie (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support the general principle. I have yet to see anyone provide sources that say everyone considers it to be torture. -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that the General Principle is that we leave a lead that no one likes but which satisfies basic requirements and policy and move to the article. Then re-write the lead to summarize the article. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is suggested that everyone considers it torture, what is true is that there are multiple reliable sources that consider it so (they were listed above somewhere) both popularily and historically. The amount is enough for us to consider it a verfiable fact. In opposition, there are only a handful of comment, none particularly reliable, that can't be given undue weight because they only represent a tiny minority of recent opinion. --neonwhite user page talk 21:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"None particularly reliable." Several licensed attorneys -- one of them being a congressman, two others being former federal prosecutors -- aren't "particularly reliable"? Neutral Good (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No-one has produced any second party reliable sources published in notable publications that suggest there is significant rejection of the idea that this is torture. A single congressman expressing a politically motivated statement is clearly a minority opinion and can not change the historical definition. --neonwhite user page talk 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The sources are all opinions. It's a bit odd to characterize U.S. government attorneys as unreliable while those 100+ lawyers on the other side include a number of ideologues (and I'm being extraordinarily polite in calling them that).

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Randy, regarding those 100+ lawyers, I ran online searches on the eight whose names started with the letter "A." On one of them, I couldn't find any information at all that would indicate her ideology. For the other seven, ALL OF THEM are left-wing ideologues. The most common thread I can find is an attempt to convince readers of their articles that all police, rather than a few bad apples, abuse their police powers. There is a general hostility toward the investigative and interrogative process. Apparently they believe that if a captured terrorist commander on enemy soil refuses to answer questions, we're supposed to ask him what kind of wine he would like to be served with his filet mignon.

Effective interrogations solve murder cases and save innocent lives. Lots of innocent lives. Neutral Good (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Expressing bias doesnt help you prove your edits are not based on your personal opinions. --neonwhite user page talk 23:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"Effective interrogations solve murder cases" Which cases would those be???????? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Your "filet mignon" comment is blatant hyperbole, mockery, and a straw man. Cut the sarcasm and stick to reasoned arguments, please. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be sarcasm but it makes the point about these 100+ lawyers.

Please keep in mind that this comes out of Neon's criticism of U.S. government attorneys as having undue weight. That invites an examination and comparison. If it exposes those 100+ as possible extremists then that's an important point.

Say what you like about U.S. government lawyers but they're closer to the mainstream than this bunch.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"If it exposes those 100+ as possible extremists" Yes they are just back from planting IED's on the streets of Bagdad, damn foiled again! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's refrain from sarcasm on all sides. It's not helpful to achieving consensus, and will just make this process take even longer. henrik•talk 01:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

They were not lawyers, they were law professors, considered a reliable source in most cases. Add to that, not just the amount of sources but the range of sources and the quality, you have a good case for verifiablity. On the other hand we have the suggestion of a handful of vague comments and some politicians clearly skirting around the issue for political reasons, it does deserve the same weight. --neonwhite user page talk 23:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that professors can't be extremists? (Again, look at who these people are.)

Note that I'm not asking that they be excluded. I'm just pointing out that they're hardly conclusive. The range of opinion on your side is not that wide. While you have some good sources, they're either not lawyers or they're not familiar with the exact procedure.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To Randy2063 and NeutralGood: I don't understand your reasoning. You imply that waterboarding is effective and useful, perhaps even a good thing. That I understand. What I don't understand is why do you care then if it's called torture or not? If waterboarding is a good thing, is it not good even if it's torture? GregorB (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong guy. I'm not arguing that waterboarding is a good thing, and I don't think anyone here is. I'm not even asking that the word "torture" not be used.

Perhaps you should be asking the other side, why is it so important to you that we can't say "generally" when we say "torture"? Why must Wikipedia take sides when we have perfectly good standards to NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt represent the sources properly or give weight to the majority opinion. I don't think anyone is in denial about the fact that the vast majority of reliable sources say it is. Fringe opinion or not minority opinion should not be given undue weight, unlije the majority opinion it has little detail and very few descriptive sources. For instance there has been nothing produced that can be said to be a study. --neonwhite user page talk 03:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure it represents the majority's opinion (although I'm not certain that the majority is who you think it is). This is what NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves was made for.

Let's face it: One of those law professors now leads an organization that supported the Hitler-Stalin pact. It's not a majority most people would want to be on.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Now let me explain why I think the article should say waterboarding is torture. I could harp on about WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and the like, but when I thought about all this, it seemed to me that it all boils down essentially to WP:DUCK (not an official policy, I know; also not about content, so duck test better describes the issue). I can't answer the following questions: 1) if WB is not torture, what is it?, 2) if WB is merely an "interrogation technique", akin to "good cop bad cop", how come people can't endure more than 14 seconds of it, on average?, 3) why exactly WB does not fit the definition given in United Nations Convention Against Torture (and ratified by the US of A, not some leftist lawyers) - or, alternatively, why is this definition wrong? These are questions that spring into mind almost at once and give you an unpleasant feeling, like an itch you can't scratch. If someone were to say to me that torture is beneficial and good, I'd have a much easier time with that assertion, because there are at least some arguments in its favor ("ticking clock" and what have you). But with "waterboarding is perhaps not torture", it's as if someone's saying that night is perhaps day - it is more difficult to stomach. GregorB (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Suppose it looks like a duck from 200 feet away? Is it still a duck? A hungry duck hunter might say a wild goose is close enough but that doesn't make them right.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to GregorB

GregorB, since you appear to be open to a reasonable discussion, I will invest the time to answer your concerns. First, allow me to point out that any harsh or "enhanced" interrogation technique could become torture if repeated often enough, or done harshly enough. Second, there are many, many different variations of waterboarding and the CIA version was less harsh than the others. Your questions: 1) If WB is not torture, what is it? Some forms of waterboarding are harsh interrogation techniques. They do not cross the line into what can fairly be defined as "torture." Other forms of waterboarding are even more harsh, and do in fact cross that line. Thus we have an article subject that "straddles" the line. 2) If WB is merely an "interrogation technique," akin to "good cop bad cop," how come people can't endure more than 14 seconds of it, on average? Even the less harsh US CIA method wasn't "merely" an interrogation technique. It was physically unpleasant, it induced a gag reflex, and it evoked the instinctive fear of drowning. That took it far beyond "good cop bad cop" but not quite into "torture." It also included an element of what makes "good cop bad cop" fairly effective because it tricked part of the mind into believing that there was a real risk of drowning when the reasonable, rational part of the mind knew there was no such risk. 3) why exactly WB does not fit the definition given in United Nations Convention Against Torture[?] As practiced by the CIA, it caused neither the extreme physical pain and suffering, nor the extreme and prolonged mental suffering, required to satisfy UNCAT. 68.31.198.247 (talk)

• Comment - If you would like the facts to speak for themselves in regard to forms of torture, you should attempt to change the title of the article Rack (torture). Badagnani (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This can be seen as part of a larger battle for public opinion (in the U.S.). If such editors can steer the Wikipedia article on waterboarding away from the normal, accepted definition, creating even a hint of ambiguity or ambivalence, that opens the door toward public ambivalence regarding this form of torture. Thus, the hammering over recent weeks. Wikipedia currently has enormous influence and is quoted constantly, even in the major press. Thus, this article has become a battleground. What is being sought is not a complete redefinition, but simply the introduction of doubt/ambiguity, creating the ambivalence/"shrug factor" among the general public of non-editing Wikipedia users. Badagnani (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Holding that view injures your ability to work toward consensus. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A strong line must be taken against POV editing. --neonwhite user page talk 03:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that support at least this time. However, I am not sure I would say "hard line". It should be discouraged -- but I would not be in agreement with hard-line because it seems to lack appropriate kindness. That is why I only reminded him that it injures consensus to insist on such views. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose It is quite clearly a form of torture. Whether its use may be justifiable, or information obtained admissible, are separate issues (usually not would be my answer to the first, and no to the second). "Water boarding is a form of torture ..." should be the start of the article. If some people disagree they are in a minority, and WP:FRINGE covers that quite clearly. 86.146.119.116 (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Log in and edit under your regular name, ok?--Blue Tie (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No. This is my regular name, I have no other wikipedia name. What's so great about a made up name? If the only reason to dismiss my comment is that it comes from an IP, then I guess you must agree with the rest of it. How about I make up the name "NotBlueTie" NotBlueTie" 86.146.119.116 (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. You sure know a great deal about wikipedia and how to edit for someone who has not been here a month!. If you want to call yourself "NotBlueTie" thats ok with me but I would think you would not want to run around with that sort of name. Of course one alternative that many people also do, is to use their real names. That way its not "made up"--Blue Tie (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - We have not been making a practice of harassing IPs by asking them to use their "regular" user names (nor have we for the single-purpose accounts that have sprung up solely for the purpose of editing this article, apparently from already-experienced editors). However, if we are now going to do that, please add such a harassing message under each IP posting, not just this one, as we must always be impartial in everything we do. Badagnani (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You may not make that a practice but I do. This editor is clearly not a newbie -- understands how to edit on wikipedia. It is best for people to edit under their own names. Otherwise it can become a sockpuppet issue. The other editor did not provide any reason for me to suppose that they were anything but an anonymous drive by shooter. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

One look at the conributions of user 86.146.119.116 clearly shows this is not a 'single-purpose' account --neonwhite user page talk 03:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - No, Badagnani, you've just been harassing IPs by running Checkuser on them if they disagree with you and try to stand up for an NPOV article. Word is getting around. You do not own this article. You are trying to use it to push your POV. 70.9.150.106 (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah its very naughty! Its not like someone has been banned for two weeks for sockpuppetry, oh wait they have. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Checking suspected sock puppets is not harassment under any policy it's a legitimate tool and all editors are free to use it. There was sufficient evidence or the check would not have been conducted. Please refrain from personal accusations. --neonwhite user page talk 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not like over 90% of the people who have had Checkusers run on them have come back perfectly clean. Oh wait, they have. 70.9.150.106 (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How about logging in and posting under your regular name?--Blue Tie (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

’’’Support.’’’ 71.114.17.179 (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current lead is fine. Waterboarding is torture, and it's horrifying that any discussion is required about this point. To see how another online encyclopedia handles this, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on torture. (Though it is an online encyclopedia, the SEP is written by experts and has an editorial board, and is thus an excellent source.) --Akhilleus (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Stanford Encyclopedia supports Blue Tie. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. First, it defines waterboarding as "continuously immersing the head in water until close to point of drowning." In a genuine waterboarding case, even if the subject is secured to an inclined board, the head is never completely immersed (submerged) in water. Instead, water is poured over the nose and mouth to elicit a gag reflex.

Second, the SEP says, "[T]orture is the infliction of extreme physical suffering[.]" But in Evan Wallach's article in the Washington Post, also cited by "waterboarding is torture" advocates, a Filipino waterboarding subject was interviewed:

Q. Was it painful?

A. Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious. Like drowning in the water.

Now let's go back to the SEP: "Is the intentional infliction of extreme mental suffering ... necessarily torture? Michael Davis thinks not ... So torture is the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering ..." But as we have seen from Wallach's interview with the Filipino, waterboarding doesn't involve extreme physical suffering. Thus the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy supports the argument that waterboarding is not torture in all cases. Thanks for bringing that to our attention, Akhilleus. 70.9.150.106 (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

70.9.150.106, I can't tell if you've been editing for very long, but if you're new here you should probably review Wikipedia's no original research policy. The argument you're making is an example of original synthesis to make a point that the source doesn't make. Indeed, the SEP unequivocally says that waterboarding is torture, so your argument is in fact distorting what the SEP says. Misrepresenting sources is not a good editing practice; please try to avoid it in the future. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Anon 70, I appreciate the support. I am not sure that the encyclopedia quote you gave supports my position though. My position is that the status of waterboarding as torture is disputed. I do not disagree with those who say it is torture. I am not disgreeing with those who say it is not. I am just saying it is disputed. I also take the position that there are a variety of ways of conducting waterboarding, some are relatively innocuous and some are horrific to the subjects. Your cite suggests some alternative that involves "continuously immersing the head", which would be new to me, though Chris has indicated that he has some references to support it. Thats a version that I am not aware of. But it points to the variety of methods. I also, like Akhilleus, would think that looking up one definition, then looking at a description would violate WP:SYN. It is an argument that many people use to declare waterboarding as torture -- but it is invalid. If you look at the example in WP:SYN, there you can see that technique of drawing a conclusion is specifically condemned. As an aside, I do not insist on it, but it would be nice if you would log in under a name if you have one. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to Blue Tie

Hello Blue Tie, and thanks for your kind reply. My position on this matter seems most consistent with yours. I'm not sure that I understand why you feel that my position is a violation of WP:SYN; please elaborate. I've never had an account here, always editing from my rapidly shifting IP address and never leaving much of a trail. I like it, though it does have its disadvantages. If you prefer, I'll add the word "Bob" before my tildes so that people can keep track of me. Is that comfortable for you? Regards, Bob 68.31.227.84 (talk)

Hi Bob. Yes I think it would make conversations easier if you put that name there. I do not mind that you want to be anonymous. I edited here anonymously for a while, and was reluctant to get a name. So I understand that. But I have found it helps people work with you. As far as WP:SYN, I think that deserves a special section so look the bottom of this page. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to Akhilleus

Akhilleus, thanks for your concern but I'm familiar with WP:NOR and I've just read it again. The SEP defines "waterboarding" as something other than what Wikipedia defines. The SEP says that waterboarding is "continuously immersing [submerging] the head in water[.]" That's not original research. That's reading what the source itself says. Obviously the source is discussing another interrogation technique and calling it "waterboarding."

In the alternative, we might choose to try changing the Wikipedia definition of the term "waterboarding" to include the technique that the SEP has described. But then we have to carefully explain that the term "waterboarding" encompasses a vast array of different techniques and that the SEP wasn't talking about the CIA technique. 68.31.198.247 (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We already have two reliably sourced references that waterboarding can be carried out by immersion. Those two sources actually suggest that this is the "modern form". See Talk:Waterboarding/Definition. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Chris. I've read the Talk:Waterboarding/Definition page. Neither source specifies that the CIA technique involved immersion of the head. Also, we're not talking about that page alone. We're talking about what needs to go into the article. 70.9.157.130 (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to comment by 68.31.198.247

First of all, thank you for taking the time to write down your thoughts on some points I raised in the discussion above. I feel that those three questions are important because - sources or not, NPOV or not - unless they are addressed in a way, the "vanilla" version of the article (WB is "something" other than torture) is unlikely ever to be stable. Now to your remarks: if WB involves suffocation - and it does - I see no way to classify it as an "interrogation technique". True, WB is not merely suffocation, because water obviously triggers some reflexes that make it extremely unpleasant. But it wouldn't make much sense to say, "this is merely self-preservation kicking in, it's nothing serious" because the same happens in a mock execution. Note that knowing that "this is not for real" does not help: it is precisely repeated mock executions that are most effective in breaking the subjects, despite them "knowing" now that they are not for real. The instincts are always stronger. Humans are hardwired for self-preservation: physical pain serves the same purpose, after all. I think I could endure more than 14 seconds of pulling fingernails, so - instincts or not, "real thing" or not - the idea that WB is some sort of interrogation trick and not torture still does not sound convincing to me. In particular, I don't see WB entering police work in the future and displacing "good cop bad cop" and other interrogation techniques. GregorB (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

World opinion

I'm starting this section to solicit information on the "waterboarding is torture" question from sources outside the United States. All US sources should be ignored in this section, and any that are posted in this section should be stricken. Now that htom has exploded the myth about the Spanish Inquisition using waterboarding, let's try to determine whether the US really is a "puny" "footnote in history."

For example: what is the official Chinese government position on the "waterboarding is torture" question? What is the official Saudi Arabian position? The official Moroccan position? What are the official Russian, French, Turkish and Zimbabwean positions? The official government positions of Burkhina Faso, the Marianas Islands and Bangladesh, if all nations are to be considered equal and one isn't any more significant or notable than any other? If you can find them, post them here please. Neutral Good (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You could allways look it up yourself. If you want to find out what 27 countries think at once you could look up the Torture and the ECHR (european charter of human rights). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• here is one from the Council of Europe, relevant passage says: "The US administration has introduced interrogation methods which clearly violate the international prohibition of torture. Some of them have been physically brutal, for instance “water boarding”, during which the prisoner is forceably held underwater." henrik•talk 15:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The coucil of europe, thats 47 different nation states. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Council of Europe is not a government, any more than the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the World Trade Organization is a government. It is an association of 47 governments whose principal achievement is the protection of human rights. The article you've linked is a statement of one person, Thomas Hammarberg, who holds the office of "commissioner of human rights." It has a Committee of Ministers and a Parliamentary Assembly but there's no indication that either body has endorsed Hammarberg's position or voted on the matter. Nor is there any indication that Hammarberg has the authority to speak on behalf of all 47 member governments. Thanks.209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless it is specifically stated that Hammarberg is writing in a personal capacity, then his statement represents the view of the Council of Europe, which is comprised of 47 nation states. Simple, really. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the linked page, Judith. Mr. Hammarberg did not sign it, "Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner of Human Rights, Council of Europe." He signed it "Thomas Hammarberg," period. Furthermore, the article is entitled "Viewpoint" rather than "Official Statement" or anything of the sort. Simple, really. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

From the CoE website "Mr Thomas Hammarberg was elected Commissioner for Human Rights on 5 October 2005 by the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly. Mr Hammarberg was nominated for the post of Commissioner for Human Rights by the Swedish government." the rest of his biography is here -> [11] . ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's still a valid source, either if it's him or the entire community, and needs to be added to the repository above. Lawrence Cohen 16:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He's clearly writing in his official capacity as it is on the Council of Europe web pages, and it's a very significant source for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmejudith (talk • contribs) 16:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Mr. Cohen. It's a valid source in the same way that the opinion of Joseph Farah (see below) is a valid source: one man's opinion, not as a statement of an official position of a government. Judith, if Mr. Hammarberg was writing in his official capacity, he would have signed it, "Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner of Human Rights, Council of Europe." It would be titled something other than "Viewpoint." There would be some sort of clear signal that it's an official statement of the position of the entire organization. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In other words, a letter written by Mr Bush on WH stationary is private unless he signes it as President? You might be surprised to learn that many people do not sign using their function. The fact they use official papers is sufficient to make it an official statement.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You're comparing apples and oranges, Mr. Nescio. Mr. Bush is a head of state. He is the leader of a real government. The Council of Europe is not a government, and this does not have the usual trappings of an official statement. I will add that the Commissioner of Human Rights is an independent agency within the Council of Europe, in much the same way that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is an independent agency within the American government. It can't be assumed to be speaking on behalf of its parent organization. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Warterboarding not Torture

Op-ed piece by journalist Joseph Farrah:

{{cquote|"Waterboarding is not torture"

Americans are simply losing their ability to distinguish right from wrong.

I don't know how else to put it.

Up is down, day is night, left is right and right is wrong.

A good illustration of my thesis is the growing political consensus around the idea that the U.S. should stop using any effective interrogation techniques that make our terrorist enemies uncomfortable – even those involved in planning acts of mass destruction and annihilation.

Per Wikipedia standards and consensus World Net Daily is not a reliable source. See;Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#FrontPage_Magazine_and_WorldNetDaily. We can't use them for anything except as sources about themselves. Lawrence Cohen 14:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an accurate statement of Joseph Farah's opinion, Mr. Cohen. Therefore it can, and should be included. Joseph Farah is a notable person. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not notable enough to have a wikipedia article. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Look here: Joseph Farah. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes he does, its spelt with two R's above, that will be why i did not find it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Statements from unreliable sources are only suitable for inclusion in an article about the unreliable source itself. Feel free to take this to WP:RSN if you disagree. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy. For Wikipedia policy on these issues, the correct policies are WP:V and WP:NOR. Voting on a noticeboard by a few editors can be easily influenced. One look at WP:RSN shows that voting was influenced by the mention of WND copying an article from The Onion verbatim. This was a single incident and the sourcing of the article is unclear. The situation may be that someone cut and pasted the Onion article into an email and sent it to WND; WND, not knowing that it came from the Onion, then printed it.

This single incident should not be used as an excuse to consider all articles from WND to be completely useless. For example, I think we can agree that The New York Times is a RS. But there were several articles written by Jayson Blair that were either plagiarized, or completely fabricated using fictitious confidential sources. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it can, as the consensus is that worldnetdaily is an unreliable publisher of opinion pieces and fringe theories. It applies to the whole site as a source. Considering he is very much linked to the site and it's publishing it's unlikely that a strict editorial policy will apply to anything he writes. He is also known for extremism [12], inciting violence [13] and fringe and conspiracy theories. [14]] [[15]] The site is fighting at least one defamation law suit against it's content. --neonwhite user page talk 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Then re-open the debate on WND on WP:RSN and see if you can change the concensus on it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that to be necessary for the purposes of this discussion. The article in question was written, signed and published by Joseph Farah, a notable person. It can reasonably be assumed to be an accurate statement of his opinion. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel it's valid, it needs to be added to the source repository above. Lawrence Cohen 16:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Inquisition

• Comment - I ask that editors consider these print sources, looking through all of them before commenting further. It is my opinion that the section of our article about the use of this technique during the Spanish Inquisition needs to be supplemented with information from these sources, most of them being specialist history texts about the period of the Spanish Inquisition. Badagnani (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, the Spanish Inquisition part should not be here because it is not really waterboarding. It is more the Water Cure, which we already have an article on. This article is a different subject -- and the matters need to be differentiated. (they are actually different processes) The section on the Spanish Inquisition should go to the other article, where it belongs.

From what I can tell, waterboarding as we know it in this article is relatively recent -- a 19th or 20th century invention.--Blue Tie (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Disagree with the above comment by Blue Tie. The Spanish Inquisition version of waterboarding involved the use of either more or less water, as waterboarding does (the description of the form practiced in Algeria, according to Alleg, using an actual water faucet/tap as the water source). The description of the Inquisition version given in the authoritative print sources matches closely the description we are using in our article (strapped to board, head carefully lowered, cloth over or in mouth, water poured over the face to cause suffocation and possible ingestion or inhalation of water, repetition if necessary). It's clearly the same thing, with variations as with the performance of piano sonatas by different performers. Badagnani (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a different process. It involved the forced INGESTION of the water, not the reduction of breathing space and the perception of drowning. Different mechanism. Different effects. But, most importantly we already have an article on this other form. Thus these two articles are differentiated. Evidence for the performance of the other method should not go here and evidence for the performance of waterboarding should not go there. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - From this comment, it is fairly clear that you have not seriously considered each of the print sources, as requested editors to do just above. Thus, your comments are coming from a place of simply making things up regarding the Inquisition practice. Once you've actually looked through all the sources, please come back and comment. Badagnani (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Bogus. I am not required to go out and buy volumes of material on this. If you want to assert something you must validate it. If I want to assert something I must validate it. That is the requirement. I will not accept arbitrary assignments from other wikipedia editors, particularly when they amount to reading reviews of books and not the books themselves. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It is even more clear that you did not even glance at the sources, as if you had, you would realize that none of the sources in the link are reviews, and a majority gives the full text of the relevant pages. Before Google Books, one would actually have to go to the library and possibly also utilize interlibrary loan to obtain the relevant books, whereas the Google Books search I provided instantly gives full text to the relevant pages of these books. The fact that the Internet makes things so easy seems, with some individuals, to have the opposite effect of actually discouraging deeper inquiry into a subject. It now appears clear that some editors are only interested in sanitizing the lead by eliminating the word "torture," but quite interested in substantive improvment and enhancement of the other sections of the article, such as the Spanish Inquisition section. Each editor has his/her own perspective on what s/he wishes to edit. But the failure to consider print source material (as the above comment states quite clearly) isn't really acceptable when an editor is attempting to force a serious redefinition directly related to said sources. Badagnani (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)\

For me, your link provided no text from the books at all. Sorry. But interestingly, I used to know one of the authors -- Kamen. Well, not "know". Acquainted with. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I apologize; I took for granted that all other editors were familiar with the Google Books search engine. As with the Google search engine, one must actually click on the individual blue links in order to see the text of the book in question. Badagnani (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Having clicked on the blue link, I failed to get the full text of the book in question. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• CommentHaving now read more about Spanish water tortures than I ever thought I'd care to, I don't think that any of them are what we're calling "waterboarding" (in any of the discussed forms.) Most of them seem to be variations on the water cure, with the addition of a fabric bag used to distend or tear the upper and lower esophageal sphincters. I'm not sure whether to thank you for the links or not. People are not my favorite animal at the moment. htom (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, htom. So the Spanish Inquisition didn't waterboard anyone, it was the water cure. One of the most powerful arguments by the "waterboarding is torture" fanatics - that it's been going on for 500 years, and Americans are a "puny" little footnote - has now been completely demolished. Excellent work. Neutral Good (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This brings up the question whether the recent example of Kaj Larsen choosing to be filmed being waterboarded meets the broad definition of waterboarding, as he had a rag crumpled up and stuck way into the mouth (rather than laid *over* the mouth), then the water poured over the mouth and nose. Video here. It was described as waterboarding. This seems similar, though not identical to the fabric strip/funnel described in the sources describing the practice's use during the Inquisition. Badagnani (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a canard, Badagnani. Read what htom said: "a fabric bag used to distend or tear the upper and lower esophageal sphincters." In order to reach the lower esophageal sphincter of an adult male, the fabric bag would have to be "stuck way into the mouth" at least 18" (45cm). I've seen the film of Kaj Larsen. So let's not pretend that Kaj Larsen wasn't waterboarded. Neutral Good (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Horrifc Details I'm not sure where to put this, and choose here because it's close to the rest of it, if it's better moved elsewhere or indented someone please do so. The victim, having the bag or strip (sometimes with a coin in the bag) placed in his mouth, by filling his mouth and nose with water, was compelled to repeatedly swallow the bag, along with the water, so that he could breathe. More water was then introduced, more swallowing, ... until the entire bag (and one of the sources did say eighteen inches or so in length) was swallowed. It was then jerked and eventually ripped out, with subsequent blood appearing from the rectum, as well as the mouth and nose. One of the sources called this "The Coin". It's not waterboarding, and not what I think of as water cure, either. I think I'm going to pass on these pages until tomorrow, thank you. htom (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I've already commented that some of the acts in the waterboarding article and water cure are misclassified and need swapping over. The Spanish Inquisition appears to have used both; the "Tormento di Toca" and "Water cure" are two separate things, e.g. see The Historians' History of the World (Henry Smith Williams, 1904):

“ 580 THE HISTORY OF SPAIN AND PORTUGAL

OTHER FORMS OF TORTURE

The Tormento di Toca

Besides this, the torturer throws over his mouth and nostrils a thin cloth, so that he is scarce able to breathe through them, and in the meanwhile a small stream of water like a thread, not drop by drop, falls from on high upon the mouth of the person lying in this miserable condition and so easily sinks down the thin cloth to the bottom of his throat, so that there is no possibility of breathing, his mouth being stopped with water and his nostrils with the cloth, so that the poor wretch is in the same agony as persons ready to die, and breathing out their last. When this cloth is drawn out of his throat, as it often is, that he may answer to the questions, it is all wet with water and blood, and is like pulling his bowels through his mouth.

The Water-cure

This is inquisition by torture, when there is only half full proof of their crime. However, at other times torments are sometimes inflicted upon persons condemned to death, as a punishment preceding that of death. Of this we have a remarkable instance in William Lithgow, an Englishman, who, as he tells us in his travels, was taken up as a spy in Malaga, and was exposed to the most cruel torments upon the Wooden Horse. But when nothing could be extorted from him, he was delivered to the Inquisition as an heretic. He was condemned, in the beginning of Lent, to suffer the night following eleven most cruel torments, and after Easter to be carried privately to Grenada, there to be buried at midnight, and his ashes to be scattered into the air ; when night came on his fetters were taken off, then he was stripped naked, put upon his knees, and his head lifted up by force ; after which, opening his mouth with iron instruments, they filled his belly with water till it came out of his jaws. Then they tied a rope hard about his neck, and in this condition rolled him seven times the whole length of the room, till he almost quite strangled. After this they tied a small cord about both his great toes, and hung him up thereby with his head down, letting him remain in this condition till all the water discharged itself out of his mouth, so that he was laid on the ground as just dead, and had his irons put on him again. But beyond all expectation, and by a very singular accident, he was delivered out of jail, escaped death, and fortunately sailed home to England.

”

Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant but interesting: William Lithgow was 39 at the time and lived another 21 years after this treatment. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Upon starting to read, I got the impression that, in the first paragraph, it was the same as current waterboarding, and I was ready to say "OK, they used it back then". But when it gets to the part about the cloth being pulled out with blood, it is clear that something else is going on. I cannot help but wonder if this account is written by someone who did not actually witness the activity but instead was relaying reports and that he was conflating what we consider waterboarding and that coin-bag/water ingestion torture. So maybe it did occur, but now it is vague or tainted evidence. Then with this issue of pulling his bowels out, I think something really different is going on. I conclude that this first paragraph is not a good source for waterboarding being conducted in the Spanish Inquisition.

There are other reliable sources talking about the Spanish Inquisition that say the victim will often partially swallow the web cloth stuffed in their mouth as they try to breath. It isn't evidence of what you want it to be. And note he said "like pulling the bowels out", not actually pulling the bowels out, which you mistook it for. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph does not describe anything like waterboarding, but more like the Water Cure. --Blue Tie (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the point. Some editors here were claiming that the Spanish Inquisition only used the water cure, not waterboarding, so I presented a reliably sourced citation that stated they used both. Feel free to explore the Google books links another editor provided, there is a lot of information out there. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone that is interested in finding the above quote from here at page 580. Remember (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Abstain -- and departing

I don't concede that the "not always torture" view is a minority one. Many of the "is torture" sources fall into the original research category. The leftist lawyers are valid sources but they're biased. As I've said in the other section, the other governments are silent. So, the sample size is limited.

Having been around for 500 years makes no difference. It's a logical error to say that simply because there was a form of waterboarding during the Spanish Inquisition, and because they tortured people during the Spanish Inquisition, that this means waterboarding is torture according to the contemporary definition of torture.

Regardless, the phrase "to suit one puny US administration" shows a political hostility that can't be overcome here. With that, I'm leaving this article for the rest of you.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

These several dozen print sources, most being historical texts written by specialists on the Spanish Inquisition period, describe waterboarding in great detail, describing it as one of the most notorious/worst/most cruel forms of torture (and the word "torture" is definitely used). The description of this torture matches the description we use in our article. Badagnani (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a specific, reliable source that indicates otherwise - NPR.--Blue Tie (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

NPR states that during the Inquisition period, waterboarding was considered a "normal" part of prison life. Extending this statement to mean that waterboarding was "not a form of torture" is a serious misreading of the source. This print source clearly states that "torture" was a normal part of prison life during the Spanish Inquisition. "Normal" does not equal "not a form of torture." If tortures become "normal" in the United States, as they were during the period of the Inquisition, they will not become "not torture," the way they were not "not torture" during the Inquisition period, though "normal" during that period. Badagnani (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I Think we might be reading different NPR articles then. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What article are you reading, Blue Tie? Please post a link. Now that htom has completely destroyed the myth that the Spanish Inquisition was waterboarding people (they used the water cure instead), I'd like to explore some of the other claims by the "waterboarding is torture" advocates, and see whether they're myths as well. Neutral Good (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the article I was reading: [16]. I think it is an interesting article in that it brings up some unusual facts. But I also think the researcher for the article did not really do a good job. I am not alleging bias by the author but rather -- somewhat poor standards for definition and inconsistent research standards. The article conflates waterboarding and the water cure... and perhaps other methods. I do not love the article as a source because I think the author was sloppy and jumped to conclusions.. but there it is for everyone to read. One thing it says is: At the time, using water to induce confessions was "a normal incident of law," Peters says, and people viewed it more or less as we view a cross-examination today. I think that is an unfortunate choice of words -- unlikely to be actually true, but there it is -- an experts words. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

NPR has substandard research and editorial control now...? Wow. Try challenging NPR as a source, when they're one of the most respected news services in this country, and see how far that goes. Lawrence Cohen 14:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The article appears to sweep all tortures using water into "waterboarding"; any torture using water is considered to be a variation of "waterboarding". Read it yourself. Respected news services have been known to over-simplify complex topics to the point that their presentation is (presumably inadvertently) wrong. htom (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read it, more than once. We have other sources and evidence (see the RFC page) that indicate that many sources considered all of these processes to be forms of waterboarding, the specific deviation to what we consider being waterboarding only being called waterboarding is a new 21st century shift. Lawrence Cohen 16:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand why my pleas for a more precise description of waterboarding has fallen on deaf ears. Such confounding of tortures is acceptable because -- even though incorrect -- it can be sourced. Your claim that many of those sources on the RFC page do this confounding, to me, indicates that those doing so are not reliable sources about waterboarding, and you know that. I was thinking earlier of proposing moving the article to water tortures as a joke; perhaps I should do so seriously. htom (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a move idea like that may have merit, possibly, but I'm confounding nothing and all the sources posted on the is-torture end are perfectly valid. All the discussion of water boarding and tortures have been specifically about the "waterboarding" act since it was revealed the US performed it in the wake of 9/11, hence all the talk about post-2001 sourcing. The fact that the sources actively discuss the merged and interchangeable history of the tortures in the way they have been discussed for hundreds of years isn't a reflection they are bad sources. Quite the opposite, since they are reporting on the merged usage of the terms the way the world has been doing forever! Lawrence Cohen 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The citations here, in the form "x calls waterboarding torture" do not reveal the confounding that occurred there in the source, and I submit that such usage would be considered at best mistaken in an academic work, and at worst fraudulant. If most of this discussion has been caused because of that confounding, perhaps it (that is, the confounding) should be eliminated. I submit that the confounding is a recent invention and unencyclopedic. We should announce the confounding, perhaps with a water tortures disambiguation page, and proceed to discuss the various tortures as they are, noting that usually reliable sources may be (intentionally or unintentionally) confounding the particulars. To close our eyes and "go along", knowingly using incorrect information merely because the RS is confused (and not always confused, some of the confusion is in OUR confounding citations) is to make Wikipedia an echo of whatever the press babbles about. htom (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to your implication, the views of the current U.S. administration regarding waterboarding (once they choose to make them public) are certainly notable, and deserving of consideration in the article. What this administration does not get to do, however, is to redefine (euphemistically or otherwise) a well-understood practice. Badagnani (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Weren't the views of the current US administration regarding waterboarding made public when Cheney said, unequivocally, that "a little dunk in the water" is not torture? This destroys another myth of the "waterboarding is torture" advocates. Neutral Good (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No he was talking about the pool at gitmo. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is not productive, it contributes to a hostile environment, and Jehochman has already warned against it. Please refrain from sarcastic comments. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Whats not productive is the refusal of editors to understand what reliable sources are and what wp:weight means. If you know about the incident Neutral is talking about you will know that after this comment about "a little dunk in the water", a whitehouse journalist asked the whitehouse press secretary if this comment refered to waterboarding, the press secretary said it was not about waterboarding. If the US VP had the balls to say "we waterboard and its not torture" then this would be a useable source, as it is its yet another in a long list of misrepresented sources that don't say what is claimed. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Since advocates of "waterboarding is torture" have tried so hard to include immersion methods within the definition of waterboarding, it seems to me - and to any reasonable person - that "a little dunk in the water" is an accurate description of at least one waterboarding technique. Let's be fair. Under any other circumstances, you'd call Tony Snow a liar. Isn't that correct? Let's present the reader with both the Cheney "little dunk in the water" statement and the Tony Snow explanation, and let them draw their own conclusions about whether the vice president of the United States was really saying that waterboarding is not torture.

Now let's address your "if the US VP had the balls" remark. The relentless expressions of contempt for this administration by several of the editors here call into question their ability to be objective. They could reasonably be interpreted as baiting other editors here who do not share such contempt. But for some reason, the admins haven't noticed this baiting. There are at least two possible explanations for the Bush Administration's reluctance to admit waterboarding that I can think of, and neither one of them involves any lack of "balls," as you so respectfully describe the quality. Neutral Good (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets be clear, in the "real world" the US VP's "a little dunk in the water" statement clearly shows his support for waterboarding, but of course with the public retraction we can't use it on wikipedia. As for my contempt for this administration its probably the same as about six billion people on this planet. This article is about Waterboarding not the current US administration, so i support the creation of this article with only pre-2001 sources so this recentist fringe view point can be removed as much as possible. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, why not? If reliable sources report that someone said something, we can most certainly use it. We'd just note that they retracted it, and let the reader draw their own inference from both. Is there a policy that we can't make note of retracted statements if reliable sources have? Lawrence Cohen 14:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Another stab at being constructive

To try to get this talk page back on track, I thought I would create this section to discuss any other disputes other than whether or not waterboarding is torture. Therefore, if you dispute any other information or think there is some relevant information that needs to be included in the article below, please state so in the appropriate section. Mind you, this is not a place to debate whether or not the information should be included or excluded, just a place where we can list those things that should be included, excluded or revised. Remember (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Information (other than waterboarding classification as torture)

• Under "Legality" (which is not really about waterboarding but about torture) it says: "All nations that are signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture have agreed they are subjected to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition, and as such there exists no legal exception under this treaty". This is actually uncited and , I believe that the U.S., in 1992, signed with an exception. The exception was that the treaty would not be superior in force to the U.S. Constitution. What that means exactly, I am not sure, but I believe it means that in essence the treaty signing was for show and that in fact, U.S. Law reigns, for the U.S.--Blue Tie (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. The US Senate did add a reservation that "That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment', only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States."[17] The `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' is separate from torture, which the US defined for the purposes of the treaty in the same language as 18 USC 2340. Andrew McCarthy discuss the distinction in his National Review article.[18] He criticizes Condoleza Rice for saying that the US is bound by the `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' standard, but she is Secretary of State and he isn't. We might want to cover the question of whether Waterboarding is `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' as well.--agr (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I was not asserting my concern as a sure fact but rather as something that caught my eye as possibly false information that needs to be reviewed. That is all. I am not taking a position on whether it is good, bad, evil, high, low, or green colored. Just whether it is really a fact. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• I question the phrase "confirmed use of waterboarding by the United States government" -- as far as I know it has never been confirmed by the US Government. I would like consent to replace "confirmed" with "widely reported." --agr (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that this statement would need to have a solid reference, or it should be removed. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• I do not think it has been officially confirmed by the US Government either. Rather people who worked for the US Government spoke on their own recognizance. However, it is officially confirmed that it is authorized.--Blue Tie (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• ?

Information that should be added to the article

• Descriptions of the widely varied methods called "waterboarding" htom (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• More information on the method used during the Spanish Inquisition and that the Spanish Inquisition also used the water cure as well. Include information from The Historians' History of the World (Henry Smith Williams, 1904) available here {{cquote|580 THE HISTORY OF SPAIN AND PORTUGAL ("The Tormento di Toca- Besides this, the torturer throws over his mouth and nostrils a thin cloth, so that he is scarce able to breathe through them, and in the meanwhile a small stream of water like a thread, not drop by drop, falls from on high upon the mouth of the person lying in this miserable condition and so easily sinks down the thin cloth to the bottom of his throat, so that there is no possibility of breathing, his mouth being stopped with water and his nostrils with the cloth, so that the poor wretch is in the same agony as persons ready to die, and breathing out their last. When this cloth is drawn out of his throat, as it often is, that he may answer to the questions, it is all wet with water and blood, and is like pulling his bowels through his mouth.").

I think that what the spanish were doing must be different than either waterboarding or the normal type of water cure.. in that they are doing something that results in the expulsion of the bowels -- probably a deadly effect. Anyway, if it is different from waterboarding it does not belong here. And it looks different to me. That is OR. But so is the idea that this is waterboarding -- note that the source does not name it as waterboarding so concluding that it is, in the light of differences is also OR.--Blue Tie (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote does not say that it results in the expulsion of the bowels. The quote says that it is "like pulling his bowels through his mouth." I don't know where you are getting the expulsion of the bowels thing. Remember (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Put information here
• ?

Sources before 2001

As this act dates back to the Spanish Inquisition, may I suggest that we base the article primarily on sources before 2001? This would avoid any definition controversy brought from use of the act and/or justification of the act by those in the US. This article should not focus on the US/CIA technique. Here is one source:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/phoenix-scfr-19700220.html

"Another type of water torture in which a soaked cloth is placed over the nose and mouth of a prisoner tied back-down to a bench is said to be very common. The cloth is removed the last moment before the victim chokes to death, and then is reapplied."

from "Vietnam: Policy and Prospects", 1970 from a study in 1969.

Nospam150 (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

An excellent idea. Jehochman ^Talk 20:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. henrik•talk 23:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, if you can find enough of them. We'll still need to have a section on the present controversy, which will need recent sources to support it; but for the rest of the article, older sources are better as they're probably less likely to be politically biased, one way or the other. Terraxos (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say we should not discriminate one way or the other with regard to the age of sources. By saying that, I am not agreeing that we should focus the article on recent or older methods. But the more older sources, the better since so much of the heat in this article is "recent" and political.--Blue Tie (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that this article is "Waterboarding". I looked at the reference provided above (Viet Nam) and realized that the source does not say "This is waterboarding" We have to surmise that it is -- OR. I am, to a degree, willing to do that, but then i realized... We need to find out when the term "Waterboarding" was first used. If we do not know when the term came about, we may be using it inappropriately to refer to other things. Just a thought that came to me. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that part of our problem is that we have no single good source for the definition of the term. This is not just a small matter. Definition -- what is involved and how it is done (or ignorance of same) -- is an excuse used by some of the people who refuse to classify it as torture.--Blue Tie (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

More pre-2001 sources (from google books):

(If someone could get the full quote and context, that may be helpful.)

Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower - William Blum, 2000

".. tiger cages"—hooded and placed in a 16-cubic-foot box for 22 hours with a coffee can for their excrement—and a torture device called the "water board": ..."

Navy Training Safety: High-risk Training Can be Safer : by United States General Accounting Office, Toby Roth - 1991

"The GAO reported that the Chinese water board torture is not an official part of the curriculum and some special Naval warfare personnel indicated that the exerc ise has no place in this training course"

Nospam150 (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - In this source, its use in Vietnam was called the "water treatment." Perhaps it's similar to the one used in the 1968 photo. Badagnani (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This early source should be looked into (full text not available via Internet), as it uses the term "waterboarding"--we need the actual definition used for this term at that time (1946). Badagnani (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw that UN document as well. But, using searches for that quote, it appears to be from a very recent UN document, not from 1946. (unless I am mistaken).Nospam150 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thought of the Day

Consider: The more vocally, and frequently, you have to defend your point, stance, or position, the more likely it is your point, stance, or position is either without value for Wikipedia or is not supported by policy. If your point, stance, or position had legs, why would you have to defend it feverishly?

See you guys in a few days; I am taking a short break from this article and officially asking for admins to draw more attention to these pages immediately with this post, more than there has been, before this nonsense ends up getting to Arbcom. I think a lot of people need a major policy education, enforced or otherwise, right away. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation probably needed

These discussions are getting nowhere. We probably need mediation. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How about informal mediation rather than formal mediation, first? --Blue Tie (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We just had an RfC with a clear result. What exactly do you want to mediate? Based on reliable sources, the community agrees that waterboarding is torture, except for a few tendentious editors who seem to be bringing a political dispute onto Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I see no clear result from the RfC. None. Second, the RfC was badly constructed and even a clear result would not have cleared up the issue because of the poor construction. Third, it is policy that consensus on a page cannot trump generally agreed upon widely held policies. See WP:CON. Fourth, it appears to me that several things are happening:

A. Some folks insist on certain wording that it is torture and they are using sources to validate their view.

B. Other folks insist that it is NOT torture and are using sources to validate their view.

C. The folks in group A, claim that they have the majority view and so their view should prevail.

D. I (alone) am insisting that this is not a question wikipedia can decide and it must only report. I rest all of my views in wikipedia policy and some sources that support that view. I particularly believe that my position is the most neutral, the most consistent with wikipedia standards, and yet is is never given any consideration by either side.

I do not think that there is any consensus and there is a need to bring the article to consensus. I have tried a few different ideas. In particular, convinced that if we work on the article and then summarize it in the lead, we could achieve consensus, I proposed that we drop our concerns for the lead and work in the article. This is not acceptable. People WANT to fight over the lead -- and both sides have a specific outside pov that they bring to the discussion.

I do not think that things will end without outside intervention. In particular, I do not believe that I should step aside and let pov on both sides triumph over wikipedia policies. And I feel very strongly that if these policies were followed it would result in a greater cohesion and consensus on the article.

So, I would want mediation over the use of policy to guide this page content. So far this has been ignored except to attempt to steamroll one side or the other. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation works when two editors disagree about content and are willing to mediate. Here we have multiple parties, some of them clearly acting in bad faith, as evidenced by the sock puppetry that has occurred. This situation will either be resolved by the community, or if the behavioral problems continue, go to arbitration. One way or another the troublesome editors will either shape up, or be banned from editing this article. Jehochman ^Talk 15:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the sockpuppet issue can be handled. Most editors are acting in good faith. I do not see a huge number of troublesome editors. But in specific reply, mediation is a method for the community to help resolve the issue. The problem that I suspect is more likely is not that there are troublesome editors in the sense of sockpuppets but rather that editors are not willing to assume good faith. In some cases they have pretty much said so. When there is no assumption of good faith, it presents a problem.

And my concerns about neutrality and using policy to help arrive at consensus still need to be addressed.--Blue Tie (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration might be premature but the obstinate refusal to let sourced material be used is troubling.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue Tie, you said, "D. I (alone) am insisting that this is not a question wikipedia can decide and it must only report." You're not alone. Also, I agree that the RfC was poorly constructed. The "209" IP editor offered a far better proposal for the RfC but, as usual, he was steamrollered. Due to the constant steamrolling by the usual suspects in violation of policy, I agree that arbitration is appropriate. There is a related issue about the banning of Shibumi2 which can be addressed at the same time. My attempt to raise that question through community channels has not only been ignored, but deleted. Fast. I think this is inappropriate. Neutral Good (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting arbitration. I am looking at 1) informal mediation, 2) formal mediation with 3) Arbitration as a last resort.--Blue Tie (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration is unecessary, we have here are a handful of editors disrupting the consensus to prove a point, habitually misrepresenting policy, ignoring and refusing to accept obvious facts, claiming that reliable sources are simply 'wrong' because they don't agree with them, making straw man arguements and generally gaming the system to promote a personal point of view that is unverifiable and has little basis in fact. I think this kind of bad faith editing just needs to go on the ANI. --neonwhite user page talk 16:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We do not need sockpuppetry and tendentious editing on these pages. The blocking of Shibumi2 for two weeks was entirely appropriate (even lenient) given his sockpuppetry. Those who wish to participate in these discussions must abide by a certain conduct conducive to collaborative writing. henrik•talk 17:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My argument is that the evidence supporting the banning of Shibumi2 wasn't as solid as you may think. Lawrence Cohen claimed that the Sprint wireless IP address, shared by all three accounts that were banned, was uniquely assigned to a single wireless device - which would support a claim of sock puppetry or meatpuppetry. I wasn't even notified that the case was proceeding, even though I was one of the editors named in the case (for the second time in a week). After the case was concluded and the bans enforced, "Bob" demonstrated that Sprint wireless IP addresses are extremely dynamic and are assigned to cell phone base towers and shared by all users in the area, rather than being uniquely assigned to a single device. That undercuts the finding of sock puppetry. Shibumi2 might have been in the same county as the other two accounts but in a different city, rather than in the same body or the same room. But any mention of this new evidence is quickly deleted. Nobody wants to talk about it. And a good editor named Shibumi2, with an abundance of high-quality work to his credit, is being driven away from the Wikipedia project. Neutral Good (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if what you say is true - that entire counties are NATed through the same IP address, consider this: there are about eight editors consistently contributing to this talk page who are geographically dispersed around the world, including ones from non-native English speaking countries. What is the probability that several new editors, contributing only to this page, would all come from the same county in the U.S., and all be using Sprint wireless to access the internet? Vanishingly small, I would imagine.

Ah, you managed to pique my interest; would Sprint really do that? Wouldn't it interfere with instant messaging and UDP transport? So I googled.. first hit for "Sprint wireless nat" says: "Note that Sprint also gives you a (dynamic) public IP address, where the rest of the wireless phone connections I've tried have been NAT translated". So, no, it looks like a Sprint IP address is unique to a particular device at a particular time. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"What is the probability that several new editors, contributing only to this page, would all come from the same county in the U.S., and all be using Sprint wireless to access the internet?" Pretty damn good, if a Penn State university professor assigned it as a class project. "Note that Sprint also gives you a (dynamic) public IP address ..." I don't see the word "unique" in there anywhere, Chris. Would you point it out for me please? A shared IP address doesn't necessarily involve NAT. You seem to be tech savvy enough to understand that. Thanks. Neutral Good (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

By definition, IP addresses have to be unique within their local network for routing to function correctly. And if the "local network" is actually the internet, then an IP address has to be globally unique across the whole internet. Sprint hands out IP addresses to wireless devices, these may be static or dynamic, and are either globally unique across the whole internet, or locally unique to Sprint and then NAT translated to a Sprint internet facing IP address. Bottom line: a shared IP is either multiple users on the same device, an application level proxy, or some form of NAT. Apparently Sprint does not require use of a web proxy, so it's either the same device, or NAT. And the Google quote says it isn't NAT. So we come to the conclusion that it is the same device. Your hypothesis that this is not the case isn't technically plausible. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Sprint pdf, it appears that the address may be either fixed or dynamic, with fixed being an option not always available even if purchased. So depending on it for proof or disproof is probably not a good plan.

http://www.sprint.com/business/resources/ratesandterms/Mobile_Access_Product_Annex.pdf

htom (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. The IP address is being taken as proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that Shibumi2 is an evil puppet master. And every time anyone tries to raise this question about these dynamic, shared Sprint IP addresses, the question gets deleted. Fast. What's going on? Neutral Good (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the Checkuser behavior here, the proper place to raise it is at WP:AN. In fact, I've raised your concerns there for you, in case you needed that done: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Allegations of Checkuser errors and administrative coverups. Lawrence Cohen 00:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What's going on is that you are violating WP:POINT repeatedly. A checkuser has made a determination. It's not foolproof, but you have presented no reason whatsoever to challenge the result. Checkuser doesn't rely on IP address alone. There are other factors considered, but the technical details are not explained, specifically to prevent bad faith users from gaming the system. There is a correct way to appeal a block, for instance, by emailing the unblock mailing list or emailing ArbCom. Going around to all these pages shopping this same complaint is disruption pure and simple. Please stop now or you will be blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 00:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The checkuser evidence was the proof - Alison is experienced enough to have recognized any dynamic or shared addresses. And as far as I can tell, your talk of a supposed professor assignment is without a shred of evidence that it is anything but speculation. What is your relationship with Shibumi2 anyway - You first nominated that account for RFA and then have been arguing vigorously for its unblock? You are obviously connected in some manner. henrik•talk 01:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It still hasn't been explained why so many of the new single-purpose IP editors (usually first appearing at this talk page to vote in various straw polls) all used the identical, strange formatting (which none of us had ever seen before in any page on Wikipedia before). Something improper appears to be going on beyond those IP that have been conclusively associated with Shibumi2. Badagnani (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Leaving the lead alone and developing the rest of the article

If we can get a consensus for following idea: To leave the lead alone for now and develop the rest of the article I'll unprotect it. Once the rest of the article is well developed (hopefully within a few weeks) we can revisit the issue of hammering out a lead that summarizes the article. This would mean leaving the lead as it is now, but allowing the editors to work on the rest of the article. Please add your name below. henrik•talk 17:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure my proposal was accurately relayed and this may sway votes.

My proposal did not say that the lead should remain the same... but that it should be drastically shortened (horribly shortened) and then ignored until we can flesh it out from a summary of the article. But, I feel even a brief place holder must be consistent with NPOV Policy. The current lead is not.

I would not even have a problem with a lead as short as: "Waterboarding is an Enhanced interrogation technique". Or "Waterboarding is an Enhanced interrogation technique often described as torture." These are inadequate because they do not fully cover the subject, but they do not violate NPOV policy. I like the first one best because it is the most empty and relies ENTIRELY on a second article, thus eliminating disputes here. I like the second one less because I think it will just be dispute war again -- but if everyone can agree on it, I think it is neutral. But I am open to any UNSATISFACTORILY SHORT Lead that is NEUTRAL. The more unsatisfactory as a summary, the better so we can me motivated to do a good job in the article and fix the lead later.

Incidentally on my talk page I am working on a re-write. Not so good yet, but all are encouraged to read and comment, especially after I finish. I find that I am shortening it alot but also that I feel some areas are not well enough cited YET. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, this proposal would leave the lead unchanged (one should note that the lead will remain unchanged while the article is protected in any case). henrik•talk 20:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

henrik, you are wrong. Re-read what Blue Tie says just above: "My proposal did not say that the lead should remain the same... but that it should be drastically shortened (horribly shortened)." Badagnani (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I consider this now to be Henrik's proposal, not mine. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It was my mistake in formulating the original text. I have clarified that this is a different proposal than Blue Tie's. This proposal is to keep the current lead and unlock the remaining article. You can think of it as a partial unprotection. I wanted to give credit to Blue Tie's original (and quite correct) thought that the article consists of more than the lead and that fixing it will be easier when the rest of the article is fully developed. henrik•talk 20:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that view and will take that much credit. I would even be satisfied with leaving the current lead if there were some sort of tag or notice on the article stating that the lead is disputed but on hold. Because I do believe it will be easier to get a lead right if we work to get the article correct and then summarize the article -- meaning we do not even need references for the lead.--Blue Tie (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If your proposal is different, you should have used a second-level heading rather than a third-level heading. Things have been confused so much at this point, the results of this poll cannot be valid and we would need to start over. Badagnani (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree

• Jehochman ^Talk 17:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC) per Henrik's original proposal.
• User:Neon White Agree on principle with concerns that some editors may see unprotection as a green light to change the lead. --neonwhite user page talk 17:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, the lead should stay, and we should work on developing the article, particularly to present a balanced and proportional discussion of the minority "not torture" position, but I think we've gone beyond voting now: see the sockpuppeting discussion above, which makes it difficult to count votes in any sensible way. -- The Anome (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• User:Blue Tie If the lead is to be shortened as described above.--Blue Tie (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• The lead is fine now as it stands. ➪HiDrNick! 19:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, because it is disputed on a variety of points. I am hoping that we can get something very short (the shorter the better) that we can ignore and then go to the article. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral Good. As clarified by Blue Tie above, I support this proposal. It includes an interim modification of the lead sentence to, "Waterboarding is an Enhanced interrogation technique". I can fully support this. Neutral Good (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support only if the current NPOV lead that encompasses world history and discards POV pushing of fringe viewpoints that are filling the global concern and tone that Wikipedia requires. Reject anything including weasel terms such as Enhanced interrogation technique. There is no consensus for that in any way, if sockpuppetry is excluded. Lawrence Cohen 21:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Bob. Very short NPOV lead, then we can work on the article. 68.29.253.87 (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC) - — 68.29.253.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• If the current lead is modified to NPOV status such as "Waterboarding is an Enhanced interrogation technique that is generally considered a form of torture," I can live with it. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's pushing the Bush Administration POV. Wikipedia is not to be used to justify political arguments. An example of the opposite POV would be "Waterboarding is a war crime authorized by the Bush Administration." NPOV is "Waterboarding is a form of torture." Jehochman ^Talk 15:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I do not think its exactly pushing the Bush Admin POV, but it is defective in that it is only labeling it by that one term. Randy also objects to using that link. Upon reflection, I think that it should not be considered in that term. On the other hand, it is not NPOV to say that "Waterboarding is a form of torture". That statement violates NPOV. I have an alternative:

"Waterboarding, involves restraining individuals in a prone position and pouring water over the head and generally into the mouth and nose. It is often described as torture."

I acknowledge: This is insufficient. It may not include all the things people want. But I am just looking at something that can be left alone while the rest of the article is edited for a while while remaining npov. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It will never be NPOV if it is downplays the fact that waterboarding is torture, because history has demonstrated (sourced!) that waterboarding is torture, the overwhelming weight of sources say its torture, consensus of Wikipedia editors based on the sourcing say its torture, and that is that. Your obstitance, and interference, and are you becoming frankly disruptive by aggressively replying to and challenging everything said on this page that disagrees with your narrow interpretations, and demonstrates that you seem to feel ownership of this article. I think you're pushing a fringe viewpoint, and a POV pusher. That is not a good thing to be, unfortunately. Lawrence Cohen 14:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This edit above is a personal attack. I am doing nothing wrong. You are getting way too upset and making statements that are awful. I request that you redact this comment and then take some time to cool off. You can remove this comment of mine too, when you do.--Blue Tie (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Lawrence. Blue Tie has strong views which he argues for, but that hasn't crossed the line into disruption. henrik•talk 12:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree

• Neutral Good. We have a halfway decent proposal for a lead and the current one is a blatant NPOV violation. I believe we should accept Ka-Ping Yee's lead as an interim solution, then start working on the body of the article and see where that leads us. Neutral Good (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing there is not neutral, stop misrepresenting this policy. --neonwhite user page talk 22:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• User:Blue Tie if the lead is to be kept the same.--Blue Tie (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Lead should remain the same, but not according to Blue tie's criteria: which are as follows (as stated just above): "My proposal did not say that the lead should remain the same... but that it should be drastically shortened (horribly shortened)." I don't believe this proposal originally said this. All editors, please read Blue Tie's new text just above before giving your opinion. Further, the euphemistic neologism "enhanced interrogation technique" must not be substituted for "a form of torture" in the lead. Badagnani (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani is correct. For the record, this was my original proposal. Same basic idea. Short neutral insufficient lead and then ignore it. This may not have come through the way it has been presented. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• User:Randy2063 -- I appreciate the thought but this amounts to kicking the can into an even dirtier yard. -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

New, fully clarified proposal

Blue Tie, half of us are a little confused and the other half are completely lost. Please start over. Right here, this spot here, is a perfect place to start. Compose your proposal carefully. Make it clear from the beginning. Short, strictly neutral lead to serve for interim purposes only.

Waterboarding is an Enhanced interrogation technique that consists of of restraining a person and pouring water over the mouth and nose to induce a fear of drowning. It is generally considered to be a form of torture.

Then we work on the body of the article. Then we compose a permanent lead that accurately reflects the body of the article. Is this what you have in mind? Neutral Good (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Euphemism don't belong here. They are not encyclopedic and distort articles. After September 11, a coterie of officials in the Bush administration sought to sanction highly aggressive measures under the euphemistic label "enhanced interrogation techniques." [19]--neonwhite user page talk 22:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you continue pushing this fringe, US-centric, recentist argument that goes against the community discussion results, you could end up blocked for tendentious editing and disruption. Waterboarding covers a practice that has existed for 500 years, and is described by virtually all reliable sources as a form of torture. Repeating the same rejected arguments that waterboarding might not be torture, over and over again, is a form of disruption. It appears that you are carrying a political dispute onto Wikipedia. That must stop immediately. We are not here to take sides in political controversies. Our articles must reflect the plain meaning of what reliable sources say. Jehochman ^Talk 21:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this sort of threat. The talk page is specifically the place to make proposals regarding the editing of the article. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this proposal as an idea to editing the article. Furthermore, some of your conclusions above are not substantiated by a review of the facts -- yet you insist on them. It is possible that you too are bringing your political views to the picture. Or perhaps a personal animosity and failure to assume good faith regarding one editor. I am concerned that you are allowing your personal views to affect your decisions as an admin. I ask you to recuse yourself from actions on this page or toward that editor as an admin. I do not mean to insult you and apologize for any hurt feelings, but on the other hand, this warning seemed completely wrong to me. I cannot imagine any justification by which it should have been given. --Blue Tie (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"I cannot imagine any justification by which it should have been given."

Possibly because Neutral Good is a single purpose attack that has been incivil, engaged in harassment, pushed fringe POVs onto articles, and engaged in extreme nationalism? Take your pick, I think people have been permanently banned for any of the above individually, as all of them are 100% inappropriate on Wikipedia. Lawrence Cohen 14:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no wikipedia rule against single purpose accounts is there? I have not seen NG be uncivil. I have seen what you called harassment and considered that accusation to be nonsense. I have not seen any pushing of fringe pov into articles nor extreme nationalism. However, even if ALL of those things were true all at once, the threat should be proportionate to the injury and what NG did above was absolutely innocent. Now, I suspect that NG is not a new user here, but the account is new and with policies of assume good faith I would suggest that WP:BITE could apply here. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Support (and state your reasons)

• Support Yeah Blue Tie, that sounds like a great idea. It includes the word "generally" that Randy and Ping like. And it's even NPOV. I like it. Neutral Good (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Something like that. Its ok. But I do not believe that these votes are helping matters. People do not trust you or assume good faith toward you. I am not one of those, but there seems to be a lot of animosity toward you. We probably need mediation. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose (and state your reasons)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. This incessant poll taking is stonewalling and disruptive. I agree with Jehochman that it has gone on too long. --neonwhite user page talk 22:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The basic fact is that according to NPOV policy Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. There has been nothing produced so far that categorizes the disputed meaning of this as anymore than a tiny-minority view. In my opinion it is lucky to be included in the article at all and likely is only there due to recentist and american bias. --neonwhite user page talk 22:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be silly to place the minority view first. Waterboarding has been used around the world for 500 years. Why do we entertain spinning the meaning to suit one puny US administration that is relatively insignificant compared to 500 years of world history?Jehochman ^Talk 22:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If a handful of politicians decide to start describing the thumbscrew using a euphemism for obvious political reasons, it wouldn't change the article, i fail to see why this should be treated any differently. --neonwhite user page talk 22:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Using Wikipedia as a political tool for the current electoral process is grossly offensive, and needs to be stopped as the height of damage to NPOV. Lawrence Cohen 23:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm ... maybe because it's been the most powerful country in the world for the past 65 years? Neutral Good (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And still only one footnote in history. Wikipedia is not designed to favor a view that is favorable to one nation's leadership, as that would also violate NPOV. The US view is no more important that any other view, as waterboarding is a world wide practice that predates the US's existence by 500 years. Lawrence Cohen 22:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have a reliable source that declares that previously "it" (water torture) was not considered any more out of the ordinary that a cross examination at court is today. So it may not have always been considered torture in times past. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how our own torture article doesn't even mention waterboarding, if the belief that it is torture is so universal. Neutral Good (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Try List of torture methods and devices which has many tortures not mentioned in the main article, including that now famous torture WATERBOARDING. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What are the views in other countries? I haven't seen any yet, except one French journalist from the 1950s. Has it occurred to you that of the 138 "sources" you cite in the RfC, nearly all of those are also American - including all 115 of the law professors you claim as 115 separate sources? And the US has existed for 231 years. Has waterboarding been practiced for 731 years? Neutral Good (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

From the fringe noticeboard

I came here from the fringe noticeboard and have read a bit about this issue. I'd like to make a few comments:

1. That waterboarding is considered torture by multiple independent reliable sources is not up for debate. Using euphemisms for torture or nitpicking technical definitions is not something Wikipedia should do.
2. That there are a vocal minority who believe that waterboarding is not torture is fact. These people have had a high profile in certain policy/media/legal debates within the U.S., tend to be of a particular political persuasion, and are certainly in the minority.

I see no problem with relegating the current visibility of this "controversy" to a single section called "U.S. debate on torture and definitions" for example. I do think that littering the article with references to this singular perspective is not appropriate. The article should describe the activities, the history, and the relevant opinions (on the worldwide stage) as the main context of the article.

Just my $0.02.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider confounding opinions about appendectomy, nephrectomy, and cholecystectomy into an article about bariatric surgery to be nit-picking? htom (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If medical literature would do such a thing who are we to disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nescio (talk • contribs) 22:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The scientists whose specialty this is are not publicly publishing. If the politicians, lawyers, activists, and NPR do it, it's ok with you? (The surgeons, psychiatrists, and anesthesiologists who specialize in interrogations probably have journals, letters, societies, and even publications -- all of which are classified and not available -- and are legally, if not morally, restrained by the same classification problems, so they're not going to be available to inform us.) Since politicians, lawyers, activists, and NPR are what we have, it behooves us to pay a great deal of attention to what they say, don't say, and mix up, because we know that they're speaking out of the areas of their expertise. When they confound things, we can't stop them, but we can stop ourselves from leaping to follow them. htom (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:V and WP:TRUTH regarding our ability to correct mistakes made by WP:RS.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Having read wp:nor et all again, I urge you do do the same, keeping in mind who is being quoted about harsh interrogation. There are lots of lawyers and politicians, and few doctors or interrogators. Some (many?) of the articles are confounding waterboarding and watercure and proceed to attribute to the former characteristics of the latter.

Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, nor on passing comments. Passages open to interpretation should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references are cited in context and on topic.

...Sources should directly support the information...

I read this as meaning that sources that are confounding things are doing synthesis, and should not be relied upon.

and

make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.

It's true, I suppose, that the politicians and lawyers are not the primary sources for interrogation technique (that would be the doctors and interrogators), but am I the only one who thinks that their statements about what those primaries are doing should be taken as reliable and not analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative?

It appears to me that there is great ignorance about waterboarding (this is probably a good thing) but it's not our job as editors to substitute the analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative POV opinions of lawyers and politicians for the scant real information available. htom (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - We do have numerous sources from those with direct experience of waterboarding: those who have conducted it, those who have been subjected to it, records of those who have been prosecuted for it, etc. The politically motivated opinions of the two U.S. Republican politicians and the two U.S. conservative opinion columnists, if considered notable, should be evaluated for inclusion in the article, but, as a fringe viewpoint, they do not get to redefine this well understood and well described practice. Badagnani (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Regarding "confounding" of definitions, an examination of pre-2006 sources shows that some sources describe waterboarding as forcing the inhalation/ingestion of more water, while other sources describe the forcing of the inhalation/ingestion of less water. The forced suffocation of a prisoner, whether using more water or less, represents a form of torture, and has for hundreds if not thousands of years. Badagnani (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me have a go at this, maybe a fresh look would be useful.

This article was recently brought to my attention by User:Blue Tie. I do not know whether this is an ongoing dispute, although, judging by the protection, I would assume, that it is. From what I can see, I agree with what he has said: that there are three views, being that waterboarding is, isn't and is disputed as a form of torture.

The problem with this is that whether it is or isn't a form of torture is a matter of opinion. It is all subjective, just as a teenager can say that cleaning his/her room is torture, or a parent can say that it is torture trying to get the child to sleep. It is all a matter of circumstance, context and personal beliefs and morals.

Having said that, it is not our place to pass judgement on whether it is a form of torture or not. Therefore, where there are sourced disputes about a statement, each significant view should be mentioned in the article. If there are notable groups who claim that waterboarding is not torture and a perfectly safe means of interrogation, they may be mentioned, along with their rationale for such an opinion. However, the overwhelming majority of sources (which are opinions) will say that waterboarding is torture.

As it says here, simply cite the scientific sources which state the physical and psychological effects of waterboarding. There should be sufficient medical sources, for anyone who wants to find them. They should be able to let the reader make up his/her own mind, about whether waterboarding is torture or not, by letting them know fo the effects of it.

I hope, that somewhere in the above text, is something original; or at least, something helpful._Jame§^ugrono 12:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Interestingly, you have made a statement that I suspect everyone can agree with.

To other editors NOTE: this is NOT intended to be a dispute resolution thing but just another set of eyes on the issues. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks more like canvassing to bring in editors who agree with you in order to stack the debate. Please don't do that. Jehochman ^Talk 12:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Baloney. You and Lawrence go and post on several boards for people to come here and have a look and that's ok but I do it on the NPOV board and its canvassing? You need to check yourself. Hold yourself to the same standards you hold me.

I am very concerned that your recent edits cross the line of appropriate statements for admins. I am interested in NOT escalating this matter -- I am looking for lesser means of dispute resolution. But your actions have already had a strong chilling effect and if they continue in this manner I will feel I have no choice but to open an arbitration case.. something I am loathe to do. I urge you to cease this.--Blue Tie (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We posted on the Administrator's noticeboards, which is entirely appropriate given the nature of the conflict here. A requests for comments was conducted, and the overwhelming majority of sources state that waterboarding is torture. Several editors refuse to accept this result, and continue to argue the point. Wikipedia is not a debating society. At some point editors who disrupt the project through endless argumentation have their editing privileges restricted so that the project can go about its business. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure and I posted on the NPOV board which is entirely appropriate given the nature of the conflict here. Did you bother to see the actual question I asked? I did an entirely appropriate thing and your reaction is to make a personal thing and criticize me when I was looking for the good of the article. Awful. Lack of WP:AGF.

As far as the RfC, it is not closed yet. Despite this, you have presumed that you are the ruler of what its consensus is. Amazing. And in any case WP:CON says that consensus on a page cannot overrule policy. Wikipedia may not be a debating society but the talk page is where issues are ironed out and seeking wider opinions is not a bad thing... Didn't you notice [theories/Noticeboard#Waterboarding this?] You did not condemn it. Why is that? Is it because when someone agrees with you does it ... its fine, but when someone who disagrees does it it is time to trot out the "We will have their editing privileges restricted" threat? Good grief look at what you are doing! Do you really think you are helping matters with that approach? Think about it. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not. You're taking sides, and backing it up with threats to use your administrative powers against the "other side" while ignoring the same conduct by "your side." That's what Blue Tie is complaining about and he has a very valid point. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that treating this similarly to Global warming or Evolution (both of which are politically charged in the US with prominent critics) is appropriate. The dispute should be noted, but that doesn't mean the current lead is against our NPOV policies, or that the dispute should be the very first thing in the article. henrik•talk 13:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not like disputes to be the first thing in an article and when reasonable should not even be in the lead at all. I hate lots of dispute stuff in articles. The articles should be written in as active a voice as possible and with as much confidence as possible. But the reality is that this is not always reasonable. In this case, the dispute should be clearly mentioned near the end of the lead. But never mind that. I do not think that is the issue. The real issue for me is that the first sentence is in violation of NPOV, as I have said before. I do not think the fix has to be severe but I do not think the current wording is right at all. You evidently disagree. I am not sure what to do about that. I think I am a reasonable and logical person and that I have good supportable reasons for my views. So far, even though I have asked several times, I have not had anyone clearly explain how my views are out of line with policy or evidence.

I also think that comparison to science related articles like Global Warming or Evolution is a bit of apples to oranges.

Thank you for your considerate approach. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"I do not like disputes to be the first thing in an article and when reasonable should not even be in the lead at all." Please look at Intelligent Design, Holocaust denial for ideas as to how to treat non-dispute controversies. Oddly enough, they do exactly that. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's look at them. First, Intelligent Design. In looking at that page and this one, let's ask:

1) "Are the subjects comparable?" Is "Waterboarding" an "assertion" - a "concept" or is it an "act"? Does this intrinsic difference in the nature of the subjects have any bearing on how they are treated? I would say the nature is important in differences in how the two terms are treated.

2) The article opens with the statement: Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Was there any group who contests this statement about Intelligent design? Or is it in fact a statement that everyone agrees upon? In short, is the first statement a "Fact" per wikipedia standards or is it an "opinion" of what intelligent design is per wikipedia standards? As far as I can tell, this statement is a fact according to wikipedia policies. But in this article, the first few words are NOT a fact. So the comparison breaks down.

Now, Holocaust Denial

1). Are the subjects comparable? Is Holocaust Denial an overt act? Or is it a viewpoint or opinion? Looks like the two subjects are not exactly comparable. One is an article on an act, the other is an article on an opinion.

2). The article opens with the statement: "Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust—did not occur in the manner and to the extent described by current scholarship." Is there a dispute over the term "Holocaust denial"? From what I can tell, Yes. So now, I would go further, "Has that dispute been handled correctly?" From what I can tell, No. Now, I do not know what else to call that article. Nothing comes to mind at all, but if the people who object to the title could come up with a different title I would seriously entertain it. Because this looks like a clever way to objectionably label some folk -- rather like having an article Melatonin-Deficient Skin Color for Caucasian. Consequently, I do not consider this article to be a good analog, especially when then combined with the answer to item #1.

So, I have done as you asked. But notice that you did not do what I have asked of you directly -- twice now as I recall. Let me repeat what I said above: So far, even though I have asked several times, I have not had anyone clearly explain how my views are out of line with policy or evidence. Your response is to show pages that are not analogous to this article and that may not be in line with policy or evidence anyway.

I have several times described the policy issues and so far, these issues have not been answered.--Blue Tie (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the controversy should be noted in the article. Given the fact that most people coming to the article today are looking for information about the controversy, this makes sense. However, the lead should remain factually accurate: "Waterboarding is a form of torture" as has been established by a preponderance of reliable sources.Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

But, per wikipedia policy it is not a fact. It is an opinion. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is your apparent misunderstanding. Wikipedia does not provide truth. We provide a compilation of information available from reliable sources. In this case the reliable sources say that waterboarding is a form of torture. What you or I, or 300 million American feel as our personal opinions does not matter. To continue arguing your case, you should find independent sources (e.g. not Bush Administration officials or others with a stake in the outcome) who say waterboarding may not be torture. To be really convincing, you should find sources before 2001. Jehochman ^Talk 14:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you take some time to read what I actually say? At no point have I tried to get this to point to truth. Wikipedia is not about truth. I am talking about fact vs opinion. Wikipedia has a policy about that. I an the ONLY one on this discussion page to have actually found ANY references or citations to back up my position on this. THE ONLY ONE. I do not think you are paying sufficient attention to what I am actually saying.--Blue Tie (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I dispute that it is a misunderstanding, it has been pointed out countless numbers of times during this discussion that wikipedia publishes verified opinion not facts. This is a refusal to 'get the point' in my opinion. [[WP:V}} is very clear on it. The first line says The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --neonwhite user page talk 18:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And I have verified my position. Yet you reject it. You have not verified your position. There is no point in repeatedly stating that you are following wikipedia policies when you are not or saying that I am not following them when you do not pay attention to what I post. I have provided verifiable statements that the issue is debated. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to listen. Can we start by outlining the points that are agreed upon, and then go from there? Jehochman ^Talk 14:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I had been thinking along those lines for about two days now. But I was concerned that people would be offended by one more "opportunity to vote". So I was trying to think about how to proceed. I have been and will be very busy but ASAP I will respond in detail, probably on your talk page first. ---Blue Tie (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If it is any help, I offer the statements P1-P6 at the end of this section as a possible starting point. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I appreciate your efforts in that regard.--Blue Tie (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand the fact that I was asked to take a look at this as canvassing for support; I was merely expressing my opinion on the situation. I did not agree with him; indeed, whilst reading the arguments on this page I seem to have lost track of the editors who are discussing whichever points. As a general rule of thumb, I read the opinion and not the user. When he contacted me at first, I initially had no idea what this issue was about; I've tried to help by offering my opinion. I probably won't go any further than that, because any other comments which I would make in the future would be tainted by the "this-user-was-called-up-by-someone-who-just-wants-support-for-his-point-of-view" attitude. _Jame§^ugrono 06:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, posting on a public noticeboard like AN or ANI, or RS, is never canvassing. Posting to someone's talk page, or to some Wikiproject, or to some semi-private out of the way noticeboard somewhere on Wikipedia may be. Anyone who thinks that posting to on AN, ANI, or RS to draw more attention here is canvassing is simply wrong. There is no such thing as too much overall attention on an article. The more people that arrive to work and weigh in, the more likely the right solution as allowed under policy will come to light. Everyone should be in favor of far more exposure. The only reason anyone could conceivably have a problem with that is that if they don't want people to be aware of or available to widely challenge their positions. Those with nothing to worry about would welcome a hundred times more eyes. :) Lawrence Cohen 19:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Another failed attempt to boot the opposition

I feel very conflicted about this. It's terrible that Shibumi2 has to be tormented like this for staying strong for an NPOV article. So I feel sadness and not a small amount of anger over what has happened to him. He's a good editor, much better than me at keeping his cool and not taking the bait. It's really tough watching him become a target. But there's also pride in the resilience he has displayed, joy at seeing him return with his head held high rather than walk away like Randy, and optimism that something good can come of this. I ask the "waterboarding is torture" POV pushers to stand down. Give it up. Stop trying to own this article, and obey WP:NPOV. Neutral Good (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The willfully revisionist account presented above unfortunately seems indicative of this user's editing practice in general. I do not wish to belabor the point, but these are the facts, as you know and I know: editor Shibumi2 was concurrently using multiple registered usernames to edit the same article. This is a serious abuse of our system and the editors who chose to only block him/her for two weeks were quite lenient regarding this. If s/he had not chosen to "play" our system in such a manner, and had not editors here noted the pattern in his/her edits that led to the checkuser finding against him/her, we would likely still have had multiple "users" giving commentary, voting in straw polls, etc., giving the illusions of greater numbers to his/her position. These sorts of games are anathema to Wikipedia and neither Shibumi2 nor any other editor should ever conduct similar activities in the future, at this or any other article. Badagnani (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Alison doesn't think the same way because she unblocked him after less than six days, and Lucasfbr doesn't think the same way because he apologized. Neutral Good (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The blocked usernames edited from the same computer as Shibumi2, editing the same article Shibumi2 has been active on (namely Waterboarding), primarily to vote in straw polls on that article's discussion page. That is what we call a WP:Sockpuppet or WP:Meatpuppet. See User:PennState21 and User:Harry_Lives!. Badagnani (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That can occur with complete innocence on the part of Shibumi2. Read the explanation on his Talk page. There was indeed a Penn State professor who gave out the Wikipedia Waterboarding article as a class assignment. The computer was in an apartment building occupied by Penn State students. Both the blocking admin and the Checkuser admin were willing to AGF. Badagnani, I urge you to do so as well. It's time to bury the hatchet and reach a compromise. Neutral Good (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the absolutely positively last warning you will get not to disrupt this page. You are welcome to constructively discuss the article, and suggest improvements to it. You are welcome to civilly express your opinion. You are not welcome to question the motivation of editors with other views, assuming their bad faith, impede progress and accusing others of misconduct. If you wish to lodge a complaint about the actions of other editors, there are other venues. This is a page for discussing the article, nothing else. Any further disruption will result in a lengthy block. henrik•talk 01:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Who was that addressed to, Henrik? To Badagnani, or to me? Neutral Good (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the edit summary. Dorfklatsch 11:20, January 5, 2008

That's a very interesting explanation. Which professor was that? Final exams at Penn State University for the fall semester 2007 ended on December 21, 2007, while the two sock- or meatpuppets began editing for their putative class assignments on December 24 and 30, 2007, respectively. Badagnani (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think there might be a course syllabus for the spring semester posted or distributed somewhere? Is that a possibility? Neutral Good (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That semester does not start until January 14, 2008. The two sock- or meatpuppets began editing for their putative class assignments on December 24 and 30, 2007, respectively. Badagnani (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please answer the question. Do you think there's a possibility that there might be a course syllabus for the spring semester posted or distributed somewhere? Neutral Good (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The two sock- or meatpuppets began editing for their putative class assignments on December 24 and 30, 2007, respectively--3 and 9 days after the last day of final exams, respectively. The spring semester does not begin until January 14, 2008.[20] Badagnani (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are going to keep on dodging the question. Let me tell you how it was when I was in college. The course syllabus for most academic courses was distributed, or posted on a cork bulletin board outside the professor's office, at least a month before the start of the semester. Some students, particularly honors students, were extremely competitive and would buy the texts and get started on the assignments immediately. What was it like for you? Neutral Good (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Typically, the syllabus is handed out by the professor on the first day of class. In any case, it would be rather unusual for students in the U.S. to immerse themselves in future classroom assignments between Christmas Eve and just before New Year's Eve. Badagnani (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Immersed"? Who said anything about "immersed"? Look at their edits. Each one made about a half-dozen of them. And none of their edits resembles War and Peace, or even a complete sentence, does it? They weren't "immersed." Then there's a bunch of IP addresses that made one post apiece. Is that "immersed"? Neutral Good (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the name of the professor? Badagnani (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. You'll have to ask PennState21. That's the only one that Shibumi2 has clearly identified as one of the students. ... Oh wait, hold on. It appears that one of them really was "immersed." The Harry Potter fan made some extensive edits to Harry Potter-related articles here at Wikipedia. But do you really think that was part of the Penn State curriculum? Neutral Good (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Four edits is extensive? I have an article I've done 250+ edits to. Does that make me Superman? Lawrence Cohen 04:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to Neutral Good: before you start accusing the "waterboarding is torture" people of POV pushing, please remember that whitewashing is POV too. GregorB (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Who's whitewashing? I just don't want the first six words of the article to pretend that a dispute over "waterboarding is torture" does not exist. Feel free to cite and quote each and every one of the "waterboarding is torture" sources in the body of the article, feel free to mention that a majority of experts believes waterboarding is torture, and allow the readers to make up their own minds. That's what an encyclopedia is supposed to do when a dispute exists. But don't write a lead sentence that pretends the "waterboarding may not be torture" sources don't exist. Neutral Good (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody says that there is no dispute. We've been through this: there are sources that say that Moon landing was a hoax. Compared to the "waterboarding is not torture" camp, their arguments even appear quite compelling. GregorB (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Nobody says that there is no dispute." The first sentence says there is no dispute. Only by reading the entire article will the reader realize that there's a dispute. As you know, most people don't get past the first paragraph. Neutral Good (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

PLease read artificial controversy. For some reason you think that public discourse represents what experts think of a certain topic.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence says there is no serious dispute - and indeed there isn't. Serious dispute would also have to involve neutrality (those who say WB is not torture do not have a vested interest in doing so) and arguments (those who say WB is not torture raise at least remotely plausible counter-arguments supporting their position). However, there is hardly any neutrality, and the objections are absolutely arbitrary. In fact - and this has been discussed before - many of the minority sources do not say outright WB is not torture, but attempt to raise doubts - without any rationale for said doubt. This is why sources, which are probably 20-1 in favor of the majority view, become effectively 50-1 or 100-1, and the minority view becomes a fringe view. GregorB (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

GregorB, both Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White have no vested interest in claiming anything except "waterboarding is torture." They were both appointed as Justice Department prosecutors by Bill Clinton, a Democrat. If these two were trying to gain political advantage in this dispute, they'd be saying, "Waterboarding is torture" in an effort to besmirch the Bush Administration and gain advantage for the Democratic Party. But they are saying that in some cases, waterboarding is not torture. There's the neutrality you're seeking, and they have both stated their rationale for their position. This is what's required for a serious dispute to exist. Artificial controversy is not Wikipedia policy, nor is it even a guideline. I don't believe that people like Rudolph Giuliani, Andrew C. McCarthy and Michael Mukasey can be dismissed as a "fringe view."

Of the 115 law professors whose published articles have been investigated by Neutral Good during the RfC, all are clearly well to the left of center. Therefore, according to your arguments, they aren't neutral and should be disregarded. It would be reasonable to conclude that they are a representative sample of all 115 law professors, therefore all 115 lawe professors should be disregarded, according to your arguments. Most of the other "waterboarding is torture" sources, such as Jimmy Carter, are just as partisan and should be disregarded for the same reason, according to your arguments. That would even things up considerably. Instead of 20-1, 50-1 or 100-1, it might be 2-1. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if the politics of the said professors was anything other than your personal opinion, it wouldn't matter as the personal politcs of sources is completely irrelevant to their reliability (unless they are extremist which is not the case here). NPOV says that all opinion is represented proportionally. --neonwhite user page talk 17:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White hold positions in American government - enough said. McCarthy's Wikipedia arcticle says that "[h]e has advocated of the legal use of torture in some situations to prosecute the war on terror." - also quite clear. I don't see why he would say WB is not torture, because, according to him (if the previous sentence is correct), it should be used even if it is. Still, I find his line of "argumentation" ("it's not torture unless we overdo it") completely inane.

Yes, I think one should disregard those law professors should it be demonstrated they are biased. But are you saying that Jimmy Carter is an America-hater? The Jimmy Carter, former US president, the one who organized demonstrations in support of Lt. William Calley back when he was governor of Georgia? I don't find it convincing. And even if one could explain away Carter, how does one explain away John McCain? So, yes: remove those with vested interests and see what's left. It's not better for the minority view; it is in fact much worse. GregorB (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White hold positions in American government ..." No, they don't They used to hold positions when the opposing party was in power.

"McCarthy's Wikipedia arcticle says that '[h]e has advocated of the legal use of torture in some situations to prosecute the war on terror.' - also quite clear." It's inaccurate. You should know better than to claim that a Wikipedia article is a reliable source. McCarthy never "advocated the legal use of torture."

"Yes, I think one should disregard those law professors should it be demonstrated they are biased." I demonstrated that on RfC. I checked the online publications of the first eight professors on the list. Seven were provably left-wing, generally hostile to the investigative and interrogative process, and hostile to police powers. The eighth didn't have anything published online.

"But are you saying that Jimmy Carter is an America-hater?" No, I'm saying that he's a partisan Democrat. If we should disregard people who say "waterboarding may not be torture" for being Republicans (such as Michael Mukasey and Rudolph Giuliani), then we should disregard people who say "waterboarding is torture" for being Democrats, or provably left-wing. Neutral Good (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. Still, I have a reservation about your method of proving that someone is biased merely by identifying them as "left wing". By the same analysis, ACLU would be thoroughly left wing. Virtually all civil liberty activists and organizations are left wing; not only now but in the entire 20th century, not only in the US but in Europe and elsewhere too. It appears that conservatives are traditionally not interested in civil liberty issues - nothing new, really. By removing the "left wing" from the picture, you're effectively removing the bulk of human rights organizations out there - and who is going to oppose torture if not HR organizations? GregorB (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

GregorB, I think the point that Neutral is trying to make is that sources are generally members of one political party or the other and shouldn't be ignored on that basis alone. After all, we have Republicans like Lindsay Graham and John McCain saying "waterboarding is torture," and Democrats like Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White saying "waterboarding may not be torture," so it's not purely a partisan divide here. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

All that matters is whether the holder of the opinion is a reliable source; according to that guideline, we only dismiss sources that are "widely acknowledged as being extremist." Beyond that, it is not our job to judge the political positions of its sources and dismiss them on the basis of being left-wing, right-wing, or anything else. "Partisan" is not sufficient. I do not claim, for example, that Yoo should be rejected as an extremist source; I only claim that he does not bear on the question of whether waterboarding is torture because he has not clearly stated a position on the topic. Since a heavy preponderance of our sources have declared that waterboarding is torture, it is appropriate for the article to (a) say that waterboarding is torture and mention that certain notable people in the U. S. hold otherwise; (b) say that waterboarding is widely considered torture and mention that certain notable people in the U. S. hold otherwise. As I have indicated before, I am willing to accept either option. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, but there is a slight difference: while being "partisan" does not disqualify someone it terms of WP:RS, it adversely affects WP:WEIGHT of his views, and it is precisely the weight of opposing views that is contentious here.

For the record: I'd support the "widely considered torture" formulation as factually true (if borderline weaselly), but it is stylistically difficult to put it in the intro; it is a description rather than definition. GregorB (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also support the "widely considered torture" formulation, as long as it isn't in the lead paragraph. Leave the lead paragraph for a description of the techniques: how it's done and how it works. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly what I proposed here as a compromise, and that proposal met with quite a lot of support. I proposed it again here, but not many people commented on it. I still believe this is an approach that can work to settle this (now quite prolonged) discussion so that attention can be turned to improving the rest of the article. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good

Neutral Good, your account seems to be a single-purpose account entirely devoted to editing this discussion, and other Wikipedia user and administrative pages in ways related to this discussion, with no real history of any other edits on Wikipedia. Even under your previous IP address of 76.209.241.196, your edits were only to waterboarding-related discussion pages. You seem to have instantly grasped Wikipedia's editing conventions from your first edit on: can you tell me, have you edited Wikipedia before, and if so, under what name or names? If you have not edited Wikipedia before, how did you become aware of this discussion in the first place, since these pages are not discoverable via search engines? -- The Anome (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a long history of editing from an anonymous IP but I reached a realization that the editing pattern, coupled with an easily pinpointed IP, would reveal my real-life identity. I took a Wikibreak for a few months, changed my ISP to something more generic, and now I'm back. Did you miss me? Neutral Good (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue Tie's proposal

I was asked to provide a version of the lead. I think the whole article needs re-written, but assuming a re-write along the directions I would imagine, I suggest this lead:

Waterboarding refers to a variety of interrogation techniques that involve immobilizing a person on his or her back and pouring water over the face with the intent to restrict breathing or to to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning. (It should not be confused with the Water cure which is the forced ingestion of water into the stomach.) Evidence of Waterboarding in one form or another shows it to have been conducted since at least **Whenever**. It is widely considered torture although this has been disputed or questioned, chiefly in consideration of different methods and conditions. Its effectiveness as an interrogation method is also disputed; it may produce information quickly but critics question the validity of information produced in desperation and under duress.

International law prohibits torture, but the specific legal status of waterboarding varies by country.

I am thinking of it in terms of wikipedia policies and the questions: What/How? When? Where? Why?

I propose this lead as a SUMMARY of details found in the article with the following article structure in mind:

Methods and Process

History

Disputed Status as Torture

Effectiveness

Legal Status

Do I support my own lead? Well, I consider it best without regard to the rest of the article but as I said, it should be a summary of what is found in the article and should not contain new information (except for the warning not to confuse it with the Water Cure).

I should add that I frankly believe that when people read the Methods and History, they will have, ON THEIR OWN, come to the conclusion that it is torture. THAT is the way wikipedia should operate. Like the WP:NPOV policy states --- let the facts speak for themselves.

--Blue Tie (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly support. Factually accurate and NPOV. Please replace "Whenever" with "the Spanish Inquisition." Neutral Good (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Reject Weaselly to an incredible degree. As has been pointed out many times, there has not been enough dispute and it's minor inclusion in the article in no way warrants a mention in any article summary. This is giving undue weight to a fringe theory based on your personal POV. --neonwhite user page talk 18:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Which words do you find to be weasel words? Perhaps they can be improved. One of the problems with a lead is that things can be considered weasel words when in fact they are supported by the article content. And as I said, I envision a certain article content. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - The substitution of the euphemism "interrogation technique" for "form of torture" is unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia written in English, not Newspeak. Editor is allowing current political bias in a single nation to override the actual English-language definition of this practice; again unacceptable at Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you propose an alternative that lives within wikipedia policy. We cannot say that it is a form of torture if that is not a fact. And it is not a fact if it is disputed. I do not believe that it is disputed that it is an interrogation technique, so that is what I used. I also tried to follow the idea of a summary of a proposed article outline. What do you propose -- and I am willing to support leads that are logical, reasonable but most of all, fit with wikipedia policy and do not push a pov. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact, it fits the dictionary definition. You can't change that because you don't like it. Any interrogation technique that inflicts mental or physical pain is defined as torture, you're text describes torture so to not use the word is ridiculous. --neonwhite user page talk 18:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You see, your definition of what is a fact is different from what wikipedia says is a fact per policy. That is the problem with your approach. You are ignoring wikipedia policy. By doing so, you ensure a lack of consensus. Policy helps us arrive at consensus.--Blue Tie (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not ignoring any policy, a dictionary defintion is a verifiable fact and is not disputed here. You cannot redefine the meaning of a word to follow your political viewpoint. Leave that to the politicians! --neonwhite user page talk 19:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You said you are not ignoring policy. Can you cite the policy that says: "If its in the dictionary it is a fact"? I can actually cite policy that discusses what a fact is on wikipedia.--Blue Tie (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The fringe POV (held by fewer than 5 conservative politicans and opinion columnists in a single nation) cannot be privileged in the article's lead. All sources, save for these, dating back to the 15th century, state that waterboarding is a form of torture. Thus, it appears that your assertion of POV is best directed at yourself, as such an outlandish redefinition of a well-understood English term would fit the definition of Newspeak better than an English-language encyclopedia. As stated at least 15 or 20 previous times, this does not prevent these commentators' fringe views from being outlined in the article, but they must not be allowed to change the very definition of this practice, which is well understood. Badagnani (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a fringe POV should not be privileged. I have not done so as far as I can tell. Can you propose a solution that does not violate wikipedia policy? In particular, we cannot say that it is torture if that is not a fact. And per wikipedia policy it is not a fact. So, can you propose a solution that fits policy? I think it should also read well and follow some general outline. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact. Look up the defintion [21] --neonwhite user page talk 19:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Two errors. I am unable to find a definition of "Waterboarding" in your source and it would not really matter -- a dictionary is not the sole arbiter of fact. Wikipedia has a policy of what constitutes a fact. It also has a policy regarding Original Research. In that policy it has an aspect called "Synthesis", which it specifically describes as OR. An example of synthesis I have seen on this page is: So and So says Torture is X. This and that say Waterboarding is X. So, Waterboarding is Torture. That is specifically forbidden per wikipedia policy. You were not suggesting that approach were you? I would appreciate it if your answers would fit within wikipedia policies of WP:ASF and WP:SYN. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is doing anything like that. Your misrepresenting of policy and disruption of the consensus to prove a point is getting tiresome. There are no words banned from being used on wikipedia, torture is an english word it has a meaning, it fits here there is no policy that forbids its correct usage. That is common sense. There is no opinion in the correct use of the word. There are multiple sources that say waterboarding is torture. This has been said many times over. I'm not going to say it again, i will just consider it a refusal to get the point. --neonwhite user page talk 19:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I am not misrepresenting policy, something else must be tiresome. Or if you think I am misrepresenting policy show me on my talk page explicitly. Quote the policy and show how I am doing it wrong. Please be sure to address the policies that I am using WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and remember that NPOV is non-negotiable, while guidelines, essays and opinions are not policies. I promise, if I am misrepresenting policy I will be the first to stop doing so, because I do not want to do that. But I would prefer that you not make that accusation without some justification to it. On the other hand, you have repeatedly refused to put forth ANY sources that contradict my position. NONE. Yet you are the one saying that I am not getting the point. Something a bit one sided on that deal. I further open my talk page to ANYONE who thinks I am misrepresenting policy here. Please educate me. Otherwise please do not make the accusation.--Blue Tie (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The sources are now at a separate page (it is linked at the very top of this discussion page). Don't worry; they are all there--most stating that waterboarding is a form of torture dating back to the Spanish Inquisition (c. 1400) and about 4, from conservative/Republican politicians or opinion columnists stating their opinion that it is not a form of torture. Badagnani (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

All of those sources support MY position. There have not been any sources that support a position opposed to mine.--Blue Tie (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - All of the sources state that waterboarding is not a form of torture? You are clearly mistaken. In fact, only approximately four opinions (all very recent, from conservative/Republican politicians or opinion columnists, all from a single nation, made in an attempt to deform the English language in Newspeak-like manner for political reasons) do this. Badagnani (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Since when was my position that Waterboarding is not a form of torture? NEVER have I taken that position. However, the sources you quote DO support my position. I have said what my position is many times. It is not a secret. Perhaps you should figure out what my position is before you object to it. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Reluctantly support. Same reason as that expressed for Shibuni's proposal. Harry Lives! (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. For at least two major reasons. (a) This lead deletes the descriptive sentences that are in the current lead, which make it clear that waterboarding induces choking and gagging, and explain that water enters the breathing passages. This information is important for understanding the procedure and I don't see why it should be deleted. (b) The phrase "this has been disputed or questioned" is not properly qualified, and thus misrepresents the dispute. We only have evidence of a recent dispute in the United States, so it is an exaggeration for the article to suggest that the dispute is of general scope. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Question: I thought these concerns would be handled in the article and that the lead would be a summary of the article. Are you saying the lead should provide special independent and new information to the article instead of summarizing the article? Or did I misunderstand your comment? --Blue Tie (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. 69.204.119.171 (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. 70.9.150.106 (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. First, there is no indication that waterboarding is only being used as a means of interrogation - it can also e.g. be used as punishment. Given the overabundance of sources, "torture" is certainly the most suitable term. "restrict breathing or to to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning" is also a rather clinical description, not to mention that the "or" is also misleading. The "water cure" is an aside that has no place in the lead. The next sentence "Evidence of..." has twice as many words as it needs. I can see Strunk and White spinning... Why not simply "Waterboarding has been used since **Whenever**"? The extreme fringe opinion that it is not torture is given much to much weight. At least strike the "disputed" part and leave the simple statement (although "widely considered" would already be to weak in my opinion). The "International law" sentence is completely pointless, not to mention unsourced. Also, please show me a country where waterboarding is legal (as opposed to being used clandestinely and not prosecuted). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. I have just been through the above. Torture should be in the summary. --BozMo talk 11:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Did you not notice torture IS in that summary? You might also consider this summary of supporting points (with internal links). --Blue Tie (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but only with a number of qualifiers, which should not be there. --BozMo talk 13:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Curious. I would think that the issues related to the dispute should be there per WP:VER, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Why do you think that they should not be there?--Blue Tie (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors here have erred

Editors here are trying to promote the idea that waterboarding is torture or that it is not torture. The talk page is full of things trying to prove one view or the other. Its a mistake. We should stop trying to convince each other that it is one or the other. The recent addition of Farrah's opinion is an example. How does posting that improve the discussion? We already know that there are notable people who object to calling it torture. No one who has a view that it is torture will change their minds on this based upon his views. No one who has a view that it is not torture will change their minds just because some folk want to say it is. Lets stop trying to do either thing. We should just report the facts in a neutral way. Follow wikipedia policy.

I suggest that people who want to say it is not torture, acknowledge that it is widely considered torture by notable people and probably (if not certainly) a majority. I would also suggest that people who want to say it is torture, would acknowledge that notable people (and a reasonably significant minority) think it is not torture. Both sides need to at least admit the other side has a point. Just admitting the facts would go a long way to stopping the disputes. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nobody denies that. But just as in Intelligent Design the notable minority does not get to hijack what the notable majority consensus is.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nobody is trying to hijack anything. The current lead sentence conveys the impression that the notable minority doesn't exist. Rudolph Giuliani, Michael Mukasey, Andrew C. McCarthy and even Joseph Farah are more significant and notable than the 115 law professors. For example, I'm unaware of any Wikipedia article about any one of your 115 law professors. The lead sentence must recognize the fact that significant dissenting opinion exists. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Except there isn't significant dissenting opinion from any notable majority, unfortunately. Farrah is a demonstrated religious extremist, McCarthy said maybe it is, maybe it isn't, Mukasey won't say either way, and Giuliani is one person. I still see (8) people on the sources on the RFC. 8 people may also think the earth is made of taffy, which makes it no less preposterous. Lawrence Cohen 14:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Lots of people like to believe the story fringe nonsense that the Bush administration ordered a hit on the World Trade Center, that Castro had Kennedy killed, that man never walked on the moon, that global warming doesn't exist (nevermind another thousand odd scientists per year saying, yes its real) and that intellegient design is accepted by the scientific community as valid. Whats your point? It doesn't change what we have to report per NPOV, WEIGHT, and FRINGE on each of those. Lawrence Cohen 14:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Like your friend Mr. Nescio, you're comparing apples and oranges. There is no one serving in a position of power or authority, like Michael Mukasey, who claims that "the Bush administration ordered a hit on the World Trade Center" or "that man never walked on the moon," or that "the earth is made of taffy." Rudolph Giuliani, for example, may very well become president of the United States; Mukasey is currently serving as attorney general. Furthermore, their opinions are representative of 29 percent of the American people and that cannot be dismissed as a lunatic fringe element. I'm with Blue Tie on this. Let's just report the facts in a neutral way, obeying WP:NPOV. The lead sentence is a clear-cut violation of WP:NPOV, which is a policy that reflects a consensus of all 1 million Wikipedia editors. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Public opinion has no bearing on Wikipedia. We operate based on what reliable sources say, not truthiness. A substantial percentage of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, or that the government is covering up evidence of a UFO crash at Area 51. Public opinion does not in any way make these conspiracy theories true. However, we can report the status of political debate or public opinion. "Senator Smith claims that waterboarding is not torture.^[1]" when cited to a reliable source may be acceptable in a section of the article covering the waterboarding controversy as related to the War on Terror. Jehochman ^Talk 14:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that public opinion has no bearing on wikipedia. If an issue is "What is the public opinion of an issue?" it would certainly have a bearing. In this case one of the areas of concern is:"Is the notion that waterboarding is torture, disputed?". In that issue, public opinion would have value because public opinion is one of the venues in which disputes would be noticed. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of world political leaders who believe in things that are plain and obvious nonsense. For just one example, look at Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion#Contemporary_usage_and_popularity. If a position is demonstably wrong, then having the support of a notable figure doesn't make that position any less wrong. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Now you're comparing apples and land mines. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not? They're both round... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Today there are caucuses in Iowa; next Tuesday, there's a primary in New Hampshire. The peculiarities of the American presidential election process give these two states undue weight in determining who the next president will be. I think we'll know in about six days whether Giuliani overshadows all previously cited American opinions on the matter. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't at all. That just will show if Republicans, the smaller of the two major American political parties by population in the nation, support Giuliani more in those caucus states alone. Lawrence Cohen 15:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - A large percentage of Americans believe that humans are not descended from earlier species of primates, but were instead "created" approximately six thousand years ago. This phenomenon is deserving of mention in Wikipedia, but, as a fringe opinion (with all due respect to the individuals and religions believing this), does not get to alter the first sentence of the article about Homo sapiens. Badagnani (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Without some type of acknowledgment of the political weigh of the issue and the controversy over even defining torture, this article will forcibly be biased. 08:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

Outside opinion

If I understand it correctly, the issue is about whether or not to refer to waterboarding as torture in the lead. Please correct me if I'm mistaken about this. It took me roughly an hour to skip through the accumulated discussion here and at Talk:Waterboarding/Definition and I'm still not entirely sure, but I base my suggestion on this assumption:

How about shortening the lead and simply describing what waterboarding consists of, entails, and has historically been used for (as is currently the case, but it could be worded even more concisely) and completely avoiding any assertion with regard to it being or not being torture in the lead? As much as I usually despise "criticism" or "controversy" sections, this may be a good way for an interim resolution of the issue.

The prospect of referring this to ArbCom is not very promising in my opinion; this has to be resolved in situ by all involved editors.

My suggestion is to expand on the most relevant current aspect within the dedicated section Waterboarding#Contemporary use and the United States. In order to avoid POV and FRINGE as far as possible, efforts should be directed towards objectively qualifying each statement by including meta sources discussing the reliablity of each source as far as available. E.g., a statement stemming from Rudy Guiliani can neither be simply ignored nor can it be viewed as being professional level and free of any conflict of interest; but all of those qualifications are meta-statements about the source which in turn require a source of their own.

The rest is common sense and should be treated as such. E.g., do political motivations come into play for most (if not all) public statements made after the media first reported on the issue? Certainly. All the more, it is important to carefully source all formulations that carry a qualifying connotation. The word "pundit" for example is not to be used lightly in this context since it carries negative connotations of PR, and should therefore be carefully sourced.

Ok, well, these are my 2 cents so far. Dorfklatsch 20:29, January 3, 2008

Thanks for your help, Dorf. You've proposed a very sensible solution nearly identical with a solution that a few of us have been discussing for some time. Unfortunately, we have a group of POV pushers here as well, they have the lead sentence the way they want it, and they are entrenched. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Because there is no reason why the verified reliable sources should be ignored and fringe theories given undue weight. --neonwhite user page talk 05:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - If you actually read through all the discussion archives (it would likely take more than 5 hours or more, not just 1 hour to do this) you would have seen that this idea was rejected because we generally say what something is in the lead of an article, then describe it. For example, we would not say "A violin consists of a rounded box of spruce and maple, glued together and strung with wire, and played with a horsehair bow." It would say, "The violin is a stringed instrument..." Badagnani (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of spending more than one hour skipping through (as I wrote above) all of the generated discussion, because there are far more interesting things to read on Wikipedia and I also have something close to a life. However, you appear simply to reject a direly needed compromise without providing any alternative suggestion. Note also that your violin example has one fatal flaw: There is no ongoing high-profile controversy with political implications as to whether or not a violin is an instrument.

I know that my 2 cents were nothing more than an idea for a compromise. Can you think of a better one that might work with the involved editors? One that doesn't require ArbCom to step in? Dorfklatsch 02:24, January 4, 2008

I disagree that is a compromise at all, its removing a defintion that has been verified because of fringe theories, it completely flies in the face of policy. --neonwhite user page talk 05:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Dorf said, "Note also that your violin example has one fatal flaw: There is no ongoing high-profile controversy with political implications as to whether or not a violin is an instrument." This is exactly what we've been saying about that bogus comparison with a xylophone. Blue Tie has presented a powerful case based on Wikipedia policies, and Dorf's proposal is consistent with those policies. Those who refuse to accept it are motivated by political agendas, as confirmed by their "puny," "footnote in history," "don't have the balls" remarks - not by a desire to make this a good, NPOV article. Neutral Good (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If there were controversy surrounding the defintion of a violin it would not affect the fact that it has been a musical instrument for the past how many centuries. This is no different. Blue Tie has not provided anything more than personal opinions that a fringe theory should affect the lead of an article which is cleary against core policies which you continue to misrepresent. --neonwhite user page talk 05:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I have never used personal opinion that a fringe theory should affect the lead of an article. Never. I am not referring to any fringe theory and I believe I have challenged you previously on this and you have ignored it. I assert that I have provided cites and evidence that the matter is disputed and no one has provided any cites or evidence that it is not disputed. By Wikipedia standards, my position is a fact not a fringe theory. --Blue Tie (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You have made no valid points on this whatsoever, all you are doing is disrupting the consensus by continually hammering the exact same points that have been delt with many times. You can't just continually say everyone who disagrees with you is incorrect, that is not a good position to take. You have provide no evidence that there is any serious dispute that isnt fringe. Please refer to WP:FRINGE We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study --neonwhite user page talk 18:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For whatever reason you keep insisting that a 140+ consensus against 2-4 opposing voices constitutes a dispute. Mindboggling!Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No. You are mischaracterizing the numbers. You are also mischaracterizing the nature of the minority -- it is significant and notable. Finally, you are also ignoring the fact that I have provide, neutral, verifiable, reliable sources saying the issue is debated. You have not provided any neutral, verifiable, reliable source that says it is not debated. I am relying on policy. You are relying upon a guideline.--Blue Tie (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You have provide nothing but a handful of similarily worded politcal sound bites, they are biased, vague and unreliable and do not represent a sizable minority. Again a recent debate should be included but does not change the defintion. --neonwhite user page talk 16:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The side of the "controversy" insisting that waterboarding is not a form of torture consists of four notable individuals: two U.S. Republican politicians and two conservative opinion columnists. The sheer weight of the sources stating that waterboarding is a form of torture makes it such that these four individuals cannot actually change, through sheer force of will, the meaning of a well-understood term, as they appear to be attempting to do for purely political reasons. The nature of the practice of waterboarding has been well described, and should be described as what it is (a form of torture), as in the very title of the article Rack (torture). The actual controversy in the U.S. is that the current administration wants to be able to practice waterboarding (as well as to not be prosecuted for war crimes for already having done it). Thus, any possible end run that can be made around the law (either national or international) can and will be made. Wikipedia has clearly become a battleground in this "war", but our encyclopedia must not be influenced in such a political manner as to change the very definition of a well understood and well described practice. The fringe statements of these four individuals, as well as the struggles of U.S. attorneys to redefine the term and its legality do certainly merit discussion in the article. Badagnani (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, they are notable, but their views are only opinions, hightly political motivated ones, and sourced only from political sound bites, most are not even clear. Some are deliberatly vague and some say it might and it might not. They are not studies or research papers. It's fine to include them in the article purely as their opinions but they cannot be used to assert a fact or the dispute of a fact that has been verified numerous times over. --neonwhite user page talk 05:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Please don't misrepresent our position, Badagnani. We aren't claiming that "waterboarding is not torture." Fully supported by Wikipedia policy, we are stating only that there is a substantive dispute, and that a Wikipedia article can't pretend that the dispute does not exist - particularly in the lead. Neutral Good (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Accept (conflict) Badagnani, didn't you mean "oppose"? Waterboarding is neither well-described nor well-defined in this article, and little better elsewhere. Your attempt at stating our concerns is not especially well done, either. There are forms of waterboarding that I consider to be torture; other forms I am not so sure about, to the extent that I don't like the absoluteness of "waterboarding is torture." That you have a POV that you want the article to express seems more han obvious. htom (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your personal POV is of no relevance to an article. Nothing on wikipedia is considered an absolute, as stated on WP:V, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. In this case we have a highly verifiable statement. --neonwhite user page talk 05:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - As stated above, the statements of the four individuals who do not consider waterboarding to be a form of torture (if considered notable) should be mentioned in the article. However, as a fringe position, these four individuals cannot be allowed to actually change the definition of a well described and well understood practice. Badagnani (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I agree that Wikipedia policy requires that the article can't resolve the existing dispute between the experts. Badagnani, I also share concerns about your expressions of contempt and your misrepresentations. You aren't just a POV pusher. You're a POV warrior. Thanks for the nice welcome on my Talk page though - but since my IP address jumps around so much, it won't be my Talk page in the morning. Regards, Bob 68.31.220.221 (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This personal attack appears to represent a WP:TROLL, and, as such, is impermissible at WP, where we do not call one another names; I ask respectfully that you please remove it. Regarding the issue of POV, it is quite clear that the POV being pushed is that of the four U.S. individuals (two Republican politicians and two conservative opinion columnists) who have publicly stated their belief that waterboarding--the deliberate suffocation of a prisoner through the use of water--is not a form of torture. According to this reasoning, a WP editor would be a "POV pusher" and "POV warrior" if they failed to allow the article about the Earth to state that "the Earth is either 4.54 billion years old, or approximately 6 thousand years old; the latter according to four notable individuals." The fringe POV is deserving of mention, but not in the lead or introductory section of the article. Badagnani (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that nobody is disputing that all opinions should be included in the article, only that undue weight is not given to fringe theories. This is not POV pushing or POV warriors it is maintaining the principle of neutrality. --neonwhite user page talk 05:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Both of you are deliberately misrepresenting our position. We are not arguing that undue weight should be given to any theory. We are arguing that the minority opinion is not some lunatic fringe, and therefore the lead should give zero weight to any opinion, either majority or minority. What you are demanding is that the lead must serve a tyranny of the majority. Where are the official positions of foreign governments who say, "All waterboarding is torture"? Where is there anyone except provably left-wing university professors and human rights activists claiming, "All waterboarding is torture"? Neutral Good (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what you are arguing. That a handful of political sound bites should be given equal weight to the multiple verified sources in complete breach of NPOV policy. The lead is a summary of the principle points of the article and the article is principally about torture. Yet again you seem to think this is an article about the US controversy, it is not Your obviously political biases have no business affecting this discussion. NPOV policy says that majority positions should be given proportional weight. --neonwhite user page talk 18:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

John McCain, Lindsey Graham (who says it's illegal and a war crime) [22].--agr (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

But I thought someone said that Republicans are politically biased, so they shouldn't count. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead doesn't say "All waterboarding is torture." It says "Waterboarding is a form of torture." Somewhere in the article we might say that "Bush Administration supporters have claimed that waterboarding isn't torture. Opponents claim that the Administration has been complicit in torture. The Administration has refused to confirm or deny whether waterboarding has actually been used, as of January 2008. In fact, the CIA has destroyed interrogation tapes, and the Department of Justice has opened an investigation into possible obstruction of justice." That statement, properly referenced, would serve the reader well by placing the entire situation into context. If the CIA is willing to destroy tapes, and Administration supporters are willing to opine to the national media about whether waterboarding is torture or not, then I feel pretty confident that Administration supporters are willing to bring this dispute onto Wikipedia. That lead sentence is positioned prominently in Google. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not a battleground, and we will have none of that. Instead, we will eventually ban editors who tendentiously spin the article for political purposes. Jehochman ^Talk 12:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead says "Waterboarding is a form of torture". It does not make ANY exceptions and thus implies "ALL". Further, it states it as a fact, when it is not a fact but an opinion. This is in violation of NPOV. Since it is becoming popular on this page to raise the temperature and to threaten people with bans, perhaps you should add that editors who tendentiously refuse to follow NPOV policies will also be banned. Or perhaps you should stop saying such inflammatory things altogether. You are not an unbiased editor here and should not be pushing your admin powers around in the dispute and threatening other editors with whom you disagree. Its just wrong. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is well verified so according to policy it is fact as much as wikipedia publishes fact. Read WP:V. --neonwhite user page talk 18:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, like any editor I am welcome to express my views, and I have not used admin powers in any way with respect to this article or any editor here, nor do I plan to do so. My statement is a simple explanation of how things work. "We will eventually ban editors who tendentiously spin the article for political purposes" applies to editors on both sides. Any editor can call for a ban by starting a community discussion or bringing the matter to ArbCom. One does not need to be an administrator to do that. Jehochman ^Talk 12:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. As you said you are WELCOME to express your views. Yet when others do, you repeatedly say that they will be banned. They are evidently NOT WELCOME. You say you do not plan to use admin powers yet you threaten to do so in the very statement just above. And you have done so a few times before. You have already chased one editor from this page. You need to stop that. It is unbecoming and wrong. I would not be so eager to go before Arbcom if I were you. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Banning editors who tendentiously spin articles for political purposes is entirely appropriate, even necessary. Those who can not work constructively in a collaborative environment should find other pursuits. But one should note that it is usually a lengthy process over several months, often involving arbcom. henrik•talk 13:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware of the new powers that Jhochman was seeking or perhaps claiming? There is a pattern here that is troubling to me. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Given the charged atmosphere, a more structured form of debate and zero tolerance on unconstructive behavior may be needed. Article probation has worked well in other conflicted areas. We'll see once the protection expires, but I'm now hoping it won't be needed. henrik•talk 13:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Wikipedia must be neutral. It cannot appear to take sides in an active debate. This is the English language Wikipedia and more than half of the world's native speakers of the English language live in the United States. Here in the United States, the question of whether all forms of waterboarding are torture is far from settled. So the lead sentence cannot state that the question has been resolved. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

US opinion does not dictate the content of wikipedia. --neonwhite user page talk 18:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the opinion from the rest of the world? Aside from human rights activists, who will routinely take the "What wine would you like served with your filet mignon" approach to an interrogation of even the most vicious criminal, as Neutral Good has colorfully described, who has spoken out about this interrogation technique from other countries besides the United States? 209.221.240.193 (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources are already in the article. --neonwhite user page talk 16:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Snore - The lead is fine, and circular discussion won't alter my opinion. --Akhilleus (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support For "waterboarding is torture" editors please do not be angry. I only want NPOV article. This seems best way for Wikipedia to me. Release your anger. Please work with me in constructive spirit. We can make this Good Article but it must be absolutely neutral. Thank you. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Shibumi2. I was completely confident that you were innocent. One look at your Talk page should tell everybody what really went on. The admin who blocked you actually apologized. Neutral Good (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I missed the apology, where was it? Link please? Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 00:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I saw it Shibumi2's talk page, it was posted after the question from Alison asking why a new account had been created after the Shibumi2 account was blocked. I was looking at an old revision. The apology was here. Sorry! Welcome back, Shibumi2. Lawrence Cohen 00:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Shibumi2's problem is that he has a shared IP address. He has no control over what other people do with that IP address. His answers to Alison must have convinced her that he's playing it straight, and that he was not using the new account (or, if it's his, that he wasn't using it for block evasion). She did a second Checkuser so there's no way in hell that he's lying. It's really none of my business, except to the extent that the "waterboarding is torture" advocates have tried to use false accusations to WP:OWN the article, and have targeted me twice with the same strategy. It doesn't work. Thanks to Alison once again for not letting it work. Neutral Good (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support. This is a showing of consensus. I believe Dorf should be commissioned to write the lead. Regards, Bob 68.31.166.239 (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding 101.01

Waterboarding is a form of extremely harsh treatment used to compel someone to a behavior the administrator desires. Descriptions of waterboarding vary greatly, resulting in confusion when the term is used. This is an incomplete list, and very brief descriptions, of the different methods that I am aware of, with categories invented by me. I read too much, and may have paid too much attention to how humans have mis-treated each other for reasons good and bad.

Do not do this at home or in your school.

No sources are given; it shouldn't be hard to find them. The differences in these methods, both in how they are done and the results to the victim, are why I hesitate to agree with "all waterboarding is torture". There's a real danger in this topic (and other torture topics) of wp:beans and I'm not sure how we can both have the discussion and "save the children". In a month or twelve, when this is archived and people are ignoring the topic, probably some overseer should remove the how-to.

Waterboarding (immersion)

The subject is strapped to a board or chair (or otherwise constrained in his movements) and his face is immersed in water and held there while the victim exhales; if his head is not removed the subject will drown through inhilation of water (see drowning). Even if his face is withdrawn, the subject may die from secondary drowning (see drowning article) or dry drowning. A variation on the dunking of medieval times. An interrupted execution by drowning, and (in my opinion) always torture. Similar effects can happen to a waterpolo player whose teammates (or opponents) act to keep putting his head underwater. Where the line is, there, between hard play and torturous hazing I'm not sure of; some of it is one and some the other, and probably the victim's opinion should determine.

Waterboarding (flooding)

The subject is strapped or constrained in an inclined position with his face up, but below the level of his hips. This causes a flow of blood into the head and chest. His face (which may be covered with a cloth) is then flooded with a stream of water, making breathing difficult, if not impossible, because of the presence of the water. Again, the subject may die from either drowning (especially if water is forced into the lungs by the stream) or the other near-drowning mechanisms. An extreme form of "swirlie"; I hesitate to call a swirlie torture, but it might be. This form of waterboarding can become waterboarding (water cure) if care is not taken so that the victim does not swallow excess water. (This may be the reason for the insertion of the wadded rag in the mouth, or the pierced plastic wrap over the mouth, in some reports; it would decrease the amount of water swallowed, although it might have other effects as well.)

Waterboarding (water cure)

As above in waterboarding (flooding), a mixture of interference with breathing as well as filling the stomach with water because the victim must swallow the water in order to breathe. Once the victim's stomach becomes distended, it is beaten to expell the water. (This seems to be the method most usually described from the Vietnam - Laos - Cambodia descriptions.)

Waterboarding (other)

(to be expanded)

Waterboarding (splashing)

The subject is contrained and his chest and face are splashed with water in a particular fashion. This wetness causes his body to temporarily react as if it had been immersed, but there is no disruption of breathing other than by the mammalian diving reflex through laryngospasm. It's probably incorrect to call this a "mind trick", as the trick involves reflexes below the mind level, more of a "body trick". Probably not torture, unless extended.

With this, I'll not be back to this topic until Monday. htom (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC) htom (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate where you're getting this from? I have seen mentions of the "immersion" and "flooding" types you mention here, but this is the first I've ever heard of "splashing" being called waterboarding. Is there any historical record of people referring to splashing water in the face as "waterboarding"? —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Original work. I have heard and read of the splashing technique, but I don't know what its official name is. "Splashing" might not be the best name for the category, but it's very different than the others. I suspect that this is the method being used on those who quit out in seconds (notice the videos have people struggling for considerably longer than that) who report feelings of complete panic, and who are seeming embarrassed by this reaction on their part. The splashing would seem to be aimed at wetting certain areas of the nasal passages which results in a flood of nerve messages that produce the panic, which disappears once the victim sits up and sneezes. htom (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have also not seen print sources (or any other sources) referring to splashing water as constituting "waterboarding," "water-boarding," or "water boarding." It sounds more like what is called Chinese water torture (which usually involves the dripping of water). Badagnani (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This technique is not related to the dripping water torture; it acts within seconds. htom (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen attempting to initiate the diving reflex referred to as a form of waterboarding, or even splashing. Reliable references? Mammalian diving reflex is something that any human who tries to swim under water will experience; yes, the heart rate slows, though this is also affected by other factors eg. most free divers will inhale large amounts of air before submerging, and then swim slowly to preserve oxygen. I don't see how it would be useful as a form of torture - it is not painful, does not cause panic, and certainly wouldn't induce a hardened criminal or terrorist into betraying their associates. Drowning, or running out of oxygen whilst under water, is a different matter. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If the breathing passages are filled with water, it matters little whether the head is immersed or not: drowning is drowning, and has the same results, regardless of the means of induction. As for the "body trick": inducing asphyxia via laryngospasm is still, in my opinion, torture: it's equivalent to any other means of suffocation. Again, do you have any references for any of this? -- The Anome (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll grant you that drowning is drowning, but not all of these are always drowning, or even close to it in some cases. I did not say that the body trick induced asphyxia; I do say that it appears to induce panic. If I had references I wouldn't provide them (and probably would not be contributing.) htom (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the work done here, but it needs sources.--Blue Tie (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I hope the revised version is better. Sorry, no sources, I have not kept track over the decades. htom (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How many different waterboarding techniques are there? How many could there be? Let's figure it out. Numbering these from "1" to whatever, with increasingly harsh methods from left to right.

A. Immersion. The options are (1) pouring or splashing water on the face, or (2) immersion (submersion) of the head.

B. The board. The options are (1) no board, (2) a level board, or (3) an inclined board.

C. Amount of water. The options are (1) a small amount of water, or (2) a tremendous amount of water.

D. Cloth on face. The options are (1) no cloth, (2) cloth covering face, (3) cloth stuffed in the mouth, or (4) cloth both covering the face and stuffed in the mouth.

E. Plastic on face. The options are (1) no plastic or cellophane covering face, or (2) plastic or cellophane covering face.

There are therefore a total number of 96 possible waterboarding techniques. (2 x 3 x 2 x 4 x 2) According to John Kiriakou, only one technique was used by the CIA. It was far from the most awful or terrible technique available. (A1 B3 C1 D1 E2) Are we sure that all of the experts who say "waterboarding is torture" were talking about ALL waterboarding techniques? Are we sure they they were even aware of all the different techniques? How do we know? Neutral Good (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH to see why this is assertion fails WP-policy.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a diversion. The description we currently have, and most of those that have been proposed, adequately cover all the descriptions of waterboarding I have encountered, save for the immersion of the head in water. In all cases, the prisoner is made to believe that death is imminent through a process that (a) actually will cause death through water-induced asphyxiation if not interrupted within a few minutes and (b) induces the instinctive physiological responses to suffocation and drowning — and it is through this induced fear and intolerable physical suffering that the procedure works as a coercion technique. My impression is that immersion is far less commonly cited as "waterboarding", which makes the current description just fine. However, if we have enough reliable sources that include immersion as a method of waterboarding, I have no problem with mentioning immersion as an alternate method. The number and nature of such sources would determine whether it could be mentioned in the body of the article as a variation of a general technique that involves no immersion, or mentioned in the lead. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is a diversion. The U.S. Government has never admitted using waterboarding in this century. All the information we have to date on CIA use comes from news media reports. These reports are invariably accompanied with a description of waterboarding that we can presume come from the same or related government sources. If what the CIA did was materially less harsh than than what the numerous reports in the press depict, they no doubt would have leaked that information by now. The fact that they destroyed all video tapes of actual interrogations strongly suggests the opposite. We can assume that the outside experts commenting on whether waterboarding is torture are aware of, and rely on, the press definitions. --agr (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two things here: the method and the tapes. Revealing the former (assuming that it exists) allows others to both use it, and to train to defeat it; both good reasons not to reveal it. The tapes could have been destroyed because of reasons other than concealing the method; concealing the identity of both CIA and prisoners comes to mind. htom (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, concealing the identity of both CIA and prisoners comes to mind. Major spincity comes to mind. In all these decades and all the videos, audiorecordings, photographs, dossiers, et cetera, the CIA was apparently able to conceal those identities, but tapes that might be hard evidence of a war crime, implicating the WH itself, suddenly endanger the lifes of CIA agents. Smells fishy to me.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Kinda irrelevant to this page though. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

U.S. State Department has recognized ...

The U.S. State Department has recognized that other techniques that involve submersion of the head of the subject during interrogation would qualify as torture. <ref>*'''U.S. Department of State'''. In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the [[U.S. Department of State]] formally recognizes "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of [[Tunisia]]'s poor human rights record, {{cite journal| first = | last = U.S. Department of State| year =2005 | month = | title =Tunisia | journal = Country Reports on Human Rights Practices | url =http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61700.htm}}</ref>

I'm a bit concerned about that analysis... This effectively accuses the U.S. government of applying double standards. Now, if anyone out there is arguing this case against the U.S. government, then perhaps that person should be used as a source. Otherwise, connecting what the State Department has said about Tunisia to this current debate, I believe, constitutes a novel claim. (Much like the example in WP:SYN.) For what it is worth, I agree with the analysis, and I believe the US is applying double standards. However, I also believe that finding such contradictions should be left to political analysts outside Wikipedia. A sentence like this is obviously not just adding facts, it is effectively making a moral judgment, and that's what makes me nervous, because this particular judgment is clearly not in the cited source. --Vesal (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're looking for Physicians for Human Rights' report, "Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality", Sec. 2:63--[23]. That source mentions U.S. criticism of Tunisia for using water torture; the U.S. has also criticized Sri Lanka. (And for all you nit-pickers out there, please read the source and notice that it's part of a discussion about waterboarding.) --Akhilleus (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This would certainly satisfy my concern. Thanks! --Vesal (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify... By "would satisfy" I mean, please use this source instead / in addition to the primary source, as soon as this article is unprotected. --Vesal (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is really stretching it, gentlemen. The State Department specified techniques involving immersion of the head. The only source we have saying that the United States has engaged in waterboarding, John Kiriakou, has specified that the CIA technique does not involve immersion of the head. This goes far beyond even WP:SYN. It should be removed from the article, or heavily qualified as I've just done. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As I just said: "please read the source and notice that it's part of a discussion about waterboarding." Perhaps you're confused about the application of WP:SYN--it says that Wikipedia editors may not engage in original synthesis. On the other hand, we expect secondary sources to do so, and we happily use them as sources when they do. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well then, show me a reliable source claiming that the State Department has defined the CIA waterboarding technique as torture. Not "waterboarding" but "the CIA waterboarding technique." I look forward to your response. Conflation will be the best you've got, Akhilleus. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the linked source, I think you'll find that it argues that the specific method of waterboarding used by the CIA is torture. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already read the relevant pages (17-18) of the linked source and, as I said, conflation is the best you've got. Speculation and weasel wording is so unbecoming for such an august organization as the Physicians for Human Rights. Without being in the room during an interrogation, or giving the subject a physical exam afterward, they can't be sure that hypoxia or near-asphyxiation has occurred. Without extensive interviews with the subject at several extended intervals after the interrogation, they cannot maintain that lasting psychological harm has occurred. So they speculate. They say that it "can and probably will" happen. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you didn't read page 19, which states in part: 'U.S. personnel who authorize or engage in waterboarding will almost certainly commit the criminal act of torture under the WCA and the Torture Act and /or the crime of “cruel or inhuman treatment” under the WCA. Waterboarding unquestionably — and by design — results in both “severe” and “serious” physical pain and suffering.' Any "weasel words" that you've detected are present because the courts haven't examined whether recent instances of waterboarding violate the WCA, Torture Act, McCain Amendment, etc. So the report, quite responsibly, says that the courts would probably rule that waterboarding is illegal. But make no mistake, this report says that waterboarding is torture. For you to represent it otherwise is to misrepresent its argument, and arguably to engage in a species of uncooperative editing. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Inquisition?

The technique of waterboarding is non-lethal.

Spanish Inquisition A form of torture similar to waterboarding called toca, along with garrucha (or strappado) and the most frequently used potro (or the rack), was used (though infrequently) during the trial portion of the Spanish Inquisition process. "The toca, also called tortura del agua, consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had the impression of drowning."[23] One source has claimed that the use of water as a form of torture also had profound religious significance to the Inquisitors

These techniques were meant as capital punishment and are entirely different —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 11:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You do realise the quote you just cited says nothing about capital punishment, right? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that waterboarding bares no resemblance to being put on the rack don't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 08:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see how the rack is relevant to your unsourced claim that the Tormento di Toca (aka "waterboarding") was meant as capital punishment, but I'll humour you with... "You do realise that waterboarding was historically considered a fate worse than racking, don't you?" (Source: "A History of Torture" (Scott 1940); waterboarding was "generally adopted when racking, in itself, proved ineffectual.") Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Harvard student group discussion

FYI. Please weigh in on this matter on ANI, at this thread, rather than here if possible. Lawrence Cohen 22:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

To Instructor: We're all volunteers here. Your project needlessly consumed time & effort on the part of our editorial and administrative body. El_C 22:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this "project" has been quite disruptive. I've half a mind to protect the article right now to prevent further disruption. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do. Give us all a week to think about what's going on here. htom (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Unconditional support, and when you protect it please do it indef this time. I almost wish we could semi the talk as well for just as long, and the RFC, but that wouldn't be fair. Lawrence Cohen 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Lock down the page and semi the talks. Re-evaluate in about a week. R. Baley (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not lock yet. No one has messed with the page yet. Please wait until there is some edit warring. We need to make this article better and if we lock it again, we will have to wait for another long period until we figure something out. Remember (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To the instructor: ignore the above comments, as Wikipedia is ran by it's community at large, and not the short term reactions of some worried Wikipedians. So far, the disruption has been caused by the experienced Wikipedians freaking out, rather than by your students. They mean well, and they do have some reasonable concerns, but they don't have the right to ask anyone to leave. Wikipedia is open, and yourself and your students are already apart of our community. -- Ned Scott 01:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh look. A course syllabus has been distributed online, assigning students to work on the Waterboarding article. Who could have imagined that such an event would come to pass? And long before the end of 2007, too. What will Badagnani say? Lawrence, it looks like your punitive viewpoint is in the minority over at WP:ANI. Some of the admins are saying that the Harvard Law students had some good ideas. And I wonder how many of these "meatpuppets" were supporting you? Neutral Good (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has become a circus. It's tiring enough dealing with the single-purpose accounts created explicitly to argue on this topic, without having to deal with organized groups of editors also joining in as part of a social experiment. -- The Anome (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ned Scott, always making new friends. Anyway, I'm not sure to what extent resolving a dispute amounted to engineering one, but irrespectively, being straight-forward about this project would have gone a long way towards fostering good faith, from the outset. Thx. El_C 02:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A similarly titled section on that page has been renamed toHarvard student group discussion, based on arguments presented there. Although I also have a COI as a member of the class group, I would like to put in a suggestion that this section be remaned as well. As Theokrat stated, and others there agreed, this is indeed not a case of "Confirmed Sockpuppetry" but merely charges of such that were *never* confirmed, and which I and all the accused dispute vigorously. -Lciaccio (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So done. henrik•talk 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected for 10 days

OK folks, enough is enough. I've re-protected the article for 10 days. For goodness' sake, please discuss amongst yourselves and come to a solution to whatever the problem is here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely on the wrong version--we've got a heading that says "Disputed classification as torture in the United States". --Akhilleus (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a good opportunity to note I was careful not to look at the article before protecting. Let me know if there's obvious vandalism or something like that lingering in the article that needs to be fixed. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest to use this link in such cases to provide some background information. Kosebamse (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The aforementioned new heading, for which no consensus was developed, is more than a little POV and inappropriate in tone, as it attempts to "teach the controversy." Badagnani (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no denying that there's a dispute in the United States, Badagnani. And if your sources are "authorities," then our sources are "authorities" as well. You were trying to describe our expert sources as average schmucks off the street. Hey, since I've got your attention, what do you think of that Harvard Law professor, assigning this article to his class and distributing a syllabus online, well in advance of the New Year? Do you think the same thing might have happened at Penn State? Is that possible? We only know about the Harvard Law course syllabus because Jehochman happened to stumble across it. Neutral Good (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no denying that among experts the consensus is it is torture. Also, invoking public opinion does not alter the fact that among experts the consensus is it is torture.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As Nescio says, there is no significant controversy among experts on this matter, shown by the overwhelming consensus among expert sources. We should take exactly the same approach as in the AIDS, Holocaust, and evolution articles, where significant controversy among non-experts (HIV denialism, Holocaust denialism, creationism) is reported on as a notable tangential issue, but not allowed to cloud the core issue that there is no significant controversy among experts, which is Wikipedia's gold standard for facts. -- The Anome (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Objectively and per wikipedia standards, both you and Nescio are wrong. I have shown this repeatedly and never have either of you effectively replied to the objections I raise. Repeating "there is no significant controversy" does not make the evidence go away -- but it does violate WP:OR. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire section that I've put a "disputed" header on consists of the segregated area where you people have corraled all of the experts who say "waterboarding may not be torture." I am reminded of the "free speech zones" where anti-war protesters are corraled whenever George W. Bush makes a public appearance. The entire section is about the dispute. You've got the article lead the way you want it. Now you're trying to purge the rest of the article of anything resembling NPOV, unless the reader goes over every line with a fine-toothed comb. You know most readers don't get past the first paragraph, and most of the rest just skim the section headers. Neutral Good (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Also: Neutral Good, you appear to be implying above, without, as far as I can see, any evidence whatsoever that this is so, that the two law professors you mention above dispute that waterboarding is torture. Could you please either produce reliable, independent sources for this, or withdraw it? -- The Anome (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Anome, you say that I "appear to be implying." Perhaps you need a new pair of glasses. I've said nothing that needs to be withdrawn. You're seeing an implication that just isn't there. Neutral Good (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do we stand?

Apparently some editors have missed the numerous rebuttals of the there is a dispute-fallacy. Unfortunately they are also unable to find them on this page and the RFC. till trying to abide by WP:AGF I post a summary of that discussion here.

1. A 140+ eperts say it is torture, 2 experts say it is not, 2 are unable/unwilling to make any determination. AFAIK nobody disagrees with this.
2. The following has been advanced as argument for the existence of a "controversy:" confronted with a dissenting voice, even if it is just only one lone wolf, we effectively have a dispute. This, of course, is nonsens. If the existence of any opposition could negate consensus among experts they would still be debating the way our earth is shaped, what causes AIDS, is evolution real, did the Holocaust happen, are aliens experimenting on us, et cetera. Clearly that is not the case. Therefore, opposition by a very small group of experts does not a dispute make.
3. Within the US 1/3 think it nis not torture and 2/3 think it is. AFAIK nobody disputes this.
4. The following has been advanced as argument for the existence of a "controversy:" since US public opinion is split 2:1 this evidently constitutes a dispute. Although very interesting and certainly notable public opinion is irrelevant to what experts think on this. Public opinion has brought us such notable and successful concepts as superstition, quackery, witchhunt, mucoid plaque, holocaust denial, scam, et cetera. Confronted with the evident unreliability the world developed a new concept in an attempt to better explain the world in a more unbiased and unlikely to be manipulated manner. Soon it was discovered this new way of explaining things was far superior than the frequently incorrect gut feeling that was used before. With that knowledge relying on public opinion became a logical fallacy. So, using public opinion as argument is not a valid rebuttal. Some more examples of the reliability of public opinion: antisemitism, facism, McCarthyism.added last sentenceNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Then people argue that the sources themselves are wrong, i.e. conflating definitions. Surely everybody is aware that it is not up to us to evaluate and correct sources. Please remember, it is not whether information is correct but can we verify it?
6. Others claim that even if waterboarding is torture the technique used by the CIA is entirely different.Unless we can substantiate this with outside sources it is inadmissable as speculation by a WP-editor.

Hope this clarifies the reasons why any opposition to it is torture is insufficiently substantiated with WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:V and common sense in mind. RespectfullyNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

But what do you define as an "expert" in this context? I am arguing that there is no such thing as an "expert" on torture. Unlike evolution or the shape of the earth, it isn't a clearly defined scientific concept. It doesn't have an objective meaning.

The problem with your examples of holocaust denial, mucoid plaque, what causes AIDS, etc., is that these are all ultimately questions of fact. Experts disagree about what the fact is, but there is still a truth out there to be discovered. In contrast, saying "X is torture" or "Y is not torture" is in the same vein as statements like "X is oppressive", or "Y is undemocratic", or "Z will restrict liberty". The word "torture" is a political label with no objective meaning. Therefore, politicians and the general public are as qualified to comment about it as anyone else. Walton^One 15:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being insufficiently clear. The word "torture" is a political label with no objective meaning. So, to help you here are some legal definitions

• United Nations Convention Against Torture: "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

• Torture is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 2340 and defines torture as:

1. "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
2. "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

We have here two laws defining torture. Who would be qualified to tell us how to read the law? Personally I think legal experts are more than able to tell us whether waterboarding meets the definitions put down in these laws.

Respectfully Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WaltonOne: But what do you define as an "expert" in this context? I am arguing that there is no such thing as an "expert" on torture. -- There are clearly experts in this area, both medical and legally speaking. Unless you are claiming that the judges of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East weren't legal experts? Or that the judges who prosecuted any other case that has actually gone to court weren't experts? (See Judge Wallach, The Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, for more [24]. If, as you claim, there are no experts in the world on torture, then how did these courts cite expert witness? If you want to discuss academic experts, then see "The torture debate in America" (Cambridge University Press), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or one of the many texts on the Spanish Inquisition (although, understandably, those are mostly written by historians, they do refer to first hand reports classifying the Tormento di Toca as "torture". In contrast, I have not seen a single academic journal or university published text, or historical book, which states that waterboarding is either not torture, or that its status is debated. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In anticipation of the obvious response regarding the book title; the book itself refers and references waterboarding as torture; and goes on to analyse the "debate in America". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We stand without a rebuttal to date

So far there has not been an effective, cited fact and policy based rebuttal of the there is a dispute position. I suspect you intended the above comments to be a rebuttal. But they are not. Indeed, they support the view that there is a dispute. Admittedly they only expose one side of the dispute, but that is to be expected from someone with a bias to that side of it.

Let's look at the supposed rebuttals in detail.

Item 1, does not say there is no dispute. It says that there is a dispute. It miscounts the numbers on each side, but that is neither here nor there. That is hardly a rebuttal.

Item 2, is a red herring, presenting the idea that the dispute is by some sort of lone wolf insignificant group. It is not. The dispute has been shown to be supported by 29% of Americans and by recognized, notable and prominent, named individuals. Simple blind assertion that 29% of Americans (about 65 million adults) is a "lone wolf" does not pass reasonable scrutiny. When combined with the fact that notable individuals also share that view vocally, it just evaporates. This is not a rebuttal, it is a denial. Not the same thing.

But.. There is an alternative possible view of Item 2. It is that the rebuttal in effect is: "Wikipedia policy should not apply". That would indeed be a rebuttal of sorts but one well that in effect demands a suspension of wikipedia policy. However, wikipedia policy per WP:CON does apply here.

Item 3, admits that there is a dispute and does not go any further than to simply stipulate. So this is hardly a rebuttal.

Item 4. (assuming it is different from Item 2) admits there is a dispute but insults the minority side of the dispute, thereby declaring it be invalid in the dispute and thus ignorable by wikipedia. This is Original Research. It is not a rebuttal.

Item 5. is not a rebuttal. It is some sort of random remark unrelated to the issue of whether there is a dispute. However, interestingly enough, this Item says we cannot evaluate sources even though the argument in Item 4 is a form of evaluating sources. Self contradictory but not a rebuttal.

Item 6. is also not really a rebuttal but rather ignoring the fact that some of the people who say waterboarding is not torture have said that it might be depending upon how it is done and who does it. But Item 6 pretends those cites do not exist and claims that they must still be produced. That is not a rebuttal. Unless simple, baseless denial is "rebuttal".

Note also that in the extended answers regarding the issue, there is an appeal to the error of WP:SYN.

As I have said, there has never been a cited, policy based rebuttal of this issue. This continues to be true.

Furthermore, there are valid legitimate sources that explicitly say the issue is debated. This can be cited.

And, a number of recent, objective editors have found that this issue is valid and should be addressed differently than the lead does now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs) 18:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't need a rebuttal because it doesn't have the weight of reliable expert sources to support it. And I'm sorry, but #2 is simply a ludicrous premise. We should give the idea undue weight because 29% of Americans think it's not torture? And they are experts in which areas exactly? As soon as we start writing articles on that basis we may as well give up and become Conservapedia. At the moment, there is no reason whatsoever in the article which justifies mentioning this "controversy" except in passing - and it certainly shouldn't be in the lead. BLACKKITE 19:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, if there is a really good source that details the fact that 29% of Americans believe this, then I guess that could be mentioned somewhere in the article, not in the lead of course. In general, of course, I agree: the "fifteen billion flies can't be wrong" argument has never been especially persuasive to me. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So that we are communicating clearly, let me ask you to express your view of exactly what the proposal is that "doesn't need a rebuttal". I suspect you have responded to a different proposal than the one I offer. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Someone has, in fact, added that poll to the article. Badagnani (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes - in case I wasn't clear, I was not saying it shouldn't be mentioned, merely given little weight. BLACKKITE 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to a 2005 ABC News/Washington Post poll that says 35% of Americans say torture is acceptable in some cases.[25] That raises the question of whether the debate in the U.S. is really about waterboarding being torture or just a willingness to use waterboarding, torture or not. The only reason the question of waterboarding being torture comes up is because US law makes torture illegal. John Yoo states plainly that he is taking a narrow view of the definition of torture [26] based on his belief that Congress intended a limited view of what would be a crime under the anti-torture statute. His goal is to get past the law, not render an opinion of what torture means in the ordinary sense. The later is what should guide Wikipedia.--agr (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside view on this long-running debate

I haven't participated here before, but I need to point out that it is not NPOV to assert in the lead section that "waterboarding is a form of torture", considering that this is disputed.

Since the term "torture" is a politically charged term, its use is inevitably political. Experts, and published secondary sources, disagree over what constitutes torture. Speaking for myself, I have no opinion on whether or not waterboarding is torture, nor am I qualified to have such an opinion. But I am strongly of the opinion that we should not present one point of view, even one held by the majority of sources, as fact. The lead section needs to include some form of balance and needs to be totally rewritten, with sources from both sides.

I am aware of the inevitable difficulty in summarising such conflicts in a lead section, which is the threat of weasel words; we tend to get sentences such as "the majority of experts believe that X is Y,[source][source] but some others have questioned this.[source][source]" But this is better than saying "waterboarding is a form of torture" as if it were unchallengeable fact; furthermore, we have the rest of the article in which to name individual sources on both sides of the debate.

I note that some of the comments in earlier threads have quoted dictionary definitions of torture, and claimed that waterboarding fits the description, and therefore constitutes torture by any reasonable definition. While this may be true, it is original research. It's not for us, as Wikipedians, to say that waterboarding falls within the ordinary English meaning of the word "torture". It is for us, as Wikipedians, to make clear that there is a considerable disagreement on this issue. Nor is it for us to dismiss certain views as "politically biased" while accepting others as "expert" views. Walton^One 14:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The serious mistake you have made there is that wikipedia does not publish 'unchallengeable fact'. Nothing in wikipedia is ever claimed to be an absolute truth. It merely represents the verified popular views. Fringe theories are not important enough to effect the majority view. --neonwhite user page talk 18:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the debate, Walton. As you can see below, there's a large welcoming committee and they are very opinionated. But they illustrate why the lead must not take sides in the dispute about waterboarding. These are just a few people, but they are very loud, very POV and very vigilant. Notice how they're on you like white on rice. People who are strongly opinionated are the ones who speak out, like the 115 law professors who signed the form letter to Alberto Gonzalez. People who aren't strongly opinionated are just too busy with their real jobs to hover on a Talk page like this. So those 115 law professors aren't necessarily a representative sample of expert opinion on the matter. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Walton has expressed a view very close to my own. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no "considerable disagreement". Expert opinions are near unanimous. A few politicians and pundits (and in one small political corner of one small geographic corner of the world only) disagree. See WP:WEIGHT. Compare "evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next", "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature", "The Holocaust ... is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II", "In fact, the Earth is reasonably well-approximated by an oblate spheroid" - and for all but the least I can easily match you three idiots to one for the fringe viewpoint. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec-we must have mental telepathy!) Please cite a reliable source, not a political pundit, who says that waterboarding isn't torture, or that the definition is in dispute. I am surprised that you are buying this sythesis of verifiable fact and editorial. Saying that "waterboarding is torture" is disputed would be like saying that evolution is disputed. No it is not. Our article states, "In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. " Evolution is disputed at least as widely as waterboarding, but those disputing it are not reliable sources. They are advocacy groups. Please see wikiality. Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Our country is one nation and is not going to be entitled to disproportionate WEIGHT on this matter. I think this needs to be conveyed in some form of unified messaging from this point forward, since so many people keep showing up not understanding that this is a global in scope encyclopedia. Lawrence Cohen 14:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please also see the comment above by Nomen Nescio. henrik•talk 14:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest a POV being pushed that relies on the "reliable authorities" of McCarthy, Mukasey, Giuliani and the Glenn Beck Show is a POV that under WP:WEIGHT can be mentioned briefly, but requires little other discussion. BLACKKITE 14:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We should report that several notable US politicians and pundits have disputed the idea that waterboarding is torture. This is a relevant fact, but it should not be given undue prominence. Jehochman ^Talk 14:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You all claim that "experts" generally agree that waterboarding is torture, while "political pundits" have attempted to cast doubt on this notion. But who qualifies as an "expert" on torture? Lawyers? Psychologists? Torture victims? As far as I can see, most people on both sides are acting from a political agenda. "Torture" is not a well-defined scientific term. It's a political label, in the same vein as "democracy" or "oppression" or "dictatorship". I would agree, as a general rule, that we should not try to include all points of view where one is a fringe perspective (e.g. the flat earth movement). I also understand Jehochman's point about wikiality. But like I said, this is not a scientific issue and there is no objective definition of "torture", nor is there a specific group of "experts" who are uniquely qualified to define what constitutes torture. From what I've seen above, there are reliable sources on both sides of the dispute - that is to say, published secondary sources. Just because a source has been published by someone with a political agenda does not make it unreliable; indeed, the vast majority of academics writing about topics like this have a political agenda (most often a liberal or leftist one, though this is a generalisation).

The essence of what I'm saying is this: there is no objective, scientific, exhaustive definition of torture, nor is there a special community of "experts" who are qualified to determine what constitutes torture. Evolution v creation and the shape of the earth, and the other examples cited above, are ultimately questions of fact; we (that is, humanity) may not know what the correct answer is, but we know that such an answer exists. In contrast, saying "X is torture" or "Y is not torture" is in the same vein as saying "X is oppressive" or "Y is anti-democratic". It's an expression of political opinion, not a question of fact. Walton^One 15:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Torture has specific common and legal meanings. It is not a nebulous word. Jehochman ^Talk 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would the viewpoints of some members of one political party in one nation be given disproportionate weight on the article? Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me point out that what Andrew C. McCarthy has said about waterboarding is misrepresented on this talk page and in the article. McCarthy makes it clear that he doesn't think waterboarding is torture, but also says that "waterboarding is close enough to torture that reasonable minds can differ on whether it is torture". That's a weaker claim than "waterboarding is not torture".

As for what Walton is saying, there are communities of experts who can give us authoritative opinions about what constitutes torture: legal experts, human rights experts, philosophers, etc. Politicians, journalists, and pundits are less authoritative on this particular subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Further note on McCarthy. What he stated was - "[Waterboarding] is not especially painful physically and causes no lasting bodily injury...Administered by someone who knows what he is doing, there is presumably no actual threat of drowning or suffocation; for the victim, though, there is clearly fear of imminent death and he could pass out from the deprivation of oxygen. The sensation is temporary, not prolonged. There shouldn’t be much debate that subjecting someone to it repeatedly would cause the type of mental anguish required for torture. But what about doing it once, twice, or some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive?" So again, it should be noted that he would state that waterboarding is definately torture in some circumstances. It should also be noted that his conclusion is based, in part, on the premises that waterboarding: (1) is not especially painful physically, (2) causes no lasting bodily injury, and (3) carries with it no actual threat of drowning or suffocation when administered correctly. I have not seen other sources that support these premises and therefore, I think his conclusion is in doubt. Remember (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why we have to bear in the mind the political nature of the comment, they are vague by intention. It's almost impossible for a politician to make a firm statement without political damage. --neonwhite user page talk 18:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember, what McCarthy said is "waterboarding may not be torture." There are two schools of thought: absolutely certain "waterboarding is torture" sources, and people who say some variation of "waterboarding may not be torture." Your opinion doesn't matter, nor does mine. What matters is that prominent legal experts like Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White, who have no proven showing of political partisanship in favor of the Bush Administration and are in all likelihood from the opposing political party, are saying, "Waterboarding may not be torture." They cannot be ignored. Not in the body of the article, not in the section headers, and absolutely not in the first six words of the article.

I nominate Dorf and Walton to write the new lead for the article. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, I really wish people would stop saying that McCarthy and White are Democrats. There's no evidence that they are and the fact that McCarthy writes for conservative publications suggests that he isn't a Democrat. We shouldn't be projecting party affiliations on people without firm evidence; to do so is arguably a BLP violation.

Also, it's a bit silly to stridently insist that we cannot ignore McCarthy and White. As I've said, McCarthy's claim is weak--he essentially says that under some circumstances it's torture, under some circumstances it might not be, but in any case people who think that waterboarding is always torture are reasonable. OMG YOU CANNOT IGNORE THESE GUYS WHO SAY MAYBE IT'S NOT TORTURE!!

An important thing to remember is that an overwhelming number of reliable sources say that waterboarding is torture, and opinions like McCarthy's are a tiny minority of expert opinion on the subject. The sources cited on this page don't really begin to cover what's out there--I don't see anything from legal reviews or the United Nations Committee Against Torture, for instance. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As a law student who reads a lot of legal reviews, periodicals etc., I can attest that (at least in the UK) the lawyers and legal academics who write for them tend, with few exceptions, to be biased towards a liberal viewpoint and towards the views of the "human rights" lobby. Obviously this doesn't prevent their work from constituting reliable source material - and we certainly should give it appropriate weight in the article - but we shouldn't act as if the liberal academic view is the only valid one. Like I said, this is primarily a political issue, not an academic issue; there is no "right" or "wrong" view, only different political opinions. Walton^One 19:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your "reasonable" sources are, with virtually no exceptions, political partisans who have a vested interest in making the Bush Administration look bad. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The role of Wikipedia is not to play political favorites, nor to insulate subjects from political consequences. In fact, politics have no place here. If that is a problem, editing here may not be for those who worry more about political issues than building a complete encyclopedia. Lawrence Cohen 18:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The role of Wikipedia is not to play political favorites, nor to insulate subjects from political consequences. - I completely agree, but that doesn't mean we can exclude the political dimension from politically controversial issues. Like it or not, the definition of "torture" is a politically contentious issue. Yes, there have been plenty of secondary sources published on the subject, many by reputable academics - but those academics' opinions can't be viewed in a vacuum, nor can we pretend that the political controversy doesn't exist. I am honestly not trying to push any kind of political agenda here; I personally have no opinion as to whether waterboarding is torture or not, and I'm not an uncritical admirer of the Bush administration. I'm just trying to inject some balance into this discussion. Walton^One 19:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A very recent small political controversy does not change the definition of a 500 hundred year old practice. This is not an article about the US political debate. Giving it anymore than a small section would be undue weight. --neonwhite user page talk 20:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Torture" is a well understood term and 144 sources (see the "Definitions" page linked at the top of this talk page) state that waterboarding (i.e., the suffocation with water of a prisoner bound to a board) is a form of torture. Those fewer than 5 individuals, all from a single nation, who disagree with this are representing a politically motivated opinion. It is not Wikipedia's duty to privilege this fringe opinion, although it may be noted, in proper context, in the article. Badagnani (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article doesn't ignore the political controversy. In fact, I think it devotes too much weight to it. But there's a difference between expert opinion--what we find in legal reviews, official statements by governmental bodies and international organizations--and remarks by congressmen, political candidates, and op-ed columnists. Expert opinion overwhelmingly says that waterboarding is torture, therefore the lead should say it's a form of torture. That doesn't prevent some mention of the political controversy in the lead--and in fact, it's already mentioned there. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• USA is not the only country in the world. Looking on at this dispute from across the pond, all I see is politicians engaging in blatant sophistry and semantic juggling, pretending that somehow physically coercive interrogation is not torture as such, honest. The controversy over here is essentially non-existent, and if Robert Mugabe were doing I'd bet some of my dwindling stock of Genuine US Dollars (buy now before it's too late) that the USA would be right at the front of the baying mob. The political controversy, such as it is, is focused, to my reading, on the appalling sight of senior members of the United States Government, self-declared enforcers of Freedom worldwide, defending a practice which they must, as for the most part declared Christians, surely view as morally repugnant. There might be a bit of noise in the far-right press about how it doesn't matter because brown people are necessarily terrorists even if they haven't been sued in a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey, but north of the Mason-Dixon and east of the Atlantic there seems to be very little dispute. The reliable, independent sources are in agreement. What the neocons think won't change that. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Erm, no they're not. Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White are reliable, independent, expert sources. McCarthy is from north of the Mason-Dixon Line. White is from Los Angeles. Pardon me, but your bigotry is showing. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ethical objection to the use and excuse of torture and internment without trial is hardly bigotry. It's pretty mainstream these days. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Erm, I too am British not American, and I disagree completely that "the controversy over here is essentially non-existent"; yes, the debate has focused on the US, but that's because it's the US government which has been accused of using waterboarding. Your post is thoroughly imbued with political bias. It's not particularly helpful to try to discredit opposing views as "far-right" and racist, or to claim that the liberal stance on torture is the only "reliable, independent" viewpoint. Although I happen to have strong (conservative) political opinions myself, I'm trying to be objective here. Walton^One 20:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your view, again, is recentist and america-centric, the technique has been used for over five hundred years by any number of countries. The US government are not the only people to have ever allegedly used the technique and the opinions of a small number of right wing politicians is not a significant minority. --neonwhite user page talk 20:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • Regardless of any political concerns, Guy's final point about reliable independent sources - which is after all what are required - hits the nail on the head. BLACKKITE 20:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

New rules for this article

We have people willing to contribute productively here to a controversial topic, however, they are being deterred by edit warring.

This situation is not acceptable, so we're going to implement some new rules for this article beginning immediately. The edit warriors on this page forfeited the right to gentleness quite some time ago, and no one really wants an arbitration case. Following precedent from Liancourt Rocks, Islam, Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), and other articles, the usual rules are going to be tightened up.

• Uncooperative editing: Uncooperative editing is not permitted. Do not make an edit that you know will be reverted. "Uncooperative" is defined as: any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance in such a way that a reasonable outside observer must know in advance it will be unacceptable to the other side.
• Instant reverting: Instant reversion without discussion will not be permitted either. If you simply have to revert, please wait until the issue at hand has been fully discussed on this talk page.
• Edit summaries: All edits must be accompanied by precise, informative edit summaries. These must clearly indicate if an edit contains something potentially contentious. In particular, all reverts (complete or partial) must be clearly marked as such.
• Incivility: On this talk page, or in edit summaries, incivility will not be tolerated and will be punished heavily using blocks.
• Anyone who violates 1RR [one-revert rule] within a 24 hour period will be blocked.

Violation of the above conditions will be rewarded by blocks. There are some very talented and skilled writers and editors who wish to contribute to an article on a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I have confidence in the abilities of each person to behave appropriately, make constructive edits, and engage in healthy dialogue on this talk page. This rules will be in effect for one month (until February 9). Please let users who want to edit productively, and are not fans of edit wars, do so. Thank you. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I've added a clarification to 1RR above and I also want to say that I've left this article semi-protected infinitely for the time being. Seems reasonable given the many issues with this article. We'll deal with one issue at a time. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• If "an edit that you know will be reverted" is made, but cannot be reverted, doesn't that mean that this new rule privileges the making of such edits? That is highly problematic. Badagnani (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is to not make edits that you know will be reverted, i.e., controversial or contentious edits. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• That was not the question. The question was: If "an edit that you know will be reverted" is made, but cannot be reverted, doesn't that mean that this new rule privileges the making of such edits?" It was not answered. Badagnani (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reverts aren't prohibited, but limited and slowed down. Each user can do one revert per day, but should discuss the matter first. So the answer to your question is no. henrik•talk 22:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• There is a serious flaw with this. Controversial edits, made without first building consensus (our working process here in recent months) will certainly be made, as nothing states that doing so is a blockable offense. When those controversial/no consensus/POV edits are reverted, the person reverting will then be blocked. Before reverting, the person wishing to revert must discuss the reversion of the controversial/no consensus/POV edit first, but the person making the controversial/no consensus/POV edit does not need to discuss making this edit in the first place. This entire set of rules is, thus, skewed toward the making of undiscussed/controversial/POV/no consensus edits, and is, thus, unacceptable, as our previous working process (of always generating consensus before making any edits) is greatly superior. This new set of rules focuses on punitive measures only against those attempting to remove undiscussed/controversial/POV/no consensus edits--a very serious problem. Badagnani (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, why did someone else answer this question, rather than the person who was asked? Is discussion regarding this article going on offline? I thought we had asked that that not continue to take place. Badagnani (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Making controversial/no consensus/POV edits is definitely a blockable offense under these constraints (The first line after the enumeration is "Violation of the above conditions will be rewarded by blocks.").

As for the question of me answering, these are my interpretation of the above rules. Someone else answering a question asked to someone is not something unusual on Wikipedia, as I'm sure you're aware. I've had no contact with MZMcBride about your question and if MZMcBride disagrees with my thoughts on what s/he wrote, I of course hope to be corrected. henrik•talk 23:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Making controversial/no consensus/POV edits is definitely a blockable offense under these constraints seems to fall directly into the punitive not preventive area of blocking to me. To be completely honest, the swoop in and change the game feel of this entire section has the contrarian in me boiling about. Arkon (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have better ideas on how to return this article to constructive editing, I think we are all willing to listen. henrik•talk 23:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The rules are already in place across the wikipedia. Dispute resolution, mediation, arbcom. The same for every other article. This is not some particularly unique article. Arkon (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but who is "we" and what on what authority do "we" impose this? And your tone sucks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said in my post above, this comes from precedent will other highly-controversial articles. Also, as an uninvolved admin, I can objectively say I don't care who's right and who's wrong; I simply want to see an end to the edit war and consensus for future changes. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So that's the royal "we"? Are you sure your not Ed Poor reincarnated? If you want consensus for editing the article, I would expect a demonstration of the same for your rules, not an arbitrary declaration of commandments right from Mount Sinai. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We can start with the "edit that you know will be reverted" of the change of a heading in the article to "Disputed classification as torture in the United States." Badagnani (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Stephan Schulz here. MZMcBride, with all due respect (and I know you're trying to help), your intervention here is not helpful. Laying down "rules", like the above, and threatening a draconian blocking regime, is only going to generate more bad feeling and hostility. I have absolutely no intention of edit warring on this article, and I trust that everyone else here is likewise too mature to behave stupidly over this. We were having a perfectly civil and reasonable discussion above, and making progress. And, as Stephan correctly asks above, who is the "we" by whose authority these new "rules" are being applied to this article? Walton^One 21:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

See above. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at the protection log. If something like this doesn't work, I think the only remaining option is to go to arbcom in the hope that they can impose some kind of remedies to get this article back on track. henrik•talk 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I fully support MZMcBride's idea on this one, right now this article is too contentuous to be productive. Maybe having to think and justify before edits are made will slow things down enough to make some progress. As henrik points out, it's the alternative to being locked down, so it's not that bad. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Perhaps you can ask MZMcBride to answer the question above. Badagnani (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I support this attempt to get this article working. What we where doing was failing so lets try something else and see if we can get some success. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion; do you think perhaps you can ask MZMcBride to answer the question above? Badagnani (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. Arkon (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Regretful support Not a damn thing has worked since the initial unprotection in the wake of the ultra-disruptive anon vandalism and edit warring that Alison first locked down after I put in that initial page protection request, after finding this doing RC patrol. If ten carrots haven't worked, fine: let's try a stick for a short while and see how that works out. If for no other reason than I really, really don't want to a) have to comment in another Arbcom case, and b) I really don't want to have to look through a mountain of random anon IP contribs, and from folks that adamantly refuse to use edit summaries. If this doesn't work, nothing short of enforced Arbcom restrictions will. If anyone disagrees with this please bring it up on ANI. My regretful support isn't changing, so please don't try to nudge me in another direction. It won't work this time. Lawrence Cohen 23:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support If this doesn't work, we can try 0RR, or is it ZRR? htom (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. I agree with all of the restrictions except for the utterly unworkable "Uncooperative editing" restriction. It immediately fails because even if we should have agreement of every editor except one, if I suspect that this one editor might revert I am not allowed to make that edit. Or what if I make an edit that in my opinion should not be reverted and in some random way the admin thinks my judgment was flawed. Blocked, instantly just for not being able to read his mind. Terrible rule. Remove that restriction and I support fully. Leave that one restriction in and I am utterly opposed. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support but only if they're going to be enforced against the "waterboarding is torture" crowd. The first test of that is below. Let's see whether Black Kite gets blocked. Neutral Good (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

These rules are not actually new. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Violation of new rules on Waterboarding

ATTENTION ALL ADMINISTRATORS

Please see this edit: [27] and block Black Kite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) immediately for violating your new 1RR rule. Also, please revert his disruptive edit. (In the alternative, please don't block me if I do it myself after you haven't reverted it in the next couple of hours.) Otherwise, you will be endorsing violation of all the new rules and a lot more people will be violating them. Also they're talking about banning me from the article for three months over at WP:ANI, so I think a three-month article ban for Black Kite is appropriate. He has a disruptive editing pattern in the article mainspace and he deserves it. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand 1RR. Users are allowed to edit the article, they just cannot make the same edit twice, in whole or in part, in a 24-hour period. Try again some other time. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this new rule, Nick? "Making controversial/no consensus/POV edits is definitely a blockable offense under these constraints " We just discussed consensus for this and Henrik shut it down before half of the "waterboarding may not be torture" editors had a chance to express our opposition. There is no consensus for that edit, therefore Black Kite needs to be blocked. Neutral Good (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Block Black Kite immediately. Don't even try to Wikiweasel your way out of it. Block him immediately for a meaningful length of time, or all of your little rules aren't worth a pile of beans. This Wikiweaseling is really getting on my last nerve. I refuse to insult and demean lawyers, or dignify this conduct, with the word "Wikilawyering." It is a disgrace. Love and Kisses, Bobby 68.29.181.89 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, it is really unseemly and I think it violates WP:AGF to be running around saying "off with her head". Be more kind hearted and consider that there are real people on the other side of the screen -- people who if you met you might even like. Heck you might even be sexually attracted to them! :-) (Now we know why there are so many divorces!). --Blue Tie (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for fork of US and waterboarding

Because this article tends to get dominated by recent news regarding the United States and waterboarding, I think it would be best to split off a portion into an article that deals with waterboarding use by the United Statesin its War on Terror. Please let me know what you think. Remember (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

people who are currently supporting a split

1. Remember (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Strong Support The ammount of space devoted to the USA post 9/11 really biases the POV of the article. We have the Khmer Rouge who waterboarded tens of thousands of people in thier re-education camps, and they have one entire line! Meanwhile we have the USA who have waterboarded no more than hundred (mayby less than ten) who have two sections of thousands of words, that is the real violation of wp:weight in this article. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

people who are currently opposing split

1. Oppose - Waterboarding is sufficient for now, to cover these aspects. Badagnani (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose. This seems like a POV fork. The U.S. controversy is central to the present article. As far as I know, the U.S. is the only country that is alleged to be using waterboarding currently. --agr (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose, POV fork, only sufficiently notable to gain a passing mention in this article, let along be self-supporting. BLACKKITE 22:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose (weak) - I think that the problem is that "waterboarding" is being treated as the name of a technique, when it has become a buzzword with much passion and little meaning. I'd split, but along the lines in the waterboarding 101 section I started. htom (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose. The article proper should be sufficient, but the amount of US-specific content here should be kept under control. If that fails, Torture and the United States is perhaps the place to go (although it's a rather large article already). GregorB (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose Sorry, remember. While it may appease the POV pushing that is happening, and calm things, I'd at this point rather see things done right than wrong but satisfying to some. Lawrence Cohen 23:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Why bother? How does that solve any of the problems?--Blue Tie (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested titles of split article

Proposals

• Waterboarding in War on Terrorism
• United States waterboarding controversy
• Other ideas

The actual discussion

Obvious failure. Oh well, I thought this would be non-controversial and maybe help move the article forward. But I'm fine with not splitting and it appears that everyone else prefers it this way. Remember (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you say %-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have that many controversial articles, and wikipedia guidance is only really written for noncontroversial topics. So let's have a bash at figuring out ways to deal with this. Is there any reason to believe that splitting off the united states would *not* draw a lot of controversy away from this article? Sure, it'd be a kind of fork, but on the other hand, it would reduce bias here, and at the same time, we'd have better control over the controversy. We could even transclude the US sections into here, if we like. (then we'd basically be taking several of the good ideas from Articles for deletion for the main namespace. Finally a useful application ;-) ).

Does anyone have any arguments as to why that approach would definitely fail?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The split wouldn't help that much. The basic problem is that some editors believe that the article cannot say without qualification that waterboarding is torture, while other editors believe that the overwhelming majority of expert opinion holds that waterboarding is torture, and that the lead should be based on the majority opinion--to do otherwise would be to give undue weight to a tiny minority opinion. The disagreement starts in the first sentence of the lead, and splitting the U.S. stuff off won't help with that.

What's going on here isn't all that different that what happens on articles like Global warming, where there's a strong consensus among experts but a controversy in the political/op-ed realm. And the same rhetorical tactics that are used on articles like Global warming are being used here; indeed, some of the same editors can be found at both articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus summary though it is biased in presentation. However, I do not agree with his comparison to global warming. I happen to think the global warming page is badly done, so I also consider it a bad example, but for a moment I will presume that it is a good example of how articles should run. The difference between that article and this one is -- that one, at least ostensibly -- is about a scientific matter. This one is not. This one is a political, legal, social issue. That makes a huge difference in how things are done and what evidence should be accepted. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Do we know where those editors are employed, by any chance? (or does that have nothing to do with it?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see how this can help unless you really tear up the wikipedia rule book. Suppose for example that you split the article. Does that mean that the non-US article cannot mention any views or opinions from US citizens or use any US cites? Only non-US? That seems so out of kilter with wikipedia standards that I cannot see how it could stand.

Then there is the problem of pov in the article lead. This pov problem does not go away just by splitting the article. But now it is in two places. Double the fun.

Finally, due in part to my own research and in part due to htom's work, I think that there are even more fundamental problems with this article. In particular, I am not convinced that we actually know what waterboarding is. I note that many many references in this article actually have a hidden WP:OR violation in that, although they do not claim to be about waterboarding they are used as evidence about waterboarding. This problem of defining waterboarding is so bad and so hard, that even if I were editing by myself, with no other editors, I might get into an edit war -- because the definition is not clear. I am starting to think that the term waterboarding may have a very specific application that is so recent it would not apply to any of the historical sections in this article. This issue is really rather difficult. But splitting the article does not make it go away. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The rulebook has been shown to Not Work often enough in this kind of case that we should at least consider writing a new one for such contingencies (we should do so while trying to work as much as possible in the spirit of the rulebook for more common kinds of article, of course! :-) ).

As a programmer, when I can't solve a big problem in one go, I've learned to apply "divide and conquer". I split the big problem into smaller problems (and those smaller problems into even smaller problems), until the problem is small enough that I can actually solve it.

So I guess what I'm saying is, how about we apply divide and conquer here? By having one article use only pre-2001 sources, and the other only post-2001 sources, we can then concentrate on bringing historical data in-line with OR in one article, and deal with the controversy in the other.

We might find that we need to split either of these 2 sub-articles yet again, but that's ok.

In the end we can put everything together again, once each set of issues has been solved.

That -to me- seems to be a way to apply a powerful problem-solving algorithm, and at the same time still stay close to how wikipedia works normally.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Also, I have some suspicions as to how wikis work, that suggest to me that splitting an article might have a yet even stronger effect than I am describing now, but that's a long story that doesn't quite fit in this margin ;-)

I thought of something like that too. I proposed having a single short, inadequate sentence as the lead, with the agreement by everyone that it was not right , but just leave it alone until the rest of the article was considered well done. Work the details of the rest of the article and then write the lead to summarize the details that were painstakingly developed. That idea was not accepted by about half of the folk.

As far as your idea, I think that instead of subdividing the problem, your solution multiplies it by spreading the problems (which are inherent in the nature of the dispute or in the nature of the subject) to as many articles as you would create. Let's take the most disputed issue: Waterboarding is torture. There is no way to split articles such that they are not discussing waterboarding, and in every one of the articles then, this dispute will arise. But now, instead of being in one article, it will be in two or three. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, and there's no way to split that particular aspect off from the rest, you think? (I do have a personal opinion on the matter myself, but let's set that aside for the moment and just see how we can handle the situation :-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if everyone on wikipedia were like me... all logical and reasonable and totally right, I am sure that we could all find ways to split it off and separate things, and rejoin them later harmoneously. But, trying to follow your lead and experience at mediation, how about this as splits of the article:

Origins or history of the term "waterboarding"

How waterboarding is conducted

Effectiveness of Waterboarding

Medical and psychological effects of Waterboarding

Historical examples of waterboarding

Legal status of waterboarding

U.S. Political Debate and Waterboarding

Is Waterboarding Torture?

I would think that all of them should wait until the first one is written. It may be a decisive article. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I'm glad your bringing your dispute resolution skills to the table, but I think the solution that you're proposing is more elaborate than we need. In particular, you seem to be agreeing with Blue Tie that there's an OR problem here. I don't think that's true, at least not in any sense that I understand. The NOR policy applies to the behavior of Wikipedia editors, but Blue Tie (and some other editors) seem to be accusing secondary sources of violating the policy. An example, from earlier today, is this edit, where Blue Tie places a {{fact}} tag in a sentence that already has a citation to an article from the Washington Post, because he doesn't believe that the article talks about waterboarding (note the edit summary). What do we find in the Post article? "Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding..." which supports the Wikipedia text very well. For another example of spurious accusations of OR, look around Talk:Waterboarding/Archive_6 for discussion of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Torture, particularly Talk:Waterboarding/Archive_6#Arguments_from_Synthesis.

We don't need an elaborate split of the article, we need editors to stop tendentiously misreprenting sources. In particular, editors need to stop saying that sources don't discuss waterboarding when they plainly do. It's ridiculous that I have to even say such a thing. When I present a source that says "Torture includes such practices as searing with hot irons, ... waterboarding (continuously immersing the head in water until close to point of drowning) ..." and another editor denies the plain meaning of that quote, are we having a genuine disagreement, or is someone being disruptive? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You see evil in me where there is none. I may err, but I am not trying to do bad things. Clearly you are unable to think good about me because you cherry pick your examples and do not accept (or even seek) explanations -- you just accuse. Oh well, there is nothing that can be done about that. But... If there was ever a page that could use effective mediation, this is it. Your rejection of that effort is not helpful. On the other hand, its only me and Kim who are talking. No one else seems to care about that, so it may not matter anyway. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. <scratches head>. I'll go away and ponder things some more then. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so quick to believe it Kim. Things are not quite as Akhilleus presents them. I thought it was a nice and useful attempt on your part. Unfortunately when people cannot assume good faith, mediation probably is not possible. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if you also (very important) read through all the discussion archives as well--not just the past few days or weeks. Some of your commentary seems not to show a great deal of familiarity with what has transpired here over the past months. Badagnani (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Initial changes

Per WP:WEIGHT, I have reduced some sections - Jim Meyer and a newspaper op-ed piece are not authorities or reliable sources in this context, and have been removed. I have also attempted to steer a neutral course in the previous edit-war over section headings and the "individuals" vs "authorities" reversion. Also fixed some typos and a dead link on the Glenn Beck show. BLACKKITE 23:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I see one of those edits has been reverted, immediately breaking the guidelines that MZMcBride asked to be followed above. I would be pleased if the reverting editor would explain why. The opinions of a US media commentator are utterly irrelevant to this article. BLACKKITE 23:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As a somewhat recent observer, could I ask whose opinions -are- relevant. I doubt there are all that many 'torture experts' wandering around. Arkon (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, and certainly not the views of an American pundit. I've asked the reverting editor to explain his reversion here. BLACKKITE 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons I ask, is that if I know what is acceptable to you, it will be easier to provide it, and reduce needless things such as this. Arkon (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the "controversy", such as it is, in the USA, is being given far too much prominence in the article. Given that, the article needs precise, focused cites from authorities - it certainly doesn't need the bloat of random comments from US media pundits. BLACKKITE 00:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My question is who you do consider to be authorities. Arkon (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• (unindent) I would expect an "authority" to be a person or organization with extensive knowledge and experience of torture, or at the very least a legal expert (which is why McCarthy's quotes should stand). BLACKKITE 00:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A historian with experise in relevant periods of history would no doubt be considered an authroity. --neonwhite user page talk 03:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. The first group is sorta who I was referring to when I mentioned the 'torture experts' above. In practice I think that leaves us mainly with the legal types. Arkon (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it is legal types that are 'torture experts', there is much medical opinion on what is torture and how torture can be quantified. Legal experts can only usually talk about a definition of torture in one country (UNCAT and EU experts excepting). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Whilst that may be true, i think they are still relevant as legal experts not medical experts are the people who define a war crime. --neonwhite user page talk 03:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes only lawyers can say its a warcrime but only doctors can discribe medically the effects (long and short term) on the human body, and provide the scientific basis for any legal discussion. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree that Jim Meyers is not a particularly notable columnist. Badagnani (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on the assessment of who an authority is. This is not a science topic. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. Considering wikipedia is about knowledge it all is. --neonwhite user page talk 03:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bald assertions of nonsense are unhelpful.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok...

Let's have a nice cup of tea and a sit down, k? This whole kerfluffle could be headed to ArbCom if things keep up. I've made a suggestion on ANI about getting a bunch of NEUTRAL administrators to try to ride herd as a short term solution to avoid taking it to ArbCom where things could get really bad for all concerned. Let's cut out any edit warring and incivility here, k?

• Agree. Or I would like to. But the article is protected so there is no chance of edit warring. I regret that McBride imposed rules with zero enforcement (well one should not have been enforced, but I have seen the others before and they work). However, what I really want to do here is thank you for the nice relaxing words. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected again

This isn't working. I think handing out a bunch of blocks (a minimum of three, by my count) would only inflame things further, so I've returned the article to full protection. It's clear the article needs a good long period of full protection so all the parties can discuss things and try to reach consensus. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So now Black Kite's controversial, POV, unsupported-by-consensus edit [28] is going to be cast in concrete? And are you going to block him for it? Neutral Good (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Relax a little. Its not really all that bad! Go out, get a nice milkshake. Be happy!--Blue Tie (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue Tie speaks wisely. Get away from this for a while and grab a milkshake (or something stronger), play some music, or whatever pleases you. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Black Kite's edit seems a quite reasonable compromise, as it appears to have been intended. Badagnani (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have acted in good faith. --neonwhite user page talk 03:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Protecting pages like this several times in a row is certain not to work. You tend to end up basically punishing the many for the missteps of the few. :-(

Perhaps we should write some guidance or documentation on this.

It makes much more sense to hand out blocks, if even for 24 hours, as that is rather less disruptive than (effectively) blocking everyone at once. (especially if/when for longer periods of time than 24 hours)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, the only reason a block wasn't handed out to Black Kite was because he's part of the "waterboarding is torture" crowd. If it had been me or "Regards Bob," the block would have been lightning-fast and it would have lasted for weeks or months. The bias of some of the admins hovering here is obvious. Now I realize that remark isn't going to make me any powerful friends. I'm not here to make friends. I'm here to build a better encyclopedia. That starts by making the first six words of this article NPOV. If that defines me as an SPA, that's only a reflection of the POV-pushing of others. Neutral Good (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I had never thought of this. I cannot see any flaw in your logic. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it time to request a mediator for this discussion? This is my first encounter with a dispute that has gotten to this stage, so I ask those with more experience on Wikipedia for guidance. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps with patience the situation will resolve. Can we perhaps discuss some less controversial edits in order to demonstrate cooperation and build trust, then attempt to address the more serious areas of disagreement? Jehochman ^Talk 06:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I'm not sure that this is helpful. I have come to this article as an uninvolved admin in an attempt to help solve the multiple problems that exist. It is immediately obvious that the main problem with the article is an attempt at POV-pushing and the addition of items of undue weight by a small group of editors. While there are a small number of good-faith editors holding this viewpoint, we also have confirmed sockpuppeteers (i.e. User:Shibumi2), tendentious single purpose accounts (i.e. User:Neutral Good), and various IP editors some of which are SPAs, and some which upon investigation, lead towards banned users. Worse, the actions of this group are actively driving off good-faith editors (of varying viewpoints) from the article. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. The edits that I made made last night were either copyediting, creating more neutral phrasing, or removing utterly irrelevant POV material from the article, and are completely in line with policy (as pointed out above, and by other admins on the AN/I thread). Yet these were reverted straight away. But instead of continually protecting the article, perhaps other admins might look a bit deeper into the root causes of the problem? Either that or let's just go to ArbCom; a number of new Arbs have experience of problematic articles of this type. Certainly we cannot proceed forever in this manner; the article cannot be fixed whilst being repeatedly locked. BLACKKITE 07:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Waterboarding

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for the dispute on this page. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, henrik•talk 11:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oops, missed this as I was writing the above. Maybe we should first try formal mediation?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Wouldn't it be traditional to close the RfC first, as "contentious", and then mediation? htom (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  If we are dealing with sock puppets of banned users as some have suggested, I believe mediation is unlikely to be successful. Mediation is a voluntary process and requires the good faith of everybody involved. Some posts here seem designed to drive other editors apart and provoke confrontation and endless argument, almost in the style of HeadleyDown. This, combined with sockpuppetry, wireless Sprint addresses, strange connections between some of the users (and Free Republic somehow lurking in the shadows). Had I believed we simply had a breakdown in communications, mediation what I would have suggested. But ArbCom might disagree, we'll see. henrik•talk 17:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think this came too fast. We don't even have the RfC closed and we have not tried mediation. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• This is not the first RfC, and numerous admin and non-admin assisted efforts at informal mediation have unravelled, I see no reason why formal mediation would prevail when numerous informal internally and externally driven attempts have failed; as such I think it is high time for Arb's consideration as it has become very cyclical. Inertia Tensor (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm done here

Guilty until proven innocent. The Request for Arbitration page is protected so I can't even attempt to prove myself innocent. Randy could see this one coming and I am following him out the door. Your Wikiweaseling is destroying this encyclopedia. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to post a statement here, I'll copy it over for you. Lawrence Cohen 16:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

See my Talk page, Mr. Cohen. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor update

I don't know who is allowed to edit this page, but "manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for breath" should be fixed, as tachycardia is rapid heart beat. Perhaps just change it to "tachycardia (rapid heart beat) and gasping for breath". G'day. Raven Morris (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If no one has any objections within the next day, I'll rephrase that according to your suggestion. henrik•talk 13:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree; I'd use tachycardia (rapid heart beat) or just tachycardia but both are quibbles. htom (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously not part of the dispute, so I changed it to "tachycardia (rapid heart beat)". Jehochman ^Talk 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been almost two hours. I'm going to take a breath now, and urge others to. htom (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Formal Dispute Resolution needed

It is becoming exceedingly difficult to abide by WP:AGF when confronted with the circular logic to evade conceding that torture is a legal concept and interpreting legal concepts is not done by the general public. Apparently the question does activity X constitute rape, murder, tax fraud, genocide, torture, et cetera, should be answered by having an opinion poll. Whatever experts think of this should be second to what the fair and balanced audience think, although they probably have not been trained to interpret the law. Because we all know murder is a political act, to some it is murder others see it as self-defence and some even feel they are merely exterminating vermin.

At this point it is evident that we have had some disruptive editors, tendentious editing, and without forced intervention from outside it will be impossible to get past the torture is a socio-political concept, regardless of what the law says, and we should accept the view the general public has on this as authorative. With that in mind I propose we invite formal mediation to help us resolve the deadlock.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most of the terms you've cited (for instance, murder and genocide) do have a socio-political meaning as well as a strict legal one. Murder is defined authoritatively in the legal systems of all countries; yet it's also used as a political term (e.g. in leftist slogans such as "war is murder" and "capital punishment is murder"). Likewise, while international law lays down a fairly objective definition of what constitutes genocide, there are still disagreements over what was and wasn't a genocide in relation to certain historical events, and it's not uncommon for opponents of a regime to label its actions as "genocide" for political reasons.

However, I don't totally disagree with you - I agree that, as far as the legal definition of torture under US and international law is concerned, we should focus on expert opinions and not public opinion polls. From the sources provided, it appears that the majority of legal opinion holds that waterboarding qualifies as torture under the law of the US and other countries, but there are a few dissenting voices within the legal community. But that's only one part of the question. Since torture is not just a legal term, but also a political one with contentious political connotations, I still contend that it's POV to start the article with "Waterboarding is a form of torture".

As to your allegations of disruption and tendentious editing, I have only recently become involved here and I don't know anything about the behaviour of other editors. However, since I personally have made only one edit to this article, which consisted of adding a square bracket, I hope you are not making any allegations of inappropriate conduct on my part. I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion and acknowledge that you are acting in good faith; I hope you can do the same for me. Walton^One 14:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you felt I made a comment about you. That is not so. Clearly we differ as to how to approach the situation but that is part of any healthy debate.

Regarding your other comments I think this is what is happening:

1. The law defines certains acts, see examples above. Confronted with an individual that purportedly violated the law you agree public opinion is irrelevant, which is my position in this debate.
2. Certain laws define crimes that not many people feel are acceptable.
3. The experts from point 1 may determine, on legal grounds, that a certain individual/country violated a law described in point 2.
4. The previous point could result in this hypothetical individual/country to be compared to Pol Pot, Stalin, addam Hussein, North Korea, China, et cetera, regarding violations of human rights. Clearly genocide, massacre, torture, et cetera do not evoke many supporters.
5. It is understandable that no person/country wants such a thing to happen. To prevent this we can imagine the individual/country involved to start a socio-political movement in order to prevent the adoption of what in essence is a matter of fact legal finding.
6. The last is what you refer to, and what I consider irrelevant as it is an attempt at evading responsibility.

RespectfullyNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I still don't think we can view the question of what is and isn't torture as a matter of definite legal fact, or dismiss political or popular viewpoints on it as irrelevant. Yes, we should make clear in the lead that the majority legal opinion is that, as a matter of US and international law, waterboarding probably constitutes illegal torture (and "cruel and inhuman treatment" under the relevant US statute). But we still shouldn't state "waterboarding is a form of torture" as if it were undisputed fact. For one thing, there is no legal authority which establishes beyond doubt that waterboarding constitutes torture under US law; if the Supreme Court ever rules on the matter, then obviously this will change the situation.

For another, we shouldn't treat the legal definition of torture as the only one which matters. It isn't for us to dismiss an opinion given by a politician as "an attempt at evading command responsibility". In the end, however strongly we may feel that someone's opinion is invalid or an irrelevant platitude, it isn't for us as Wikipedians to make that judgment. We are neither an academic community nor a court of law.

Basically, the fact is that the question of whether waterboarding is torture under US law has not, yet, been definitively resolved; and even when it is definitively resolved, we shouldn't ignore those published secondary sources which disagree with the ruling. Most of the article is perfectly satisfactory, and gives appropriate coverage to the political controversy. But the lead should not state "waterboarding is a form of torture". It should state "waterboarding is an interrogation technique which may be a form of torture", and go on to briefly explain the controversy over whether it is or isn't torture. Weasel words are virtually inevitable here, but as long as we ascribe specific views to specific sources throughout the rest of the article, that shouldn't be a problem. Walton^One 16:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Some more clarification.

1. I realise words and concepts can have multiple meanings, i.e. the proverbial war on drugs. Nevertheless, this does not negate the legal definitions of war, homicide, rape, torture, et cetera. Whatever interpretation the public may use thes words are explicitly defined by US and International law.
2. Whether waterboarding is "torture under US law" has already been settled. Please see the RFC for details on individuals being prosecuted by the US for exactly this activity. Surely you agree that this constitutes an acknowlegement that it is "torture under US law ."
3. Even if US law does not apply it certainly meets the definition set forth in UNCAT. This treaty is of course legally binding to the US and as such applies also.
4. Even if there is an actual dispute today, which of course there is not, why should we iugnore the fact that the last 500 years this technique has been presumed to be torture, courts have determined it is torture? When discussing the history (>500 years) and prevalence (entire planet) why is a "debate" conducted today, by a very small group of individuals, within only one country of our planet, is that so significant we are to disallow presenting what has been a global consensus for centuries?

RespectfullyNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Every single time waterboarding has been considered by US convened courts it has been found to be torture, see Judge Wallach, The Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, [29] Actual legal findings hold more weight than opinion motivated by current politics. Your suggestion for the lead ignores every single source pre-2001 which says waterboarding is torture; it would be more accurate to say "waterboarding was considered torture for hundreds of years, has been prosecuted as torture under international and US law, but after 2001 some American lawyers and politicans tried to justify its use by claiming that it might not be torture."

Your argument is similar to arguing that the viewpoint "abortion is murder" should be acknowledged in the lead of the abortion article, because some people think it is, there's no scientific definition of murder, and no U.S. court has yet ruled definitively that every single abortion isn't murder. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not equivalent to that at all. If you look at the lead of the abortion article, it explains clearly and dispassionately what abortion is, and mentions the political and moral controversy. It does not express any opinion on whether or not abortion is murder. If we were to follow your line of argument, that article would have to state in the lead "abortion is not murder in the United States", on the grounds that abortion has been ruled not to be murder by the US courts (in Roe v Wade). But it doesn't do that, and for good reason. The abortion article goes on to explain that some people view abortion as the murder of a human being, that others don't, and that it is illegal in some countries but not others. Likewise, the waterboarding article should explain that some people view waterboarding as torture, that others don't, and that it is probably illegal under US and international law but this has not yet been definitively established. Walton^One 12:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For a very good reason, we do not write about what a thing isn't, but about what it is. And whatever your stance on the torture question, I defy you to name one county in which waterboarding is not illegal (again, as opposed to "not always prosecuted"). Do you seriously believe that when you grab (say) Jenna Bush and apply it to her, you will not be prosecuted - and not only for kidnapping, but at least also for causing bodily harm? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say "equivalent"; I said "similar". Roe v Wade didn't find that abortion was not murder in all cases, which is the standard you're requiring here. Try abducting a pregnant woman and aborting her unborn baby and see how far that argument gets you. I note you apparently missed the main point: Every single time waterboarding has been considered by US convened courts it has been found to be torture. It is consistently described in pre-2001 references as torture. There is no evidence of it not being considered torture before its recent use by the CIA. Courts reach verdicts on individual cases, which sometimes set precedents; they don't tend to make the kind of absolute statement you are requiring. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to be precise, performing a forcible abortion on someone is not murder, at least it isn't under UK law (I'm not sure about the US); there is a separate offence of performing an illegal abortion. It isn't classed as murder because the legal system doesn't view a foetus as a human being. And as to your other points, yes, I know perfectly well what the role of the courts is (being a law student myself). Since I don't know the intricacies of the US legal system, I can't comment on past cases on waterboarding, or whether they set a precedent. However, there are different types of waterboarding, and according to the article at present, Andrew McCarthy and others have suggested that waterboarding may not be torture if used in "some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive". We can't say for definite, based on some old legal cases, that present-day US law views waterboarding as torture - there simply hasn't been enough recent case law (contrasting with the case law on issues like abortion, which is pretty well established). Walton^One 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a citation that it isn't illegal under UK law? If an attacker were to punch a pregnant woman in the stomach, thus killing the unborn baby, he could only be charged for assault on the woman, and not some crime against the unborn baby? Even if the woman was only a few hours from giving birth naturally? It sounds unlikely, but I guess it's possible. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. It is illegal under UK law, but not murder. There was, in fact, a case of exactly that nature - Attorney-General's Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1994] 3 All ER 936. The defendant stabbed a pregnant woman in the abdomen; she subsequently went into labour and gave birth to a "grossly premature child" which did not survive. He was acquitted of murder, on the basis that he had no intent to kill directed against a living person (since the foetus was not, at the time of the stabbing, classed as a "living person"); however, he was convicted of manslaughter, on the grounds that he had committed an unlawful and dangerous act which had, in the event, caused death to another human being. Murder in English law (Scots law is different) requires an intent to kill (or to cause grievous bodily harm) directed against a human being; other unlawful homicides are classed as manslaughter. But we're getting off-topic here. Walton^One 01:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I realise it was off-topic, but the question of how the law recognises an unborn baby as a human that can be subject to manslaughter, but at the same time can be legally aborted, is incredibly interesting. I wonder if in the case you cite it mattered that the baby was alive at the point of being born, and hence, legally speaking, became a human life at that point in time. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that Waterboarding has ever been reviewed by a court in the U.S. I have a source that appears to say it has not been. And from what I have read, the term "Waterboarding" has not been involved in the cases that came before the court so far. It is not that I am just quibbling about labeling either. I think that the fuzziness in defintion is a problem for understanding statements like Giuliani's and the new Attorney General, as well as the previous ruling in the Bush Administration by a fellow who volunteered to be waterboarded. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wallach, The Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, [30] cites instances of U.S. prosecuting for violation of international law, court martialing of US soldiers for violating U.S. military law, a US district court which ruled that it was "a form of torture", etc. He also cites the conviction of U.S. Sheriff James Parker and his deputies in a U.S. court; the Fifth Circuit finding very clearly calls it torture, and should definitely be referenced or quoted in this article. Also note Robinson vs California where the judge talks about the use of "'water cures' (dousing, ducking and near drowning)" and their application to the early treatment of mental illness in the U.S as being an example of "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

On the second point: In some texts the various terms for these methods do seem to be used in a mixed way, and quite often are just referred to generically as "water torture". This could be discussed in the article. It is often clear from the context of the actual descriptions what was being done, but it may be difficult to classify some cases where the victim was forced to both inhale and swallow water. A good example of the definition problem is the US District Court, which wrote: "The 'water cure', where a cloth was placed over a detainee's mouth and nose and water poured over it producing a drowning sensation". Now this is clearly what we're calling "waterboarding" here, because it involves drowning and not swallowing, but they call it "water cure", and they're referring to its use in the Philippines. Another refers to the effect of the "water cure" as temporary strangulation. I think the distinction between drowning and swallowing is useful for classifying cases in the Wikipedia articles, and that they're generally two different methods, but I'm not opposed to alternative suggestions. I don't think that arguing over whether particular subtypes of the same method are technically "waterboarding" is going to be particularly productive, unless somebody proposes changing the article name to "Drowning suffocating water torture". But in general, I think it's going to be necessary to actually read the description of what was done in order to classify different methods. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain my problem with that solution by first agreeing with you that what they are calling the "water cure" sounds very much like what we are calling "waterboarding". When I read that, in my own mind I say it is the same thing. But, I also recognize that my conclusion is Original Research. By itself, I would sort of stay quiet on the matter and not complain much because... hey, its probably the same thing. BUT, then there are other things, also called Water Cure which I think are definitely NOT waterboarding. Again, that is OR, but at least I can say "It isn't called waterboarding". But neither was the first thing. It is a Slippery sloap problem. In fact, this problem is so difficult that if I were editing by myself, with no edit warring possible, I would STILL have a hard time producing a consistent article. And as this thought has laid hold on me, I have wondered: "Is Waterboarding a new term, coined by the US and defined in a very specific (but classified) way that we do not know about?" We might know the term, but do we really know what it consists of? Does this impact the statements of those who say, in effect "It depends"? At any rate, I personally feel that definition is a very hard problem and I am starting to feel like the article should only reference best sources... not just any source, and should only discuss cases where an authority (not just a reporter) declares it to be certainly "waterboarding". --Blue Tie (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There aren't many solutions to the problem. We either a) just report whatever was said by the sources. Since sources have referred to different methods with the same name, we probably end up merging the watercure/waterboarding articles. b) agree to split the cases between the two articles by drowning/suffocation versus drinking water c) go with what most sources say - waterboarding is drowning versus water cure is drinking d) rename the articles to something like water swallowing versus water drowning and split the cases as appropriate. In the end it boils down to either literally repeating what sources say, or doing some intelligent synthesis. What is going to be contentious is if this process of synthesis is used to deliberately push some POV. What would you suggest? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This argument seems to be getting away from what I think we need to focus on: what does expert opinion say on this subject? With very few exceptions, it seems to me that expert opinion (e.g. lawyers, philosophers, human rights organizations, and so on) says that waterboarding is torture. Only two sources, McCarthy and White, have been cited as examples of lawyers who believe that waterboarding may not be torture in some circumstances; the other sources that say waterboarding isn't torture are op-ed columnists, politicians (who don't seem to have any real expertise in this area), public opinion surveys, etc. In other words, the overwhelming weight of expert opinion says that waterboarding is torture. By the way, we really haven't got an exhaustive survery of possible sources on this page. We should be looking at law reviews, for example, and when we do I think it will become even clearer that the legal community thinks that waterboarding meets the statuatory definitions of torture in the U.S. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat the evidence. But since you are asserting something that has been asserted and refuted before, I will simply say, I disagree with your assessment above. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Human rights organizations" are not neutral experts. They are, by definition, advocacy groups. Walton^One 18:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Human rights organizations are inherently biased towards protecting human rights, I suppose, but does that mean that they're not expert sources, or that they're not worth using for this article? Because I think we could probably level charges of bias in one direction or another at every single source people have cited so far. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we could level charges of bias at all sources cited so far - that's exactly my point. As to human rights organisations, they are biased towards a particular (and contestable) interpretation of human rights. For instance, Amnesty International campaigns against the death penalty, viewing it as a form of human rights abuse. I - and plenty of other people in the world - view the death penalty as a perfectly justifiable punishment, provided it's administered by a fair and impartial judicial system. While the death penalty debate is irrelevant here, I'm trying to illustrate the bias of most people who campaign for "human rights". Walton^One 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're claiming that all human rights campaigners are biased towards a "contestable interpretation of human rights", based on the position of a single organisation on a single topic? And yet you ignore the enormous amount of work done by human rights campaigners on every other topic, like being pro-democracy, anti-rape, anti-torture? You do realise that the Founding Fathers of the United States were biased in the same way, right? The whole point of the self-incrimination bit of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution was to make the act of torture useless. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This dispute is about a loophole in the law. Your side in the dispute is denying that the loophole exists. Neutral Good (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Earliest image?

I was wondering what the earliest image of waterboarding is? I haven't seen any tormento di toca images, but they must exist somewhere. I was reading through an academic text (Swift on the Dutch East India Merchants: The Context of 1672-73 War Literature) whose author had been to the Beinecke Library at Yale to see an original print of The Emblem of Ingratitude (London, 1672), the front cover of which is apparently decorated with an image of some English being waterboarded at Amboyna by the Dutch. If anyone's at Yale it would be interesting to get a photo of that. There's an image here from Stubbe's 1672 "A further justification of the present war against the United Netherlands."[31] It's low-res, but you can clearly see the water being poured onto the cloth around the lower face. Apparently there are more "gruesome prints" depicting waterboarding in the book. Again, if anyone is at a university with a large historical library and can get access to it, that would be good. There's also [32] from 1556, although that looks like it could be the water cure.

It might be good for the article to find an image that establishes some historical context. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The left-hand side of the image from Stubbe (V68839.jpg) looks to me like water cure; look at how his abdomen is distended. (The person on the right-hand side is being "clawed", at a guess.) The image from NPR I've seen recently but I don't remember how it was labeled there; it may be tormento de toca but that's a version (perhaps the orginal) of the torture I refered to above as "The Coin", where the victim is forced to swallow strips of cloth that are then ripped from his internals.

Maybe, or he could just be fat. Amboyna massacre says: "Torture consisted of having water poured over the head, around which a cloth was draped, bringing the interrogated repeatedly close to suffocation. This was the usual investigative torture in the Dutch Indies at the time. If the suspect did not confess after that, burning candles were held under his armpits." It sounds more like drowning than ingestion. The academic reference I was reading just refers to it as the "water torture", but given the notoriety of this event at the time (it was still being brought up in English/Dutch treaty discussions 150 years later) there are probably many more sources. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Dutch Torture sounds to me a bit as if someone put one of those lampshade doggie scratch collars on a person and gradually filled it with water up to and beyond their nose. Except that the lampshade was a sort of cloth contraption. Anyway, I will suggest that unless the image is explicitly described as waterboarding in its original source, to say it is waterboarding is OR.--Blue Tie (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We may need to start a category or article, or section of an article, to catalogs and describes all the various types of water tortures through the ages. How interesting that there are so many. Jehochman ^Talk 01:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And how awful. I would not mind putting this article into a category of "Water Tortures" as long as the category was not defined in such a way that it meant everything certainly was torture -- to reflect the very limited cases where there is dispute in the matter. In addition to this article, I am thinking of the Mythbusters episode on Chinese Water Torture. It is clear that the water drop was not the torture, it was all the other things that went along with it.. being tied up, hands over head, unable to move and being cold. So would it be right to call that a "Water Torture"? Sure, because that is how it is commonly called. But the article probably should point out the real features that make it torture... its not the water!

Gotta go catch a plane.--Blue Tie (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to expect a source that is 336 years old to use the modern term "waterboard". If you're suggesting that this article should be literally about "waterboarding" ie. laid out on a board, and all other cases should be excluded, then I don't think there will be much support for that. If you're suggesting that the name of this article is inappropriate, and it should be renamed to something like "suffocating water drowning third degree interrogation technique", then that is a possibility, if there's enough support. If you're suggesting that we must have modern sources that refer to these old sources as "waterboarding", then we have several which refer to the Amboyna torture in that way. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, because of the level of confusion even in the press, my thinking is that it should be very best sources that actually use the word "waterboarding" contemporaneously. Everything else is suspect to me. However, academic or professional studies that look at historical activities and current activities in light of the word "waterboarding" would also be acceptable to me. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected edit request - NPOV violation

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

---

{{editprotected}} Declined. The renaming of that section title and the change isn't so gross that it amounts to an NPOV violation so severe it must be immediately changed. The protection policy is quite clear, there is no clear consensus and no clear breach of content policies. henrik•talk 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The section Waterboarding#Disputed_classification as torture in the United States, please rename the section to Classification as torture in the United States. The section was renamed without support by Neutral Good (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on this edit as part of his edit warring. There was no support or consensus for this, as the scope of the "disputed" nature is not supported by either weight of sources, facts, or a consensus of editors here. It is "disputed" only by an extreme minority of sources in one nation, the United States. Adding the word "Disputed" here is a gross NPOV violation. Please change. Lawrence Cohen 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The section text is largely about the dispute rather than about it's classification. What is your reasoning here? Section titles should reflect the text within the section. --neonwhite user page talk 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Support. Lawrence Cohen 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The single-purpose account made this strongly inappropriate, POV edit repeatedly, without first building consensus, immediately after unprotection. Badagnani (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. R. Baley (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. BLACKKITE 20:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support --agr (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. "Disputed" isn't a strong claim; it means simply that someone has disagreed with it. Since no US legal authority (e.g. the Supreme Court) has yet issued a definitive ruling as to whether waterboarding is classified as torture under US law, we should accept that its classification as torture in the US is disputed. Plus, the point of that particular section is to describe the conflict and controversy. Walton^One 20:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• The US court system only gets to make this distinction in legal terms, which has no bearing on us, as we're not a legal guide. The US government is only the supreme arbiter of itself, and not much else. Lawrence Cohen 20:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• But the proposed title - "Classification as torture in the United States" - implies an official classification. No such classification exists, and it is, in fact, disputed. "Disputed" is not the same as "widely disputed" (which I agree would be POV and weaselly in this context); it's simply stating the fact that some commentators don't classify it as torture. Walton^One 20:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose 209.221.240.193 (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2008 (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.

For the record, I would have opposed this edit. The word "Disputed" needs to be there. The entire section is about the dispute, and the section header should accurately reflect the section content. Neutral Good (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I too would have opposed this edit. Furthermore, such a "vote" appears to have lasted only 15 minutes. Not a good sample size. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Definition

Blue Tie, you seem to be a respected editor. Could you perhaps map an outline of the article as you see it showing the different sections and the relative prominence that each topic and point of view should hold? Our goal should be to create a featured article that throughly covers the topic, follows the manual of style and has meticulous sourcing. Jehochman ^Talk 01:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. WP:Fringe. Inertia Tensor (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Respected? You flatter me. And it works. I have never felt respected here! But thank you so much! (Warm feelings).

I thought I had a good idea for an outline a while back. And maybe it was a good idea, I will go back and look at it. But I must confess I am rather confounded by this subject now. You see, I really believe that the wikipedia rules help lead to the best, most neutral articles. But, given the vagaries and conflicts in the sources about what waterboarding really is, I am starting to feel uncomfortable about ever getting a good answer on this. I am thinking about spending some serious bucks in researching Knight-Ridder's on-line Dialog Database for information. For example, I would like to know, "When did the term 'waterboarding' as a form of interrogation/torture (You choose) first make its way into publication? Was it before or after 2001?". Another question I have is this: "Is there an official procedure that defines "waterboarding" for the CIA?" It is probably classified. But it may be rather important to us. Can it be obtained through Freedom of Information Act? If I obtain it, how can it be used here without violation of OR? As I said, I am worried that the answers are not as easy as I once believed when I came here to edit a few weeks ago. This dismay is rather new -- and the first time I have experienced it on wikipedia.

However, in light of the warm feelings I have at your very generous invitation, I will do my best. And then, in any discussion, I will not defend my work but I will explain my reasoning if issues and questions come up. That way, others may, I hope, improve upon it without rancor and without fear (does that exist on wikipedia?) of getting into a debate over it (at least with me). --Blue Tie (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes! At Wikipedia, it is best not to think of discussions as debates. Rather than dialing up the rhetoric, the solution to many disagreements is to conduct better research to identify reliable sources and present facts with extremely sharp (accurate) edges. If we clearly say who said what and when, much controversy can be avoided. We are all working together to hopefully create a featured article. Jehochman ^Talk 02:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the major issues is that various techniques like water cure clearly are linked and very similar so the history of this would probably be largely synonomous with that. --neonwhite user page talk 02:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But let's not assume anything. We should research the history and check the facts. That should be common ground that all of us can agree upon, no matter what our personal political beliefs may be. Jehochman ^Talk 03:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the things I find most confusing is how historical (say pre-2000) references sometimes refer to the torture having lasted for an hour, or hours, while some of the modern "CIA/KGB" sessions seem to last only 10-15 seconds. Some of this is surely because time would be very distorted in the victims' eyes, but seconds to hours is such a change in magnitude that I wonder if there is not some other technique (using water) that's involved in those cases. Wallach, within the first couple of pages, describes three of the waterboard variations (immersion/ dunking, water cure, and flooding) that I proposed (although without those names) and some victims are subjected to several of them for long periods of time. Water cure seems to be working using pain caused by internal organ damage (although with enough water there would be pressure on the diaphram that would make breathing difficult, if not impossible); water boarding seems to work on the fear of drowning, or pain therein; and some get to experience both at once. Modern usage seems to have turned "waterboarding" into a buzzword for "tortured with water", which doesn't help our research at all. htom (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt either technique would be used exlusively. --neonwhite user page talk 01:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

One possibility: Something short can be repeated over a period of time. Another: if the intent were to cause pain, and not just to get the victim talking, then there is reason to carry it out repeatedly. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If we're confused about something as fundamental as the definition, isn't it reasonable to conclude that the sources may also be confused? Some of them specify only a single waterboarding technique, when we have already determined that there are several. Regards, Bob 68.31.133.125 (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not necessary for every source to state every different method in order for them to be considered here. Unless you want to argue that, strictly speaking, waterboarding is carried out on a board, and every other method isn't "waterboarding", and therefore the article should be split into ten, or renamed "water drowning interrogation". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that waterboarding would NOT include using a funnel and pouring in gallons and gallons directly into the mouth (the definition of "water cure"). That is water cure. However, waterboarding, depending on how long it is done, may introduce little, or a lot, of water. From a Google Books search, it does appear that "waterboarding" is a neologism, perhaps one developed in the United States. We'll have to wait until Webster's adds it to their dictionary, as they can likely come up with the first appearance of this term in print. Badagnani (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, they are two different techniques. The problem stems from the fact that both have been used by the same people, and some sources refer to the two techniques with different names. It will be interesting to see what the dictionaries say. In the meantime, we can either literally report what each source says, in which case both articles will have some odd misclassifications, or do some intelligent synthesis and decide on individual cases. If the debate is over whether some particular case is technically "waterboarding" and belongs in this article, then we can either come up with some criteria and judge each case, or rename the article to water drowning or something. What is not going to be acceptable is trying to exclude cases from this article where the method was clearly some variation of the suffocating drowning method, but the source does not use the exact words "waterboard". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Recognizing that this is entirely OR, I would suggest that there are five general categories:

1. Water-Cure. Ingestion of water to cause organ injury or Water(LD50) toxic effects

2. Water-Torture. External application of water for discomfort such as dripping, or dousing perhaps with hypothermia or prolonged exposure that damages the skin.

3. Near-drowning - Suffocation -- as in holding head under water, dunking

4. Drowning -- as in suffocation but with inhalation and resuscitation - causes organ damage.

5. Waterboarding -- as in generating autonomic panic of drowning or suffocation, without allowing conditions that actually lead to drowning or suffocation.

I have excluded boiling as it really is not the water but the heat that is the factor. I also would point out that these different acts have historically had different purposes. Water-cure was generally part of a death sentence. Water Torture was a means of torture to break the will, without regard to whether information was requested. Suffocation has been used in interrogation and in social reform. Drowning has been used to break the will with or without regard to information being sought. Waterboarding has been used for interrogation.

But this is entirely OR. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Two comments. First waterboarding is better described as eliciting physiological responses accompanying drowning while attempting to prevent the victim from dying. econd, as long as we can present sources it is difficult to see how this can be OR.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The overall list and the criteria for segregating one thing from another is OR. Right now I know of no objective, reliable source that provides some distinction between these things. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Water-cure was not "generally part of a death sentence". Read about its use in the American-Philippines war; references from US soldiers report that they used to go into towns, grab any men they saw, and then torture them with the water cure to see if they would say anything. It was used mainly for interrogation. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking about Spanish Inquisition. As I understand it, the death rate in the Philippines (from this treatment) was greater than the survival rate. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a method of capital punishment for the Spanish Inquisition either. Accounts of the death rate differ depending on the source; it was as politically controversial then as waterboarding is now. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Earlier someone made a joke reference to "waterboarding" as being a kind of waterskiing. It's true, before its current use as a buzzword synonym for "water torture", it was (whether the references are to skurfing, wakeboarding, wakeskating, or some other or mixture of towed water sport I do not know). Chris and Blue Tie, you may have hit on the solution; call this article "water torture (near drowning and drowning)" or "drowning (water torture)" and let "waterboarding" be a disambiguation page, noting its buzzword status, and pointing to the various water tortures, the political discussion in the USA, and water skiing. htom (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned this before, and maybe there is something in what you suggest. I am not sure, mainly because of the political dispute. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

First use

It may be worth trying to figure out the first use of the term waterboarding. I have set up this section to help document all possible candidates. Please cite each candidate. (Someone may want to check OED because they might have already figured this out). Remember (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

FYI, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding has now opened. Lawrence Cohen 17:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Recognize the amiguity?

Maybe if we overtly recognize the ambiguity in this process in the writing, it would make things easier. Like "Waterboarding is a term that, depending upon the source, refers to a variety of practices involving water being poured on the face or into the nose or mouth.". I don't really like that answer but maybe it fixes a great many problems.--Blue Tie (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the historical examples described as waterboarding are very unlike what the CIA is accused of engaging in. It seems to me that this can easily lead to someone not familiar with the issue to think that the CIA is/was doing these things. I'd like to see a section devoted specifically to what the CIA is accused of. Frotz (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody knows what the CIA is doing. It has been described as waterboarding, that's all. --neonwhite user page talk 20:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The descriptions I've heard all describe being tied face up and being tilted into water. None of them involve forcing the subject to ingest large amounts of water or covering the breathing passages. Most of the listed historical uses include it. Frotz (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The descriptions you've read are of waterboarding in general. Nobody knows what technique the CIA actually uses. You are also wrong about "Most of the listed historical uses include it". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So, then is it meaningful to say that the CIA uses waterboarding in the first place? Perhaps then the correct line is "The CIA has been accused of waterboarding, but no substantive proof of exactly what it entails or if it is being done at all."? Let's keep in mind that the Al Qaeda operatives, including those upon whom waterboarding has supposedly been used, are quite willing to tell whatever tall tales are necessary to enrage Islamists and are sloppy when covering up for these tales. Frotz (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Covering the face is common to most descriptions of waterboarding. See the image of the Cambodian painting at the very top of the article, or any published article on the subject. Badagnani (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Bullet point

I prefer the "Waterboarding is an interrogation practice..." formulation that we both supported. Let the facts speak for themselves is the best way forward, I think. Wikipedia should avoid using emotional words like "torture", though we can use that word if we cite it to somebody. The readers will get the idea. Let's look at an extremely important article as an example:

The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστον (holókauston): holos, "completely" and kaustos, "burnt"), also known as Ha-Shoah (Hebrew: השואה), Churben (Yiddish: חורבן), is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the National Socialist regime in Germany led by Adolf Hitler.

Notice how that formulation doesn't mention "murder", "war crimes", "evil", "genocide" or any other judgmental words. Jehochman ^Talk 20:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - If you feel so strongly about not using the reasonable and appropriate word "torture," you should try to change the title of the article Rack (torture), if you believe we should "leave it up to the readers" to decide what the rack really is. The Violin article does not say "The violin is a hollow box of wood with four wires on top," it says, "The violin is a musical instrument that..."--first stating what it is, then describing it. The suffocation, of a bound prisoner who has been inclined on a wooden board, through the pouring of smaller or larger volumes of water into the mouth and nose of the prisoner, whose face is covered with cloth, is a form of torture, as 147 sources state (four sources, comprising conservative opinion columnists and Republican politicians from a single nation) are the only ones presenting the fringe opinion (most likely politically motivated) that this form of suffocation using water is not a form of torture. Further, "interrogation" is only one purpose for the use of this technique, so using "interrogation" as the sole reason for its use would be misleading, revisionist, and incorrect. Badagnani (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• We could simply use "practice" and then describe it per the sources. Show, don't tell. I assure you, an NPOV, sourced statement that explains all the details of the treatment will make the word "torture" seem mild by comparison. "Broken bones", "asphixiation", "can't last more than 14 seconds" and things like that get the point across very well, and they cannot be attacked because we have sources to back them up, verbatim. We don't have any reliable sources saying, "waterboarding is fun!" or "waterboarding isn't so bad". Jehochman ^Talk 21:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Yes, we could do that, and that would mean that a small, extremely vocal, politically motivated fringe minority, was actually able to change the English definition of a well-understood practice that is verifiably called torture by 147 reliable sources (and "not torture" by four politically motivated individuals from a single nation). No good. We don't see this minority hammering at other articles regarding well-understood forms of torture, for obvious reasons. Badagnani (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike McConnell

Describes waterboarding as torture - possibly [33]. BLACKKITE 11:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: the BBC article cited above, which is based on an interview of McConnell by Lawrence Wright for The New Yorker magazine, leads with the following:

"US national intelligence chief Mike McConnell has said the interrogation technique of water-boarding "would be torture" if he were subjected to it.

Mr McConnell said it would also be torture if water-boarding, which involves simulated drowning, resulted in water entering a detainee's lungs.

He told the New Yorker there would be a "huge penalty" for anyone using it if it was ever determined to be torture."

See here for the AP coverage of the same interview. As of the time of this comment, the article does not yet appear have been posted on the New Yorker website. See also here for the Washington Post coverage.

-- The Anome (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting in two ways. One relates to this article. His criteria (or was he quoting some source?) is that how it is conducted is the determination of torture or not. That is relevant to this article. The second interesting thing is the huge penalties bit. I wonder if ex post facto would apply -- is he referring to people in the future or in the past? --Blue Tie (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where you read that. As far as I can tell, he considers it torture in all cases where a) it is applied to him or b) it leads to water in the lungs or c) it works. He makes no comment on any circumstances where it would not be considered torture. He only has reservations about the legal classification - and that only because of the fallout, not for any remotely factual reason. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also interesting that he is described as saying, according to the Washington Post: "[McConnell] declined for legal reasons to say whether the technique categorically should be considered torture."

This raises an interesting possibility: is it possible that many sources connected with the Bush administration may well actually believe waterboarding is torture, but feel compelled to say in public that it is not, on the basis that they would otherwise be incriminating themselves? As Mandy Rice-Davies said in another context: "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?"

Given McConnell's comments, perhaps one of his first actions in his new post was to issue an order that waterboarding stop, and that is why he can speak candidly on this matter? -- The Anome (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. Maybe not. Speculation. Not relevant to the article. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely everybody agrees that should waterboarding be torture the entire Bush administration might end up behind bars because of command responsibility. This is a major incentive for people to insist it is not a war crime. To cite Lenny Bruce "deny it. If she has pictures, deny it. If she walks in on you, deny it."Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually do not agree with that. So it is wrong to say "everybody". --Blue Tie (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that if waterboarding is torture it still is not a war crime? Hmm, I urge you to read about jus in bello and that torturing detainees is considered a violation and as such a war crime.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that I disagree with the statement: "should waterboarding be torture the entire Bush administration might end up behind bars because of command responsibility". And I think others would also. Again, just because you believe something is a certain way does not mean that wikipedia must abide by your wisdom. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, such possibilities are not our concern in the crafting an article. Wikipedia is not responsible or concerned with external social or political repercussions derived from article content, when consensus supports that the article is compliant with our policies. Personal views are also irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't give a fig what your values and opinion on Waterboarding are, nor mine. Lawrence Cohen 17:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I almost replied that "We should not be writing a blog here", but decided this was an important aspect of Nescio's concerns. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't see how it was missed that McConnell said:

“ If I had water draining into my nose, oh God, I just can't imagine how painful! ”

Badagnani (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is not a comment pertinent to this topic, but gosh I had to laugh when I just read that. Anyone who has surfed surely knows what this is like but even anyone who has just swam at a pool probably has some experience with this god-awful pain! LOL. Sorry folks... I could not resist.--Blue Tie (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - If you found McConnell's quote funny (and that is the extent of your comment about it), perhaps you would also find this article quite amusing. Badagnani (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone object to my adding at least the basic quote to Waterboarding#Controversy_in_the_United_States? For instance, after the Andrew C. McCarthy quote, I can put

John Michael McConnell, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, has stated that, "If I had water draining into my nose, oh God, I just can't imagine how painful! Whether it's torture by anybody else's definition, for me it would be torture."

I would source from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7185648.stm , because I don't know if the New Yorker article is online. Superm401 - Talk 02:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to add it more than others, and frankly I find that quote to be absurd -- so reason to exclude it in my eye. If this were really a big deal controversy, his comments would be fodder for comedians. Its just not very good. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV proposal #42

I propose:

Waterboarding is a practice used for interrogation or punishment that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.

The torture issue can be covered later in the article by saying what the authorities on the subject say. Those who dispute the mainstream view can also be covered. It will be up to the reader to decide what to think. Jehochman ^Talk 21:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think not mentioning the t word is going to solve the problem - it will just move it a paragraph down. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Change of lead from properly sourced and accurate "a form of torture" to equivocal language, as forced by several months of politically motivated hammering should not occur, causing the lead to change the very definition of this well understood practice, which is considered a form of torture by 147 sources (with four politically motivated sources from a single nation stating the opinion that it is not a form of torture). This fringe opinion must not be privileged in the lead, by changing the very definition of this practice. Badagnani (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• The politically motivated hammering was looking for something else, I think. Can you point out any factual inaccuracy in what I proposed? Can you point out any weasel words or ambiguity? Jehochman ^Talk 21:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The weasel word is "practice" in the sentence "Waterboarding is a practice used for interrogation or punishment", which in itself is a textbook definition of torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - From this comment, I don't believe you've read all the discussion archives. It is very important that you do so before commenting or proposing further. Badagnani (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• The archives are voluminous. We should not require people to read many hundreds of pages before participating. If somebody wants to summarize past discussions, they are free to do so. Jehochman ^Talk 22:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No read the archives, i've had to waste months of my life on this attempt to whitewash waterboarding you can spend an hour reading all the arguments. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This earlier post may be of relevance: It's very clear what is going on here with this "debate," as I've seen it many times before. The aim is to hammer an issue until the text shows ambiguity regarding its definition, and the illusion of a debate over the very definition of a thing. This is, in the minds of those wishing to make this technique available, a battle for public opinion, and Wikipedia, which is the 8th most visited website in the world and constantly used as a reference, is seen as a key battleground. By abusing the high value we place on working together and consensus, even small concessions such as acknowledging in the lead that there is a significant debate whether this form of torture really is a form of torture--even with a link to this "debate" later in the article is a victory of sorts. Most of the public never feels strongly one way or another about any subject, and if they can be desensitized to this one by reading text saying something like "within the United States, there is a healthy debate whether it really is torture," then the side favoring the technique's use has again scored a victory, as most of those reading that text may simply shrug their shoulders and move on to other things. You see, the aim of the hammering is not actually to get a redefinition, but to create just enough ambivalence/ambiguity to engender this "shoulder-shrugging" effect among the general public. Badagnani (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Throughout history, in the world view, nobody except very recently has debated whether waterboarding is torture, as far as I know. The recent political controversy should be covered in the article, but not in the lead. That would give the controversy undue weight. If you notice, my proposal does not hint at any sort of controversy or ambiguity. That statements are all quite certain about what waterboarding is, how it works, and what happens to the subject of this treatment. I hope you will have a bit of confidence that at 10,000+ edits, I am not a meat puppet for anybody else. Jehochman ^Talk 22:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman is not a meatpuppet, i'm not a sock puppet, can we all stop slinging accusations around unless you have A LOT OF PROOF! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - What it does seem to show that our collaborative, good faith process (and editors who follow such a mode of editing) can be co-opted by several months' worth of ceaseless politically motivated hammering, to the extent of actually changing the definition of a well-understood practice. Badagnani (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Being tendentious won't help. What is the inaccuracy or ambiguity in my proposal. Other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, what is your specific objection>? Jehochman ^Talk 22:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage" - There is no way to perform this technique in a way which guarantees no lasting physical damage. You will not find a reliable source for this statement. There is always a risk of death etc.

"controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent" - there isn't a real control; the subject can really die even though it may not be the express intent of the interrogator. It's not just a belief - death really is imminent if the process is not stopped and some attempt made to empty the victim's lungs. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I would support adjusting these statements to state better-sourced claims. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, let's do that. I have no problem adjusting or removing these statements to better fit the sources. Jehochman ^Talk 07:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Question - Is it your intention, as part of this proposal, to completely exclude any mention of torture out of the lead? I ask because I noticed that this draft looks a lot like one I wrote a while ago but deletes the second paragraph. I would prefer a lead that started out like this but then added at least a sentence such as

Waterboarding is widely considered torture by present-day and historical sources [source, source, etc.] but there has been recent controversy over this matter in the United States.

(I would not want to go into much further detail than that in the lead.) Would you be okay with a sentence such as this (e.g. in a paragraph of its own appended to your proposed draft)? —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think a two or three paragraph lead, as currently, is appropriate for an article of this length. I would be fine with Jehochman's initial paragraph is the second paragraph clearly stated its historical status of being used as torture something like:

Waterboarding has been used as a form of torture since the Spanish Inquisition. It was used by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, by the Japanese in World War II, by U.S. troops in the Philippines and by the French in Algeria. Under the name "Asian Torture" it was widely used in Latin America, particularly under the military dictatorships in Chile and Argentina during the 1970s.

(Not a proposal that above, just a quick sketch of what it could look like - feel free to whip it into shape). It is important to show that it has historically been used as torture, and I think we would be remiss if we did not mention it in the lead. The third paragraph could mention the current controversy in the U.S. Would anyone have any problems with this structure:

• Paragraph 1: describe the method.
• Paragraph 2: show historical use
• Paragraph 3: describe current controversy in the U.S.

Thoughts, comments? henrik•talk 23:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This sounds pretty good to me, though I would not want Paragraph 3 to consist of more than two sentences. A single sentence, or two if really necessary, is plenty for the current United States controversy; anything beyond that would be too U.S.-centric for the lead of an article about a practice historically used all over the world. The rest of the details can go in a section in the article further down, or even in a separate article if there's a lot to say. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, keeping it to a sentence or two is my thought as well. henrik•talk 00:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose (Jehochman's original proposal, that is). By trying to get around the clear and well-sourced "torture", you run into all kinds of trouble. The sources describe at least two other uses except for interrogation and punishment (training, e.g. of CIA agents, and elicitation of wrong confessions, e.g. in the case of the Khmer Rouge), and I can think of several more: Sexual satisfaction of the torturer (sadism), of the victim (masochism), and blackmail (do what I want/pay money, or you or someone close to you gets it). Water boarding can be used just like other forms of torture, and we gain nothing except confusion and unreadability by trying to replace the term by some sort of circumscription. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly put Stephan. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why can't it read Waterboarding is a practice used for torture, interrogation or punishment It's clear from sources that it has been used for all three but this wording does not imply that it is always definitively torture and doesn't resort to 'euphemising' the fact that it is. --neonwhite user page talk 00:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This parsing is illogical and unnecessary because torture (constituting forced suffociation by means of water, inflicted on a bound prisoner) may be used for all these things. Badagnani (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it may be used for all or any, that's why it makes sense. --neonwhite user page talk 00:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The big problem is that to exclude torture from being used as a word with prominence in the lead is politicization, based on new attempted modern interpretations by one small group of individuals. It would be a violation of NPOV to exclude it, so the word as a firm descriptive of what the sources consider waterboarding to be, needs to be present somehow. I wasn't so adamant on this, for what its worth, before we uncovered this mountain of sources during working through these issues. Lawrence Cohen 00:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The historical usage alone suggests in should. --neonwhite user page talk 00:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The main objection to "is a form of torture" or similar has been that this is subject to interpretation (ie. "who says that"). Could we say the same thing but actually make it totally citable from a reliable source? Like "waterboarding has consistently been found to be torture under both U.S. and international law.[34]". That way, we are stating who states the "fact" (courts of law), and it uses the most reliable source we have (a journal published paper from a former JAG/current Judge who has written extensively about post-WWII prosecutions). Indeed, it might even make the bare statement a little stronger. Nobody can object, either, since there are no reliable sources stating that U.S. or international courts have found waterboarding to not be torture. I am not arguing that we shouldn't say it's torture here, just positing that it may be possible to phrase the statement in a way that avoids these "POV" accusations. That way we can also eliminate the whole idea of including some persons "opinion", or even any mention of the US controversy, from the lead, and only include absolutely verifiable statements. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think your phrasing ("...used for torture, interrogation, or punishment") is fine. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this wording, but would live with it if it brought resolution to this issue. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose this phrasing, as torture is used for those other purposes--and because waterboarding can be used for other purposes (as mentioned above by User:Stephan Schulz). Badagnani (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I still object to Wikipedia calling anything torture. I agree that it's torture, most people on this talk page agree it's torture, most independent analysts agree it's torture, but it is a subjective judgment that Wikipedia shouldn't be making a pronouncement on. It is quite sufficient to describe the practice, mention outside opinions (including the many that do call it torture), and let the reader make his own judgment. Superm401 - Talk 02:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesnt make sense, if it's from verified sources then it isn't a subjective judgement by any editors, maybe by the sources but that's how wikipedia works. Wikipedia makes 'judgements' on alot of things based on what the majority of sources. --neonwhite user page talk 02:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It does make sense. It is wikipedia's standard for neutrality. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. It cannot possibly be making 'a subjective judgement' in any way if it's based on multiple verifiable sources and on a consensus. I think you are in serious misunderstanding of wikipedia policy on neutrality. A neutral point of view is still a point of view but one that reflects the point of view, a consensus judgement if you like, of the sources.--neonwhite user page talk 06:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and this is a very important point: it's not true that Wikipedia merely reports on facts as supported by sources; it also makes a general judgment - a synthesis of sorts (to return to my favorite example: Moon landing is described as having actually happened; note that this does not break WP:NPOV - nor WP:SYN, as the notion that the event is real is hardly original). Wikipedia not only weighs the sources, it weighs the quality of their respective arguments. This is why it doesn't say that God exists, even if this view has a 10-1 or 20-1 majority. And here lies a fundamental difference: saying that God exists is a fairly arbitrary claim, while saying that waterboarding is torture isn't. GregorB (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment regarding Jeho's new lead. I applaud the effort at neutrality, but I am not sure it is accurate. More than ever, I think the article needs to be written first and then the lead. Sorry. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Nugget: Can everybody agree that "Waterboarding is forced suffocation, by means of water, inflicted on a bound prisoner"? We could also try "Waterboarding is simulated drowning inflicted on a bound prisoner". Either version could be followed with the detailed explanation we currently have from "that consists of..." onward. Blue Tie, I am starting at the beginning in hopes that we can use the first few paragraphs as an outline for the article, but I recognize that the bottom up approach you recommend could also work. Unfortunately, with the article protected, it is hard to do the bottom up approach. I agree with Henrik's idea above that the second paragraph of the lead could provide historical perspectives, and then the third paragraph could cover the modern controversy. Upon reflection I see that the modern controversy is what makes this topic so notable. That may as well be introduced near the top of the article. Once we agree on the lead, I think expanding each point into section(s) will be less contentious. Jehochman ^Talk 03:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

While being bound is traditional, there's no need for it, it's just efficient in the use of manpower (thugpower?); bound prisoners don't require others to hold them. Suffocation is too broad (someone is going to get into trouble some day with plastic bag suffocation torture, I'm sure), and (except in the rumored CIA/KGB method) the drowning isn't really simulated, it's real drowning, "just" not fatal. How about "Waterboarding is interrupted ?non-fatal? drowning, ?intentionally? inflicted on an ?unwilling? victim." (where the ?words? are not meant to be weaselly but elaborative)? htom (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we cannot use simulated, maybe deliberate? --neonwhite user page talk 06:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the specificity of "bound": "restrained" or "immobilized" would work fine. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Opppose. The current form of the lead is fine. The definition of waterboarding as a form of torture is supported by a huge number of sources; while there is some political controversy over this definition, very few expert sources deny that waterboarding is torture. By "expert sources" I mean sources such as law review articles, reports by human rights organizations, by international organizations such as the United Nations, peer-reviewed work by historians, and so on. When we consult reliable sources and find waterboarding described as torture (e.g. "In State Department reports on other countries, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, forced standing, hypothermia, blindfolding, and deprivation of food and water are specifically referred to as torture." "Some forms of torture, such as waterboarding, last only for seconds."--Jamie Mayerfeld, "Playing by Our Own Rules: How U.S. Marginalization of International Human Rights Law Led to Torture" Harvard Human Rights Journal 20 (2007) 89-140), there's no reason to shy away from calling a spade a spade. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not useful to open an encyclopedic entry on spades by saying "a spade is a spade", just as it is not useful to say "a strawberry is delicious" or "a tomato is a berry." All of which are both true and probably RSable. Saying that "waterboarding is torture" commits the same flaw. htom (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wether a strawbery is delicious is a matter of opinion. "A spade is a spade" is redundant. But compare:

• "The tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is a plant..." (Not "The tomato is a photosynthesizing multi-cellular life form with a cellulose-based stem...")
• "The strawberry (Fragaria) (plural strawberries) is a genus of plants in the family Rosaceae and the fruit of these plants."
• "A spade is a tool designed primarily for the purpose of digging or removing earth."

We always aim at using a straightforward definition upfront, and should do the same here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, "calling a spade a spade" has a well-understood idiomatic meaning: it means that we should write plainly and simply, rather than employing elaborate periphrases. Stephan explains it quite well. For the doggedly literal-minded among us, perhaps I should have said "there's no reason to shy away from calling a spade a tool, or a bell pepper a fruit." --Akhilleus (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support Shibumi2 (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)