Talk:Torture

Page Structure

Plenty of good content here, but the article has so many sections and subsections and quotations that it feels unwieldy. I'm not sure how to clean it up, but suggestions would be great... Ocaasi (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

History of Torture: new article

I agree with splitting the article up to "Torture" and "History of Torture". I have worked on updating the section on History of Torture after 1948. My update includes the separation of physical torture and psychological torture. Updating the information on United States policy on torture. Updating insight of democracies and international agreements.Alpatrum23 (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with spliting the article in two: "Torture" and "History of Torture". The reader is either interested in the historical aspects of torture or in its modern use. Fabio Pereira 12:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say that there's more than enough information on history to make a new page for it. I agree with Fabio. Geniusguy445 (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I Agree. Split it in two. DanielDemaret (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree - Looking at the article now and how I feel a lot more can be added, I would be more than happy to help create and write this new page. Skullbird11 (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Since all seem to be in favor, I intend to split the article in two within a couple of weeks. I am just saying this now to to give others time to protest. DanielDemaret (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Problems with 'Use of Evidence Obtained Under Torture' section

Use of Evidence Obtained Under Torture section is speculative and off topic as it only talks about modern nations that have been accused of using torture and has nothing to to with how evidence obtained was used as such the entire section either needs renaming, rewriting or removing. especially as there are so many on topic examples and topics that are relevant. such as the Chinese use of Water Torture on prisoners and the widespread use of torture across Europe And America to gain confession about witchcraft and heresy ... Mike 10:50, 10 Jan 2011 (GMT)

Mike raises a good point: I hope he will add some footnoted info about confessions of witchcraft which I understand was the last time evidence adduced by torture was allowed in Anglo-American legal process--until the Bush administration. I would add that this section (admission of evidence) might fit better up in the section on laws against torture. I am too busy this afternoon to do the cut and paste and stylistic editing required.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 21:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This topic requires further disambiguation

This article needs to be modified. The subject as discussed so far is not "Torture", but "The Use of Torture for Political Purposes" or "Torture as definied by the UN Convention Against Torture". I have a problem with the hi-jacking of the word "Torture", even if by a respected body such as the U.N., to refer only to its use politically. This distinction needs to be made clear on the "disambiguation page", and either two Wiki pages created, or this article edited.

A great deal of severe interpersonal assault employs torture as defined by various dictionaries, eg.

=====================================

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture

tor·ture noun \ˈtȯr-chər\

Definition of TORTURE 1a : anguish of body or mind : agony b : something that causes agony or pain 2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure 3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining

Origin of TORTURE Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle First Known Use: 1540'

=====================================

The seriousness and consequence of these assaults are diminished when we don't allow them to be described, properly, as torture because our popular culture has allowed that word to be inappropriately narrowed to something smaller (or other) than its original meaning. 70.30.27.3 (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm.. why the hell is there a picture of GW on the top of this page? That makes no sense at all and also shows extreme bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.228.221 (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Torture instruments pictures

Leaving a link here to my message on Commons. --Elitre (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Problem with the year 1722 in the reference

I have a problem with this text 'Sweden and Prussia were the first to do so in 1722 and 1754' When I checked the references, 'Torture" by Edward Peters', 1722 is supposed to come AFTER 1734. 1734 seems to have more sources as the year much, but not all, torture was abolished in 1734. DanielDemaret (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Swedish version of this article upholds 1734 as one year when the torture was limited by law, but also states, which for various reasons seems more accurate the following: "I Gustav III:s kungliga brev av 27 augusti 1772 befalldes, att alla pinorum och tortyrinstrument i riket skulle förstöras, men lagföreskriften om "svårare fängelse" upphävdes först genom kunglig förordning den 12 september 1868." translation: "In a royal letter by Gustav III of August 27 1772 he commands that all 'rooms of pain' and torture instrument should be destroyed, but the use of 'severe imprisonment' was kept until September 12th 1868. " 'Severe imprisonment' usually meant that the prisoner was hung up in a very uncomfortable way, but not killed. If there are no protests, I will take away the reference to the year 1722 next week since it seems to be wrong. DanielDemaret (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate Redirect

This page is linked to a redirect from "German Folk Music". While some people may regard such music as being tortuous, this is clearly an inappropriate / malicious link. Unfortunately I do not how to fix redirects. Can someone sort this out please? Coolavokig (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You might need to purge the page. This vandalism was already reverted days ago.TMCk (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
My mistake. It was still there but is fixed now.TMCk (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture in section on Early Modern period.

Don't know if this is deliberate, but the picture in the Early Modern period, section 1.3, the picture of the Native American scalping someone says 'an 1873'. Is this correct? I'm not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousnerd (talk • contribs) 09:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternate Definition of Torture

The UNCAT definition is the most commonly cited, yet this article omits the fact that the Declaration of Tokyo uses an much broader definition which is preferred by some:

For the purpose of this Declaration, torture is defined as the deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of any authority, to force another person to yield information, to make a confession, or for any other reason.

As James Jaranson points out (in "The Science and Politics of Rehabilitating Torture Survivors," in Caring for Victims of Torture, by Michael K. Popkin):

"The World Medical Association's definition is broader and does not require that the perpetrator be affiliated with a government or act officially with governmental approval. Consequently, this definition includes torture as part of domestic or ritualistic abuse, as well as in criminal activities. On the other hand, the United Nations' definition clearly limits the torture to that perpetrated, directly or indirectly, by those acting in an official capacity and appears to exclude 1) torture perpetrated by unofficial rebels or terrorists who ignore national or international mandates; 2) random violence during war; and 3) punishment allowed by national laws, even if the punishment uses techniques similar to those used by torturers. Some professionals in the torture rehabilitation field believe that this definition is too restrictive and that the definition of politically motivated torture should be broadened to include all acts of organized violence."

Also, I find it odd that in the literature there is virtually no reference to one of the commonest motivations for torturing someone: entertainment. Nearly all publications assume that people are tortured in order to punish them or to force them to give up information. Torture for fun has been ignored, legally and scientifically. Cmacauley (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources about people who tortured for fun, or studies on it. I know there are several historical counts of torture for fun occuring in the dark ages. I believe count dracula is a perfect example.MilkStraw532 (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added See Also Outline of BDSM#Types of torture. Jidanni (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen a study on this topic, but obviously there are many references to it in popular literature. Cmacauley (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I see now that "sadistic gratification of the torturer" is included in the introductory paragraph. I do not know where to insert a discussion of alternative definitions of torture, though; it would not seem appropriate for the introduction. Perhaps a separate paragraph on Definition? Cmacauley (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism or something else?

"The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment boob came into force in June 1987."

"Boob", really? 70.29.244.213 (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitions

I can't find the Amnesty International definition in the source given, Torture in the Eighties (1984):

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ACT40/001/1984/en

However, it is present on page 35 of their Report on Torture (1975):

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ACT40/001/1975/en

Can anyone confirm this?

Simon Barne (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy of information obtained by torture

This article needs information about the accuracy, or lack thereof, of information obtained by way of torture. I thought for sure it would be in here. There's all manner of discussion on the internet, and none of it looks very reliable. 2010 SO16 (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

David Petraeus linked to Iraqi torture facilities

I suggest that the facts reported in http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/pentagon-iraqi-torture-centres-link be added to the article. EllenCT (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking first. I think the simple exercise of trying to figure out which section it belongs in and how to word it, would persuade you that it is not notable enough for here. It could go instead in the David Petreus article, or the article on the Iraq war. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree it should go there. I see that it was also added here, and I agree with that too. EllenCT (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Tortured Inside an MRI

Has anyone ever been tortured inside of an MRI; or is the science still out on whether torture causes pain, like cigarettes and lung cancer, or carbon emissions and global warming?

The preference is for secondary sources. This not just for medical content (though we often apply it more there) but for all content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources for antiquity

I'm a little concerned about the "antiquity" section, particularly the "Romans, Jews, Egyptians and many other cultures during that time included torture as part of their justice system" part. I don't think the Catechism of the Catholic Church can be considered a reliable source on ancient history or sociology. And the source for Jewish stoning confirms that Judaism had stoning, but does not put it into the context of torture. Thus we're left without a reliable source connecting those execution methods to torture. A section that asserts modern scholars' opinions should clarify who exactly those scholars are and where they said so. Huon (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed all references to Judaism from the "antiquity" section, in light of the issues as described by Huan, as well as other reasons which I will list shortly; my contribution has been limited to torture in Judaism, as I do not have sufficient knowledge regarding torture in ancient Rome or Egypt. Regarding the portion which I deleted (torture in Judaism), I first examined the source which had been cited to support this statement. It made no mention of torture, and furthermore, made no conclusive statements of any kind. The source was based on the writings of Philo, though did not directly quote him. Furthermore, without exception, all references to "stoning" in Judaism (the original justification for including Judaism to the list of torturers in antiquity) were suppositions and assumptions; the following are representative examples from the text: "Stoning is probably..." "The precise nature of method of stoning is not stated precisely, however..." "To Philo stoning seems to be...but he does not invariably state the method..." "Philo has relativly little to say of the ways execution was to be carried out..." "Hence, while stoning is not always stated explicitly by Philo, it seems probable that this was the most natural way of punishment carried out." I feel obligated to point out that the statement made in the section was presented to be a statement of fact with a citation as proof of its authenticity and accuracy - yet upon examining the source cited, I was appalled to discover that the statement a) made no reference to torture at all, and b) made no conclusive statements of any kind regarding "stoning." To make matters worse, the source itself justifies the lack of facts/clarity by stating that there is "no need for such an interpretation to be understandable," and provide a citation to bolster this claim - amazingly, upon examining this source (ie. the "source's source), I discovered that this source relied on the Christian bible ("New Testament") to support their position - they cite 8 verses in the bible, then conclude by saying: "but none of these suggest the procedure... nor do they need such a procedure to be understandable." This entire episode is very disturbing. In this case, we had an article which stated unequivocally that torture was/is a part of the Jewish religion - a loaded accusation with profoundly negative connotations - which falsely provided a citation to a source which failed to support the claim, and in turn relied on another source which failed to support the claim, and used the Christian bible their source. Not only is there no mention of torture anywhere in any of these rather dubious sources - but the entire use of the word "stoning" is in of itself an incorrect translation, the result of Hebrew being translated to Greek, then Greek to Latin &tc... One only needs a basic working knowledge of Hebrew to know that the root of the word which is used each time this method of execution is mentioned is Resh-Gimel-Mem (ר-ג-מ), which can connotates tossing, heaving, or pushing, yet when a person throws a stone or other object/missile, the following roots are used: Shin-Lamed-Chaf (ש-ל-כ) (flinging) or Zayin-Resh-Kuf (ז-ר-ק) (throwing), or even Tet-Yud-Lamed (ט-י-ל) (casting/hurling/launching) - which is why all authoritative scholars of Jewish jurisprudence agree that the method known in English as "stoning" in fact involved the "tossing/heaving/pushing" of the condemned (by one of the two required witnesses to his crime) from a specific height, to fall and be killed on a stone courtyard below - and only if the condemned somehow survives this fall, is a boulder pushed from the same place (by the second witness) to crush his body below. This is further bolstered by a textual analysis of the conjugations involved and the context. Also, any death that would cause a) mutilation to the condemned (ie. that would cause his corpse to be mutilated after death), or b) avoidable suffering (making all previous 'torture' references doubly inappropriate) is prohibited, as it would bring the witnesses/judges to transgress a significant number of commandments, both positive and negative. Again, I have chosen to elaborate on this specific example, as I feel it serves to represent a) an example of extreme distortion/misrepresentation/outright falsehood being presented as a cited fact b)having that cited source also present distortions &tc as cited facts as well c) having those cited facts be based on the Christian bible d) admitting that even in the Christian bible, those facts are not stated conclusively! If this were an article on, say, the culture/religion of the Akkadians or other ethno-religious minority which no longer existed, it would still be unacceptable - yet this is a profoundly "inaccurate" statement on Jews and Judaism, a highly maligned and persecuted minority - and it served to portray them in a violent and unseemly manner. I have no right to explicitly question the motives of whoever chose to insert these misrepresentations, yet I would be naive to assume that the possibility of malice could not have played a role either. I am very new here, so if this is too long/in the wrong place/written in an incorrect fashion, or inappropriate in any other way, please let me know, so that I can learn what is considered acceptable here on Wikipedia. Abu~Labid al~Zuraiqi [נשיקות פיהו] (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Obama: USA tortured some folks

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/01/obama-cia-torture-some-folks-brennan-spying

The big news here is that the CIA documented that regular interrogation worked way better at getting accurate information, and then went on a several-year clandestine campaign against the US Senate to hide that, and just this month admitted it. 104.128.96.117 (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You can cetainly add this, with the citation, to the article in the section on whether torture works. But I would wait until the whole report comes out, and the pro-torture people have a chance to respond.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 12:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Presumably they had a chance to respond during the drafting of the report. If there were sufficient reasons to accept such responses as persuasive, would there be any opposition to release of the report? Are there any public authorities meeting Wikipedia's reliable source criteria which suggest torture might ever be effective in general? The article already cites [1] and [2] in support of the statement that, "there is simply no scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness." 104.128.96.117 (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The CIA did indeed respond to that but most of the rebuttal will remain classified. It will probably take years for this stuff to drip out. Perhaps in the next administration, assuming there's a more willing Senate then, or after more intelligence failures drive more leaks.

It's wrong to characterize those who support the fight against fascism as "pro-Torture" when they were simply trying to find the line below real torture. The real pro-Torture folks are those with sympathies to groups like Hamas, ISIS, etc., and those who defend them, e.g. Cageprisoners and their friends at Amnesty. I'll note that the CIA hasn't waterboarded anyone since 2003. It's a bit disingenuous to pretend to oppose "torture-lite" when they choose instead to support a policy of leaving detainees in the hands of Pakistani and Saudi intelligence.

In any case, it will take years for the full truth to come out. The people who pretend to oppose torture will need to keep reading the news every day.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy

It is stated that "torture is universally condemned by all Democratic nations". That is not correct. The USA argues that torture is legal, and does so by adopting a unique definition of torture.122.59.167.152 (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)