Jump to content

Talk:Waterboarding

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.9.150.106 (talk) at 02:01, 31 December 2007 (→‎Blue Tie's proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

See also: Talk:Waterboarding/Definition

WikiProject iconMilitary history Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
  • | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no>
  • | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no>
  • | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no>
  • | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no>
  • | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no>
assessing the article against each criterion.
Additional information:
/ 
Note icon
This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

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) Updating to ensure this is not archived yet. Lawrence Cohen 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. [1]
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)[reply]
  • 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." [1]
Comment: Graham did not say it was torture but rather "illegal"--Blue Tie (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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))[reply]
Comment: The US State Department was not talking about Waterboarding but submersion -- which is different.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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.
  • 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.
Comment: Jimmy Carter did not say that waterboarding was torture. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mississippi Supreme Court. [2]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 [3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Attorney Andrew Williams, on resigning from Navy Judge Advocate General corps [4] (Knight Ridder pres wire service, Dec 27, 2007.) called it torture. Williams in his resignation letter said waterboarding was used as a form of torture by the Inquisition, and by the Gestapo and the Japanese Kempietai. He cites the post-WW2 conviction of Japanese Officer Yukio Asano for waterboarding resulting in a 15 year sentence. Edison (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that assert waterboarding is acceptable

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Please, again, quote where White says that? I don't see it. Lawrence Cohen 17:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 NescioGnothi seauton 15:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Sources that assert waterboarding is not torture

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

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

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. [[5]] Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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.[2] 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.[3] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[4] 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.[5] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[6]
Waterboarding has been used in interrogations to obtain information and coerce confessions at least as early as the Spanish Inquisition.[7] 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,[5][8] politicians,[9] war veterans,[10][11] intelligence officials,[12] military judges,[13] and human rights organizations.[14][15] However, some noteworthy legal experts, including Stanford Law professor and former US deputy assistant attorney general John Yoo[16] and former US Justice Department prosecutor Andrew McCarthy[17] 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 [18] and that the Justice Department had authorized this procedure.[19] 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.

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)[reply]
I have removed that sentence. Please reconsider your vote. Shibumi2 (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong support. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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.[2] 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.[3] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[4] 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.[5] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[6]

"Waterboarding has been used in interrogations to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish and intimidate from at least as early as the Spanish Inquisition.[7] 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Waterboarding is torture is not a point a veiw, it's a fact. --Can Not (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide sources, please add them to the ongoing RfC at Talk:Waterboarding/Definition. Jehochman Talk 19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we already sourced the ENGLISH LANGUAGE and the DICTIONARY. The definition of torture actually covers the effects of waterTORTUREboarding. If US officials want to say its not torture, don't lie about it and say its not torture. Just say somewhere in the article that "US officials deny that this specific type of torture is torture." then we'll have fact infested article thats neutral and gives US their fair side of the story.--Can Not (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inertia Tensors proposed Lead

Painting of waterboarding from Cambodia's Tuol Sleng Prison

Waterboarding is a form of torture[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] 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.[29] 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."[30]

It drones on, I'd rather support torture with refs linking below, not extra paragraphs. Inertia Tensor (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Factually incorrect and biased. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. Factually incorrect and biased. Shibumi2 (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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[31]. 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[32]. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex[33]. 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[34]. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure[6].
Waterboarding has been historically known as a method of torture since its use during the Spanish Inquisition.[35] 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[36][37], politicians[38], war veterans[39][40], intelligence officials[41], military judges[42], and human rights organizations[43][44]. 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 [45] and that the Justice Department had authorized this procedure[46].

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)[reply]

Is this an acceptable lead?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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


  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 NescioGnothi seauton 12:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
--Blue Tie (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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 NescioGnothi seauton 09:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 NescioGnothi seauton 11:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 NescioGnothi seauton 09:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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." [6]

Hope that helps. (Hypnosadist) 10:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In your opinion. That is insufficient. In addition, you are missing the point. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 NescioGnothi seauton 12:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 NescioGnothi seauton 13:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 NescioGnothi seauton 13:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 NescioGnothi seauton 14:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 NescioGnothi seauton 14:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Waterboarding

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
...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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
First instance
Second instance
Third instance Badagnani (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
Fourth instance. Badagnani (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [7] [8] Lawrence Cohen 20:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Sources - main list

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

just a suggestion

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

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)[reply]
☒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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
See comments below on User:Neutral Good's editing history. -- The Anome (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Yet more people who say its torture

  • American Psychological Association :- [9]
  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy :- [10]

Thats a few hundred more Ph.d's. (Hypnosadist) 20:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Oh they are from New york well that explains it. (Hypnosadist) 11:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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.[5] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[6]
Waterboarding has been used in interrogations to obtain information and coerce confessions at least as early as the Spanish Inquisition.[7] 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.[18] and that the Justice Department had authorized this procedure.[19]

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

Statements of support or opposition, December 27-28

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)[reply]
Agreed. Lawrence Cohen 00:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Welcome back! htom (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 NescioGnothi seauton 12:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 NescioGnothi seauton 15:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The whole point of a competent tribunal is to be open to groups like the ICRC, with three officers putting their names (and hence reputations) to the proceeding so we know who passed judgement. KSM has not had a compitent tribunal otherwise the US Gov would say if he is a Combatant or a Civilian, the ONLY two things you can be classified under GCIII. (Hypnosadist) 17:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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'. [11]
  • 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)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons stated above by Ka-Ping Yee. Remember (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • CommentOppose The statement "waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage" requires a reliable medical source, which I doubt you will find, for the simple reason that it is impossible to perform any physical act of violence in a way that guarantees no physical damage. What if the victim has a weak heart, or genetic susceptibility to heart attack? An accurate statement might be "waterboarding may or may not result in lasting physical damage, or even death, depending on the severity of the attack, and victim's constitution and disposition". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Good in some respects (brief and to the point, if anything), seriously flawed in other: 1) no mention of suffocation, the essence of waterboarding, 2) current events trivia - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaidah - why are their names important here? (Still, the current events bit is brief, which I think is good.) And finally: we learn that waterboarding "carries the risks of pain, physical injuries, and even death" and that psychological effects "can last for years after the procedure" - which is funny, because that's just like torture. GregorB (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are different waterboarding techniques. If done with great care for the safety of the detainee, it appears to me that there is no risk of physical pain, injury or death. Which is funny because that's absolutely nothing like torture at all. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed]. We won't build articles on editor opinions. Source? Lawrence Cohen 17:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The anonymous editor was probably referring to mock execution, another non-torture method. (Sorry about the sarcasm, I sometimes can't resist...) GregorB (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Same problems. The avoidance of 'torture' avoids the actual definition of waterboarding. Waterboarding was defined as a form of torture around the world (and even in the US prior to 2001 or 2002). After it was discovered that the US was using waterboarding was when a redefinition was attempted. Torture was a bad word, so it was desired that it be called an "enhanced interrogation technique" (a euphemism for torture). If the procedure that the CIA uses another technique that is not painful and is not intended to coerce confessions, then perhaps a new page should be created: Waterboarding (Post 2001 CIA interrogation technique). Such a page would require sources that explain how it is different from past waterboarding, and what precise parts of the definition of torture does it fail to meet.Nospam150 (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


CommentFirst of all, I think all this focus on the lead is a mistake. The body of the article should be written first and then the lead can take shape more easily. BUT, recognizing the attention given to the lead, I would say this current lead is "OK' in what it says but not OK in what it does not say. It states that waterboarding always involves pouring water into the breathing passages. Yet the article and the references do not support that statement. The article (and the lead) fail to review evidence of its effectiveness. Also, this new lead completely ignores the dynamic and strong debate over whether or when Waterboarding is torture. This should be included because it is such an important part of the story. I believe it should be a final paragraph. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"dynamic and strong debate over whether or when Waterboarding is torture"?? I think I saw that debate. One side said it was torture, and the other refused to answer the question for reasons of national security. As for the debate about 'When' it is torture, well there is no debate, right? Before the year 2001, it is torture, after 2001, it is interrogation. Or does someone have a source before 2001 claiming that it is not torture? Sorry for the sarcasm. As for the first point, perhaps you have a point if the primary definition does not generally match the historical uses of the waterboarding term. But I would also hope that meaningless concepts like "drowning simulations" also be avoided. Nospam150 (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statements of support or opposition, December 29-30

Comment That vote makes it 9-8 in favor of the new lead. I do not know how much of a majority we need for the America bashers to admit that we have a consensus, but it's time to start discussing that question. Neutral Good (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't vote on content on Wikipedia. Lawrence Cohen 02:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I consider being called an "American basher" a personal attack. Lawrence Cohen 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a democracy, it works by consensus. I would be a good idea for you to read WP:CON to gain a better understanding of what a consensus is. You're quite blatent bias is extremely harmful to your argument as it makes it look very much like you are pushing a non-neutral POV. This article is not about the US, the US only features in minor parts of the article. There are no policy issues with the lead so i can see no reason to change it. It reads very well. --neonwhite<;;;small> user page talk 03:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’Support.’’’ - Qualified support. The term "torture" in this context is not an objective noun, but a subjective word with a decidedly negative implication of illegality. I do tend to agree with the "opposed" comment above which said that the description from the HRW should be more exactly provided as a quotation with citation; I support fixing it so that it's clear the description is FROM a source, rather than an objective fact. Maybe some people would like to pretend "torture" is simply a descriptive word, but the real elephant in the room isn't that the technique is a clearly coercive technique, but that labelling it "torture" is tantamount to passing judgment on the morality of it's use, and it is THAT connotation that makes the lead as it now stands a biased POV. You can put the facts in the article, everybody will come to their own conclusions, and nobody will read the first line and think "I hate how the left has taken over Wiki". Seems like a win-win to me.71.114.17.179 (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Any negative understanding of the word is a personal POV only, at no point does the article express any POV on it. It has a defintion that fits. A word does not have any morality. A person bases that on their own morality and we are not here to decide how people interpret a particular word. The lead is completely neutral in tone. --neonwhite user page talk 06:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you feel so strongly that "torture" is not a word with a clear and well-understood definition in the English language, and that the definition of every form of torture, regardless of its historical consideration as such, may be redefined either as torture, or not, according to the individual, you had better try to change the title of the article Rack (torture). You should also eliminate most of the text from the Torture article, which does define torture quite clearly. Badagnani (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if he supports the war in Iraq he should trot right down to a recruiting office, right? Because if he doesn't head off to boot camp right away, he's a hypocrite, right? Pardon me, but each individual has the right to express an opinion and take action of his own choosing, and at a time of his own choosing, supporting that opinion (or take no action at all). Neutral Good (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The topic of waterboarding is "in the news." Frankly, I'm surprised that we don't have a lot more so-called SPA IP accounts editing on this page. Also, IP editors could be using an ISP that is highly dynamic. On one evening, we saw four different IPs starting with "68" editing on this page, all exhibiting the same consistent train of thought; and only one of them voted in consensus. (Thanks to the body cavity search that is now being performed on every editor who disagrees with Lawrence Cohen, everyone now knows that I am Red X Unrelated to all of them.) An IP editor (or a new account like mine) that appears to have only a few previous edits (or none at all) could have an extensive editing history under other IPs (like me).
But those who prefer to believe that a conspiracy exists will always believe that a conspiracy exists, and will continue to pretend that WP:BITE and WP:AGF and WP:NPOV are not Wikipedia policy - or, at least, that such policies do not apply to them. Neutral Good (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, there is absolutely nothing wrong with an SPA. We welcome new editors and are pleased to have them. However, new editors may not be so familiar with policy, and occasionally they are recruited in hopes that they will edit to a particular point of view. As a new editor, if you need an help editing Wikipedia or understanding policies, feel free to visit my talk page. Jehochman Talk 06:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said, "If we disregard the SPAs, there is a strong consensus against the new lede." If "there is absolutely nothing wrong with an SPA," why are you suggesting that they should be disregarded? Neutral Good (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its called meatpuppetry Neutral, of the new IPs and Users suddenly all turning up here only PennState looks like a real person. (Hypnosadist) 14:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's called "In The News," Hypnosadist. Because the subject of waterboarding is In The News, Internet users who have never used Wiki before are looking up "waterboarding" with Google and other search engines, and finding this Wikipedia article prominently listed. Since it's In The News, there may even be a university professor or two (or more) using this article as a class assignment for his students. But they can't edit the article to correct the POV bias in the lead, despite the claim that this is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Some of them are curious enough to start clicking on those blue-labeled tabs across the top of the article mainspace page, and 1find their way here.
There are going to be some Senate hearings investigated the CIA's destruction of the videotapes taken when two high-value detainees were waterboarded in 2002. When those Senate hearings are broadcast live on C-SPAN, and the most mean-spirited soundbites are packaged and broadcast on every news broadcast in the Western world, you can expect another wave of new editors here. That is the nature of editing an article about a controversy as the controversy unfolds. Neutral Good (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"That is the nature of editing an article about a controversy as the controversy unfolds" Thats the problem right there, this page should not be about some political wrangle in the US, but about the method of torture called waterboarding. Not if waterboarding is torture under US law. (Hypnosadist) 16:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are correct, then the distribution of voting amongst the new SPAs will be not be radically different from longterm editors. If, however, the vast majority of new SPAs are voting one particular way, then votestacking is clearly taking place. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the distribution of voting amongst the new SPAs is radically different from long-term editors, because a group of POV-pushing long-term editors here is trying to WP:OWN the article. In other words, perhaps it's the sample of long-term editors that's skewed, rather than the sample of new SPAs. Isn't that a possibility, Chris? After all, look at some of the comments on the RFC by Wandalstouring, Terraxos and Roger Davies. Neutral Good (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As is pointed out on WP:MEAT, meatpuppetry is pointless as wikipedia works by consensus not by votes. New users who demonstrate misunderstanding and unfamiliarity with wikipedia policies are unlikely to add much weight to a consensus and will likely have their opinions disregarded. Experienced editors with a history of good editing are likely to have their opinion taked more seriously. Your accusations of POV are very unwise, as the says goes 'don't throw stones if you live in a glass house'. --neonwhite user page talk 15:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is flagrant sockpuppetry. Notice how all these new SPAs are all signing ’’’Support.’’’ with that exact same formatting. I haven't seen that formatting used before on any page here, and suddenly three different people do it within a short time period of each other, is a sign of something being done that is untoward. Three random, unrelated people all have the same typo is beyond the realm of possibility. Perhaps someone will want to post to WP:ANI, indicating the problem here. Lawrence Cohen 15:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry is unknown, i agree that it seems unlikely that a new user would randomly arrive at this talk page as a beginning but it is not impossible for a new user to create an account to add a comment to a particular discussion they feel strongly about. Though on studying the page i think it is very likely and there is significant evidence for a notice board report considering the repeated erroneous formatting. --neonwhite user page talk 15:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to have you editing again after 8 months. (Hypnosadist) 14:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making your first edit here. (Hypnosadist) 14:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant support. Although my opinion is that the Bush Administration is the rise of a new fascism, and that waterboarding is indeed torture, we cannot editorialise in an encyclopaedia. Some experts say that it isn't torture in all cases, or that they are uncertain. An encyclopaedia, if it is truly neutral, must be uncertain as well. Harry Lives! (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oi! If I'm to be labeled a 'single purpose account,' then my single purpose is making Harry Potter articles even more brilliant. I found this one on Recent Changes. Thanks. Harry Lives! (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That makes it 13-9 in favor of the new lead. Even if we concede the sock puppetry allegation by Lawrence (who has been proven to make false accusations of sock puppetry) and disregard the IP editors who are all making the same typo, it's still 10-9 in favor of the new lead. Neutral Good (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And its still not a vote! (Hypnosadist) 16:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good, you are being disruptive. Please stop this now. There is no consensus for a new lead. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 17:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. I believe that to be neutral, the lead must mention the word 'torture' somewhere. It doesn't have to say 'waterboarding is torture' - indeed, it shouldn't, as that would be non-neutral. But to ignore the word altogether is to ignore the very thing that makes it controversial. It should say 'waterboarding is considered by many (references) to be a form of torture' or something along those lines; anything less would look like it was trying to escape the real issue here. Terraxos (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(If it's worth mentioning, I was invited to comment on this poll by User:Neutral Good.) Terraxos (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 NescioGnothi seauton 09:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?[citation needed]
  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 NescioGnothi seauton 15:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Comment - This is utter nonsense, as waterboarding is torture by definition, having been considered as such by every nation dating back to the Spanish Inquisition. This is sourced and verifiable. It's now time to move on and actually improve/expand the article (particularly historical uses of this technique, which need more detail and sources), as was requested yesterday. You did not take me up on this offer, and I will make it again. Badagnani (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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 NescioGnothi seauton 16:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere does it say that; Randy's stance is supported on the level it is supported to say the current US President ordered the destruction of the World Trade Center or that Castro was responsible for JFK. Per Wikipedia policy it is a minority fringe viewpoint. If that isn't liked, go change policy. Lawrence Cohen 16:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, my statement was in accordance with previously cited sources (like Pelosi's approval, and the 100 law profs). While your position isn't claiming that Bush supported the destruction of the WTC, you are claiming that the lawyers at the USDOJ approved torture. That's POV, and now that you mention it, perhaps a BLP violation as well.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, your statement is a deliberate attempt at slow vandalism and harm to Wikipedia, by distorting encyclopediac content outside of policy, by virtue of elevating your personal politics to be more important. Shall I provide a dozen diffs showing your dismissive tone to anything not pro-United States? Please also cite where I said "that the lawyers at the USDOJ approved torture" or redact this. I think it's past time that inflammatory political statements on this page be clamped down on, and treated as disruption. Disruption and POV pushing are blockable offenses. Lawrence Cohen 16:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying your personal politics hasn't come into this? WP policy is supposed to guide us regardless of our politics. As for mine, nowhere have I asked that we clean up verifiable actions by the U.S.
We have references that say waterboarding was approved by the USDOJ. How can it be torture without saying that they approved torture?
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works, and our role is not to defend people--our role is to report what sources say. If we have sources that say waterboarding is torture, and sources that say the USDOJ approved waterboarding, there is *NO* issue or concern in having both in the article. Is that your big concern? If it is, say so. Because that is a violation of nothing, so long as we don't explicitely say "The USDOJ approved torture" without independent sourcing of that fact. It is not a BLP concern. Our role is to literally regurgitate what reliable sources say. If the ulimate conclusion when taken in whole of that regurgitation is unappealing to some for whatever political, religious, or ideological reason, there are a variety of "oh well" phrases that can cover that possibility. Lawrence Cohen 16:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you're not saying that sources call it torture. You want to say that Wikipedia calls it torture.
I fail to see how we can say it's torture, and that the USDOJ approved it, that that's not saying the USDOJ approved torture. At best you're saying the USDOJ is either stupid or lying.
I welcome admin oversight. If Wikipedia calls it torture, at least it can be said that they officially called it torture.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, the sources are calling it torture. If the article cites a hundred sources, and the page says "waterboarding is a form of torture[1-100]" that isn't Wikipedia saying it is, it's reporting what 100+ sources say. As for whether or not it makes a group like the USDOJ look foolish, divine, righteous, or whatever, why is that our concern as an encyclopedia? Lawrence Cohen 17:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The exact policy is WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves. That's all I'm asking for.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what we've been doing, Randy. But that one facet of NPOV will not trump WP:WEIGHT, not the rest of NPOV, nor other policies like RS. We can let the facts speak for themselves, except when we don't like what they say (i.e., 100+ people, US legal decisions on Japanese prisoners, and historical records saying waterboarding is torture)? You can't have it both ways. You want the article to include things like "expert opinion is divided" or that it's not torture, the impetus is on *you* to provide equivalent sourcing and evidence. Whoever wants to include some phrase, or POV, or fact in an article when challenged has to offer a demonstration that is communally accepted of why it must be included. The people here have demonstrated ad nauseum with literally 100+ verifiable sources that "Waterboarding is torture". You need to put up now, or something. Get to it, and come back when you have something, and kindly stop wasting everyone's time so that an encyclopedia can be written free of your political stances. Lawrence Cohen 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As explained previously, the examples you're giving aren't precisely the same.
It seems to me that the USDOJ is the only source we have that's reviewed both the law, and the exact technique itself. That should satisfy WEIGHT.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe specific to the United States only, but is this article Waterboarding in the United States? Why on Earth would a practice used throughout history by a variety of countries and religious groups have it's entire tone determined by what the modern 21st century USDOJ may or may not consider waterboarding--and we *still* have no evidence of whether the current US Government considers it torture, because they won't say if they do or not. Why are we suggesting using this article to defend a nation's politics? Lawrence Cohen 17:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:BLP and this page

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

Waterboarding is torture?

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

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

Proposal

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

That is already covered in the article. We have the comments of a former U.S. attorney, made in National Review, as well as the brief comments of a not particularly notable Internet columnist. We don't yet have the comments of the two Republican politicians. Badagnani (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Are you saying you don't want a link in the lead to the section later in the article that fully discusses this topic? If so, why? Remember (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's very clear what is going on here with this "debate," as I've seen it many times before. The aim is to hammer an issue until the text shows ambiguity regarding its definition, and the illusion of a debate over the very definition of a thing. This is, in the minds of those wishing to make this technique available, a battle for public opinion, and Wikipedia, which is the 8th most visited website in the world and constantly used as a reference, is seen as a key battleground. By abusing the high value we place on working together and consensus, even small concessions such as acknowledging in the lead that there is a significant debate whether this form of torture really is a form of torture--even with a link to this "debate" later in the article is a victory of sorts. Most of the public never feels strongly one way or another about any subject, and if they can be desensitized to this one by reading text saying something like "within the United States, there is a healthy debate whether it really is torture," then the side favoring the technique's use has again scored a victory, as most of those reading that text may simply shrug their shoulders and move on to other things. You see, the aim of the hammering is not actually to get a redefinition, but to create just enough ambivalence/ambiguity to engender this "shoulder-shrugging" effect among the general public. Badagnani (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as a "no you don't want a link to appear in the lead." Just so you know, what I was proposing was something like "Waterboarding is a form of torture (see classification as torture) that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passage." I don't think that this causes the problems that you highlight above, but to each his own. Any other opinions? Remember (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying. I thought you meant you were going to link, in the lead, to a section about the "debate." Badagnani (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So are you still against this idea? Remember (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I just looked at that section and I feel the first sentence gives undue weight to the purported ambiguity/ambivalence whether waterboarding is torture. Badagnani (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with User:Remember's proposal here. I feel optimistic that we can work together to edit the "classification as torture" section to provide a balanced representation of the opinions on the issue. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, I like your approach to trying to solve the issue. I think wikipedia manual of style would object though. Not sure, I would have to research it. But in my experience, we do not in-line link to other wikipedia articles or to our own article. Bad form.
One of the problems with this debate is that we are debating the lead when the article needs to be improved and THEN the lead re-written to summarize the article (not to summarize a pov).--Blue Tie (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

It is going on because it is a pov. Wikipedia should be written NPOV. The debate for me is not about waterboarding. It is about wikipedia policies being applied to an article on waterboarding--Blue Tie (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No its about you and your mates running blocking coverage for the CIA. (Hypnosadist) 16:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I request that you refactor that statement and avoid personal attack. Assume Good Faith. After you do, then you can remove this request too. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AGF is not a suicide pact and it is allowed to run out especially with POV warriors supporting warcrimes. (Hypnosadist) 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's verifiable, extremely so. NPOV does not mean No point of view. There isn't POV issue here. Intensely policital based statements can't be given too much weight. They are mentioned, that's enough. There is no commentary on it that i can see. --neonwhite user page talk 16:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you are saying but I agree that NPOV does not mean NO point of view. There is, however, a POV issue here. Sources are being rejected based upon personal pov of editors. That is a pov issue--Blue Tie (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What sources? --neonwhite user page talk 17:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources are useless, no medical evidence (we have), your legal sources don't say waterboarding isn't torture and they only consist of the minority opinion in one county in the world and claim only to apply after 9/11. So they are useless, recentist and biased to about 23% of 1 nation in the world. Thats a finge theory on wikipedia. (Hypnosadist) 16:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you have of wikipedia quality are the OPINIONS of two Congressmen and the legal advice of a wanted warcriminal who says that POTUS can define the word "Torture" to mean anything he wants. Thats it and thats a fringe theory. (Hypnosadist) 16:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's largely the case, we are looking at a limited amount of comments that are very clearly politically motivated, in one of the cases contradictory, often erroneous and deliberately vage. Compare this to sources like UNHCR and all the historical sources available. The article does include opinions and texts on the controversy of it's use. The fact that US politicians often skate around the issue and give ambiguous answers when questioned in public doesn't change the definition. --neonwhite user page talk 17:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are absolutely NO SOURCES that say "THERE IS NO DISPUTE". There ARE sources that say that there is a Dispute. There are also sources that, while not saying there is a dispute strongly support that notion. There are no sources that do not support that notion. The issue is not "Is Waterboarding Torture?". The issue is: "Is it disputed that Waterboarding is torture?". If you mix up, miscount and mis-characterize my sources as hypnosadist has done, it invalidates your point. If you also do not recognize the actual issue and continue to ask the question "Is Waterboarding Torture?" you are not even addressing the problem. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"mix up, miscount and mis-characterize my sources as hypnosadist has done" Please enlighten me, what am i mixing up? Miscounting? Mis-characteriseing? (Hypnosadist) 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Surely it would help the discussion if contributors firts acquaint themselves with WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT before commenting. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Fringe pertains chiefly to science or pseudo science -- not to this type of article. Weight applies for sure but editors should also be familiar with the the co-equal (or possibly superior) WP:ASF and consider that the debate over the issue includes a NOTABLE and significant or more than trivial minority. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you quoting: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In which it clearly states that a non-dispute can be prtesented as fact, i.e. ID. Hmmm, I wonder, does a 100+ consensus:1 represent a dispute? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe theories apply to any article. all significant views are represented fairly and without bias, with representation in proportion to their prominence. This article complies with that. --neonwhite user page talk 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are quoting NPOV. That is a different policy. (Fringe is actually a guideline not a policy and does not hold the same weight). --Blue Tie (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a quote from WP:FRINGE:
"We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.[3] Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth."
There is no restriction to solely fields of scientific endeavor -- and, in my opinion, "waterboarding is not torture" certainly qualifies as a "novel re-interpretation of history". -- The Anome (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that is its focus. And ... As a guideline , it does not trump WP:ASF. There are lots of other issues too.. and one of them is that it is focused on scientific or at least testable issues. Our issue here... whether the notion that "waterboarding is torture is a disputed" concept does not hinge around Fringe. It is not a widely and scientifically disproved fringe theory that there is a dispute on this matter. On the other hand, this issue does hinge on WP:OR which is not just a guideline as I recall, but an actual policy. In particular, people who say it is not disputed ought to be required to show evidence that it is not disputed. I have given evidence that it is. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The views are represented in the articles, this whole discussion is pointless. 'waterboarding is torture' is not disputed by any notable sources. It is clearly a tiny minority fringe theory and should not be given undue weight. You're starting to talk nonsense. No-one has to prove something isnt disputed. If there is no significant contrary sources then there is no issue. A handful of politically motivated half comments are not evidence of a challenge to mainstream views. --neonwhite user page talk 17:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Objectively, per Jimbo Wales criteria, you are wrong. It is disputed by notable sources. Quantitatively, a 1:2 difference is not "Fringe". You can always find people in polls who will answer "Yes sex with three year olds is great" and this number hovers around 3 to 8 percent depending upon the question. The number in a poll that is used as a source for the debate is 29% -- at least 4 times larger than I would agree is a tiny or insignificant group. There is definitely a dispute. Notable and significant. Population-wise, it is about the same ratio as the dispute called the Civil War. You may consider the confederacy to have been tiny or insignificant, but that would be an odd view and probably a weird reinterpretation of history -- or in other words, a Fringe viewpoint. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poll, I'm 99% sure, are not valid RS for this sort of thing, but I have asked on the reliable sources noticeboard to settle this one or the other. If consensus there agrees that general/random polls are not acceptable, will you back down? Lawrence Cohen 17:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would back down ONLY on the condition that I am the one who submits the wording about what the poll is used for. It is in the context of what it is used for that its validity stands or falls and I do not trust anyone else to present that correctly. I have not looked but I suspect you have not done so this time. If you have failed to mention that the poll was used to establish the degree of minority or majority of an opinion, that would be a mistake. If you failed to mention that the minority is described as tiny or insignificant and the poll was used to measure its size, that would be a mistake. If you failed to mention that the poll was used to support the sense that there is a dispute underway, that would be a mistake. If, however, you put the poll forward as a measure of the "truth" of whether waterboarding is torture, (which is how I suspect it would be read or worded), you would also be making a mistake. Which is why I would want to word the issue. Otherwise I will say that you mischaracterized the issue. And I am tired of saying it but I really do not think anyone is getting it. So it bears repeating. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing a poll can be used for is to cite the result of a poll and it would have to be a notable one to be relevant content for any article. False analogies are not helping your arguement. In this case we have an overwhelming amount of evidence and sources for one viewpoint and a small amount of very dodging sources for another. In my opinion, if anything these have too much weight in the article. Policy specifically says not to give undue weight and considering the lack of significance of the minority view it does not warrant anything more than a few lines. --neonwhite user page talk 23:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I use the poll for is to cite the results of the poll. It is a notable poll, so it is relevant. I agree that false analogies are not helpful, but I did not make any false analogies. You are wrong about the overwhelming support for one viewpoint and a small amount of very dodging sources for another UNLESS you are missing the issue. If you think the issue is "Is Waterboarding Torture" then you are missing the issue. If you realize that the issue is: "Is waterboarding's status as torture disputed" then you are wrong about sources because there is not a single reliable source quoted so far that says it is not disputed. And many that say it is. I believe you are not recognizing the issue and are caught up in trying to answer the wrong question. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are trying to use the result of a non significant unverfied poll to further your POV. The multiple sources speak for themselves, it has been said many times. Do not disrupt the discussion by denying what is obvious. The issue is that you are trying to give undue weight to a small minority opinion that is barely significant to include at all. --neonwhite user page talk 05:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The poll is significant. The poll does not need to be verified by an independent source to be a reliable source per wikipedia (otherwise I need to require that ALL of your proposed references must ALSO be verified by a separate independent source) per wikipedia standards and policy. What you are asking for there is over the top. You claim multiple sources. But you have not even provided even one source. Not even one. There is no such thing as disruption on my part when I am the only one to offer cites and references for my position. On the other hand, if anyone is disrupting it is the person who is refusing to acknowledge these references and sources while providing none themselves. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20% of the population believe the moon landings were faked[12], 39% believe that humans were "definitely created" in the last 10 000 years[13], 80% believe the government is hiding aliens[14]. 60% couldn't find Iraq on a map[15], 75% believe english is the most widely spoken native language[16] Clearly, the public (at least when asked in polls) is wildly unreliable when it comes to factual matters. henrik•talk 18:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is your OPINION that the public is wildly unreliable when it comes to what you consider to be factual matters. However, you are missing the point. The issue is not "Is Waterboarding Torture?". The issue is : "Is it disputed that Waterboarding is Torture?". In that question a poll is a good source for showing it is disputed. But if it is not good enough, I have also produced a news report saying that the issue of waterboarding being torture is disputed. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically the people who took the poll aren't verifiable sources. --neonwhite user page talk 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is untrue. The people who took the poll are considered a reliable source and the poll itself is verifiable. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If public opinion is such a reliable source of information why do we have the scientific method, evidence based medicine and do we consider invoking vox populi a logical fallacy? Here is why: public opinion frequently/mostly differs from that of experts. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No they aren't, nobody knows who they are, let alone if they are verifiable sources. Their opinions are not relevant. --neonwhite user page talk 05:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Henrik, you've claimed that "75% [of the population] believe english is the most widely spoken native language." That poll wasn't taken from the entire population. That poll was taken from 18- to 24-year-olds. That's the first one I checked and you made a false statement about it,. so I feel no need to explore your misrepresentations any farther. Kindly stop misrepresenting the evidence. Thanks. Neutral Good (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem and distraction. Henrik's character is not at issue; people's beliefs about English are not at issue. The issue is whether public opinion polls are admissible as reliable sources. The matter is settled: they are not. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally bogus. Polls are used regularly in wikipedia. You cannot unilaterally declare a source to be bad because you do not like it. And the REAL ISSUE that we should be focusing on is related to the article. It is: "Is the Notion that Waterboarding is Torture, Seriously Disputed?" There is evidence that it is and cited, reliable sources saying so. There is no evidence that it is not disputed. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to provide any such evidence that suggests your view is more than a minority view and warrants any more weight than it already has, repeating it over and over wont make it true. We do not attempt prove negatives on wikipedia. --neonwhite user page talk 05:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to provide ANY evidence at all. None. Zip. Nada. At least I have provided evidence that my position is valid. You have not provided ANY to the contrary.--Blue Tie (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't that it is disputed by members of the US general public in 2007. The issue is whether that should be allowed to influence an article about a practice that predates the founding of the United States itself. However, you have already stated that you think that historical references from before the current U.S. controversy are irrelevant, so I don't think that it will be possible to achieve a global consensus on this point. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the issue. Because that issue is already decided by wikipedia policy. We are not allowed to circumvent that policy. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately here, one has to remember to avoid recentism, personally motivated comments by politians during the last few years has only limited importance against the clear historical understanding and definition. This is not an artical about the recent controversies, they are only a small part of it. --neonwhite user page talk 06:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy about recentism that trumps WP:NPOV. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't playing cards here. Recentism is not a neutral point of view, it's a point of view based solely on recent events ignoring historical context, therefore policy forbids it. --neonwhite user page talk 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also would object to recentism as you describe it. From that perspective, many things we now label torture should not be called torture, because it has only been recently (last 50 years) that they have been so labeled. However, I would suggest to you that we cannot entirely avoid "recentism". We live recently. Our experiences are recent. Most books were published "recently". I can appreciate and value an effort to look more widely but I question the ability of any modern editor to do so. Consequently I have a request: Please cite the policy on "Recentism" exactly as it appears in wikipedia policies. These have been decided upon by consensus and so they rule. An editors individual opinion of recentism does not quite count. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word torture has been used for centuries. You are confusing the definition of the word with the morality and legality of the practice. With things that have existed for hundreds of years, modern views have to be given the correct weight. As this article covers the history of it. The recent controversies in one particular country aren't that important. As i said recentism is obviously a bias, a non-neutral point of view, the policy is WP:NPOV. --neonwhite user page talk 19:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spliting this article

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

Done (Hypnosadist) 16:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I agree that this article is too recentist and U.S. centric, and splitting it into two articles might not be a bad idea (I personally like it), but lets not do it while the article is protected and without prior discussion. We would also need to think of a suitable title. For those reasons, I've deleted Torture durring the War on Terror for now, but with no prejudice towards trying the idea in the future. I would suggest we start a discussion here first on how this can be accomplished though. henrik•talk 17:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amazingly enough, I agree with Blue Tie on this. While a reasonable case can be made for a split, Torture during the War on Terror is an absolutely awful title, with the controversy built right into the title. Before we do anything like this, we should try to achieve consensus that it should be done, and find a new, more NPOV, title. What that title should be, I can't currently imagine. -- The Anome (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is that title not neutral? There no commentary in it. --neonwhite user page talk 17:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of that title was so we could include al qeada and militias "enhanced interrogation techniques" in one article. Something Randi suggested actually. (Hypnosadist) 17:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the concept is notable and reasonable for an encyclopedia. At first I did not have a problem with the title but upon reflection, I think it may not be a good one. But something like that article is a good idea. however...The way the article was created was unbalanced and biased. The timing was entirely wrong. I would be in favor of an article of that nature though, if it were NPOV. I think its an interesting and encyclopedic topic. Are we sure there isn't an article already serving that purpose? --Blue Tie (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cut it out. This is not a WP:SOAPBOX. And...again, your suggestion is irrelevant to the question: Is there already an article that serves this purpose? --Blue Tie (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Refactored. Inappropriate and did not assume good faith. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you bother to read the link? (Hypnosadist) 17:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is significant controversy about the UK deportation of suspects to countries widely known to use torture. [18] --neonwhite user page talk 17:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and because of gitmo and ER the Canadian supreme court has said the USA is not a safe transit country (this means they cant extradite anyone to the US at the moment). (Hypnosadist) 17:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they can and do extradite people to the US. Its happening as we speak. But that is irrelevant to this topic.--Blue Tie (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's spelled "Splitting." Oppose splitting - unnecessary and this article is not yet too long. Badagnani (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chris, above; United States waterboarding controversy is probably the best title I've seen for a split-off article on the controversy itself. However, I remain to be convinced that a split is appropriate at this time, as I believe the controversy is not independently notable in itself, other than as a subtopic of a main waterboarding article. -- The Anome (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

New Lawrence Cohen proposed first paragraph

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

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

  • I object. On the same grounds as I have objected previously. This lead immediately violates wikipedia neutrality policy, which is the most important article writing policy on wikipedia and cannot be compromised. It is also factually inaccurate or imprecise. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's factual accurate, pleas stop misrepresenting NPOV policy. It is becoming disruptive. --neonwhite user page talk 18:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh for Heaven's sake. I'm moving this to the main talk page for a proposed lead. Let's see what the actual editors have to say to this compromise. Remember that a few dissenting voices do not trump consensus, consensus is not "unanimous". Lawrence Cohen 17:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you seriously saying that I am not an actual editor? That my comments are invalid? Please also remember that consensus on a talk page cannot trump policy and that consensus is not majority rule. Thus a few dissenting voices may, in fact, be consensus. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the SPAs, as Jehochman has said repeatedly. Lawrence Cohen 18:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I must admit, I do not recall what an SPA is but I suppose it is good that I am not in that group?--Blue Tie (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fine with this lead. Bluetie, if you object to this could you please propose something to replace it. It is difficult to reach an accord if you just object to things and don't put forth your own suggestion. - Remember
  • Strongly oppose for the reasons repeatedly posted here. "waterboarding is a form of torture" is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. That it appears as the first six words of the article is an even more outrageously blatant violation of WP:NPOV. This is not negotiable. It is Wikipedia policy. Neutral Good (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again misrepresenting policy is considered disruptive. If you dont understand the policy. Read it thorough or ask for explainations. There is nothing on WP:NPOV that even suggests this is not neutral. It states the facts accurately based on the sources. There is no commentary or personal views there. --neonwhite user page talk 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose c/2001 it's/2001 its/ More later; it does not describe the various different activities that are labeled "waterboarding", having one stand for all of them, which may be what causes the dispute about whether or not it's torture. htom (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have no evidence of any dispute except by some Americans post 2001. Do we have any evidence of any dispute prior to that assertation that it is torture, dating back to around 1400 AD when the practice was first documented? Lawrence Cohen 18:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We also have no evidence that there was no dispute prior to 2001. Do you assert that there was no dispute? Validate it. Do you assert that there was a dispute? Validate it? Do you assert neither? Then neither should wikipedia. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly are we suppose to prove a negative (that there was no dispute prior to 2001) besides simply researching the issue and finding no such dispute?Remember (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This didn't really become a high profile legal matter until 2001 when treatment of unlawful combatants (a term in use long before this war, btw) became a political issue.
How about this: "is a form of abuse that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages and is considered a form of torture."
-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The statement "waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage" requires a reliable medical source, which I doubt you will find, for the simple reason that it is impossible to perform any physical act of violence in a way that guarantees no physical damage. What if the victim has a weak heart, or genetic susceptibility to heart attack? An accurate statement might be "waterboarding may or may not result in lasting physical damage, or even death, depending on the severity of the attack, and victim's constitution and disposition". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly oppose. I sympathise with the editor's position but cannot support it. In my opinion this awful practice of waterboarding is obviously torture. But this is not the place for our opinions. It is an encyclopaedia and it must be neutral. Harry Lives! (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Tie's proposal

I was asked to provide a version of the lead. I think the whole article needs re-written, but assuming a re-write along the directions I would imagine, I suggest this lead:

Waterboarding refers to a variety of interrogation techniques that involve immobilizing a person on his or her back and pouring water over the face with the intent to restrict breathing or to to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning. (It should not be confused with the Water cure which is the forced ingestion of water into the stomach.) Evidence of Waterboarding in one form or another shows it to have been conducted since at least **Whenever**. It is widely considered torture although this has been disputed or questioned, chiefly in consideration of different methods and conditions. Its effectiveness as an interrogation method is also disputed; it may produce information quickly but critics question the validity of information produced in desperation and under duress.
International law prohibits torture, but the specific legal status of waterboarding varies by country.

I am thinking of it in terms of wikipedia policies and the questions: What/How? When? Where? Why?

I propose this lead as a SUMMARY of details found in the article with the following article structure in mind:

Methods and Process
History
Disputed Status as Torture
Effectiveness
Legal Status

Do I support my own lead? Well, I consider it best without regard to the rest of the article but as I said, it should be a summary of what is found in the article and should not contain new information (except for the warning not to confuse it with the Water Cure).

I should add that I frankly believe that when people read the Methods and History, they will have, ON THEIR OWN, come to the conclusion that it is torture. THAT is the way wikipedia should operate. Like the WP:NPOV policy states --- let the facts speak for themselves.

--Blue Tie (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which words do you find to be weasel words? Perhaps they can be improved. One of the problems with a lead is that things can be considered weasel words when in fact they are supported by the article content. And as I said, I envision a certain article content. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose - The substitution of the euphemism "interrogation technique" for "form of torture" is unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia written in English, not Newspeak. Editor is allowing current political bias in a single nation to override the actual English-language definition of this practice; again unacceptable at Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you propose an alternative that lives within wikipedia policy. We cannot say that it is a form of torture if that is not a fact. And it is not a fact if it is disputed. I do not believe that it is disputed that it is an interrogation technique, so that is what I used. I also tried to follow the idea of a summary of a proposed article outline. What do you propose -- and I am willing to support leads that are logical, reasonable but most of all, fit with wikipedia policy and do not push a pov. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact, it fits the dictionary definition. You can't change that because you don't like it. Any interrogation technique that inflicts mental or physical pain is defined as torture, you're text describes torture so to not use the word is ridiculous. --neonwhite user page talk 18:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You see, your definition of what is a fact is different from what wikipedia says is a fact per policy. That is the problem with your approach. You are ignoring wikipedia policy. By doing so, you ensure a lack of consensus. Policy helps us arrive at consensus.--Blue Tie (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not ignoring any policy, a dictionary defintion is a verifiable fact and is not disputed here. You cannot redefine the meaning of a word to follow your political viewpoint. Leave that to the politicians! --neonwhite user page talk 19:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said you are not ignoring policy. Can you cite the policy that says: "If its in the dictionary it is a fact"? I can actually cite policy that discusses what a fact is on wikipedia.--Blue Tie (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fringe POV (held by fewer than 5 conservative politicans and opinion columnists in a single nation) cannot be privileged in the article's lead. All sources, save for these, dating back to the 15th century, state that waterboarding is a form of torture. Thus, it appears that your assertion of POV is best directed at yourself, as such an outlandish redefinition of a well-understood English term would fit the definition of Newspeak better than an English-language encyclopedia. As stated at least 15 or 20 previous times, this does not prevent these commentators' fringe views from being outlined in the article, but they must not be allowed to change the very definition of this practice, which is well understood. Badagnani (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a fringe POV should not be privileged. I have not done so as far as I can tell. Can you propose a solution that does not violate wikipedia policy? In particular, we cannot say that it is torture if that is not a fact. And per wikipedia policy it is not a fact. So, can you propose a solution that fits policy? I think it should also read well and follow some general outline. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact. Look up the defintion [19] --neonwhite user page talk 19:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two errors. I am unable to find a definition of "Waterboarding" in your source and it would not really matter -- a dictionary is not the sole arbiter of fact. Wikipedia has a policy of what constitutes a fact. It also has a policy regarding Original Research. In that policy it has an aspect called "Synthesis", which it specifically describes as OR. An example of synthesis I have seen on this page is: So and So says Torture is X. This and that say Waterboarding is X. So, Waterboarding is Torture. That is specifically forbidden per wikipedia policy. You were not suggesting that approach were you? I would appreciate it if your answers would fit within wikipedia policies of WP:ASF and WP:SYN. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is doing anything like that. Your misrepresenting of policy and disruption of the consensus to prove a point is getting tiresome. There are no words banned from being used on wikipedia, torture is an english word it has a meaning, it fits here there is no policy that forbids its correct usage. That is common sense. There is no opinion in the correct use of the word. There are multiple sources that say waterboarding is torture. This has been said many times over. I'm not going to say it again, i will just consider it a refusal to get the point. --neonwhite user page talk 19:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am not misrepresenting policy, something else must be tiresome. Or if you think I am misrepresenting policy show me on my talk page explicitly. Quote the policy and show how I am doing it wrong. Please be sure to address the policies that I am using WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and remember that NPOV is non-negotiable, while guidelines, essays and opinions are not policies. I promise, if I am misrepresenting policy I will be the first to stop doing so, because I do not want to do that. But I would prefer that you not make that accusation without some justification to it. On the other hand, you have repeatedly refused to put forth ANY sources that contradict my position. NONE. Yet you are the one saying that I am not getting the point. Something a bit one sided on that deal. I further open my talk page to ANYONE who thinks I am misrepresenting policy here. Please educate me. Otherwise please do not make the accusation.--Blue Tie (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sources are now at a separate page (it is linked at the very top of this discussion page). Don't worry; they are all there--most stating that waterboarding is a form of torture dating back to the Spanish Inquisition (c. 1400) and about 4, from conservative/Republican politicians or opinion columnists stating their opinion that it is not a form of torture. Badagnani (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of those sources support MY position. There have not been any sources that support a position opposed to mine.--Blue Tie (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - All of the sources state that waterboarding is not a form of torture? You are clearly mistaken. In fact, only approximately four opinions (all very recent, from conservative/Republican politicians or opinion columnists, all from a single nation, made in an attempt to deform the English language in Newspeak-like manner for political reasons) do this. Badagnani (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly support. Same reason as that expressed for Shibuni's proposal. Harry Lives! (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For at least two major reasons. (a) This lead deletes the descriptive sentences that are in the current lead, which make it clear that waterboarding induces choking and gagging, and explain that water enters the breathing passages. This information is important for understanding the procedure and I don't see why it should be deleted. (b) The phrase "this has been disputed or questioned" is not properly qualified, and thus misrepresents the dispute. We only have evidence of a recent dispute in the United States, so it is an exaggeration for the article to suggest that the dispute is of general scope. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Bainbridge's proposal

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

Waterboarding is the practice of subjecting a person to a form of artificial drowning. The head of the subject is inclinded backwards, and water is poured over the face and into the breathing passages. A cloth or other object is often placed over the face, or in the mouth, in order to both inhibit breathing and stimulate the gag reflex. The simultaneous sensations of suffocation and the lungs being filled with water cause the victim to slowly drown, eliciting an uncontrollable physical response of extreme panic, gagging, and flailing. The procedure has been popularly used as a covert third degree interrogation technique, since it often leaves no lasting evidence of physical abuse. However, it can cause damage to the lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, injuries due to struggling against restraints, and even death. Some subjects have reported that the procedure is extremely painful, and some have reported that it isn't so painful, but the common experience suggests that it is extremely unpleasant, and subjects will resort to providing a (possibly false) confession or information rather than endure the threat of further waterboarding.
Waterboarding is a historic practice, with the earliest documentation of its use dating back to the Spanish Inquisition in 1492. Since then, it has been widely documented as a method of torture, and in the last century it has been classified as a torture technique by both international and national courts, including the prosecution of Japanese interrogators by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East following World War II, the prosecution of police officers within the United States, and the prosecution of soldiers in Vietnam. It's use is prohibited by many military forces, and it is explicility prohibited by the U.S. Army. The authorisation and use of the technique by the Central Intelligence Agency since 2002 has led to discussion and controversy, and moves by some U.S. Senators to introduce a law that would explicitly ban its use by all government agencies.

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

The more the merrier. I like this proposal. It is factual and avoids the T-word in the first paragraph in favor of dispassionately describing the act. What do you think of would changing "cause the victim to slowly drown" to something like "cause the experience/sensation of slowly drowning" since the victims aren't meant to actually drown? henrik•talk 19:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason why the word shouldn't be used. We can't let editors effect the way wikipedia reads and alter facts because of political motivations. That's is clearly against the whole purpose of wikipedia. --neonwhite user page talk 20:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but sometimes understatement can be effective. I think the initial paragraph here gives a good overview of how unpleasant and repugnant the practice is even without using the word "torture". And the second paragraphs leads with it. henrik•talk 20:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have several references that say that it is actually drowning - the lungs really do fill with water. It is definitely not just the sensation of drowning. I think that the paragraph is clear that the person isn't usually meant to die, if that's the interpretation that you're worrying about? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. henrik•talk 20:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Support This. But I prefer not to say "oppose" because I like the effort and there are many things I like about your solution (much less out of policy things at first glance). But I prefer summaries for leads and there is a great deal of detail here-- details I believe might be better in the actual article. And with details comes LOTS of area for contention. As just a brief example, sometimes it does not come close to even artificial drowning and sometimes it goes beyond artificial, to actual drowning with resuscitation. Yet we declare it to be a form of artificial drowning.. just like that. And you say the "head is inclined backwards". That could be sitting up. So there are lots of areas of detail that are not right. But the idea is better than many I have seen. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the details need ironing out, but this is a good start. Perhaps we can try to work together to wordsmith this into something both factual and neutral, by suggesting specific improvements? henrik•talk 19:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing but I think we should see how others weigh in. I also have another proposal at the bottom of the page. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tilting of the head back is the only common definition that we have. The technique relies on opening the throat by tilting of the head with respect to the body. Yes, that means it could hypothetically be performed on someone sitting down, although it would be an odd way to do it. Likewise, the technique can be done through complete submersion of the head, or partial submersion of the face. I tried to find a definition for the lead that captures all of these possibilities. I'm open to other suggestions. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the only common features of all accounts that I have read involve pouring water over the face while the person is constrained in some roughly horizontal position. I have never seen submersion per-se, but maybe. However, discussion over details is an example of the problem I was really objecting to: Too many details. We need to work those out in the article and then do the lead as a summary. I will say however, I do not see fundamental objections to your lead based upon policy. I think you did a pretty good job in that regard. I have some objections in that area but not nearly as big as the ones I have with the current lead. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you point out below, little steps will eventually lead to a better article. Most, if not all, of the argument has been over the lead - if we can find a version that most people can live with, then that will be a great advance over the present situation. No solution is perfect, and nobody is going to be completely satisfied; the important thing is that nobody has any major objections. There are two reliably sourced references to immersion waterboarding in Talk:Waterboarding/Definition, under "U.S. Department of State" Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If there is a "standard" method, describe that and say "usually." There is no need to describe dozens of variations on this well-understood method of torture in the lead, which should be a concise summary. It can also be done by putting the head under a running water faucet/tap. Badagnani (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no standard version. No rag in mouth, Rag in mouth, plastic wrap, Level, inclined, lots of water, little water, in the nose, in the mouth, just on the face, etc. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of variations. I managed to condense them to a 46 word description. As far as I can see it is factually correct. Whether it is concise or not is relative - for example, the lead of global warming is five paragraphs long, and there are probably longer examples. Having said that, I'm open to alternative suggestions. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost support. This is nicely done. In general, I support the approach of giving a detailed description in the first paragraph and briefly explaining the historical context and status as torture in the second paragraph. The only thing that I have a problem with is the phrase "artificial drowning" in the first sentence. Waterboarding isn't "artificial"; it isn't an illusion; water really enters the person's breathing passages, and the person really will drown to death if the process isn't promptly halted. Much better would be "controlled drowning" or "interrupted drowning." —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I use artificial in the sense of "not natural" "product of man" etc. and the paragraph does go on to explicitly state that the lungs fill with water causing the subject to slowly drown. It is also the terminology used by Wallace in one of the few academic references to deal with the legality of waterboarding (see [47]). Having said that, I can see your point that people might interpret "artificial" as meaning "not real". "Controlled drowning" suggests to me a level of control that isn't present - once the lungs are filled with water, there's no guarantee that you'll be able to empty them, which doesn't sound too controlled. "Interrupted drowning" isn't as descriptive, as there is only a single interruption at the end of the whole process. We could just say "a form of drowning"? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving (again)

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

I was meaning to bring this up. We should not block editors for archiving long pages. Automatic archiving does not work on such an active page. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page is archived automatically, by a bot, as you know. Badagnani (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bot isn't keeping up, as you know. As Blue Tie says, "Automatic archiving does not work on such an active page." I repeat: it's nearly 400 KB in size. Editors using wireless accounts may be unable to edit it effectively. Insisting on such a gigantic Talk page is a form of elitism. Only affluent editors with the money to spend on high-speed Internet connections are allowed to participate fully. This is supposed to be "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Neutral Good (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The editor blocked was blocked for a good reason. S/he was selectively archiving text under active discussion, after having been asked not to do so, then, to make a WP:POINT, began to reinsert text from months earlier. This has been explained twice before; I now see the pattern here; editors pretend not to have read earlier discussion, then fill the page with more and more text that disregards that earlier discussion, eliminating significant discussion from just a few days ago as the new text fills up the page. This is analagous to the current discussion about the lead--with many editors insisting that WP disregard 600 years of history about this practice and privileging the statments of fewer than 5 conservative politicians and opinion columnists from a single nation, whose administration is attempting to redefine, in Newspeak-like manner, a well-defined and well-understood practice. Badagnani (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should assume good faith. I have not understood why Shibimi was blocked. To me it had something to do with what might have been an honest error. But I really do not know why. However, long pages should be archived. That is reasonable. But I do not know why the other editor was blocked and you should not assume otherwise. You should assume good faith. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the earlier discussion, thanks. It was clearly explained earlier, more than once, in much the same terms as I used here. Badagnani (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is irrelevant to the requirement to assume good faith. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand now why Shibimi was blocked? --Iamunknown 19:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are different methods of waterboarding and some are far more harsh than others, as one of your own sources (Wallach) points out. You want a world that is black and white on this issue. There are a thousand shades of gray. We should archive the page to allow people who don't have T1 and T3 cables to participate fully. Neutral Good (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All versions (whether "less cruel" or "more cruel") involve strapping to a board, inclining the board, and pouring water over the face. They are all forms of torture. The international definition of torture, as stated by Wikipedia, is clear. If you feel so strongly that the English word torture must be flexible according to personal feeling, you should attempt to change the title of the article Rack (torture), as well as the international definition of torture, as those wouldn't allow individuals to make up their own minds about these things. Badagnani (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some errors of fact. It does NOT always involve strapping to a board. It does NOT always involve inclining. You may have other errors as well. Do not assume you are right on all things when you are able to be wrong so often. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is called "waterboarding," as you know, because the "classic" version utilizes a board--although "ad hoc" versions may be performed without a board. This would be akin to playing a piano sonata on a toy piano when a real piano is unavailable. However, the existence of such "ad hoc" variants does not change the definition of "playing the piano." Nor does it mean that a piano is "not a musical instrument," because fewer than five individuals wrote opinion columns stating that they don't believe the piano really is a musical instrument. Badagnani (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then you have described different versions. Yet you said ALL of them do X. You are not generally correct when you get expansive that way. Yet much of your logic and reasoning follow that trend. For example, just above you say that "All sources since the 1500's say that waterboarding is torture". Do they really? How many have you personally read? You are entirely capable of error yet you are full of certainty on your facts. Some humility would help produce consensus. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Tie, you beat me to it. We have photographic evidence from January 1968, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US waterboarding technique does not involved strapping to a board and only uses one canteen of water, eliminating any possibility of death by drowning. The inclined board and the much larger amounts of water used in other techniques make them far more abusive. Badagnani, kindly acknowledge this distinction in your future discussion on this Talk page. Thanks. Neutral Good (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The soldier in that photo was courtmartialed for conducting this "less cruel" form of torture. The "more abusive" version of waterboarding is a form of torture, and the "less abusive" version of waterboarding is also a form of torture. That is well understood, and has been for at least 600 years. Badagnani (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

You have been one of the people who lengthens the page so much. Please keep comments concise and avoid repetition and needless argumentation. If necessary, we can reduce the bot to 7 days. Jehochman Talk 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 7 days or more than 150KB. The frequency of archiving on a talk page is per consensus. I would suggest that policy be followed in that regard. I would support a frequency of 7 days and I would like to add a limit of 150KB as well for users with dial up. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 14 days and request editors to avoid posting the same fringe opinions over and over, in an effort to fill up the page so that significant earlier discussion and consensus gets moved to the archives. Badagnani (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Except the IPs and users now banned for sockpuppetry and abuse. Support 7 days, also. Lawrence Cohen 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to 7 days for now. Neutral Good, Again: please note that wikipedia works by rough consensus, not vote tallying. How many people voting for a specific proposal really isn't the issue. henrik•talk 20:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More information to be incorporated

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

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

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

His exact words are "It is not torture in the traditional sense of inflicting pain; it inflicts fear, intense, visceral fear, without doing physical harm. It is a method calculated to straddle the definitions of coercion and torture, and as such merely proves that both methods inhabit the same slippery continuum. There is a difference between gouging out a man's eyes and keeping him awake, and waterboarding falls somewhere in between."Remember (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first four words are, "It is not torture." Thanks. Neutral Good (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop misrepresenting the sources, the meaning is clear. "It is not torture in the traditional sense of inflicting pain" So its torture in an "untraditional sense" by inflicting something else, i wonder what that is? "it inflicts fear, intense, visceral fear," oh thanks for the info Mark Bowden, writer of Black Hawk Down and Killing Pablo. (Hypnosadist) 23:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read it again. You cannot reduce that passage to four words; to attempt to do so deforms the actual meaning of the passage. Badagnani (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Entirely New Proposal for PROCESS

How about this:

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

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

  • Widely considered is weasel words. It has no specific value. It needs to state who considers it? and again there has been no real arguement made that wasn't political motivated, suggesting it is as anything other than torture. I fail to see any arguement that international law it's a reliable source. --neonwhite user page talk 20:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To both Neon White and Badagnani: It is just temporary. No need for it to be perfect yet (though it must still accord with policy). That is the idea. Are you basically opposed to anything that is not perfect in your mind even before the article is right? In other words, is there no room for compromise? --Blue Tie (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no compromise towards editors trying to use wikipedia articles to redefine defintions based on political or personal opinions contrary to a historical and popular defintion. That is a core policy. Personal opinions about the meaning of certain words are not relevant. Replacing a defintion with a more vague one is not improving the encyclopedia. Consider that this technique described is not used for any other reason. --neonwhite user page talk 20:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your tone and also with your subrosa allegation toward me. I also disgree that I am replacing any definitions. I am following wikipedia policy. I think you should assume good faith. But I believe you are saying you are unable to do that. Do I understand you correctly -- that you are unable to assume good faith toward me? If so, then of course, you are also unable to view anything I do with an eye toward compromise. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Asuming good faith does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary None of my comments were any allegations, they were an assertion of core policy. --neonwhite user page talk 20:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but the question remains: Can you assume good faith toward me? I know the policy does not require that you assume it when someone has done badly, but what about in my case? --Blue Tie (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the General Principle is that we leave a lead that no one likes but which satisfies basic requirements and policy and move to the article. Then re-write the lead to summarize the article. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is suggested that everyone considers it torture, what is true is that there are multiple reliable sources that consider it so (they were listed above somewhere) both popularily and historically. The amount is enough for us to consider it a verfiable fact. In opposition, there are only a handful of comment, none particularly reliable, that can't be given undue weight because they only represent a tiny minority of recent opinion. --neonwhite user page talk 21:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"None particularly reliable." Several licensed attorneys -- one of them being a congressman, two others being former federal prosecutors -- aren't "particularly reliable"? Neutral Good (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No-one has produced any second party reliable sources published in notable publications that suggest there is significant rejection of the idea that this is torture. A single congressman expressing a politically motivated statement is clearly a minority opinion and can not change the historical definition. --neonwhite user page talk 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are all opinions. It's a bit odd to characterize U.S. government attorneys as unreliable while those 100+ lawyers on the other side include a number of ideologues (and I'm being extraordinarily polite in calling them that).
-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, regarding those 100+ lawyers, I ran online searches on the eight whose names started with the letter "A." On one of them, I couldn't find any information at all that would indicate her ideology. For the other seven, ALL OF THEM are left-wing ideologues. The most common thread I can find is an attempt to convince readers of their articles that all police, rather than a few bad apples, abuse their police powers. There is a general hostility toward the investigative and interrogative process. Apparently they believe that if a captured terrorist commander on enemy soil refuses to answer questions, we're supposed to ask him what kind of wine he would like to be served with his filet mignon.
Effective interrogations solve murder cases and save innocent lives. Lots of innocent lives. Neutral Good (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expressing bias doesnt help you prove your edits are not based on your personal opinions. --neonwhite user page talk 23:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Effective interrogations solve murder cases" Which cases would those be???????? (Hypnosadist) 23:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your "filet mignon" comment is blatant hyperbole, mockery, and a straw man. Cut the sarcasm and stick to reasoned arguments, please. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be sarcasm but it makes the point about these 100+ lawyers.
Please keep in mind that this comes out of Neon's criticism of U.S. government attorneys as having undue weight. That invites an examination and comparison. If it exposes those 100+ as possible extremists then that's an important point.
Say what you like about U.S. government lawyers but they're closer to the mainstream than this bunch.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If it exposes those 100+ as possible extremists" Yes they are just back from planting IED's on the streets of Bagdad, damn foiled again! (Hypnosadist) 01:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let's refrain from sarcasm on all sides. It's not helpful to achieving consensus, and will just make this process take even longer. henrik•talk 01:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were not lawyers, they were law professors, considered a reliable source in most cases. Add to that, not just the amount of sources but the range of sources and the quality, you have a good case for verifiablity. On the other hand we have the suggestion of a handful of vague comments and some politicians clearly skirting around the issue for political reasons, it does deserve the same weight. --neonwhite user page talk 23:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that professors can't be extremists? (Again, look at who these people are.)
Note that I'm not asking that they be excluded. I'm just pointing out that they're hardly conclusive. The range of opinion on your side is not that wide. While you have some good sources, they're either not lawyers or they're not familiar with the exact procedure.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Randy2063 and NeutralGood: I don't understand your reasoning. You imply that waterboarding is effective and useful, perhaps even a good thing. That I understand. What I don't understand is why do you care then if it's called torture or not? If waterboarding is a good thing, is it not good even if it's torture? GregorB (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking the wrong guy. I'm not arguing that waterboarding is a good thing, and I don't think anyone here is. I'm not even asking that the word "torture" not be used.
Perhaps you should be asking the other side, why is it so important to you that we can't say "generally" when we say "torture"? Why must Wikipedia take sides when we have perfectly good standards to NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves?
-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This can be seen as part of a larger battle for public opinion (in the U.S.). If such editors can steer the Wikipedia article on waterboarding away from the normal, accepted definition, creating even a hint of ambiguity or ambivalence, that opens the door toward public ambivalence regarding this form of torture. Thus, the hammering over recent weeks. Wikipedia currently has enormous influence and is quoted constantly, even in the major press. Thus, this article has become a battleground. What is being sought is not a complete redefinition, but simply the introduction of doubt/ambiguity, creating the ambivalence/"shrug factor" among the general public of non-editing Wikipedia users. Badagnani (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is quite clearly a form of torture. Whether its use may be justifiable, or information obtained admissible, are separate issues (usually not would be my answer to the first, and no to the second). "Water boarding is a form of torture ..." should be the start of the article. If some people disagree they are in a minority, and WP:FRINGE covers that quite clearly. 86.146.119.116 (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

  1. ^ Lawmakers: Mukasey must reject "waterboarding", Reuters via Yahoo News, October 29, 2007
  2. ^ a b Eban, Katherine (July 17 2007). "Rorschach and Awe". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2007-12-17. It was terrifying," military psychologist Bryce Lefever is quoted as saying, "... you're strapped to an inclined gurney and you're in four-point restraint, your head is almost immobilized, and they pour water between your nose and your mouth, so if you're likely to breathe, you're going to get a lot of water. You go into an oxygen panic. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Cite error: The named reference "EbanVanityFairWB1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b White, Josh (November 8 2007). "Waterboarding Is Torture, Says Ex-Navy Instructor". Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-12-17. As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening: I was being tortured. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Cite error: The named reference "WhiteWAPostWB_110807" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Ross, Brian; Esposito, Richard (November 8 2007). "CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described". ABC News. Retrieved 2007-12-17. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Cite error: The named reference "ABCNewsWB_110807" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b c d Various (April 5, 2006). "Open Letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales". Human Rights News. Retrieved 2007-12-18. In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales more than 100 United States law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and the use of the practice is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code. Cite error: The named reference "HRW open letter WB" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  6. ^ a b c d Mayer, Jane (2005-02-14). "Outsourcing Torture". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2007-12-18. Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, told me that he had treated a number of people who had been subjected to such forms of near-asphyxiation, and he argued that it was indeed torture. Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Cite error: The named reference "NY" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b c Shane, Scott (2007-11-07). "A Firsthand Experience Before Decision on Torture". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Cite error: The named reference "NYTimesWB_110707" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  8. ^ Davis, Benjamin (2007-10-08). "Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff". University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Retrieved 2007-12-18. Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  9. ^ "Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners". CNN. 2007-10-10. Retrieved 2007-12-18. The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Carter said Wednesday. 'I don't think it. I know it,' Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  10. ^ "French Journalist Henri Alleg Describes His Torture Being Waterboarded by French Forces During Algerian War". Democracy Now!. 2007-11-05. Retrieved 2007-12-18. I have described the waterboarding I was submitted to. And no one can say, having passed through it, that this was not torture, especially when he has endured other types of torture—burning, electricity and beating, and so on. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  11. ^ "Torture's Terrible Toll". Newsweek. 2005-11-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)According to Republican United States Senator and 2008 presidential candidate 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."
  12. ^ Grey, Stephen (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York, New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 225–226. A former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.'" Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "'Yes, it's torture'".
  13. ^ Bell, Nicole (2007-11-03). "Retired JAGs Send Letter To Leahy: "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal."". Crooks and Liars. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |(empty string)= and |coauthors= (help) "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.
  14. ^ "CIA Whitewashing Torture". Human Rights Watch. 2005-11-21. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) "There is no doubt that waterboarding is torture, despite the administration’s reluctance to say so,” Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch.
  15. ^ "Amnesty International Response to Cheney's "No-Brainer" Comment". Amnesty International. 2006-10-26. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  16. ^ "U.S. Dept. of Justice Memo from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo To Alberto R. Gonzales, White House Counsel". Findlaw. 2002-08-01. Retrieved 2007-12-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) " 'For an act to be "torture," it must ... cause severe pain and suffering, and be intended to cause severe pain and suffering.' ... [I]n order to inflict severe mental suffering, a defendant both must commit one of the four predicate acts, such as threatening imminent death, and intend to cause 'prolonged mental harm.' "
  17. ^ "Waterboarding and Torture" (in "So is waterboarding torture? ... I don't believe it qualifies."). National Review Online. 2007-10-27. Retrieved 2007-12-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  18. ^ a b "History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding". World News with Charles Gibson. ABC News. 2005-11-29. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  19. ^ a b "Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations". New York Times. 2007-10-04. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  20. ^ 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.
  21. ^ 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. | http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10019179/site/newsweek/page/2/ ]
  22. ^ 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)
  23. ^ A former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.'" Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "'Yes, it's torture'". At pp. 225-26, in Stephen Grey (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York City: St. Martin's Press.
  24. ^ Chapter 18 United States Code, section 2340
  25. ^ UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 Signatories 74, Parties 136, As of 23 April 2004
  26. ^ Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 7, "Crimes against humanity" Definition of torture 7-2:e
  27. ^ Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on.
  28. ^ 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
  29. ^ "Variety of Interrogation Techniques Said to Be Authorized by CIA" by Brian Ross and Richard Esposito, September 6, 2006
  30. ^ "History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding" ABC News, November 29, 2005
  31. ^ Katherine Eban. Rorschach and Awe, Vanity Fair, July 17, 2007. "It was terrifying," military psychologist Bryce Lefever is quoted as saying, "...you're strapped to an inclined gurney and you're in four-point restraint, your head is almost immobilized, and they pour water between your nose and your mouth, so if you're likely to breathe, you're going to get a lot of water. You go into an oxygen panic."
  32. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110802150.html
  33. ^ CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described, ABC News, November 18, 2005. "Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt."
  34. ^ Open Letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales by Human Rights Watch
  35. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/us/07waterboard.html
  36. ^ In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 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.
  37. ^ Benjamin Davis. Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff. "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on."
  38. ^ Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners, CNN, October 10, 2007. "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Carter said Wednesday. 'I don't think it. I know it,' Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer."
  39. ^ http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/5/french_journalist_henri_alleg_describes_his
  40. ^ According to Republican United States Senator and 2008 presidential candidate 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.
  41. ^ A former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.'" Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "'Yes, it's torture'". At pp. 225-26, in Stephen Grey (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York City: St. Martin's Press.
  42. ^ 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.
  43. ^ http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/usdom12069.htm
  44. ^ http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGUSA20061026002
  45. ^ "History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding" ABC News, November 29, 2005
  46. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html
  47. ^ Evan Wallach (2007). "Drop by Drop: Forgetting the History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts" (Note: PDF is rough draft copy). The Columbia Journal of Transnational Law. 45 (2).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waterboarding&oldid=181106316"