Talk:Waterboarding

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Legal definition of torture

Brigadier General Thomas W. Hartmann is attorney of US Army Judge Advocate General office at Guantanamo Bay. Hartmann denies that waterboarding is torture. [1] Andrew J. McCarthy is attorney who worked for many years as prosecutor for US Justice Department. McCarthy denies that waterboarding is torture. McCarthy also observes that Congress declined to identify waterboarding as torture in 2006 when passing new law about torture. [2] John Yoo is law professor at Stanford University. He is former assistant attorney general for Justice Department. He say that CIA enhance interrogation techniques are not torture. Waterboarding was known at that time to be part of enhanced interrogation techniques. [3] Alan Dershowitz is law professor at Harvard University. He says that waterboarding is not torture in all cases. [4]

McCain is not an attorney. Kiriakou is not an attorney. Most sources cited by "Waterboarding is torture" advocates on this page are not attorneys. They do not understand international law or US law with depth of meaning as attorneys understand it. Expert opinion is divided on this issue. I urge editors here to consider quality of sources rather than just quantity. These are not just attorneys. These are some of the most prominent attorneys in United States. John Yoo and Alan Dershowitz serve as law professors at two of United States most prestigious law schools. Do not pretend that they should be ignored. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing that unless waterboarding is legally defined as torture, we shouldn't call it torture, and that opinions of attorneys are more highly valued than others in this subject matter? Also, your opinions are specific to the United States in the above examples. Do you agree or disagree that this is not an article just about waterboarding as it relates to current US politics? Lawrence Cohen 23:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes on your comment -

General Thomas W. Hartmann did not say that waterboarding isn't torture, according to the source you provided he said: “I’m not equipped to answer [the question on whether waterboarding is torture].”

Andrew J. McCarthy did not say that waterboarding isn't always torture. In fact, he stated "There shouldn’t be much debate that subjecting someone to [waterboarding] repeatedly would cause the type of mental anguish required for torture." But did state that just doing it one or twice or "some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive" would not qualify in his opinion but that "reasonable minds could differ".

John Yoo never said that waterboarding wasn't torture because we have NO statement from him on this issue. What we do have is the Bybee memo which states its conclusion that under the United Nations Convention Against Torture toture is defined as "acts inflicting...severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical." Physical pain "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." Mental pain "must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years," as well as be the result of one of the specific causes of mental pain contained 18 USC 2340, "namely: threats of imminent death; threats of infliction of the kind of pain that would amount to physical torture; infliction of such physical pain as a means of psychological torture; use of drugs or other procedures designed to deeply disrupt the senses, or fundamentally alter an individual's personality; or threatening to do any of these things to a third party." It is unknown whether even under this definition Yoo would not categorize waterboarding as torture.

Alan Dershowitz does not say that waterboarding is not torture. In fact, he suggests that waterboarding IS torture in his article by stating things such as: "Would you authorize the use of waterboarding, or other non-lethal forms of torture, if you believed that it was the only possible way of saving the lives of hundreds of Americans in a situation of the kind faced by Israeli authorities on the eve of Yom Kippur?". He is arguing that waterboarding is justified, not that it doesn't qualify as torture.

Please provide sources that say waterboarding is not torture if you want to support this assertion.Remember (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about John Yoo, but Prof. Dershowitz does consider waterboarding to be a form of torture. However, he believes there are circumstances when torture is permissible: "The members of the judiciary committee who voted against Judge Mukasey, because of his unwillingness to support an absolute prohibition on waterboarding and all other forms of torture, should be asked the direct question: Would you authorize the use of waterboarding, or other non-lethal forms of torture, if you believed that it was the only possible way of saving the lives of hundreds of Americans." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010832.

Furthermore, the term "torture" is not some newly coined legal term, it has a long history, and as an encyclopedia we can rely on its plain English meaning. Here is how Dr. Johnson defined it in his A Dictionary of the English Language, [5] p.746: "Torture, n.s. Torments judiciously inflicted; pain by which guilt is punished, or confession extorted; pain; anguish; pang." --agr (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

John Yoo SHOULD be ignored, he is a culpable member of the administration that revived torture by the US. Grossly undue weight. A torturer does not get to redefine a crime he is PERSONALLY culpable of as part of the regime. War criminal. Wiki is about PLAIN ENGLISH - who gives a rats ***e what some administration lawyer says to protect their own **** from winding up in the Hague. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Andrew McCarthy's expert opinion was first discussed on this Talk page on December 6. But McCarthy wasn't even mentioned in the article mainspace until December 18. I think it says a lot about the lack of objectivity by the partisan editors who are trying to own this article. The arguments by Shibumi2 are powerful and persuasive. Expert opinion is indeed divided, and the article lead is too important for that fact to be deliberately covered up by political partisans with an agenda.

If John Yoo should be ignored, then every critic of waterboarding who has a political agenda should also be ignored, such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, every Democrat in Congress, etc.

His arguments "sound" persuasive by sidestepping key policy requirements of Wikipedia. As for our objectivity, please remain WP:CIVIL. McCarthy was not added to the article, because the article was locked and protected from editing for months because people made non-stop edits without support, fighting each other. Lawrence Cohen 14:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia certainly can't simply ignore John Yoo. But we can note his role working for an administration that allegedly employed waterboarding. Furthermore his published positions pointedly do not mention waterboarding. For example here [6] Yoo defends his "torture memos" saying "definition of torture in the August 2002 memo is narrow" and that "Under this definition, interrogation methods that go beyond polite questioning but fall short of torture could include shouted questions, reduced sleep, stress positions (like standing for long periods of time), and isolation from other prisoners. The purpose of these techniques is not to inflict pain or harm, but simply to disorient." We can argue that elsewhere, but waterboarding is clearly in a different category. HE goes on to say that in 2005 the Justice Department "issued a new memo that superseded the August 2002 memo. Among other things, the new memo withdrew the statement that only pain equivalent to such harm as serious physical injury or organ failure constitutes torture and said, instead, that torture may consist of acts that fall short of provoking excruciating and agonizing pain." It's hard to find support for the proposition that waterboarding isn't torture in those statements. --agr (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

For all advocates of "waterboarding is torture" argument it is more than sufficient to shoehorn all of this into the second paragraph of the article and the first footnotes of the article:

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 am "being bold" and editing the lead paragraph to reflect the fact that expert opinion is divided. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit was already reverted by another editor. You can be bold by making changes, but your edit summary that the "issue is resolved" isn't appropriate. It's not your decision alone. Lawrence Cohen 23:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the edit summary for the revert: "rv expert opinion is not split on if its torture just if its legal to do it in america." John Yoo was expressing an opinion on whether enhanced interrogation techniques, which included waterboarding in 2002, were legal UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. [7] The naked partisanship of the politically motivated editors who are trying to own this article is painfully obvious.

Shibumi2's version of the lead paragraphs was superbly crafted. It accommodated everyone's concerns and accurately reflected the divided state of expert opinion. It is unevenly divided: more of the experts believe waterboarding is torture. Shibumi2 reflected that fact by listing them first and acknowledging that they are in the majority. It's obvious from his hasty edits on this Talk page that Shibumi2 is not a native speaker of English, which means that he invested a lot of time and effort into makeing his mainspace edit a perfect one.

Respect that effort, people.

Now that I've created an account, I'll be able to edit this article in four days. Let's invest those four days trying to reach an amicable agreement about the lead sentence of the article, that doesn't completely ignore Shibumi2's position and mine, for the sake of your partisan agenda. Neutral is good. Pretending that one side of the argument doesn't even exist, and that the other side of the argument is the only one that exists, is not good. It is a deliberate defiance of the founding principles of Wikipedia. Those principles are not negotiable. Neutral Good (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides John Yoo's statements, what sources do we have along these lines? Please list them. One person certainly doesn't represent a controversy. Lawrence Cohen 05:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

They have been listed here repeatedly. In addition to Professor Yoo, Andrew McCarthy states unequivocally that he doesn't believe waterboarding is torture in all cases. Taken in the proper context, Thomas Hartmann's remarks can only be reasonably understood to mean that he doesn't believe waterboarding is torture in all circumstances. All three are prominent attorneys. If I invested half as much time in this as you clearly have, I could probably find a dozen more. Neutral Good (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

John Yoo's comments on torture

It seems, from his public statements, that Yoo does believe torture is permissible, if "good" people are doing it for a "good reason," against "bad people" (or the children of those "bad people"). Note that the term "torture" is used, and Yoo responds in the affirmative when asked if it is permissible.

From http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0605,hentoff,71946,6.html :

On December 1, 2005, in a debate between Notre Dame law professor Doug Cassel and John Yoo, Cassel asked Yoo:

"If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?"

John Yoo responded: "No treaty."

Doug Cassel: "Also no law by Congress—that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo [while Yoo was a Justice Department attorney]."

John Yoo: "I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that."

Badagnani (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A clever misdirection, sir. In the discussion you've just cited, Professor Yoo was discussing whether TORTURE would ever be PERMISSIBLE, in the memo that has been previously cited, Professor Yoo was exploring the question of whether ENHANCED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES, which included waterboarding in 2002 and were believed to be legal under US laws forbidding "torture," would also be LEGAL under international laws forbidding "torture." Please don't feign stupidity. When discussing "torture" in 2005, Professor Yoo was not necesarily discussing enhanced interrogation techniques; and when discussing "what is permissible" in 2005, he wasn't necessarily discussing what is legal. Also, I respectfully submit that if World Net Daily is too partisan to be accepted as a reliable source, then so is the Village Voice. Neutral Good (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral good go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to ask about village voice, that is where it was decided that WND was not an RS. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"Enhanced interrogation techniques," however, is a term invented for the purpose of evading the commonly accepted definition of torture. Thus, the term itself is an evasion. Regarding the source provided, I don't believe the public testimony of Yoo is in question. Badagnani (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

" 'Enhanced interrogation techniques,' however, is a term invented for the purpose of evading the commonly accepted definition of torture." Until you can prove that it was "invented" specifically for that purpose, that is just your unsupported opinion. And you know where opinions belong in an encyclopedia article. They belong nowhere. My opinion is that it was "invented" to carefully, legally and fairly distinguish harsh but lawful interrogation techniques from the hysteria (and partisan motivations clearly displayed here) that surround the use of the word "torture." As McCarthy so insightfully pointed out, the law has taken great care to distinguish torture from perfectly legal forms of interrogation. You and your friends are deliberately trying to erase this distinction. Shame on you. Neutral Good (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The commonly accepted definition of torture extends to all four of the U.S. Armed Forces, which categorize waterboarding as a form of torture (and courtmartialed its own soldiers for conducting it during the Vietnam War). Are you stating that you are anti-the U.S. Armed Forces? Badagnani (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Another clever deception of yours, sir. The US Armed Forces did not define waterboarding as torture. They merely prohibited waterboarding by US military personnel. Neutral Good (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"does not believe it inflicts pain"

Can we remove the quote from the online Commentator? (someone named Jim Meyers?). Evidently he "does not believe "waterboarding" inflicts pain." Are there really people that subscribe to this thought? People that expect that if they were waterboarded, it would not be painful? We should remove this, as the author is not notable or an expert of any kind on this subject? There are much more notable journalists who would also not belong in this article. Nospam150 (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Massive blanking without consensus

Would the editor who blanked a massive amount of text, without consensus, in this edit, from this talk page please restore it? A good deal of that is still under active discussion, namely the sources that state that waterboarding is or is not torture, and in this light it doesn't make logical sense that it was removed. Thanks so much in advance. Badagnani (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I undid it. When I had done the trimming archives before it was either ancient pages or resolved trivial ones. Do not blank active talk page discussions from this page again; it would be vandalism and would be reported as such. Lawrence Cohen 06:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't blanked. It was archived. Now you're not only trying to own the article, you're trying to own the talk page. Neutral Good (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

First, assume good faith. No one owns the article, and it is not proper to archive active sections. Why did you blank the sources section, which is one of the most active and still has pending material? Either way, I've now adjusted the automatic archiving to 60 days. No one has any legitimate need to manually archive anything again, and shouldn't, give the contentious nature of the page. Lawrence Cohen 06:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, you will explain how I am "owning" anything on the article? About 99% of my comments have been flatly saying we need to follow NPOV, and insisting people provide sources to back up any claims. 99% of my edits to the article were fixing badly formatted sources and updating them all with citation templates to be properly readable. Where is there ownership? Source material, or it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Lawrence Cohen 06:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

So now you're erasing my comments too? Let's review: You're biased. You refuse to acknowledge the possibility that you might be biased. You revert archiving that was done with the best of intentions, after the page has approached an unmanageable behemoth size. You not-so-subtly intimate on my Talk page that I might be a blocked editor who has created a sock puppet. You erase my comments on this page. And you insist that I assume you are acting in good faith? Neutral Good (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Where did I erase your comments? I've looked at my edits in the past hour and can't find it. Provide a diff or withdraw this accusation, thanks! If I did, it was an error. How exactly am I biased? I found this article after a massive edit war months ago, and was one of the people that wanted it protected. I stayed on, and basically prodded people to work together. Where is my bias? Lawrence Cohen 07:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what: I'm going to spend some time with my family, since I have a few days to do so. I'll be back in four days, and I'll be able to edit the article, so you'll be forced to take me seriously. Merry Christmas. Neutral Good (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please answer my questions. Where did I remove your comments, because no such edit exists that I can see. Please also explain what exactly my bias is, besides being perhaps a bit strident in insisting on NPOV? Keep in mind that you should be aware of WP:3RR, and threats of being forced to take you seriously are not acceptable. Lawrence Cohen 07:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I posted a comment observing that this page was over 200 KB in size, that it was taking far too long to load, and that I consider my time to be valuable, even if you do not. Despite your thinly veiled accusation of sockpuppetry on my Talk page, this is my very first Wiki account. Previously, I have edited exclusively from anonymous IP addresses. I liked it that way. But the combination of unbelievable partisan arrogance, ownership and bias on this page, coupled with semi-protection, has been sufficient to compel me to register after all these years. Obviously I still don't know all the little tricks, but I know that I made that edit; and I strongly suspect that you are the one who somehow deleted it. Neutral Good (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You can edit subsections. There are little "edit" buttons up and down the page. Again, you can go click on "History" and then look at every edit. Proove your allegation or withdraw it now. Lawrence Cohen 15:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of bias

As evidence of the bias displayed by the cabal of partisan editors who are trying to own this article, any mention of Andrew McCarthy, John Yoo or Thomas Hartmann has been purged from the article mainspace and the footnotes. Neutral Good (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Now you're simply making things up. It's right here Waterboarding#Classification_as_torture_in_the_United_States.

You will need to immediately stop poisoning the well. Lawrence Cohen 15:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Is/isn't torture -- list all sources here

No one seems to dispute at all that waterboarding is considered torture, so far, based on the mini-rfc above. Let's get a collection here of all sources that assert waterboarding is torture, just a collection of links and sources. This is the -the- main bone of contention basically. At the same time, lets also do the same thing with sources that say it isn't torture/isn't considered torture, in the interests of NPOV, and to see what turns up. Anyone who considers it not torture, this is your time to demonstrate that with evidence. • Lawrence Cohen 16:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources that assert waterboarding is torture

From Innertia Tensor

• 100 U.S. law professors. In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez., more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.
• John McCain. According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." - Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005. [8]

reiterated stance in youtube debate on November 28 - stating "I am astonished that you would think such a – such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our — who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 14:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Lindsey Graham. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a member of the Judiciary Committee and a Colonel in the US Air Force Reserves, said "I am convinced as an individual senator, as a military lawyer for 25 years, that waterboarding ... does violate the Geneva Convention, does violate our war crimes statute, and is clearly illegal."

Comment: Graham did not say it was torture but rather "illegal"--Blue Tie (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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, U.S. Department of State (2005). "Tunisia". Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help). (ED: There's more to waterboarding than that (dunking) - but it does also involve a form of submersion. Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Comment: The US State Department was not talking about Waterboarding but submersion -- which is different.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• U.S. Law 18/2340. Chapter 18 United States Code, section 2340

On two counts in plain English.

(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 Inertia Tensor 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (C) the threat of imminent death Inertia Tensor 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This law does not mention waterboarding and it is disputed that waterboarding must produce those effects. Furthermore it permits some acts suffered incidental to lawful sanctions.

• UN Convention. UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 Signatories 74, Parties 136, As of 23 April 2004

• For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means 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.

• Benjamin Davis. Benjamin Davis, a professor at the University of Toledo College of Law writes "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on." in an OpEd in Jurist, Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff
• Jimmy Carter. Former US President Jimmy Carter stated "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law" and continued "I don't think it.... I know it" in a CNN interview on October the 10th 2007

Comment: Jimmy Carter did not say that waterboarding was torture. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Mississippi Supreme Court. [9]In the case of Fisher v. State, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction of an African-American because of the use of waterboarding. "The state offered . . . testimony of confessions made by the appellant, Fisher. . . [who], after the state had rested, introduced the sheriff, who testified that, he was sent for one night to come and receive a confession of the appellant in the jail; that he went there for that purpose; that when he reached the jail he found a number of parties in the jail; that they had the appellant down upon the floor, tied, and were administering the water cure, a specie of torture well known to the bench and bar of the country."
• International Military Tribunal for the Far East. The Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Chapter 8

  The practice of torturing prisoners of war and civilian internees prevailed at practically all places occupied by Japanese troops, both in the occupied territories and in Japan. The Japanese indulged in this practice during the entire period of the Pacific War. Methods of torture were employed in all areas so uniformly as to indicate policy both in training and execution. Among these tortures were the water treatment, burning, electric shocks, the knee spread, suspension, kneeling on sharp instruments and flogging.

• Evan J. Wallach, US Federal Judge [10] states that "we know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture."

Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

From Lawrence Cohen

• Washington Post, Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a counterterrorism specialist who taught at the Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE), said "As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening: I was being tortured.".
• CBS News, Larry Cox, Amnesty International USA's executive director. "Its own State Department has labeled water boarding torture when it applies to other countries." - On Bush administration.
• Public letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal." and "Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances.". From Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02; Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000; Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93; Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88.
• Jewish human rights group, "Waterboarding -- an interrogation practice associated with the Spanish Inquisition and prosecuted under U.S. law as torture as much as a century ago -- is unquestionably torture."
• Galloway, famous war correspondent, Bronze Medal winner in Vietnam, "Is waterboarding torture? The answer to all of these questions, put simply, is yes."
• Mike Huckabee, Republican Presidential nominee, "He said the country should aggressively interrogate terrorism suspects and go after those who seek to do the country harm, but he objects to "violating our moral code" with torture. He said he believes waterboarding is torture."

I found these tonight. That's 15 notable views sourced. I think I can find more yet. This was just a casual and fairly lazy search. Lawrence Cohen 08:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also from Hypnosadist, on these three. NYT, ABC News, BBC News. An ex-CIA interrogator is interviewed. Does not address questions of right or wrong, because the interview shows he believes the act of waterboarding is torture.

Now retired, Kiriakou, who declined to use the enhanced interrogation techniques, says he has come to believe that water boarding is torture but that perhaps the circumstances warranted it.

"Like a lot of Americans, I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that waterboarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get after using the waterboarding technique," Kiriakou told ABC News. "And I struggle with it."

More sources yet on this. Lawrence Cohen 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

From Badagnani

• The Washington Post (December 9, 2007): "Waterboarding as an interrogation technique has its roots in some of history’s worst totalitarian nations, from Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition to North Korea and Iraq. In the United States, the technique was first used five decades ago as a training tool to give U.S. troops a realistic sense of what they could expect if captured by the Soviet Union or the armies of Southeast Asia. The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War."

Badagnani (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources that assert waterboarding is acceptable

Not exactly, but pretty close. See below. Remember (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"..NEWSWEEK has learned that Yoo's August 2002 memo was prompted by CIA questions about what to do with a top Qaeda captive, Abu Zubaydah, who had turned uncooperative. And it was drafted after White House meetings convened by George W. Bush's chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, along with Defense Department general counsel William Haynes and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's counsel, who discussed specific interrogation techniques, says a source familiar with the discussions. Among the methods they found acceptable: "water-boarding," or dripping water into a wet cloth over a suspect's face, which can feel like drowning; and threatening to bring in more-brutal interrogators from other nations."Link to article.

Not Relevant - whether a form of torture is acceptable or not has more to do with the ethics of a government. This still does not deny that waterboarding is torture.Nospam150 (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just about everyone on Fox News, including both the right and left pundits on The Beltway Boys. See, both sides agree. Obviously, it must be fair and balanced to say that people in the US believe it isn't torture it is torture it's acceptable if it gets results, whatever it's called. Thompsontough (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources that say it is unclear whether waterboarding is torture or not

Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White say it's not certain. Both are notable attorneys.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, again, quote where White says that? I don't see it. Lawrence Cohen 17:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

FOUND ACCEPTABLE is OBFUSCATION. That is a different question altogether. Is it acceptable to euthanize the whitehouse, probably these days; is it legal, no. Big difference. Therefore we do not do it. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat here for the sake of continuity: Although, as a civilized people, our immediate and commendable instinct is to declare waterboarding repugnant and unlawful, that answer is not necessarily correct in all circumstances. The operative legal language (both legislative and judicial) does not explicitly bar waterboarding or any other specific technique of interrogation. Instead, it bars methods that are considered to be "torture," "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" or that "shock the conscience."

And for those who doubt that the CIA would take this seriously, they've been known to rule against other important operations.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This of course is nonsense. See above for links to articles that better explain why. In short, UNCAT does not specify which acts constitute torture, nevertheless you will have great difficulty explaining to a judge that pulling out fingernails and applying electricity to the genitals is not torture. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And additionally, it would be a violation of WP:SYN for us to use this, in this way. Lawrence Cohen 15:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure which element of my post you're pointing to wrt WP:SYN. If you mean my link to the the "other important ops" then, sure, but I was only using that preemtively. There are those who aren't willing to accept that the CIA's lawyers are serious lawyers.

Or, were you referring to Nomen's reply to me? That does seem to be something akin to synthesis. After all, much of the "is-torture" POV rests upon a group aggreement about what opponents merely believe to be torture.

UNCAT provides an interesting item that says of the European court, "the use of the five techniques of sensory deprivation and even the beatings of prisoners are not torture." If it's possible that beatings aren't necessarily torture then who's to say that properly controlled waterboarding is? I'm not sure I understand that yet but it may be worth looking into.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't being clear. I'm basically saying, it's not our place to analyze whether it is or isn't torture, at all, ever. Wikipedia is a teritiary source, only. We aren't going to analyze and conceive of research over whether waterboarding is or isn't torture. We don't care. We only care what sources say. If the overwhelming weight of the sources say, "It's torture," we report as a fact in the article that its torture, full stop. If a minority fringe viewpoint exists that goes contrary to accepted society consensus, which says its not torture on that line, then we can report that, "But such-and-such person considers it not torture." If the weight of sources we reversed, the situation would be reversed, and we'd say "Its not torture, but such and such says it is." A good comparison might be articles on Intellegient design. They say that ID is not accepted as valid science (because its not, based on the overwhelming volume of sources) but the articles fairly make clear who considers it to be valid. That's all we can do. We will not under any circumstances advance a particular minority viewpoint or the viewpoint of any government over everything else in the article. Lawrence Cohen 17:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you just hit on why you have that wrong. For example, what you're saying would be perfectly true if the question was merely about whether it's intended for water to go into the lungs. It either does or it doesn't. The answer (which I won't argue here) should be an objective fact based on medical science and observation.

I don't see any of your sources that are factual like that. They are all opinions. Some are better than others, but they're still opinions. Add up all the opinions and then you might have a consensus of opinion but that doesn't make it into scientific truth. In fact, this is exactly why intelligent design meets the fringe category. Just imagine if somebody found 100 lawyers and politicians to assert that ID is valid science, and see how far that flies.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That was a contrasting example, and nothing more. Irregardless of anything else, Wikipedia does not report anything that is not sourced, full stop. If all we have are opinions--which isn't the case, and false for you to say, as we also have court decisions listed here, then we go with the overwhelming weight of notable views and opinions. Please provide a weight of sources that indicate waterboarding is not torture, from reliable sources, or else we're just spinning in circles that won't change the fact that per policy we're only going to be saying "waterboarding is torture". I suspect some people have some sort of personal reasoning or external to Wikipedia reasons to want this, but that doesn't have any value for us and thankfully never will. Lawrence Cohen 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

When have I ever asked for something to be included that it not sourced? I've disputed the relevance of some sources we have here. I may have also disputed items or suggested a view without mentioning a source but I never thought about adding something for which a source couldn't conceivably be found.

I'm sorry if you have something that's not an opinion but I don't see it. As I understand it, court decisions are legal opinions. For example, the case for evolution lost in the Scopes Trial. That was merely a legal opinion. It didn't change the facts of the science of evolution.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This entire runaway thread is based on a false premise, it is OBFUSCATION. Among the methods they found acceptable: "water-boarding,". There is a big difference between acceptable (in some cases) and is or is not torture. Some people are confusing the concepts of Waterboarding {is/is not} torture Vs Waterboarding {is/is not} okay under some circumstances. This confusion has been accidental in some cases, and very deliberate obfuscation in others (certain politicians).

There are some interesting points in all this text such touching on the fact that EUCOJ putting the brits use of sensory deprivation on Irish Republicans under "cruel and unusual" as opposed to "torture" however, there is nothing in all this block about a source saying waterboarding is not torture. This thread is as relevant to it's cat "Sources that say it is not torture" as the Uncylopedia entry I have below on Waterboarding in the Gaza Strip, or Santa. This is not a source, it is a debate over nothing. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ding! I've never once talked about whether it's acceptable, just whether it is/isn't torture based on the sources. And Randy, actually, I'm quite aware of what an opinion versus a fact is. However, unless you're prepared to counter every single source listed with evidence and analysis of why the views expressed are not valid for us to use to state that waterboarding is torture, there's nothing else to be done. It is not our decision. We can only report what sources say. If we have essentially one pundit/ex-United States prosecutor saying, "Waterboarding isn't torture," and volumes of other other sources and experts saying it is, where do you suspect that leaves us? Lawrence Cohen 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with every source. I'm merely saying that every source appears to represent an opinion. (If I'm wrong then please point to one that isn't.) The cumulative weight of all these opinions doesn't turn them into a fact.

It would be factual to say something like "waterboarding is considered torture by most legal experts.". It is merely expressing an opinion to say "waterboarding is torture." That could even be a good opinion -- an opinion held for 500 years -- but it's still an opinion.

I suggest we look here for guidance: WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - It is also, then, by this reasoning, an opinion to state that macaroni is a type of noodle, or that Easter is a type of holiday. Again, you should probably try to change the title of Rack (torture) if you want to so radically redefine the term "torture" Badagnani (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Waterboarding is a type of controlled drowning, that has been long considered a form of torture by numerous experts." ? Lawrence Cohen 21:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. I wouldn't even argue if you used "most experts" but I would prefer we found another term for expert.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a SOURCES discussion on two VERY NARROW issues. Sources that say that WB (or a reasonably read torture definition that would cover it) IS, or IS NOT torture. Not a debate, Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White do not go there at all - they are seeking to cast possible doubt or questions on whether it is not torture - but nothing more. It's all part of the same deliberate US obfuscation tactics I mention above. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources that assert waterboarding is not torture

Add sources here. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Do Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity count? Thompsontough (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Other comments

• Uncyclopedia. Waterboarding is an extreme sport popular among surfers on Middle Eastern beaches. Only recommended for experienced wandsurfers, this sport requires a long, narrow, wedge-shaped board. Practitioners secure themselves to the waterboard and ride, face-down, on the slightest currents. The tide off the Gaza strip is perfect for this sport in summer. [[11]] Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Santa Claus. Though he has not stated it is not torture, there is no record anywhere of him saying waterboarding is torture, on monday, when the trees grow, or when the sun is low. We are still checking whether he said it at other times, and until we can confirm, we should not say waterboarding is torture. Inertia Tensor (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not necessary to mock the process. I share your opinion that waterboarding is torture, but I think Lawrence is making sincere efforts to find a consensus and we should respect that. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe this is not mocking the process, but (some of) its participants... What Lawrence is doing here is really exemplary. GregorB (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Exactly. Anyway, if this gets resolved, I will be calling on all participants to push an RfA for Lawrence. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, this arguement clearly deserves mocking. Simple logic leads to the direct conclusion that waterboarding is torture. Some group of people WHO ARE USING IT say its not torture. That reeks of bias. We can rely on the US government for laws, but we can't rely on them for facts.--Can Not (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
          • And a group who are not using it are saying that it is; more bias! Relying on the US (or any) government for facts is usually not indicated. htom (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to reconsider the lead/lede/whatever it's called?

And so the battle over "is torture" erupts again. I hate to say this, but I was afraid this would happen. I want to find a version of the lede that enough of us can live with that this argument stops dominating all discussion, because there are so many other things that could use work in this article.

Back when we settled on a lede, we had two choices: a proposed lede I wrote and a version of that proposal edited by Lawrence Cohen. Lawrence went ahead and used the second choice (his version) and I was perfectly fine with that — I think it is accurate. As I indicated earlier, I wrote my version not because it was what I most wanted to see but because I hoped it would calm this debate while still being accurate. I think it is notable that, not only did almost all of the strong supporters of waterboarding-is-torture find it acceptable, but Randy2063 also found it acceptable as I understand it.

So I just want to ask — and I know this is awkward because it's a version I wrote — but should we consider trying the other choice (i.e. the first choice, the original one I wrote) to see if it leads to more peaceful progress? Can I get some feedback, especially from the newer participants in this discussion, on my original proposed lede? —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem, but if people are still unhappy with waterboarding being called torture despite all the sourcing of it, this article will end up being like the 9/11 ones, where people constantly remove all the nonsense about controlled demolition of the World Trade Centers. The same thing will happen to "it's not torture" statements and edits here, they will end up being on the level of vandalism without suffcient levels of sourcing. Lawrence Cohen 15:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I had promised I'd wash my hands of this article but I'd like to post something here I wrote elsewhere about the sources. Here's what they amount to:

• 100 United States law professors.
• Benjamin G. Davis, who's one of those law professors. His ideology is actually pretty far to the left. If the rest of those 100 are in the same league then you're actually making my point.
• Jimmy Carter, who'd criticize U.S. foreign policy anyway.
• French Journalist Henri Alleg, who calls it torture but he's not a lawyer, and they used a slightly different method. I wouldn't call him an objective source anyway, given his background. He's probably in Davis's league.
• John McCain, who was indeed tortured (although some of the people complaining now were supporting the torturers at the time).
• Four retired JAGs. They're your best source but none of them are privy to the CIA's methods.
• An opinion from Amnesty International. It cites the Army Field Manual but conveniently leaves out the fact that the FM forbids a lot of things that aren't torture.

I'll add here that it may or may not mean anything to have four retired JAGs. I have no doubt that many JAGs disagree with the DOJ for sound reasons. But it's also true that there are always some high-ranking military officers angling for a position in the next administration.

Of the 100 law professors, other names I recognize include David D. Cole (who also writes for The Nation), and Marjorie Cohn (currently president of the National Lawyers Guild). I won't disparage either of them personally or professionally but I should say about Cohn's organization that the NLG had an interesting history in WWII. They supported the Hitler-Stalin pact, which made them emphatically "anti-war" in the beginning, and then emphatically pro-war after the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union. They went so far as to support the internment of Japanese-Americans.

That's also a gripe about Henri Alleg, a communist reporter whose leaders also did a 180 on the Hitler-Stalin pact.

You can all say this doesn't matter today but please remember that much of this is merely the opinions of ideologues. They may be authorities of some stature but none of them are the Pope of Human Rights Law and it is utterly ridiculous for WP to give them that final word.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with this article and lead. The main problem is this: It presumes that there is only one form of waterboarding. As an encyclopedia, wikipedia should not report only one form as though it were the only form. Another problem is that the article CONCLUDES and ASSERTS that this is torture when, in fact, it is DEBATED whether it is torture. Wikipedia should not draw conclusions like this. The lead should reflect the fact that certain factions believe it is torture and certain others do not consider it to be torture. We should not state a conclusion. That is per NPOV.--Blue Tie (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion- this page should always be reconsidering rewriting the lead, but we should do it again in the manner we did before because otherwise we will just wind up edit warring again. Second, I don't know what other type of waterboarding there is. Almost all news reports agree on what it consists of. So Bluetie, if you have any sources that present an alternative method please cite them so we can read about them and integrate that information into the article. Finally, on the torture question, so far we have about two sources that say unequivolcally that waterboarding isn't torture. We have a the Bybee memo which provides a legal interpretation of what torture would be under a specific treaty and statute but does not state what John Yoo's personal opinion is about whether waterboarding is torture. Thus, all of the information that waterboarding isn't torture has been incorporated into the article. I would suggest that we provide a link in the lead to the controversy later on in the article so that we are making clear that this article's authors are aware of the debate and we are not trying to push a POV. Remember (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Randy, if you are making a general point that you do not have much respect for many people who are considered authorities, then this is not really the place for it. Could you take your point to WP:V or WP:RS? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with using these sources to say that many people believe it's torture but the article says flat-out that Wikipedia chose to agree with the side that says it's torture in a legal sense.

Yes, it's true that I personally believe some of these sources will change their minds if the political winds changed, just as NLG was willing to do when Stalin called for it. But even if you want to say that was then and this is now, it's still a fact that all the references we have here are simply citing the opinions of ideologues. What other article does that?

You can't say "all of the information that waterboarding isn't torture has been incorporated into the article" while at the same time saying that Wikipedia agrees with the side that it is.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There are criteria for judging the reliability of sources and they don't just relate to the author but also to the publisher. OK, the burden is on the editor who wants to include a fact to show that the source is reliable, but if you want to convince us to ignore a particular source you might find it advisable to say more than just "he's an ideologue" - or to cite positions that were taken 60 years ago before most of the writers cited were born. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

They're quite reliable as opinions. Is it your position that all of them collectively have the authority to render a judgment on what is and isn't torture while other lawyers say differently?

Where does that put real torture? Maybe you'd better review these 12 pages of what torture really is. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't choose 35 seconds of waterboarding compared to that.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Randy, for the final time: your view, my view, of what is or isn't torture, is 101% meaningless. Our opinions don't matter. Lawrence Cohen 22:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said otherwise. I fully agree that my opinion can't go into the article. But then why do you get to choose whose opinions count as the final authority?

Do you have any sources that aren't giving an opinion? All I see here are opinions and a few court cases that haven't been determined to be similar enough.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Forming considered opinions is an intrinsic part of professional work and scholarship. Good secondary sources aim to explain phenomena using facts and interpretations. We evaluate these sources them using criteria relating to the author's scholarly and/or professional standing and to the quality of the publication and publisher. If you have a problem with a source cited here, then you need to say why you think it is not reliable. Simply saying that it is "opinion" will not convince anyone. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then let me put it this way: We have some notable lawyers who say it's torture. We have other notable lawyers who say they don't believe that it is. We also have DOJ lawyers who say it isn't, and they're the only ones who've been briefed on the exact procedures in use.

Why choose one over another? Do you suggest a popularity contest?

Please note that I'm not the one saying it is our choice to make. I've said we should WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

In regards to DOJ lawyers knowing that procedure is in use, that is specific only to the United States. This article is about waterboarding, period, not specific to the United States. The US gets it's section, but US-specific viewpoints, arguments, or assertations do not determine the course of the entire article. This a global encyclopedia. Lawrence Cohen 23:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. is part of the world. Even if every lawyer in every other country on earth says it's torture, and even if they're not politically motivated, it's still not a universal opinion.

That said, maybe we should get quotes from the justice minister in Saudi Arabia and cite his opinion on the subject.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes do! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent). I agree with Randy. The article asserts that waterboarding is torture. This is inappropriate because it is asserted as a truth when, it is an opinion that it is torture. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Waterboarding is torture according to the Wikipedia definition of torture, the internationally accepted definition of torture (which is stated in the Wikipedia article entitled Torture), the dictionary definition of torture, and all other definitions of torture. It is torture. Thus, your opinion, while very interesting, has no place in this article. If you believe waterboarding to be "not torture," you should attempt to change the title of the article Rack (torture). Badagnani (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Different versions

There are surely different versions of waterboarding, just as each performance of a Beethoven piano sonata or Allman Brothers song will be slightly different. Previously, some editors maintained that waterboarding is not a form of torture, justified by the non-sequitur opinion-based arguments that it was being done by "good people" (agents of the U.S. government) against "bad people" (Muslims), and because those "bad people" are guilty of tortures themselves, which may be even worse than waterboarding; and also possibly because, as was claimed during the Spanish Inquisition, waterboarding was preferable to the rack or other tortures because it leaves no marks. However, it is clear that international law and all four branches of the U.S. Military (among others) prohibit waterboarding as a form of torture.

The claim by these editors, in recent days, is no longer that "waterboarding is not a form of torture" because it is now clear that there are only two published opinions to this effect, one from a former U.S. government lawyer and one from a not particularly notable Internet commentator. Thus, the editors formerly insisting that the word "torture" be removed from the lead, have modified their request; they now state that the U.S. practices a "different," "better," "not-as-cruel" form of waterboarding. This claim, however, is unsupported by any evidence, and is most likely motivated by the assumption that if citizens of the U.S. are conducting the waterboarding, it would be necessarily a "better" form of waterboarding than if members of the Khmer Rouge or Imperial Japanese military were doing it. However, if it meets the accepted definition of waterboarding outlined in this article, it's waterboarding. Whether a certain type of waterboarding is "good," "less good," "slightly worse," "much worse," "slightly less cruel," "more cruel, etc. is subjective and, again, has no place in this article unless properly sourced. Badagnani (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I second the above motion. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are different forms. I am not in agreement that the comparison with musical performances is correct.

I disagree with the idea that the "word" torture should be removed from the lead, but the lead should not say that waterboarding is torture but instead should say something about how some consider it torture and others consider it not torture or even that there are those who may describe some forms of waterboarding as torture and other forms as not torture. Whether we agree with any of these views is irrelevant.

The notion of good, bad, slightly worse, etc. is all original research and has no place in the article. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If you meant me, that's not my opinion at all.

I can imagine a circumstance where one variation of waterboarding may be developed that is more difficult to endure, and perhaps more harsh, but still more likely to be legal than another.

If, by "internet commentator", you meant Andrew C. McCarthy, he's more than that.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you meant me, that's not my opinion, either, and I take great exception to your description of the differences. A full orchestra hammering out Beethoven's 5th vs a ten-year-old playing his armpit would be better. That's why I've been calling for a better description of the technique; "torture" is not a method. You'd do better to avoid speaking for others if you can't do so more accurately. htom (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - You do seem to be implying that whenever highly trained U.S. personnel conduct waterboarding, it is "better" because these U.S. personnel conduct it in a more "professional" manner than would Imperial Japanese or Khmer Rouge troops? That does seem like unsourced opinion to me. Badagnani (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a safe bet that the CIA's lawyers are more professional that those of the Khmer Rouge when determining whether something is or isn't torture.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No, when I wrote "former U.S. government lawyer" I was referring to Ancrew C. McCarthy; I was referring to Jim Meyers (who has no Wikipedia article) when I said "not particularly notable Internet commentator," in reference to his very short opinion piece which we now feature in our article. Badagnani (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding one "version" of waterboarding being "more legal" than another, that is your opinion, which does not seem to have any sources backing it up. If it fits the accepted definition of waterboarding, it is waterboarding, and, thus, a form of torture (and, as such, not permitted by international law or any of the four branches of the U.S. Military, among other entities). Badagnani (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You're acting as though its prohibition by the U.S. military means it's torture. Again, this simply isn't true. The UCMJ prohibits a lot of things that aren't torture, and it even prohibits some things permitted by police departments.

The refs already acknowledge that some forms are very painful and others aren't. There are other differences, too. That they're all illegal hasn't been established.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the debate is whether to list waterboarding as "torture" in the lead (due to the unsourced implication that certain "more professional" forms of waterboarding "may not qualify" as a form of torture). I don't know why you're now shifting to "legality" vs. "illegality." That would be discussed in another section of the article, as there are many sets of laws in the world--and various forms of torture are certainly part of the arsenal of permitted techniques in many nations. Badagnani (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem for me is that we still have virtually no sources that assert waterboarding is not torture, versus all the rest. Have you people searched for such sources? What were your findings? Lawrence Cohen 00:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not searched the internet; I have experience and conversation with other vets. There are several different techniques wearing the same name. Some of those techniques are (in my opinion) torture, some are not, and others may or may not be. Some proper answers are more complex than "is or not". htom (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence,

I am not saying Wikipedia should claim that waterboarding is definitely not torture, and so I don't need any sources for that.

I am saying that it is disputed. We have sources for that.

Those of you who want the article to say that it is torture need to explain why Wikipedia should rule on which POV is correct.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've gone over this. We have over 100 viewpoints and opinions and historical anecdotes that say "torture", and a less than 5 that say otherwise. That is my basis in why it should say torture. I have demonstrated my desire for inclusion of that--if you want to insert something, such as alternate wording or a viewpoint that it is not torture, the impetus is on you to demonstrate it's validity with sourcing. I outright reject the notion that <5 American Conservatives defending the Bush administration is evidence of any controversy on is/isn't torture. Those of us viewing this discussion through a lens of our own country need to get over ourselves, because that is fine for the American subsection of the article, but not the whole thing. In any event, this circular refusal to accept common sense and Wikipolicy is boring, so I've made a slight adjustment to opening sentence so that people can hopefully move on to other matters. As much as some people may wave their hands over it not being torture, that doesn't change what it is, and a extreme minority of pundits saying it's not is absolutely irrelevant to Wikipedia. Your own wildly partisan viewpoints that you constantly insert have also colored your stances, such as saying that we should discredit sources that had ancient ties to Communism and the like. Total nonsense--should we discard American sources because they kidnapped Africans, chained them up, and dragged them across the sea? Lawrence Cohen 15:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Torture?

Now, I know this has been debated a lot, but I think that if there is a section in the article discussing whether or not it's torture, then it would presumptuous and against NPOV to state that it is in the very first line of the article. That means that the article is displaying one POV as fact and the other as an opinion. Now, until a US court of law states that it is torture, I don't think that is is right to say it is. That would be like saying "KFC mistreats animals" and presenting it as fact just because PETA said so. Just because some rights activists, political commentators, and politicians say it's torture, doesn't make it so either. Glenn Beck called Hillary Clinton a "bitch", but that doesn't mean I should change her page to say she is a politician and a "bitch". Just my $0.02 jstupple7 (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

On the top of this page it says "Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." Inertia Tensor (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to the opening sentence replaced "torture" with "physical interrogation" and appended the phrase "considered by some to be torture and currently at the center of a debate over its legality in the United States." I reverted your edit for the following reasons:

• The edit moved an existing reference (the military psychologist Bryce Lefever's description of the technique) so that it now appears to back up the claim of a "debate over its legality in the United States." But that reference doesn't say that; the reference is about the waterboarding procedure.
• There is no source provided for the claim that there is a debate.
• Opinions local to the United States do not belong in the first sentence of the article; that would be unduly U.S.-centric.

In response to your comments:

• "until a US court of law states that it is torture, I don't think that is is right to say it is" — Again, this is an excessively U.S.-centered point of view. The United States courts are not the arbiters of truth for the whole world.
• "That would be like saying "KFC mistreats animals" and presenting it as fact just because PETA said so." — This analogy doesn't fit the current situation. To make your example analogous to the status of waterboarding, you would have to imagine that not just PETA, but almost everybody declares that KFC mistreats animals, and that no one, not even KFC itself in response to direct questioning, is willing to declare that KFC doesn't mistreat animals. And that's not all; add to that a widespread understanding that KFC has historically mistreated animals, and a consensus throughout most of the world (except only for KFC headquarters) that KFC mistreats animals, and now you're getting close to the current situation with waterboarding.

What we have is not a debate between a group of reliable sources that say "waterboarding is torture" and a group of reliable sources that say "waterboarding is not torture". If there were, a wording such as yours would be more accurate. But these are not the two sides; what we really have is one side (the overwhelming majority, in fact) saying "waterboarding is torture", and a few people on the other side saying "no comment". That's not a debate.

There is a lot of background to the dispute among editors of this article. See Talk:Waterboarding/Archive_4 and Talk:Waterboarding/Archive_4#Lead. Please have a look at it before jumping in to edit one of the most controversial parts of the article; it was arrived at only after a tremendous amount of discussion and work by many editors. Revision should take place only after a similar or better degree of diligence and open consensus.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to familiarize yourself with the background on what's been going on here. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are not the two sides. The U.S. government isn't discussing methods but they are saying:

1. that torture is illegal; and
2. what the CIA is doing is legal.

Notable supporters of the U.S. side in the war, such as Andrew McCarthy, have said they believe it can be legal, and that it probably is. We have sources for that much. So it's not "no comment."

For Wikipedia to take a position that one side is correct, and another is not, is POV.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem again is that 1-2 people saying such things as McCarthey does is not evidence of any controversy. Go get sources--or else, this article can't change, and this is becoming disruptive. One comment/op-ed from one person is a footnote, not any sort of controversy. We're not here to defend any interests of any nation, as you seem to constantly imply and infer you are doing. If you're here for that, you're on the wrong website--we're here to regurgitate facts and notable opinions that are sourced and verifiable. Lawrence Cohen 05:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What bearing does whether or not the United States considers torture legal have on this particular question? Inertia Tensor (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that a US Court of Appeals must rule that it is torture before wikipedia may declare it to be so. Instead, I would suggest that it must be considered somehow confirmed as torture more completely before it is so described in wikipedia. In other words, wikipedia must not give undue weight just to a US Court OPINION. And in fact, if there is a credibly competent source that does not consider it torture, anywhere in the world, then we must not be culturally or geographically hidebound to a position. Instead we should say "So and so (list various entities or entity) consider it to be torture. This and that (other entities or entity) disagree and say _____". That is per NPOV.

I also agree with Randy that the article is taking sides. It appears to be doing so because of the ideology of the authors -- contrary to wikipedia standards. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that there is a dispute over whether it is torture? Less than 5 American pundits is evidence of no controversy, it's evidence that there is a fringe minority viewpoint we can detail in the body of the page in 1-2 sentences. Because some people think the US government tore down the World Trade Center, are we going to not call that an act of terrorism in the lead? September 11, 2001 attacks opens with "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda on that date upon the United States of America." By the rationales you and Randy have expressed, that should say "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were alleged to be a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda on that date upon the United States of America, but some sources feel that the US government played a role in this," because of all the controlled demolition minority viewpoint nonsense. Leave our American viewpoints at the door. If less five notable Americans think Waterboarding isn't torture, SOURCE it. Where are the sources? Go get them, post them here.

We've spent an amazing amount of time debating this one word--if this stance that its not torture is so common, go get the sources! I would be happy to not have to read this page daily over this debate. :) Lawrence Cohen 15:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

For you to declare that "less than five American pundits is no evidence of controversy" is Original Research. It is not required to show how many are on one side or the other but rather that a reliable and verifiable source reports on the controversy. I suspect that you have been an editor at wikipedia long enough to know this. Your references to another article on wikipedia are not appropriate -- after all, that article may or may not be wrong and wikipedia is not a good source for wikipedia. But so you know, you are wrong. My views would NOT require the strained interpretation that you have put forward. I will not go further into that though, because that is a different article. I agree that American viewpoints should not have undue weight, however, this is the English version of wikipedia and the US is the largest native -English speaking population in the world, PLUS the debate is most pronounced in the US, hence what happens in the US is important in this regard. As far as your not having to read this page daily over this debate... that is a choice you make. You should not blame other editors for your choices. :-) This is part of the process of editing wikipedia.

Here are evidences that the matter is disputed:

1. Poll results: Waterboarding is torture Asked whether they think waterboarding is a form of torture, more than two-thirds of respondents, or 69 percent, said yes; 29 percent said no. (you will notice that this indicates that the belief that it is torture is not uniform -- hence disputed).
2. Also in the same article: "Mukasey told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that ... he could not answer ... whether the technique amounts to torture." This indicates DOUBT that it is torture (depending upon circumstances) in his mind.
3. A 'Tortured' Debate The Wall Street Journal denies that it is torture saying, "No one has yet come up with any evidence that anyone in the U.S. military or government has officially sanctioned anything close to "torture." The "stress positions" that have been allowed (such as wearing a hood, exposure to heat and cold, and the rarely authorized "waterboarding," which induces a feeling of suffocation) are all psychological techniques designed to break a detainee."
4. Detainee takes torture debate to court This article declares that the distinction of what is and what is not torture has not been decided: We don't have any case law since 9/11 to give us guidance as to what techniques fall above or below the line of what constitutes torture or ill treatment or cruel or unusual or degrading treatment, said retired Army Lt. Col. Jeffrey F. Addicott, a law professor and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, Texas. Waterboarding is one of the techniques under question here.
5. Republican candidates dispute waterboarding Notice that you asked specifically about DISPUTES? This article declares that there are disputes and describes them.
6. At LEAST two Congressmen have said that waterboarding is not torture: Congressman Poe says: "I don't believe it's torture at all, I certainly don't."
7. Congressman Tancredo also says it is not torture. That's just two I found. There may be more. The lack of evidence is not evidence that there are no more.
8. Of course, as you say, there are pundits who declare that it is not torture just as there are some who declare that it is. Jim Meyers says: "Waterboarding Is Not Torture" and "Torture is normally defined as the infliction of severe pain, and while waterboarding induces fear because it simulates drowning, it does not inflict pain."
9. An interesting comment is by someone who has been waterboarded: Matt Margolis quotes someone who had it done to them: "Waterboarding is hardly torture. It does not maim, cause permanent physical damage,or result in death. It merely simulates the sensation of drowning and having no control over your ability to end the encounter for very brief periods of time."
10. Whether it is torture or not may depend upon how it is conducted. Human Events declares "Water-boarding, like many other interrogation techniques, could be torture in the hands of a sadist. But -- as the following article demonstrates -- it can be an effective interrogation technique and an essential tool of training, as it has been for US Navy and Air Force pilots. So context and other matters may be important.
11. In that last source, another person who had been waterboarded as part of his training said: "Was I “tortured” by the US military? No. " I would argue, that his views are biased, but this is irrelevant to the point: The idea that Waterboarding is always torture is disputed.

--Blue Tie (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I modified the lead sentence

New: "Waterboarding 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 widely and historically considered a form of torture."

Will this stop all the bickering, which is tiring to read? Also, kudos to you all that no one has edit warred, and we've talked instead here! I'll self RV if asked. Lawrence Cohen 15:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with saying that most people think of it as torture.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Randy. They cannot be called "fringe." They must be listed in lead paragraphs of article if those who call waterboarding "torture" are listed in lead paragraphs. The lead sentence must state that "most" sources believe waterboarding is torture. That is fair. It is accurate. Shibumi2 (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That was a bit hasty, considering how much work we put into getting this on-track again. Though I understand you are probably jaded by all the agro, I feel we shouldn't move this at all without a more comprehensive consensus - one editor such as S making a unilateral edit wo/ discussion is annoying, but I would caution against caving as that would just bring us back to main page chaos again. I commend you and randy for your actions and restraint here. I believe there goodwill emerging between very conflicting editors - and one new one coming in with a wrecking ball should not break that. Even people like me are willing to work with Randy towards resolution - HERE, as I appreciate his restraint. The whole point of getting a lead trashed out by consensus is being lost - and I really don;t want to see al that work go down the tube on a Christmas edit war - Halloween was crazy enough. Can't we pick some quiet time to row ;-) Inertia Tensor (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the description of waterboarding. I think that is only one method of waterboarding and there are others. I also do not think we should weaselword by saying "most". We should be as specific as possible. --Blue Tie (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Re "is not torture" sourcing

If this viewpoint is so accepted and widespread, as some allege, where is the comparable sourcing to the volume of "is torture" sourcing? If I have asked (as have others) repeatedly for demonstration of this, in the form of evidence, links and sourcing. Is there some reason why those in favor of that wording are unwilling to post their sources here, but still insist on changing the content of this page without verifiable sourced evidence? I'm not talking about the McCarthy and Yoo links. What else have you found? We require more than two opinion pieces to make this work long term. Post them here or explain why you cannot. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 15:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

McCarthy and Yoo and Mary Jo White are enough when compared to the others. You can disagree with the official U.S. position but it can't be called "fringe".

On the other hand, many (if not most or all) of those 100 lawyers cited collectively are often considered a fringe viewpoint. For those who read The Nation regularly, I suppose it's not. For the rest of us, it is. I had neglected to mention of Marjorie Cohn (one of the 100) that she also ranted about the deaths of Uday and Qusai Hussein as though that could have ended in any other way than a firefight. These kinds of lawyers will complain bitterly about U.S. policy no matter what it is.

I have no problems with using them as a source. But, again, none of them are the Pope of Human Rights Law, and we've got no business declaring them to be such. If you'll note, I never gave such a distinction to McCarthy or even to the official U.S. position with which he agrees.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Randy. McCarthy, White and Yoo cannot be called "fringe." They are not just "pundits" either. They are prominent authorities on US and international law. They must be listed in lead paragraphs of article if those who call waterboarding "torture" are listed in lead paragraphs. The lead sentence must state that "most" sources believe waterboarding is torture. That is fair. It is accurate. I do not want edit war. But burying these sources is wrong. Shibumi2 (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should add to the lead something like "Some supporters of U.S. use of waterbording have argued they do not believe it qualifies as torture under U.S. law, [cite McCarthy, e.g.] while others agree it is torture but refuse to rule out the use of torture in extreme circumstances.[cite Dershowitz, e.g.]"

It's far from clear what the "official U.S. position" on waterboarding as torture is. The U.S. military is officially banned from using it. The "pain equivalent to organ death" memo has been withdrawn, according to Yoo. The press says that the CIA is no longer using waterboarding. Yes, the NY Times says there are still a secret memo allowing it, but we don't know under what reasoning.

Along these lines, our lead now mentions "confirmed use of waterboarding by the U.S. government." I don't believe they have ever confirmed that.--agr (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a very serious question of weight, and undue weight, when we are talking about current AND/OR former members of the administration. A torturer saying he didn't torture is certainly noteworthy, but there is also a concern of undue weight which should seriously affect their prominence, and positioning. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Absolutely oppose privileging this fringe viewpoint in the lead. All of the hammering by the "not torture" editors was a simple tactic to wear down the other editors who adhere to proper sourcing and common definitions--so that they would create ambiguity in the lead. These editors rightly see the Wikipedia article as an important battle in the war for public opinion, and if they can create ambiguity in the lead (which we do for no other form of torture, whether it "leaves marks" or not), they have done a "good deed" for the current administration. Lawrence has now acceded to this, wrongly, with which I strongly disagree. Badagnani (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Absolutely support giving proportionate space to minority viewpoint that say waterboarding is not torture in all cases. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - Did you read all the discussion during the protection on UNDUE WEIGHT. Proportional by all means. That in this case, by proportion, means NOT IN THE LEAD. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Absolutely oppose I agree with Badagnani, and I am not about to be worn down by a unilateralist editor coming in after all our hard work. Consensus, discussion, talk, then implement. We should not make the main page a tapestry. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Expert opinion is divided phrase - OR violation

Irregardless of what this ends up as, any wording like "Expert opinion is divided" is completely inaccurate. Divided represents a relative split--we have a small minority that say it's not torture, and many, many more who say otherwise. Whatever you think of whatever sources for you own partisan political reasons or nationalism, this phrase is just patently false and made up. Unless you can get a source that says "Expert opinion is divided on whether it is torture" do not readd this phrase--it is pure original research and a violation of WP:OR. A 115-3 division is not a divided by any stretch of the imagination. Either way, source it, or adding it is a violation of WP:OR and anyone is free to immediately remove it. Sources that say that, please. Lawrence Cohen 18:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose the unilateral change of the lead (i.e., removing "a form of torture"). This was unnecessary, unwarranted, and unsupported by any definition in any source, because it clearly is a form of torture, and has been acknowledged as such by everyone, since the Spanish Inquisition, until a single U.S. administration decided they wanted to do it, and began attempting to make it acceptable via redefinition and ambiguity (which did not, and does not exist). Please change it back promptly, as we did clearly agree on that lead. Badagnani (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There are many different waterboarding techniques. Some include incline of body downward so that head is lower. Others do not. You pretend that all waterboarding techniques are identical. They are not. This is inaccurate. I refer you to photo of US personnel who waterboarded Viet Cong detainee in January 1968. Incline board was not used. Shibumi2 (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Regarding these other purpoted forms of waterboarding that do not include inclining the head downwards, those would, of course, need sources. Every source I have examined presented the "inclined board, head-downward" method, which is why it is called "waterboarding." I believe the incline is part of the very definition of waterboarding. Otherwise, a board would not be needed. A form of waterboarding without inclining the body downward may, in fact, be another form of torture with a different name (there are, in fact several named forms of water torture). It's best if you present your findings at "Discussion," and, if found to have merit, consensus will be formed, and the text of the article will be modified accordingly. Badagnani (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't believe the Vietnam War-era photo changes the definition. What is seen there is an ad-hoc, "in-the-field" version done without the board. If one were to play a Beethoven piano sonata on a tiny Casio keyboard with only 36 keys (instead of on a full 88-key grand piano), it would not change the definition of "Beethoven piano sonata." Badagnani (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

But it would prove that there and many different variations of "Beethoven piano sonata:" and not all versions have same effect. This is only evidence we have of US waterboarding technique. It is reliable evidence. No incline board was used. Only one canteen of water used so no real risk of drowning. http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/10/05/PH2006100500898.jpg Shibumi2 (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - In your opinion, "no real risk of drowning." That is unsourced. So, also in your opinion, this "ad hoc" form of waterboarding was "not as bad"? I thought editors above disputed that they made such distinctions between "good," "bad," "not quite as bad," "a little bit cruel," "not so cruel," "more cruel," "very cruel," etc. Keep in mind that the soldier in the photo was courtmartialed and convicted by the U.S. Armed Forces for this version of waterboarding, which is "not as bad" in the editor's opinion, yet still defined as "a form of torture," and thus unacceptable, by the U.S. Armed Forces. Badagnani (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Your lungs hold two liters of volume. How can one liter of water drown you even if put directly into lungs with funnel in nose? This waterboarding makes most water flow down surface of skin and not go into lungs. This is not original research. Id it OR to look at sky and say "Sky is blue"? Also US Armed Forces do not define waterboarding as "form of torture." Their only action was to prohibit its use in interrogation. You need to start posting source for these claims of yours. I point to Associated Press photo and ask "Where are your sources to challenge this?" Shibumi2 (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - As discussed in this discussion page earlier, drowning may occur due to asphyxiation (i.e. lack of oxygen) as well as the inhalation of water, either alone or in tandem. This has already been gone over; have you just now joined the discussion without having read all the archives? It will take you some time but you probably should take some time to do so before contributing here further. Badagnani (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - You state that the U.S. Military does not regard waterboarding as a form of torture. As the U.S. Military follows the Geneva Conventions, which do categorize waterboarding as such, and the Field Manuals follows the Geneva Conventions (in fact, the fact that it is a form of torture prohibited by the Geneva Conventions is the sole reason it's prohibited in the Field Manuals), your statement appears to be false. Badagnani (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You say "have done a 'good deed' for the current administration?" I have done a good deed for truth and for accuracy. I have done good deed to make this Good Article. I have done good deed for Wikipedia. Geneva Conventions do not mention waterboarding. John Yoo memo indicates his belief that Geneva Conventions allow use of waterboarding on unlawful combatant detainees since they are not POW. Army Field Manuals address interrogation of POW. Law is very different between POW and unlawful combatant. Asphyxiation may not occur using technique of waterboarding shown in AP photo. It shows one cloth. No gag. No cellophane. It shows one canteen of water being used. This photo is our only accurate and reliable source to show US technique. Other sources if they exist at all are speculation and conjecture. Without other sources proving use of incline board or possibility of asphyxiation in US interrogation technique you cannot state as absolute fact that waterboarding always has incline board and always involved risk of death. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - You still have not read the discussion archives, have you? I did ask you to do that before commenting again, because we now have to go over material that has already been covered. Specifically, you should know that the Geneva Conventions do not set out every possible torture that may be devised; instead, they set out a definition of actions that may not be taken against captured prisoners or civilians. Waterboarding (in any form) does fall under this definition. The fact that you are doing something "good" by attempting to redefine a clearly defined term is your personal opinion, and, again, seems unsourced. Badagnani (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read archives Badagnani. Geneva Conventions prohibit torture in Common Article 3 which is only article that applies to interrogation of unlawful combatants. This word "torture" should be understood to mean same as "torture" clearly defined in UN Convention Against Torture. This definition is almost identical to definition of "torture" in US laws. Remember it is not hard to find 100 lawyers who will oppose any action taken by US government except surrender and retreat. There are over 500,000 lawyers just in US. So 100 is not a majority. Also remember human nature. If you are satisfied will you always say that you are satisfied? If you are angry is it not more likely that you will say you are angry? It is human nature for experts who oppose waterboarding and oppose US under all circumstances to complain and whine at every opportunity. It is human nature for experts who believe technique is legal to keep silent. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive my imperfect English. It is difficult language to learn. I am not language genius. I try very hard to be undertood clearly but sometimes I fail. Please be patient. We work together yes? Shibumi2 (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't play the language card to gain sympathy for your unilateralist editing of troubled articles - You have been accused of replacing Metric with English/Imperial units. That is almost exclusively the preserve of US authors, As most of us got rid of imperial units in the middle ages.Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I was following style of first three articles I saw on Imperial Japanese Navy. Those were probably done by Americans but I thought they were correct. I learned later it was wrong according to style of WP:SHIPS. Since then I have used metric units. You are extremely hostile and arrogant. Please think about your position and tactics. They are not helpful to solve dispute over content. Thank you. Shibumi2 (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You say "Keep in mind that the soldier in the photo was courtmartialed and convicted by the U.S. Armed Forces for this version of waterboarding." Can you prove this soldier was courtmartialed? Show me your source please? Shibumi2 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Regardless of language proficiency, if you are, as you say, quite familiar with the Geneva Conventions, yet state something like, "Well, the Geneva Conventions don't stipulate that the specific action of waterboarding is a form of torture," when you already knew that those Conventions do not enumerate every single possible torture that may be invented, that comment seems to have been crafted in a way to mislead other editors less familiar with those Conventions. Badagnani (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Regarding the use of a wooden board in waterboarding, your comments have now finally stretched the bounds of credulity to the bursting point. At Wikipedia, we include content that is both sourced and verifiable. No, we do not have photographic evidence of every waterboarding session, yet from all of the major media, and eyewitness accounts of those who have perpetrated or suffered waterboarding, a board is used (hence the English term "waterboarding," which is the title of this article), and that board is generally inclined downwards. This has all been set out in great detail in the article, all sourced. The fact that you now inject another purported doubt into the article--one that is already so well sourced in the article--leads me to believe that you not only have not read carefully through this discussion page's archives, but that you have not actually read the article itself straight through, carefully, before commenting here.

Your participation is certainly valued, but please be aware that we have been working assiduously, over a period of months, to produce the most thorough and best-sourced article on this topic, one which is untainted by any form of POV, developing consensus via discussion and the careful consideration of sources. Bringing up purported doubts regarding items that have already been discussed and are well sourced, without providing sources of your own that dispute those sources, however, is not helpful. Badagnani (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Regarding your question as to what are the sources indicating that a U.S. soldier was courtmartialed for waterboarding a prisoner in the Vietnam War, this again shows me that you have not actually read the Waterboarding article. There are two sources provided in the "Vietnam War" section of the article. If you are looking for actual video of the trial, I don't presume one exists; however, that would be a primary source and Wikipedia prefers the use of reliable secondary sources, which we do have. Badagnani (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Regarding your use of the term "unlawful combatants," this newly invented term was developed by officials of the the current U.S. presidential administration for the purpose of attempting to make a legal end run around international law regarding torture. As such, your prescription of which portions of the Geneva Conventions are relevant and applicable to the U.S.'s use of waterboarding over the past several years are solely an opinion, held in common apparently between yourself and some officials in the current U.S. administration. Badagnani (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Third Geneva Convention carefully defines categories of "POW." What is detainee who satisfies none of these categories? Unlawful combatant is obvious answer. International law has not always said those words but has always recognized that status. Unprivileged combatant is another way to say same thing. "Unlawful combatant" was phrase used in Supreme Court case in 1942 involving German saboteurs Ex parte Quirin. It was not invented by Bush Administration. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Soldier of 1st Cavalry Division was truly courtmartialed. But his charges are not specified in source. Was he courtmartialed for act of waterboarding? Or was he courtmartialed for some other reason? Shibumi2 (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani I suspect your strongest motive may be opposition to administration rather than search for accuracy. I search for truth and accuracy. Let us seek truth and accuracy together. Opposition to Bush Administration should stay out of it. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not here to report truth or find truth, or do research. We're here to report what 3rd parties say. Lawrence Cohen 21:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Shibumi2- ASSUME GOOD FAITH, especially of those who take the time to bother getting involved in discussing the lead here with others before UNILATERALLY engaging in major edits - UNLIKE YOU, right after we have finally come out of freeze following a series of edit wars. Inertia Tensor (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Compromise - this is accurate is NOT a suitable edit on the main page - DISCUSS, STOP TRYING TO RESTART A WAR. Waterboarding gets you wet is accurate - does that mean it is acceptable. In an article marked controversial - discuss, that is simply not acceptable. Inertia Tensor (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• EXTREMELY Strongly oppose the unilateral change of the lead. RTFM, RT page, read the history, stop trying to reignite a war. DISCUSS. Inertia Tensor (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence you say "We're not here to report truth or find truth, or do research. We're here to report what 3rd parties say." Then let us accurately and truthfully report what all 3rd parties say. Not just 3rd parties who oppose Bush Administration. That is what I mean. Expert opinion is divided. A majority says waterboarding is torture but they are not unanimous. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - EXTREMELY strongly support change of lead since it is not unilateral. Must give proportionate space to minority 3rd party viewpoint that say waterboarding is not torture in all cases. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead that says "Waterboarding is a form of torture" is opposed by Lawrence Cohen, Neutral Good, Blue Tie, Randy2063 and me. Who supports it? Do you still think you have consensus for it? Why do you keep reverting to that lead unsupported by consensus if you are not edit warring? Shibumi2 (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

All who support lead saying "Waterboarding is a form of torture" speak up please. Five editors are opposed to it. Who supports it? Speak up now please. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Five?... There's far less than that holding your views - yes, I'm sure there are many who want to see change - but the way you want to do it - weasel words and UNDUE weight- I doubt it. There are far more - including me, who wish to achieve consensus - of this group there are many opposing views, such as Randy vs Myself. We want to do this right, and we have been restrained, because over time, with a lot of scars, we now assume good faith of each other. Why should we repeat ourselves for your benefit? Do you plan on calling a vote every week until you get your way? (Since when was wiki a democracy, it is about consensus). It's on this page and in the archives. It's already been said. Read the talk. And please don't misrepresent other editors. You should read what they posted on this WHOLE page. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Yes, waterboarding is clearly a form of torture, as the preponderance of sources state that it is such, and has been considered as such dating back to the Spanish Inquisition. The fact that there could be any ambiguity about this is more than startling. Badagnani (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Requesting full protection

We are in the beginnings of yet another edit war - as such I request full protection so we can bring the new editors into the discussions and keep this moving on a discussed consensus basis. Sadly, some editors have not paid heed to the long drawn out process we undertook, nearly two months long, to get the major edit wars resolved, and establish working relationships to discuss major changes before making unilateral edits. DO NOT DISCUSS MERITS OF LEAD/TORTURE HERE PLEASE. Suggest protection times out in two weeks max. Inertia Tensor (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Here we go again. Inertia Tensor (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely oppose I am not edit warring. I am participating in good faith on Talk page. Who is edit warring? Shibumi2 (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

YOU: Fighting on the main article page instead of working to archive consensus, with gross disregard for the troubled history in the talk page. diff diff diff Inserting weasel words: diff And you even accused another editor of vandalism to justify 3RR. If you read TALK you would notice, that you are the one who is editing without seeking consensus. Badagnani simply brought it back to the last achieved consensus amongst the majority of editors. You came in here, did a massive edit to the lead, posted a short blurb in talk and thought that was ok., Result, the waring is back again. A little late to start discussing, especially as you are persisting in these edits without getting a consensus. A lot of people spent a long time, and many hours trying to get this article to consensus, that of course can always evolve, but you would not help us but instead went unilateral - and as a result you have a annoyed a lot of people who feel their work in compromise is going down the tube. Inertia Tensor (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

See section above for discussion of consensus. Five editors oppose "Waterboarding is a form of torture" as article lead. They are Lawrence Cohen, Neutral Good, Randy2063, Blue Tie and me. Do you think you still have consensus for this Inertia Tensor? I am not edit warring. I will submit to consensus whatever it supports. But what does it support? Like they say on Survivor "I'll go count the votes." Shibumi2 (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

STOP REPOSTING HERE - I CAN READ, YOU DO NOT NEED TO PASTE IT EVERYWHERE VERBATIM. And stop misrepresenting people. I am calling for protection now, as it is obvious a new war is starting, so given the history it should be locked until we evolve the consensus to include you. The purpose of a lock is to stop people like you who do major edits BEFORE discussing - as you did. That is what starts edit wars. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Tend to oppose for now. We shall see as time goes on.--Blue Tie (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - An examination of the recent history of this page shows that protection was initially needed due to revert warring (centering primarily on the article's initial sentence, which began "Waterboarding is a form of torture," which was at that time disputed by at least one editor). This was resolved through long and careful discussion and examination of all available sources on the matter. Then, over the past few days, several new editors who had not participated in the previous discussion began to remove references to waterboarding as a form of torture, but without first creating a new consensus that this was correct for the lead. Even after explaining to these editors that a new consensus must first be re-developed for altering the lead to state that waterboarding is not a form of torture, at least two editors have reverted repeatedly without first building consensus. Thus, protection, unfortunate as it may seem, does seem warranted, again, in this case. Badagnani (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - There is still lots of information that needs to be added to this article. The constant fighting about the lead regarding whether "waterboarding is torture" is annoying but the best strategy is to revert any revisions to the consensus lead and make people come up with a consensus lead on the talk page that can take its place. If we lock this article again, it will once again stagnant and not get better. Remember (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Achieve Concensus (I reverted Blue Tie)

I brought the article back to it's last consensus. Please, everyone, work out a new version here, achieve consensus, then make the edit. Sorry Blue Tie, I do appreciate your efforts here, but this is so troubled, we need to make such major changes stick - which I believe we can - but only through discussion. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that the version was a consensus version. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blue Tie, it was at the time, see the first 2 archives - this was the version that got this page unprotected after 2 months of working to a solution. We all agree that the consensus is not perfect, as I'm sure Randy will point out - what we now have to do now that it is out of protection is work to evolve it to better include your views, Randy's and others - otherwise we will end up back in the same place. I do appreciate what you are trying to do - I just believe that it has to be done in talk first. Inertia Tensor (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change. In this case it should. I think the current lead is horrible because it is factually wrong and unbalanced. I do not think my views about waterboarding matter (I will not say what they are) so much as that the article should be good. And per wikipedia standards, the lead should summarize the article, not really provide new information. For that reason, I prefer a lead that does not need ANY footnotes because the details have been handled in the article. This article needs work. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree as to the footnotes (and evolution of consensus), but honestly I would do wb = torture by this and that - end of lead - and leave the whole roiling row lower. Same goal, different interpretation. This is why I think we need to lock it down so we can trash it out without the distractions of rvs and no-talk edits (not you). Inertia Tensor (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the footnotes (not dialogue in last para) was some editors just willy-nilly deleted the first line, or edited it with out regard to the referencing. So sorry, I'm double takign here - footnotes and references are good - but repetitive dialogue is not so - as in the last paragraph. Inertia Tensor (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Consensus relies on sources. And the sources do say that waterboarding is a form of torture. Other than this, I'm not certain what the argument is about, because the article is, at this point, quite well sourced and factual, and also acknowledges the U.S.'s recent use of waterboarding, and opinions thereof. Badagnani (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Old version FYI, pre Halloween war

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 obtain information, coerce confessions, and also to 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." According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture", "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal.". US Vice President Dick Cheney has endorsed the technique for terror suspects, saying it was a "no-brainer" if the information it yielded would save American lives. Inertia Tensor

(talk) 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Sock puppet check on User:Neutral_Good

Can we get a sock puppet check on User:Neutral_Good. I am not saying it is a puppet, but would like to know for sure. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing more effective in destroying AGF and civility. Consider your decision carefully. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I did. And I suggest you take your own advice, you waltzed in here, made a massive lead edit and left a post in talk instead of working to achieve consensus - right after we all spent months trying to get a lead out of protection. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

And my reasoning that the benefits of checking outweighted any civility issues included THIS Row with Lawrence, plus this little bit of censorship (which is allowed, but suspect). I don't need to go into why I wonder about this account. Inertia Tensor (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that "I would like to know for sure" is a good enough reason to do a checkuser. It is hard to believe that User:Inertia Tensor helped resolve any problems by initiating revert wars and by immediately asking for a checkuser on another editor that they disagreed with. Very aggressive and hostile behavior. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, assume good faith -- but, at what point does ignoring strong circumstantial indications stop being community building and transition into foolhardy community abandonment.

Lawrence Cohen left the question. "Have you edited previously under another account, by any chance? If so, what was it?"

Given that this is a brand new wiki-id -- just four days old; and 24 of its 30 edits were to this talk page, while the other 6 were edits about contributions to this talk page -- I think this request was reasonable;

I think the suggestion that a check user was in order was reasonable when this new contributor, with an edit pattern at odds with that of an inexperienced new user; but consistent with that of a experienced sockpuppet, declined to offer a reply to this reasonable query.

Nothing prevents Neutral Good from saying something like: "No, I am not a sockpuppet. Yes, I do have N months experience contributing to the wikipedia, from IP addresses in the xxx.xxx.yyy.yyy domain. I don't know why it took me N months of experience to get around creating my own ID." Geo Swan (talk) 17:54, 26 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)

Inertia Tensors proposed Lead

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)

Proposed lead with previously established near-total consensus

I'd like to present, for your consideration, the following lead:

Waterboarding 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 real 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 historically known as a method of torture since its use during the Spanish Inquisition. It has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. 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. 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.

I welcome your comments on it. Here are a few points of context to keep in mind:

• This is a lead that has been previously discussed at length and voted on. It was considered a decent compromise by many and it achieved near-total consensus among the editors on this talk page. That's why I think it's an option we should consider seriously at this point.
• This lead does not mention torture in the first paragraph. This is intentional. My primary goal was to write something that will last. At this point, it is more important to me to calm down this argument so we can make progress on the rest of the article than to mention torture in the first paragraph. At the same time, it would be unfair to omit the historical context or the current majority opinion; thus these are mentioned in the second paragraph.
• This lead does not mention the United States in the first paragraph. This is also intentional: the main focus of the article is waterboarding, not the United States. The current controversy is noteworthy but not primary; thus it is mentioned in the second paragraph.
• This lead does not say anything about the acceptability or legality of waterboarding. This is also intentional. It's not Wikipedia's job to make moral judgements, and the legality issue involves many details and should go in a section of its own.
• This lead is fairly concise. The plan would be to have a separate section devoted to the evidence and opinions for or against the classification of waterboarding as torture, and a separate section on the current controversy in the United States. The lead does not give any further details on these things because (a) they are controversial and this will help keep edit wars out of the lead; and (b) the lead should stay brief and to the point.
• The statements are straightforward and sourced.

Please post your feedback below. Note the question isn't "is it perfect?" but just "can you live with it?" That, already, would be a step forward. Thanks to everyone, again, for your continued patience, civility, and good faith. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable lead?

• Yes, I think it's fine. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• No Your lead was good, but I oppose the removal of the most important fact to preserve longevity. I would point to Lawrence Cohen's modified version of Ka-Ping Yee's lead which was a unanimous (though would not be now) as the model for development. That people don't like something doesn't render it inaccurate, wrong, or biased per se. Sometimes reality is a very ugly truth. Inertia Tensor (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• No Factually incorrect and biased. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• That's not very helpful. I ask that you be more specific in what you see as factually incorrect, and why, and what you think should be changed to improve it. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the section just below where I am more specific. Or if you want me to re-write the lead, let me know if that was your desire. I do like this lead better than the current one though. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the article

I shall address the lead last

The article organization should be logical:

0. Lead

1. What Waterboarding is (description of various techniques)

2. Physical, psychological effects of Waterboarding (with consideration of the differences in technique included – for different techniques have different effects)

Include the sense of those who consider waterboarding effective for interrogation.

3. History of Waterboarding

4. Legal Status of Waterboarding (avoid using general condemnation of torture and instead use laws specifically outlining Waterboarding. These should not be just US but the English Speaking world and even the whole world.

5. Waterboarding and Torture

Views that it is torture

Views that it is not torture

Views that it depends upon some criteria as to whether it is torture

Discussion of the “stakes” claimed by each side (threats to security, threats to the integrity of the national reputation, etc)

Current article spends way too much time on the US and no time on the use of waterboarding by other countries or entities.

Current the article spends way too much time (undue weight) on the waterboarding of Kahlid Sheik Mohamed and Abu Zubaida. These should be combined into (at most) one paragraph.

The lead

The current lead assumes that waterboarding has only one technique. This is false.

The current lead states that waterboarding is torture. It is regarded as torture by some and regarded as not being torture by others.

The current lead describes the effects of waterboarding, but Chiefly for the most extreme form. It also relies upon only one biased source for those effects. This is undue weight and a violation of WP:NPOV.

That waterboarding is considered torture by a “wide range” of people is OR and Non-Neutral.

The group of people who consider waterboarding as torture is not balanced by mentioning that there is similar (if smaller) group of people who do not consider it torture. This is a violation of wp:NPOV.

The summary of the controversy is badly worded.

--Blue Tie (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose the majority of these suggestions - The crux of this argument is that the article is not "balanced" between those who state that waterboarding is a form of torture and those who state that it is not. There are two individuals--one a former U.S. attorney and the other a not particularly notable Internet columnist, who state that this technique may not be a form of torture. The rest of the sources state that it not only is a form of torture, but that it has been considered as such since the Spanish Inquisition. In light of this, there is no need to "balance" the article in the lead, by privileging the fringe position that waterboarding is not a form of torture. The article already states this, and does present the views of the former U.S. attorney and the not particularly notable Internet opinion columnist. The comment that more data should be collected and considered for inclusion in the article regarding the conducting of waterboarding in more locales around the world seems sensible. Badagnani (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Odd. There is nothing to "oppose"; I have not proposed specific changes. Instead I have criticized the structure and content of the current article. (are you opposing any criticism of the article?)

I was not addressing something about balance between two sides, I was referring to problems with the whole article regardless of which side of some dispute you were on. However, you are ignoring my 11 point list of sources describing waterboarding as either not torture or disputed as being torture. This is sufficient that wikipedia should not take a stand and state an opinion as though it were fact. Have you actually ever carefully read WP:NPOV?? We do not need to (and should not) declare something as evil. Just report on the matter and let the facts speak for themselves. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani you say "There are two individuals--one a former U.S. attorney and the other a not particularly notable Internet columnist, who state that this technique may not be a form of torture." That is inaccurate. John Yoo is former deputy assistant attorney general and now professor at Stanford University law school. At time of his memo (2002) CIA enhanced interrogation techniques included waterboarding. He discussed whether enhanced interrogation techniques violated international law prohibiting torture. He concluded they did not. Although he did not mention waterboarding it is not accurate to assume he was not discussing it. Shibumi2 (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No his opinion is that POTUS has the right to define what the words in a treaty signed by POTUS means even if these are contry to the normal interpretation. Please stop mis-repesenting sources. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

?

I really don't understand the continuing controversy about this. Here's how the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, defines torture:

• Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
• An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.

• Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
• Something causing severe pain or anguish.

Waterboarding meets every one of the criteria in the definition: infliction, severe pain, punishment, coercion, instrument or method, excruciating, agony, suspense, anguish. Furthermore, the vast majority of reliable sources appear to agree that it's torture. Waterboarding is torture in the same way that water is wet, that carbon is an element, that Procyon is a star. Torture is the entire and only purpose of waterboarding.

To reiterate: I'm not taking any stance here, nor am I suggesting that Wikipedia should take a stance, as to whether waterboarding is wrong, right, good, evil, justifiable or unjustifiable. I'm just asserting that, according to the definitions in all well-known dictionaries, it's a form of torture.

Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines explicitly state that:

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

The fact that a small and very vocal minority -- both here, and in the world of verifiable sources -- disagree with this is definitely significant enough to mention in the article; indeed, significant enough to have its own section in the article. It is not, however, even remotely enough to justify its removal from the start of the opening sentence.

-- The Anome (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are proposing is Original Research. Specifically Improper Synthesis. Wikipedia's articles and editors are not permitted to engage in Original Research if it is challenged -- and this one is. That you believe a view is held by a very small minority is your personal opinion... and your personal opinion is an EXTREMELY teensy tiny minority.

In short the article should conform to standards of wikipedia. Your proposal does not recognize those principles except in a select and narrow portion, rather than in totality to include "No Original Research". --Blue Tie (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - In fact, the "original research" is the claim that there is a "lighter," "less cruel" version (only used by agents of the U.S., and never by any other nation) that is not a form of torture. That claim is original research if I have ever seen it at any article at Wikipedia. The fact that waterboarding is described as a form of torture, because it is by definition, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as "original research," because it has been acknowledged not only as a form of torture, but one of the most famous and widely used modes of torture, for hundreds of years (as acknowledged by articles in all of the major media, and prosecutions during the Vietnam War, World War II, and other conflicts over the past century). Your arguments that waterboarding (or a purported "lighter," "less bad" version created and used only by the U.S.) are making progressively less and less sense. Badagnani (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with stating that Waterboarding has been considered torture by X,Y and Z (as long as we are not doing some sort of undue weight). But I have a problem with WIKIPEDIA declaring that it absolutely IS torture when that is disputed by A,B and C. How is this hard to understand in light of WP:NPOV? Have you read that policy?--Blue Tie (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm proposing that the English-language Wikipedia should be written in the English language. The English language has a word, let's call it xyglphg, which describes the type of thing that waterboarding is. Using it in the intro sentence is similar to saying "Carbon is an element..." or "Procyon is a star..." Now, it just so happens that the word xyglphg in English is spelled "torture". Some people don't like this. They would like to use a formulation, like "enhanced interrogation", which is a nicer spelling for xyglphg. I'm sure it would be nice if we could redefine the English language on demand to accommodate their desires. But we can't. -- The Anome (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

But it is original research to declare that waterboarding is xyglphg. In particular, it is inappropriate synthesis to do the following:

Waterboarding involves Treacle per source 1

Things that involve Treacle are xyglphg Per source 2

Thus Waterboarding is xyglphg Per synthesis.

This is defined in WP:OR. Take a look.--Blue Tie (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - There is no shortage of sources that state that waterboarding is a form of torture. Your semantic arguments "proving" that waterboarding is not a form of torture still does not make sense, in light of the massive weight of evidence already provided in the sources in the article. Badagnani (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Technically speaking there is a limit to the number of sources that declare waterboarding to be a form of torture. But you seem to be completely clueless about my point so let me be very precise:

1. I am not saying waterboarding is not torture.

2. I am not saying waterboarding should not be declared torture by some people.

3. I am not saying that there are insufficient sources saying waterboarding is torture.

Per wikipedia something is NOT A FACT IF IT IS DISPUTED. That is wikipedia policy. And wikipedia cannot declare something as fact if it is not a fact. Would you like to see the exact policy on this? --Blue Tie (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please link the passage you are using for this argument. The idea that 1-5 people disagreeing with 100+ makes the 100+ factually inaccurate is nonsense. There are a minority of people that (and you can source this) say that the GWB administration ordered the "hit" on the World Trade Center. Go put that in the WTC articles and see what happens. Lawrence Cohen 04:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputing that Waterboarding is torture

I am not arguing that the article should say that waterboarding is not torture. I am arguing that the article should not conclude that it is torture. It should say that the sense of its being torture is disputed.

Here are evidences that the matter is disputed:

1. Poll results: Waterboarding is torture Asked whether they think waterboarding is a form of torture, more than two-thirds of respondents, or 69 percent, said yes; 29 percent said no. (you will notice that this indicates that the belief that it is torture is not uniform -- hence disputed).

2. Also in the same article: "Mukasey told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that ... he could not answer ... whether the technique amounts to torture." This indicates DOUBT that it is torture (depending upon circumstances) in his mind.

Nice attempt at mis-representing his position, he says he is not willing to make a public legal pronouncement that his boss (POTUS) and many of his staff are warcriminals without studying all the evidence and case law and coming to a reasoned view. Thats not doubt but due process. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quote of what he said: "what that experience has been with captured soldiers, captured military people from enemies we fought in the past may very well be far different from the experience that we're having with unlawful combatants who we face now. It's a very different kind of person." And: "I'm not sufficiently familiar with interpretations of the Geneva Conventions to be offering views on what would or would not come within it or outside it. ...There are ... techniques that are, as I understand it, that may be used by -- with proper authorization -- (by) people outside the military. And those are not covered in the field manual." And: "I think it would be irresponsible of me to discuss particular techniques with which I am not familiar, when there are people who are using coercive techniques and who are being authorized to use coercive techniques, and for me to say something that is going to put their careers or freedom at risk simply because I want to be congenial, I don't think it would be responsible of me to do that."

He mentions that he believes the current circumstances might be different, that he does not know enough about the Geneva Convention to know if it applies (but that the issue is not one of military actions but rather extra-military actions) and that he does not know the specifics of the technique sufficiently to comment just to be accomodating. You may color his motives and reasons however you wish but you must stick to the testimony on record and not make things up. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So you agree all he is saying is he has no public opinion on if waterboarding is torture, his is not "waterboarding is not torture". Therefor he in no way supports the "waterboarding is not torture" fringe theory. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am unable to agree because I cannot understand what you are proposing that he said. But second, I am saying that he gives 3 issues: 1. He thinks we are working in extraordinary times so that things might be different now. 2. He does not know enough about the Geneva Convention to know what applies and what does not (but suggests that the issue may not exactly involve the Geneva Convention) and 3. He does not know what the specifics of the technique are to know if it is torture.

I really think you are totally missing my point. It is not that "Waterboarding is not torture". My point is that the statement "Waterboarding is torture" is not a fact per wikipedia policy because it is seriously disputed. This testimony is one example of the dispute. In his testimony he says that he does not know enough to declare it so -- which is contradictory to those who claim it is absolutely and obviously torture. In other words, that position is disputed. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"In his testimony he says that he does not know enough to declare it so" That is a legal judgement he is unwilling to make, that does not prove that he disputes that waterboarding is torture. He would not pass judgement publicly of someone accused of murder from what the TV showed, that does not mean he thinks murder is not a crime. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I speaking a different language? What part of "It is disputed" is hard to understand? The statement "Waterboarding is torture" can be disputed in two ways: 1. Flatly stating that it is not torture or 2.) when asked if it is torture saying: It may depend upon conditions. He is saying the latter -- option 2. What conditions does he mention? His objections are not just one. They are 3. Three of them as follows: A. Different times that previous interpretations. B. Rules may not apply to all people the same way (extramilitary) and C that the way it is done makes a difference. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"What part of "It is disputed" is hard to understand" Nothing its just not what the source was doing. He says he does not know enough to say if it is or isn't torture when "careers or freedom at risk". That disqualifies him as a source because he is saying he does not know. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the testimony? He was given summaries by others declaring that Waterboarding is Torture. While respecting those views he did not agree with them. That is dispute. He gave three reasons including an ignorance of the methods, but you cannot just focus on some of his three reasons and label that as his only reason. When asked directly, he said he thought that what people had ruled on in the past were based on past events and considerations and what we were dealing with now was different. To me that is a pretty clear statement of disagreement. Perhaps you do not see this as disputing it. I do. I am willing to acknowledge that you might not find it compelling. But that is, to me, a strange view since his future job and reputation were at stake on the question and he stuck to it. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

3. A 'Tortured' Debate The Wall Street Journal denies that it is torture saying, "No one has yet come up with any evidence that anyone in the U.S. military or government has officially sanctioned anything close to "torture." The "stress positions" that have been allowed (such as wearing a hood, exposure to heat and cold, and the rarely authorized "waterboarding," which induces a feeling of suffocation) are all psychological techniques designed to break a detainee."

Op-ed by someone unqualified to give a medical opinion on if waterboarding is just a "psychological techniques". ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It DOES NOT MATTER that you dislike their opinion. What matters is that the statement "Waterboarding is torture" is DISPUTED. You seem to be unable to deal with this matter. Until you actually start dealing with the issue I am raising I will simply point out that your responses are non-responsive and are invalid. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It is the fact that it is an opinion of a pundit as opposed to that of a qualified doctor that means this is not an RS. Doctors are given vast priority over non-doctors in medical matters on wikipedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me help you focus: How does the opinion of a doctor change the fact that the Wall Street Journal DISPUTED that Waterboarding is Torture? Do you understand that the question is not: "Is Waterboarding Torture"? THAT is not the question. The question is: "Is the statement"Waterboarding is Torture", significantly disputed?" In that Question (and that question ONLY), how does the doctor's views trump the Wall Street Journal? --Blue Tie (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Detainee takes torture debate to court This article declares that the distinction of what is and what is not torture has not been decided: We don't have any case law since 9/11 to give us guidance as to what techniques fall above or below the line of what constitutes torture or ill treatment or cruel or unusual or degrading treatment, said retired Army Lt. Col. Jeffrey F. Addicott, a law professor and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, Texas. Waterboarding is one of the techniques under question here.

UNCAT says that "since 9/11" is a meaningless concept, see "non-derogable" in the real source i posted below. Also this is about a legal definition of torture in one county not the common english understanding of the word torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You are not understanding the issue here. It does not matter that UNCAT takes one side of the view... that is stipulated. And this is NOT about a legal definition of torture in one country nor is it about the common english understanding of the word. It is about the fact that the notion of waterboarding as torture is DISPUTED. That others do not dispute it is part of the dispute. If there weren't people or entities who were saying "Waterboarding is torture" there would be no dispute. Likewise if there weren't people or entities saying "Waterboarding is not torture" or "It is unknown if waterboarding is torture" there would be no dispute. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Republican candidates dispute waterboarding Notice that you asked specifically about DISPUTES? This article declares that there are disputes and describes them.

Misrepresnting the source again, this is getting tiresome. The source only says that these candidates beleave waterboarding is legal/necessary. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be tiresome but not for the reasons you claim. I have not misrepresented any source and I have given links. To label me as being dishonest is inappropriate. However, you are again, missing the point. Did you read the title of the article? Do you know what the content of the debate was? The debaters were asked if waterboarding was torture. THEY DISAGREED about it. Do you understand what the meaning of "dispute" is? It is used in the title of the article. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

6. At LEAST two Congressmen have said that waterboarding is not torture: Congressman Poe says: "I don't believe it's torture at all, I certainly don't."

7. Congressman Tancredo also says it is not torture. That's just two I found. There may be more. The lack of evidence is not evidence that there are no more.

Yeah good for you, thats two notable far-right politicians to give their OPINION. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It DOES NOT MATTER that you dislike their opinion. What matters is that the statement "Waterboarding is torture" is DISPUTED. You seem to be unable to deal with this matter.--Blue Tie (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I comment that John McCain is also considered "far right." But because he supports Hypnosadist's position Hypnosadist has no problem with politics of McCain.

Actually i was commenting that these politicians might pass for a usable source, if what they say is tied to their name. At least these sources actually say they think waterboarding is not torture. I don't agree with them but at least they pass notability and verifiabilty, but i still say there opinions don't mean much when we have medical opinion.^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter, per wikipedia policy, if God were to declare a view on this matter. It would not make it a "fact" if it was disputed. And the whole point here is that it is disputed. Whether it actually is or is not torture is IRRELEVANT. Wikipedia is not about truth. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

What I think is disputed is that it's disputed, or this whole "divided" storyline. Lawrence Cohen 01:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I concur--this should be discussed in the section under "U.S. pundits and politicians who dispute that waterboarding is a form of torture"--but not privileged in the lead, as a fringe opinion. Badagnani (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

8. Of course, as you say, there are pundits who declare that it is not torture just as there are some who declare that it is. Jim Meyers says: "Waterboarding Is Not Torture" and "Torture is normally defined as the infliction of severe pain, and while waterboarding induces fear because it simulates drowning, it does not inflict pain."

Jim Meyers' opinion is utterly meaningless as we have multiple high quality medical sources that say it is painful, as well as many victims of this torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Not meaningless. Simply not in agreement with your view. We actually do not necessarily have UNBIASED high quality medical sources that say it is painful. In addition, we do not have any high quality medical sources who have conducted any studies of the matter involving various techniques. What we have is opinions. And that is the nature of a dispute. Some people have one opinion and other people have another opinion. You seem to be missing this point. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We have the medical opinion of doctors who have treated torture victims from all over the world, specialists in both the mental and physical effects of torture. That trumps the biased opinion of some commentator who isn't legally allowed to apply a band-aid in the US. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me point out that if we only had the opinion of doctors who treated people admitted to the emergency room for treatment because they ate too many twinkies we might want to outlaw twinkies. An objective view would be to get the opinion of doctors who observed a large sample of people eating twinkies to determine if they are generally painful and dangerous. The point here is that a doctor with a biased sample will have a biased conclusion. As a result, such opinions, particularly when presented by someone with a political agenda, are not able to "trump" some other opinion.

But one more time YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT. It does not matter if you do not like the sources. The issue is that it is SERIOUSLY DISPUTED. That is the WHOLE ISSUE. You keep wanting to somehow prove that waterboarding is torture and that one source is better than another. No need. I agree. Some sources are better than others. You can stop with that approach... because it is IRRELEVANT to the issue. There are good sources and bad sources on both sides of the debate. BUT THERE IS A DEBATE. A DISPUTE. You need to address the root problem and stop hacking away at a leaf here and there. Do you understand the issue yet? I have repeated it over and over to you and you keep ignoring it. Here it is again: The notion that waterboarding is torture is DISPUTED. OK? --Blue Tie (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not teach the controversy and read about artificial controversy. Then identify how many sources say it is torture and how many dispute that. You will find there is no controversy. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am doing neither of the things you mention. Please assume good faith. It is utter nonsense to say that there is no dispute. It is clearly disputed. You ask for sources in the very part of the talk page where I list several! Just read what I have already posted. And this is not something related to "democracy of sources". As Jimbo has declared and as has been put on this page several times, a notable minority has people that you can quote. I have done so. I can find more. The issue is not "how many can you find?" but whether it is disputed. It is clearly disputed. It is disputed in politics, in courts of law, in the opinions of the public and by those who have undergone the "treatment". That is what I have shown. To just dismiss that is simply failure to deliberate -- a logical fallacy. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

9. An interesting comment is by someone who has been waterboarded: Matt Margolis quotes someone who had it done to them: "Waterboarding is hardly torture. It does not maim, cause permanent physical damage,or result in death. It merely simulates the sensation of drowning and having no control over your ability to end the encounter for very brief periods of time."

10. Whether it is torture or not may depend upon how it is conducted. Human Events declares "Water-boarding, like many other interrogation techniques, could be torture in the hands of a sadist. But -- as the following article demonstrates -- it can be an effective interrogation technique and an essential tool of training, as it has been for US Navy and Air Force pilots. So context and other matters may be important.

11. In that last source, another person who had been waterboarded as part of his training said: "Was I “tortured” by the US military? No. " I would argue, that his views are biased, but this is irrelevant to the point: The idea that Waterboarding is always torture is disputed.

Source does not meet RS because the supposed ex-miltary man does not have the b*lls to put his real name to his opinion (if there ever was an ex-miltary guy who gave this opinion). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to find any part of WP:RS that supports your position on this. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Try "Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it". ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That is related to scholarship articles. This was not a scholarship article. Also the article was signed. But really, you are missing the point. How many times does that have to be said. The issue is not "What to include in the article" but "Is the sense of Waterboarding being torture, disputed?" Why are you unable to address the issue? --Blue Tie (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

--Blue Tie (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments on dispute

• Comment - If properly sourced, these comments (if notable and of significance) should be evaluated for inclusion, or summarization in the article. However, as a wide divergence from the internationally agreed upon definition of waterboarding (and thus a fringe opinion, such as the belief that the earth is no more than six thousand years old) they should not be privileged in the lead in some effort to attain "balance," when the technique being described is always regarded (except from those attempting to conduct it, or justify its use) as a form of torture, and has been, dating back to the Spanish Inquisition. Badagnani (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You do not seem to be paying attention. Could you please refrain from generating multiple comments without understanding the point? I am not suggesting that it should be privileged in the lead to obtain balance. I am saying that the lead is factually wrong to declare waterboarding as torture because it is not a FACT that it is torture. Would you like me to quote the policy on this for you for clarity? Just say yes or no without an extended comment if you do not understand my point. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Badagani's comments above. Wikipedia is written in English, not in Newspeak. -- The Anome (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What the heck does that mean? This is a list of comments about sources demonstrating that the notion of Waterboarding as torture is disputed. Its not a proposed inclusion in the article. Are you confused?--Blue Tie (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the old "I am right, and you are confused" gambit. Can we Godwin this now, or should we wait until later? -- The Anome (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No. I did not say you were confused. I asked. That is politeness for the purposes of furthering understanding. But now, you are just being rude. I was not proposing any sort of newspeak. I was engaged in supporting my description of the matter being disputed. To simply brush that aside with insults is inappropriate on wikipedia. Do you intend to dialog courteously or are you going to maintain bad discourse and process? --Blue Tie (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Let me try to answer your question. Newspeak is a specially constructed language of the future, proposed in George Orwell's dystopic 1948 novel 1984, that attempts to remold the English language to make certain concepts mean things other than their original meanings--in other words, to gradually engineer a "twisting" of the definitions of certain words so that they may in fact mean the opposite of their "normal," well-understood meanings. Obviously, we don't do that at Wikipedia, which is why we don't use newly-coined euphemisms (developed by those who wish to sanitize their practice) such as "enhanced interrogation techniques" (or its German equivalent, Verschärfte Vernehmung) in the lead; we use the actual term, "torture." However, it does not prevent our discussion and examination of such terms, and their use and origin, in the body of the article itself. Badagnani (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No problemo: no OR is needed. We just say, per NPOV, no-undue-weight and all, "Waterboarding is a form of torture [huge list of cites].", and, lower down the article, "Some people hold that waterboarding is not a form of torture [smaller list of cites]." If we can manage it for intelligent design, we can manage it here. -- The Anome (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You are completely ignoring POLICY; WP:ASF. Please read it. Note that a fact is: "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." There is a serious dispute here. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The fringe opinion referred to in the policy is the one that "waterboarding is not a form of torture," and thus the policy is being followed eminently, according to the current structure and wording of the article, as presented by The Anome. Badagnani (talk)

Again, You are completely ignoring POLICY; WP:ASF. Repeating an argument that does not address the issue is unhelpful and may be a matter of tenditious editing.

"Waterboarding is not torture" is a minority political belief in a single country within the English-speaking world. Waterboarding was torture prior to the Bush administration; it was torture when it was done to American POWs; it remains torture outside the United States, and in the minds of the vast majority of Americans. This minority belief should be -- and is -- given appropriate weight within the article. However, it does not redefine the meaning of the short, expressive, and useful word "torture". -- The Anome (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant if it is a minority political belief in a single country (a statement that is your opinion, not a fact). It is also irrelevant if it was torture prior to the Bush Administration (a statement that is your opinion, not a fact). It is irrelevant that it remains torture in the minds of the vast majority of Americans (a statement that is your opinion not a fact). None of those things matter. What matters is that the statement "Waterboarding is a form of torture" is not a FACT per Wikipedia policy. The policy does not say "if the majority disagree with the minority it becomes a fact". The policy says that if it is seriously disputed it is not a fact. This is very plain. It would be good if you could focus on that issue. What issue? The issue that PER WIKIPEDIA POLICY (not per your opinion) it is not a fact. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see that we are both attempting in good faith to edit this article according to Wikipedia's policies. Unfortunately, we seem to disagree on the application of those policies. When this happens, we have to fall back on consensus, and the current consensus here appears to be that the use of the word "torture" in the first sentence represents the present editors' best effort at interpretating those policies. If you have a new and persuasive argument to the contrary that does not involve holding the caps key down, I'm still willing to listen. -- The Anome (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not detect that you have been willing to listen so far and this most recent comment is not better, though it sounds a bit softer. If you were sincere you would have observed the arguments are already presented. But, just in case there has been some defect in my presentation to date:

1. Wikipedia policy states what a "fact" is.

2. A "fact" is something that is not seriously disputed per that policy

3. The article states, as a fact, that waterboarding is torture.

4. Eleven items have been presented showing it is seriously disputed. The dispute is often by prominent people.

5. That it is disputed, makes the statement "Waterboarding is a form of torture" something that is not fact, per wikipedia policy.

6. With that statement in the lead, the article is not in keeping with wikipedia policy.

7. Since it is not in keeping with wikipedia policy it should be changed.

Now that is the formal set of arguments for a very small part of the problem. Evidence has been presented already. You can read it in detail. You have never addressed any of these points but went to insulting both the critiques and me.

But there is more. The lead does not really summarize the article well and the article needs revision. I have presented my critique of the entire article -- which you have not addressed either. The lead should reflect the contents of the article. If the article mentions a dispute over the sense of waterboarding being torture, then the lead should reflect that as well and in a summary fashion. Further, to meet appropriate tone considerations per WP:NPOV the concepts should be aggregated together; one view should not be presented in one place and then, remotely, a secondary view given short shrift. Indeed that is expressly discussed in the policy as an error.

Why is it so hard to follow the policies on this matter? Do you not trust the readers? --Blue Tie (talk) 03:18, 24 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)

Real sources

Here's a real qualified source(as oppossed to an op-ed pundit) the The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin;

"Various sources have spoken of such techniques involving physical and psychological means of coercion, including stress positions, extreme temperature changes, sleep deprivation, and "waterboarding" (means by which an interrogated person is made to feel as if they are drowning). With reference to the well-established practice of bodies such as the Human Rights Committee and the Committee Against Torture, the Special Rapporteur concludes that these techniques involve conduct that amounts to a breach of the non-derogable right to be free from torture and any form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." [12]

Hope that helps. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What was it you were hoping to help with that? We already know that some sources believe it is torture. Other sources do not. How did your cite clarify? It seems to me all you are doing is denigrated the other sources already providing by describing them as not "real". --Blue Tie (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The United Nations Special Rapporteur is a source whos qualified to say what is and isn't torture unlike the opinions of political commentators. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion. That is insufficient. In addition, you are missing the point. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact a United Nations Special Rapporteur is disqualified as source while advocating the use of a few sources protecting the Bush administration from being indicted for war crimes seems a bit unfortunate. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

When did I disqualify that as a source? When? I am bugged when you charge me falsely. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Blue tie take it to [Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard] if you dispute the source. This person has worked for years in the area and the USA agrees with him when he says IRAN (or anyone else the USA does not like) tortures. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. You are missing the point over and over and over again. I did not say the source was bad. I said that your OPINION that this source is SUPERIOR to other sources is just your opinion. I did not say the source was bad. In fact, I like the source. It is a source that says Waterboarding is torture. I have other sources that say it is not torture. Hence the notion that "waterboarding is torture" is DISPUTED. Can you focus on the actual issue here? --Blue Tie (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read artificial controversy and how it was used in teach the controversy. You will find that nobody denies people dispute the torture-thingy. The point is that when those objecting constitute a very small minority and among experts the majority does not share their objections we consider it a non-dispute, i.e. the non-controversy among the scientific community regarding Intelligent Design. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia articles are not sources for wikipedia articles nor are they sources for wikipedia policy. I will NOT read those articles that have nothing to do with this issue.

2. I have not found that "nobody denies people dispute the torture thingy". Instead, I have found the opposite. I have said that the statement "Waterboarding is torture" is disputed. When I have said that and provided citations and evidence I have found no one (so far) willing to acknowledge that indeed, the notion that waterboarding is torture is disputed.

3. However, I have not said that it is merely disputed, I have argued that it is significantly disputed. And this is where you take exception. But weirdly, you take exception on a basis that is not established in policy. So that you can know that I understand your exception let me restate it:

"The notion that waterboarding is torture is disputed by a very small, insignificant and irrelevant minority, hence the dispute should be ignored"

Simply stated, you are wrong. Would you like me to go into details AGAIN? I can do so. Most of it will be cut and paste. You could instead, just read what I have already written. Things like prominent, nameable politicians, significant portions of the US population, influential opinion holders, etc have all weighed in on the matter. If you will just refer to this we can shorten this discussion. How about if I do it for you. I will give your reply here:

"Even though your sources all fit the definition of a significant and notable minority and would not normally be discounted, IN THIS CASE, the fact that they do not see it as torture makes them obviously incapable of offering a reasonable opinion and so their opinions should not count. Hence there is no real dispute."

Did I get that about right? --Blue Tie (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Had you taken the opportunity to read those articles you would have discovered all your arguments are addressed there. Since you refuse to read them I will discuss them here.

1. We have some experts disputing a certain position (opposing it is torture vs opposing evolution)
2. We also have a majority of experts stating it is torture vs they support evolution.
3. Despite the fact we have experts, even if they are notable, point two clearly establishes the fact no controversy exists and consensus among experts is that waterboarding is torture and ID is pseudoscience.
4. Although we have no actual dispute among the relevant authorities (UN, EU, Professors, Lawyers, et cetera) the fact notable individuals oppose the consensus deserves to be mentioned in the article. As is done in the article on ID.

Hope this better clarifies my position. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Once more, what happens on one page does not have to go to another page. I reject the analogy. Not simply on the principle that what happened there may be wrong, but also because there is a difference between scientific issues and social issues. Scientific issues are more related to testable hypotheses. Social issues are primarily matters of opinion. This is not a scientific issue, it is a social issue.

Bottom Line, refer to wikipedia policy. Do not bring other pages into this discussion. It is not appropriate. And that goes double for scientific vs social debates. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For some reason you keep ignoring the elephant in the room. When an article discusses a certain topic, i.e. biology, medicine, sociology, history, physics, et cetera, it is absolutely allowed to cite "experts" on that particular topic, i.e. biologists, physicians, sociologists, historians, physicists, et cetera. Of course, if among those "experts" the majority subscribes to a certain view of the world (consensus) why would anyone want to suggest that some lone wolf proves there is a dispute among those "experts?" Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

At no point have I argued that we should not cite experts. But also there is no "lone wolf" disputing this. It is notable people and institutions making these disputations. That is what my cites show. If anyone is ignoring something it is that the disputes are from a notable set of people and institutions not some wacko lunatic fringe. I think you are the one ignoring the issues. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And now I have read those articles and they do not apply to the issues at hand. (I disagree with the way the lead for the Teach the Controversy article is constructed anyway). But as I said they do not apply here. There is no isomorphic relationship between the issues on those pages and the issues I have raised. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is silly. Based on the sources that have been presented so far, see above!, we can conclude that numerically there is consensus it is torture. Regarding who says what we can also conclude that most "experts" and institutions agree it is torture. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that things are silly but not in the way you describe. I do NOT conclude that there is a numerical consensus that it is torture. But whether I agree or not is irrelevant. The resolution to the issue is found in policy. But, you are completely ignoring wikipedia policy on NPOV. I see no reason to give your views credit over the agreed upon (by Consensus) policies on wikipedia, no matter how much you believe your position to be right. We are in a community with policies about how such things should be handled. Please stop ignoring them. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A problem is that if you 1-2 people disagree with the content on the page, whilst everyone else doesn't, they do not get to filibuster and obliterate or supercede consensus. If you have a minority viewpoint, unsupported by policy, you need to convince everyone else of the merit of your position. Lawrence Cohen 15:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I agree about filibustering. However, I do not agree that if one or two disagree and everyone else agrees then I should go away. I also do not think consensus says that majority rules. In fact, I would say that I am arguing FOR Consensus... consensus in the form of long held policies, such as NPOV which per JIMBO is non-negotiable. My views are not only supported by policy but DIRECTLY supported by policy. That is my argument. I am arguing that wikipedia policy be applied here. Where have I failed to make that clear. I have said it over and over. I have referred to the policy, given links and quoted it. No one else has done the same. What more do I need to do? I even note that your comment was to a post where I am again, asking that policy be applied. So, are my words to this effect invisible on your computer? Or are you saying that page ownership can overcome wikipedia policies? To me, that is the sort of thing that leads to the necessity for cabals on wikipedia and I oppose such things. Lets use the policies. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Nescio you say "Regarding who says what we can also conclude that most "experts" and institutions agree it is torture." Yes of course. I certainly agree. "Most" but not "all." We cannot say "Waterboarding is a form of torture" as first six words of article. Dispute exists. There is noteworthy expert opinion saying it is not torture in all cases.

Hypnosadist you start section with UN Rapporteur who say "these techniques involve conduct that amounts to a breach of the non-derogable right to be free from torture and any form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." It is not clear that he called waterboarding "torture." It is equally possible that he called it "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" Without calling it "torture." This is ambiguous statement. I cordially invite advocates of "Waterboarding is torture" lead to examine your own sources with same microscopic scrutiny you have examined Andrew McCarthy, John Yoo, Alan Dershowitz and Thomas Hartmann. Thank you. Shibumi2 (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That source was to show the violation of UNCAT that was also supposedly disputed. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. What violation of UNCAT? When was it disputed? Unclear on what you are saying.--Blue Tie (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW: the UN Special Rapporteur may be a fun source but it's not conclusive. It's actually a laughable source, as is anything associated with the UN Human Rights Council or the old Human Rights Commission. Even Mary Robinson conceded that they're one-sided. She might not call them "pro-fascist" but I would.
I recommend not using anything associated with the General Assembly unless you want guffaws from the readers.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Many people consider the UN to be a valid source. Not sure why but they do. So while some may laugh, others will read that with attention and belief. The issue is not that some people think waterboarding is torture... its that the matter is disputed. It is not a fact and wikipedia should not state it as a fact.--Blue Tie (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Randy, you ought to stop while you're behind. Your blatant pro-US nationalism is showing. The UN is an absolutely valid source for information on waterboarding, and you will lose any attempt to minimize or eliminate their usage the moment eyes fall on such arguments. Please argue based on policy only and abandon any political bearing. Lawrence Cohen 17:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not people still respect the UN's words on human rights, I'd like to think we can agree that its positions are not in any way conclusive. The old Commission was a total disgrace to the cause of human rights, and the new United Nations Human Rights Council has only seen fit to condemn one nation, Israel. With all the real horrors and real torture out there, they could have done better. As I said, even Mary Robinson was disappointed.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Archived

I have opened Archive 5 again. Before I did Talk:Waterboarding was 362 KB. This was too large. Shibumi2 (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Waterboarding

Blue Tie began an ANI discussion on this page and protection at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Waterboarding

Thanks. Please weigh in. Lawrence Cohen 15:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Initial discussion and listing of all sources over torture wording

See here, archived now. A breakdown of the sourcing that shows a wide majority of sourcing and expert opinion by far saying Waterboarding is torture. Posting for convenience, as the old section was archived today. Lawrence Cohen 15:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not a full discussion that you are telling people to look at. I note that no one even tried for the other side. It was all one sided. But, more recently, I have posted several who disagree and you have not mentioned those. You are not being fair. Please do not be one sided.

And also, I do not know why it matters anyway. The issue is not Whether waterboard is or is not torture but whether it is significantly disputed. That is the issue. For that to be the issue there MUST be some who say it is torture. There must also be some who say it is not. I am not going to say what I feel because I do not do that as a policy on pages that I edit. But.. I have never argued whether it is torture or not and do not intend to argue that. And I also agree (if it helps I will STIPULATE) that there are many fine, wonderful, credible sources that say it is torture. I have no problem with that. There are also many fine wonderful credible sources that say otherwise. It is thus, disputed. That is my ONLY point. I am not sure how any one can say it is not disputed. The newsheadlines on the issue are all about the dispute. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No one tried for the other side? If people want something included, the impetus is on them to source it. Why didn't anyone add anything? That's not one sided, it represents lack of effort by the other side. Lawrence Cohen 16:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but I was not here then and do not know what happened. But I added a list since then and you ignored it. Your biases are showing. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Since we are listing all sources over torture wording here and here are lists of sources stating that waterboarding is not torture in all cases. Shibumi2 (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Do NOT archive sections from this page without saying you're doing so. I will personally revert the next person that doesn't at least say they're archiving--its making the page confusing! This is especially for Shibumi. :) Lawrence Cohen 16:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought he said he was archiving. I saw him say so. I am not sure what the problem is. The page was too long you know. Do not start a revert war over a talk page, for crying out loud. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No no, I just want people to say in a given edit "archiving". Scrubbing out sections with a blank edit summary is confusing, is all. When I archive, I specifically say "moving to archive #" when I remove a content, so people can follow what I am doing. Lawrence Cohen 16:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Your threat to revert simply because of a lack of an edit summary is inappropriate. It is an aggressive stance and ratchets up the tensions rather than bringing things down. Wow. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

...and you apparently completely missed the tongue-in-cheek nature of how I posted the reminder, which went so far as to include a smiley face. Lawrence Cohen 16:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A velvet fist is still a fist. Smiley faces do not make threats go away. If you were not serious, it was not clear. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Selective archiving, without edit summary nor consensus to do so (as we've seen done today no fewer than three times), when it was already requested that open, current discussions not be archived manually just one or two days ago, is not proper. Please do not do it, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

First instance

Second instance

Third instance Badagnani (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not "selective." I started at top of page and archived down page until I reached current discussion about lead. I am trying to help. Shibumi2 (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - You were asked not to archive active discussions (including the list of sources, which is key to our discussion) just one or two days ago, then you went ahead and did so without edit summary or consensus. That was unreasonable. Do not do it, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fourth instance. Badagnani (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We are discussing change of article lead. We have posted links to all supporting material for both sides. Why keep this page at such large size? I was archiving. Shibumi2 (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The fact that you just, inexplicably, removed active discussion (again without edit summary or posting here), despite repeated requests not to proceed in this manner, was disruptive. Please do not do it. Thanks. Badagnani (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• One user, if asked to stop by multiple people, needs to stop. You have been asked, and haven't stopped, and appear to be unwilling to acede to our requests. I've reported this here and specifically asked for admin intervention. 1) It's bad form to archive recent discussions; 2) it's bad form to archive ones that are contrary to *your* stance and position; 3) doing it anyway when asked three times to stop is unacceptable. You are being disruptive and need to please stop before you get yourself blocked. Lawrence Cohen 19:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am archiving. I am discussing it here. I am posting it here. I am archiving. Do you understand? I am archiving. Is my English not clear enough for you? I am archiving. We already have links to all necessary material. Therefore I am archiving.

I am archiving. Do you understand? I am archiving. We already have links to everything you need to support your argument. Lawrence posted links. This page is too long. Therefore I am archiving. Shibumi2 (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You've been asked to stop--you have no greater authority than anyone else here. When asked to not do something, it's in your best interests to not edit war over it. At all. You've now archived repeatedly, including threads less than 48 hours old. Stop it. Lawrence Cohen 19:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

List of sources

It is clear to all who have been participating in this discussion over the past several weeks (during which time we developed consensus on the lead) that we have been preserving Talk:Waterboarding/Archive_5#Is/isn't torture -- list all sources here (the list of sources, either stating that waterboarding is, or is not, torture). This list of sources should not have been archived, as was done a few hours ago in an ill-advised move (which was not even acknowledged in an edit summary by one of the newest participants in the discussion, who insisted on doing so). I propose that this list (as key evidence for the current discussion) be brought back to this talk page. Badagnani (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Shibuni, be also aware that WP:3RR applies to talk pages (any page, really). Lawrence Cohen 19:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do we now, thanks to user Shibumi (diff), have two separate sections listing sources? This makes no sense. Badagnani (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at his contributions; he's going through *all* the talk archives and simply dumping them here, to make a point. Now we'll have to clean up this pointy vandalism. Sigh. I've asked on ANI for immediate intervention; please weigh in there. Bottom waterboarding section. Lawrence Cohen 20:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Archives 3 & 4

Why are we taking *all* archive pages back into this one now? Is this some sort of WP:POINT that is being made? I have no idea why that was just done. [13] [14] Lawrence Cohen 20:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear this way. Badagnani (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Shibumi2

Shibumi2 was blocked for basically destroying the talk archives. I have to go out with family--Badagnani , would you mind doing the repair honors? Sorry. Lawrence Cohen 20:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Archives fixed and automatic archival

OK, I think I got them all, and now I really do need to go out. Every thread through those that began on 12/20/07 for simplicities sake (as this page IS rather large, due to the non-policy based debate) that this seemed a good way to do it. I'm going to adjust the bot archival to be more frequent as we clearly need it. Please, let the bot do it's job, and no one at all archive again by hand. Going to set it for 14 days for now. Should be plenty. Lawrence Cohen 20:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources - main list

See Talk:Waterboarding/Archive_5#Is/isn't torture -- list all sources here. Badagnani (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

just a suggestion

{{editprotected}} can we reword brain damage in the lead as damage to the brain? Does that make any sense? Kushal^t 22:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The sources mention the possibility of brain damage because, for human beings as well as other mammals, failing to breathe air leads to an oxygen deficiency in the blood (and, hence, the failure of oxygen to reach the brain). This can lead to brain damage. When waterboarding is conducted properly, the subject is unable to breathe, for either a shorter or longer period, depending on the occasion. As described above, this may lead to brain damage due to oxygen deficiency in the blood/brain. Badagnani (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

N Edit declined. I don't see the point of this edit. "Brain damage" and "damage to the brain" mean the same thing, and the former is probably better prose. Sandstein (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Repeatedly, the statement is that we are reverting to a Consensus version.

The supposed "consensus" version is faulty and contrary to wikipedia policies. Now I quote from one of those policies:

"When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies. --WP:CON

So it is invalid to claim to be supporting consensus contrary to policy. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please detail exactly what policy either Ka-Ping Yee's or my modified version of his lead violates, and be detailed. Let's get this settled once for all. People, please keep this focused. No one please add any useless nonsense or trolling like "I favor the US version" or "no one respects the United Nations", because that belongs on another website, not here. Let's focus, and if we can't resolve this, we'll simply have to go some sort of enforced mediation. Lawrence Cohen 01:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow me. This is a classic example of WP:COATRACK. The nominal topic is "Waterboarding." The real topic is "We loathe the Bush administration." You want an example of useless nonsense and trolling? Ask your pal Inertia Tensor why we should ignore John Yoo. And it looks like you're about to lose an evolved consensus, so your suggestion about mediation sounds like it might be sour grapes from a sore loser. 68.31.89.157 (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is why i asked for this article split between Waterboarding (torture) and Waterboarding in the "war on terror", though Torture and the "war on terror" would be less POV and we could include the Al Qaida/militia torture chambers (and mass graves). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to remove those personal attacks. I've left a warning on your talk page. Lawrence Cohen 06:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Calling you POV pushers and NPOV violators isn't a personal attack. If anything, it's an understatement. I think calling Neutral Good a sock puppet is a far better example of a personal attack, but you didn't have a problem with it. Selective outrage is such a joy on this special morning. Merry Christmas. 68.31.210.220 (talk) 12:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

See comments below on User:Neutral Good's editing history. -- The Anome (talk) 15:05, 26 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)

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 :- [15]
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy :- [16]

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)

Vindication

The false accusation against me has been resolved here. Lawrence Coehn has apologized and I accept his apology. Lawrence and Anome, I invite you to refactor your comments here and on my Talk page, related to this provably false accusation. Regarding the claim that I'm an SPA or a bad hand account, I point out that I've only been a registered member here for a few days, and most of them were spent on a Christmas Wikibreak with my family. I would also point out that Inertia Factor has been a member for two months and almost all of his edits appear to have something to do with this article, or the Talk pages of other editors on this article. But unlike others, I do not make such accusations lightly. Now that this ugliness is behind us, I hope that we can work on the Waterboarding article in a constructive manner together. Neutral Good (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Having exchanged emails with Shibumi2, I've learned that his concern in archiving this page was the same as mine. For editors with slower Internet connections, such as dialup and some wireless providers, loading large pages is a tremendous chore. When the page size gets larger than about 100 KB, download speed slows exponentially as size continues to increase and can reach several minutes, to the point of timing out. In effect, insisting on a large Talk page size is a form of elitism: you need to be able to afford a high-speed Internet connection to participate fully at Wikipedia, which is supposed to be "the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit." Less affluent editors, and persons in Third World countries, are excluded for all practical purposes.

Another concern is that Lawrence Cohen was sending Shibumi2 mixed signals. At first, he said he was joking. Shibumi2 isn't from the West. He is less than fully familiar with our social habits, and became confused. Now we've lost him. This was his first real disagreement. Before he showed up on this article, about 90% of his edits were mainspace article edits on Japanese Navy articles and he appears to have some inside knowledge in that obscure area. Look at his Talk page. He was routinely turning stubs into "Did You Know" features on the Wikipedia homepage. Shibumi2 was a valuable asset to the Wikipeedia project. Thanks for driving him away. Neutral Good (talk) 12:33, 27 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.

• 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)
• 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)

• 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 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)

• Strongly support. -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly support. PennState21 (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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'. [17]
• 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)

• Comment 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)

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)

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)

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?

Sincerely Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:20, 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)