Talk:Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture

Official name vs. "Torture Report"

As per the study itself, the report is the "Senate Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program" but is frequently being referred to as the "Torture Report" or "CIA Torture Report" (with varying caps) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I have no particular preference either way, but feel a variation on the following intro sentences would be suitable:

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program, commonly known as the CIA Torture Report, is a report…

The Torture Report, officially known as the Senate Intelligence Committee Study of the CIA Detention and Interrogation Program, is a report…

In the meantime, I've created a redirect from Torture report. The final decision will probably involve a page move. I welcome feedback.-Ich (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Good call. I had difficulty thinking of a title when I created the page, as I was waiting for the official name. I much prefer the first option. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I would support a move to "CIA Torture Report" rather than use an unofficial name for the report as the page name, especially given the longer and unwieldy official title. The intro paragraph leading with the long name would ideally remain unchanged. The term "Torture Report" or "CIA Torture Report" is being used across the political spectrum, from NPR, HuffPost, NBC, NYTimes, Fox News, The American Conservative, Mother Jones, etc. so I think it could justifiably be considered a defensible and "neutral" formulation. Less common is "Senate torture report". I welcome feedback about any potential page name change.-Ich (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree that "CIA Torture Report" "CIA torture report" seems to be what most RS refer to it as. --Richard Yin (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I would think it's a bit better without the caps, since it's an unofficial name. --Richard Yin (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. A similar case would be the Torture Memos which uses caps even though it does not refer to an official name, but the use on that page is inconsistent as well.-Ich (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

No comment on what short name to use, but looking at the cover page, I think the official name is actually Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program. Above that in a different font it says "Senate Select Committee on Intelligence", which I would read as the author rather than part of the title. Right now the long name appearing in our article is sort of a bastardized combination of what I would understand as the author line plus the title line minus one word that was completely omitted. Dragons flight (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Three comments:

• None of the reliable sources are using "Torture Report" as a proper noun so if we go this route it should not be capitalized.
• As this isn't a proper noun it should be distinguished from other things that might be called "torture reports" such as the Panetta Review, which was an internal CIA report about the same programs.
• "CIA torture report" suggests the report was written by the CIA, which of course isn't accurate.

Right now my vote would be to leave the title as is and see how things develop. Perhaps the press will eventually settle on a name, like they eventually settled on "Affordable Care Act." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I second that proposal. Leave as is for now. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should avoid (especially in these early days of this article) words and phrase in the title that have highly emotional connotations, such as the word "torture". This is despite the fact that many reliable sources use a phrase like "torture report" as shorthand when referring to this document, and despite the fact that torture is among the central concerns raised. I think we would be better served with a less emotionally connotative phrase (even though it would be duller, and it would be less succint) such as Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. Redirects to this page such as "CIA torture report" would be appropriate, however. KConWiki (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree but for a different reason. Only a subset of the practices discussed in the report have been described as torture. Obviously the torture is getting the media attention right now, but our title should still be accurate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I have undone the move until we reach some kind of consensus on how to name this article, per WP:COMMONNAME - Cwobeel (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Key findings

There is absolutely nothing wrong with highlighting key findings from the report for several reasons: (a) there is no copyvio as the material being from the Federal Government is free use; and (b) primary sources can be used in these type of articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No, no no. This is a wikipedia page so you can't just WP:copy-paste from a report. I would advise you to re-word the points or find other sources that provide their own interpretations of the findings.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

First, relax. The report is on the public domain being issued by the US Federal government. Even if that was not the case, there is nothing that violates policy in having information from a primary source copied and pasted, if it is done within reason. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, if you only re-worded it then it would be fine. If you don't want to do that because it would take you too long or whatever that's your choice but there is such as thing as the WP:copy-paste policy and it wasn't created just so I could delete this copy-paste from the page.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Copy-paste is specifically related to copyrighted material, which is not the case here. That is the reason we have a Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from public domain works of the United States Government - Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

See {{US government sources}} - Cwobeel (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a Wikipedia policy, it's just a list of U.S. Government Documents that are in the public domain. You are cut-pasting a section of a specific report. Please explain what Wikipedia policy gives you the right to do that.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Public domain, and read the section pertaining to US Government documents - Cwobeel (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel is correct. Copy pasting is only a problem if it's being taken from a copyrighted source or if it's not being cited properly (as that would be plagiarism). Virtually everything released by the Federal Government is public domain and not subject to most of our rules regarding copyrighted materials. WP:COPYPASTE says "In 99.9% of cases, you may not copy and paste text from other sources into Wikipedia. Doing so is a copyright violation and may constitute plagiarism." This is the .01% of the time that it doesn't apply. Obviously the whole article shouldn't just be a copy of the original report, but there's nothing wrong with using the report's own wording to highlight the key findings. N^oformation ^Talk 00:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, WP:COPYPASTE specifically states what I wrote, "It is acceptable to copy and paste text from public domain sources or those that are explicitly licensed under a compatible licensing scheme." N^oformation ^Talk 00:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Some examples of copy-paste, from senate committee reports, fyi:

• Senate Report 93-549
• United_States_Senate_Committee_on_the_Philippines#Initial_hearings

• • The findings should be included, there's no reason not do. Keiiri (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm generally not a fan of copy-paste from public domain sources. That said, I would support temporary copy-paste in this case to help flesh things out more quickly, as in my view this article is a particularly rare candidate for WP:NOW. In the long run, however, we should convert the copied content to our own voice, as it's more encyclopedic. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Commentary on report

The commentary on the report will be better served to be presented in narrative format than in a list. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well that will take some organization then. Do you have any suggestions on how we can categorize the findings?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Order

@Monopoly31121993: Given that this article is about the report itself, I find it puzzling that you would put commentary and conclusions published in the media, ahead of the key findings and conclusions of the report itself. Care to explain why are you so convinced of the opposite to keep reverting what it seems to be obvious and without making an attempt to discuss your reverts? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel:, the user probably finds it too hard to accept. Keiiri (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

ABC summary of most damning aspects

See [1]. I suggest adding a section that describe the torture and coercive interrogation techniques reported. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Rome Statute

Someone wrote,

The Rome Statute defines defines "rape" as: "The perpetrator invaded the ... anal or genital opening of the victim with any object..."

after the sentence on oral and anal force-feeding in sentence 2 of the "media outlets" section. I removed it and am opening discussion here.

References

The full text of the cited "Elements of the crime against humanity of rape" section of the Rome Statute is:

Article 7 (1) (g)-1 Crime against humanity of rape

Elements

1. The perpetrator invaded (note 15) the body of a person by conduct resulting in penetration, however slight, of any part of the body of the victim or of the

perpetrator with a sexual organ, or of the anal or genital opening of the victim with any object or any other part of the body.

2. The invasion was committed by force, or by threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or

abuse of power, against such person or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment, or the invasion was committed against a person incapable of

giving genuine consent. (note 16)

3. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

4. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

__________________ .

(15) The concept of “invasion” is intended to be broad enough to be gender-neutral.

(16) It is understood that a person may be incapable of giving genuine consent if affected by natural,

induced or age-related incapacity. This footnote also applies to the corresponding elements of article 7 (1) (g)-3, 5 and 6. 12

As I (not a legal scholar) read it, this is not defining rape itself but a rape-related crime against humanity, and it demands a higher standard, namely "widespread...attack against a civilian population", which is a WP:POV characterization of the War on Terror.

There's another section, Article 7 (1) (g)-6:

Crime against humanity of sexual violence

Elements

1. The perpetrator committed an act of a sexual nature against one or more persons or caused such person or persons to engage in an act of a sexual nature by

force, or by threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power, against such person

or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment or such person’s or persons’ incapacity to give genuine consent.

2. Such conduct was of a gravity comparable to the other offences in article 7, paragraph 1 (g), of the Statute.

3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the gravity of the conduct.

__________________

19 The deprivation is not intended to include birth-control measures which have a non-permanent

effect in practice.

20 It is understood that “genuine consent” does not include consent obtained through deception.

This one might apply, if the article should mention the not-US-ratified Rome Statute at all, because the offenses could be accused of being sexual ("total control over the detainee") and were precisely comparable those in the above paragraph 1 (g).

However, Big Important Point, we really must avoid WP:OR, and let WP:RS take the risk of implying that a particular CIA action was a war crime/crime against humanity/breach of international law. I don't know what the worst-case scenario is when highly visible organizations libel the CIA, but I don't want WP to find out the hard way. FourViolas (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

References

-

A user wrote, "...if the article should mention the not-US-ratified Rome Statute at all..." WP presumably does not see the world through eyes of the US Congress. Since more than 150 nations have signed the accord and more than 122 have ratified it, the Rome Statute is an operative part of international law. That the US voted against, and does not intend to ratify, does not prevent it from establishing the current international standard.

OED defines libel as "A published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation." Is there any precedent to suggest that accurate reporting of an exhaustive government review would be libel? Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that the US's non-ratification somehow makes the Rome Statute meaningless. My point was that no US citizen involved this matter will be prosecuted under it, and so it would make more sense to refer to treaties and laws with actual legal jurisdiction over the alleged perpetrators. I don't have the expertise to say which treaties/laws we should refer to (there's controversy over whether the Geneva Convention on POWs applies), but that isn't our job. Our job is to wait for WP:RS to make or report on allegations that actions XYZ violated rules ABC, and then reflect those allegations appropriately.

My casual use of "libel" was intended only to refer to the oblique allegation that the CIA's anal force-feeding amounted to a violation of the Rome Statute. I'm not saying I'm qualified to know whether it did or didn't; I'm saying that WP:Synthesis forbids us from going beyond "accurate reporting" to suggesting that these actions violated the Statute or any other guideline unless we cite a WP:RS which says it for us. FourViolas (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No matter how you look at it, it is a crime against humanity. Keiiri (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless/until a reliable source ties the subject of the article to the Rome Statute, any reference to the Rome Statute should be removed as WP:SYNTH. We are encyclopedia writers, not legal analysts. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a legal analyst of course, but it seems the definition of the war crime of rape would be more appropriate really. A crime against humanity is a systematic crime carried out against civilian population regardless of the existence of a state of armed conflict.

In the absence of ICC jurisdiction (except perhaps in Afghanistan or black sites in other ICC members), isn't it US federal and military law, local law and the Geneva Conventions (especially Common Article 3) that apply rather than the Rome Statue anyway? Unless another state is using universal jurisdiction of course (many states have universal jurisdiction over torture, including the United States for suspects found in the country).

Rape and related sexual assault/assault by penetration offences have quite different definitions in different jurisdictions.

(Well the UN Security Council can give the ICC jurisdiction too, but the USA has veto power so that's moot). Kingal86 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This reads like original research to me. If reliable sources say the CIA violated this or that law or committed this or that war crime, then we put it in. If they don't, then we don't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead section

I don't have the time to make major article contributions but I would like to leave some feedback. The lead section should be focused much more on the report's findings and much less on the technical and procedural aspects. The stuff about classified information, committee votes, versions of the report, time and money to compile, that is all much less important than what the report said, to which the lead offers only a single sentence. The lead should include that the report disclosed the existence of new detainees, more detainees were subjected to harsh treatment than was previously disclosed, more techniques were used than previously disclosed, and the CIA did not provide some of this information to the White House or the intelligence committees. The lead should also say that some folks have disputed the factual accuracy of portions of the report. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Talking about what the report said tends to cause small edit wars (the report documents torture but calls it enhanced interrogation, lying is misrepresentation, obstruction of justice is omitting, conspiracy to commit war crimes is internal communication, and so on --the question of "do we use the report's doublespeak or not?" makes describing the report without POV a real mess); I'm guessing that's why the content took the backstage. The procedure etc is much more easier to write about. Mehmetaergun (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok but no excuse. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. The problem is where to draw the line and how best to summarize the contents of the article (which is the current guideline on how all introductions on Wikipedia should be written). Part of that problem is that we don't have a finished article here and part of it is that we're only just beginning to get general categories for the different findings made in the report. Since the Senate basically left it up to the media to crowd source a meaning out of their massive document dump/"de-classified report" I imagine the introduction will be changing for a while.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Should the article be protected

The article has hit a large social media site and is likely to get some mass attentions.

Should it be protected so that only registered editors can edit it? Jjk (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment an IP, 49.159.139.155, recently (03:39 UTC) added a POV tag with edit summary "This article has a very strong pro-terrorist bias." FourViolas (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Protection is generally used in response to persistent problems, and we don't seem to be having that right now. There seems to be plenty of attention here to handle the occasional bad edit. Dragons flight (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

OK Jjk (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

ciasavedlives.com

Is ciasavedlives.com a reliable source according to wikipedia guidelines? Camilo.uribe (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Camilo.uribe: Since it's run by former CIA officials I guess you could use it per WP:SELFPUB to source what these former officials say about the report. Pretty sure it doesn't fall under WP:RS for any other purpose though. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not.12.11.127.253 (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB fully applies here. But also, we don't know who exactly is behind that website. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No no no. About as unreliable as they come. That said it can certainly be cited with attribution in appropriate contexts. Any attribution should include that it was published by CIA officials in an attempt to defend themselves. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there any secondary validation for them being ex-CIA officials other than their say so? Anyone could create a website and present themselves as something they aren't. Usually with SELFPUB materials, we at least have pretty good documentation for who the author is, which we don't appear to have in this case. The SSCI Republican minority report and the declassified CIA response document are probably much better sources for many of the things they are saying. Dragons flight (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the NY Times said the website was put out by ex-CIA employees. It might not have said which individuals. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: @Dragons flight: @Cwobeel: Usually pays not to trust them too much - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/correspondence-collusion-new-york-times-cia is one example of many Mehmetaergun (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh please. Feel free to hold that against the NY Times, but to suggest that disqualifies it as a reliable source per our standards is just absurd. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Legal Follow-Up

Shouldn't there be a section to explain the legal action being persued (or lack there of)? 198.203.213.110 (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this a bit premature? I haven't seen any news reports about this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Findings by report itself?

On December 9th, someone removed the full list of findings by the report itself. Does anybody have any fretting if I restore this? There's no copyright issues as it's fully public domain (but needs attribution anyways accordingly to follow attribution guidelines) and I think that it's beneficial to be put into the article. It's a WP:PRIMARY source which is what the article is based upon. Tutelary (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC) See below. Tutelary (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The are still present, just higher up. Dragons flight (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Derp, guess I was looking for the bold text from the report itself. Thanks in any case. ^^ Tutelary (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "Findings as reported by media outlets"

Per WP:MOS the section "Findings as reported by media outlets" should really be converted to prose and broken into paragraphs rather than presented as a list of disjunctive facts. In general, the whole concept of "Findings as reported by media outlets" is largely a poor one, and ultimately it should be replaced by article sections discussing the abuse, the misleading information, and the detainees, etc., supported by a combination of reliable secondary sources and the report itself. I started to work on this, getting in one paragraph [2] but Monopoly31121993 (talk · contribs) reverted, including removing a number of additional facts I had taken the time to incorporated into the text in the process. Dragons flight (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I reverted because you blended so many different topics into one paragraph that it didn't seem to be an improvement over what had been there before. I don't object to converting themed bullet points into prose but it has to make sense. One paragraph for one idea. I don't think that's too much to ask.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The theme of the paragraph was the number of detainees, revelations about the innocence of some, and how torture was applied broadly. I had intended to follow it with discussion of individual examples of torture (probably a couple paragraphs). Obviously it wasn't Shakespeare, but I don't think a slightly disjunct paragraph was worse than an even more scattered bullet list. You could have improved it rather than reverting. Dragons flight (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

So I can find it latter, here is my second version of working on more prose and less bullet points [3], which Monopoly again picked apart (though less destructively than the first time since he didn't appear to have deleted the new additions, just stuck it all back in the media list). I'm going to take a break for a while probably. Dragons flight (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Unbalanced, POV

It looks like some article expansion may be in order:

• Three former CIA Directors, George Tenet, Porter Goss, Michael V. Hayden, as well as three CIA Deputy Directors, wrote an opinion editorial in The Wall Street Journal in response to the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee report.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

References

WP:SOFIXIT - Cwobeel (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no obligation for an editor identifying a problem to SOFIXIT. There is, though, an obligation of the editor removing the tag to fix the problem first. We have one sentence of balance in a 1,600-word article. There are numerous sources offering a balanced view. The article is unbalanced. And no, a tag is not a "badge of shame";[4] it is an alert to our readers that the article is POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

One sentence is a clear misstatement. The critical opinions of Cheney, McConnell, and other Republicans are reported. The fact that minority members of the SSCI produced their own counter document is noted. There is even a sentence in the lead mentioning Republican opposition. I'm inclined to agree that we aren't yet balanced, but let's not exaggerate that no effort is being made in that direction. Dragons flight (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT, I see you have a keyboard. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the tag to the "Reception" section where it may apply. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy, SOFIXIT is never a reason to remove a tag. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Creation & scope of the report

The article contains plenty of information about the impetus, contents, and reaction to the report, but does not substantially address the creation of the report itself, or the arguably narrow scope of the report such as:

• The report only examined conduct of the CIA from 2001-2009 2006 and does not feature any review of the conduct of the DoD or foreign extraordinary rendition partners
• Source material used to create the report (scope of documents included, documents withheld by White House, lack of interviews, etc.)
• The fight over the CIA hacking incident and the Panetta review
• The report does not appear to address the role and culpability of the Bush White House in crafting official policy
• The fighting over declassification, redactions, and release delays

Not all of this necessarily belongs in this article, but I think this is a good starting point.-Ich (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

There are probably secondary sources that state these points, but stating them without secondary source reference is nitpicking at best, OR at worst. This should only be included as sources bring up these points. --RAN1 (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The process of creating the report is definitely worth including (second, third, and fifth bullet points). In particular, the fact that the CIA mounted an illegal attack on Senate computers to attempt to hinder the report is pretty relevant, not exactly "nitpicking". 67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Specifically about items 3 & 5, there are lots of secondary sources on these subjects, it's just that the news stories came out before the report was made public. We need to go back through the old news stories and find them. Some are cited in Panetta Review. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

One Source Tags

I added one source tags to four sections which used only one source for their entire content. That's not ok. The purpose of having these tags to make other editor aware of the fact that these sections need additional sources and POVs. Leave them there until this happens. Also, just having 2 sources doesn't make it okay to remove the tag either, 3 or more, then it's ok by me.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not needed. The material is that section is not contentious. We don't need multiple sources for that type of material. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether it's contentious, it's a question of getting more sources than one article. The purpose of the tag is to help guide editors to expand the section's content. The tag by itself is not discrediting the content or saying that it's contentious. Plus, it's not a lot to ask for additional sources, if an editor took half an hour they could easily find new sources and fix this.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever tickles your fancy. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The BBC is an impeccable source. I don't see why you need another source. It is totally unnecessary. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no guideline or policy requiring two (let alone three) sources per section. The proper rule is our verifiability policy, which only requires one reliable source. Even the {{one source}} template says, "A single source is not automatically a problem. Good judgment and common sense should be used." Let's use some common sense here. BBC stories are generally impeccably reliable. Therefore I oppose the tag. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Research methods behind report and need for arm's length objectivity by Wikipedia

My work in various fields over 40 years has required not only empirical research methods but what I will call the Objectivity of Restraint. The opening paragraphs of the Wikipedia article are dangerously subjective in that they state the position of the report. However, there is no evidence that it is either empirical or objective, so the lack of restraint shown is inappropriate, causing the Wikipedia article's credibility to founder.

Whatever occurred in the CIA is not at issue for Wikipedia. The facts, provided they are properly corroborated, will speak for themselves. Wikipedia's underlying interest must be to help its audience to critique the methodology behind the report and the political issues which may drive it toward preconceived goals that have nothing to do with CIA behaviour. For instance, how was the research designed, is there proof of arm's length, 3rd party research professionals, and were all parties consulted and involved appropriately at all stages. Who received the $40 million? For whatever portion was spent on government employees, can it be demonstrated that they are independent, apolitical researchers and investigators. That is possibly an oxymoron, but if so, then such a conclusion needs to be stated, as it speaks to the ability to at all report fairly and accurately to the American people. There are reports that many individuals reported on were never spoken with, and there are other signals that indicate bias, incompleteness and preconceived notions.

Conclusion - Wikipedia should not be in the business of espousing a party's view, no matter how tempting it may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.203.154 (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please never use real names on Wikipedia, that's a general rule. Second, thank you for your remarks but please feel free to contribute by adding marks to the article where you see things that are unsupported by references. The introduction is unique however since it's a summary of page (at least it should be) so don't just go putting tags after everything without checking the article first to see if indeed the statement is actually already cited. Thanks and welcome.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not the case. The job of Wikipedia is not to critique the methodology, or support it: is is to report the writings of third-parties from all sides of the political spectrum about the report. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Ironholds (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

70.195.203.154, you fundamentally misunderstand what Wikipedia is about. The purpose of this article is to describe all notable aspects of the report that have been described in reliable sources such as news articles. As the news media have focused primarily on the report's findings, so have we. If/when the news media start publishing stories about the subjects you mention, then it is time for us to add the material you're describing. Nothing gets excluded just because it is "subjective." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Dr. Fleischman and User:Ironholds. Keiiri (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia modification attempt

I question including this information. I'd assume that hundreds of staffers have access to these lines and that one or two edited Wikipedia does not seem of much importance to me. Gandydancer (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed the section. For anyone who is interested, the diff is [5]. Tiny edits made by a Congressional IP address that were quickly reverted are really of no lasting significance to the story of the report. We have other places for things like that (e.g. U.S. Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia). Dragons flight (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, the news source was https://twitter.com/congressedits/status/542730852162351104 via [[6]] via [[7]]. Mehmetaergun (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The modification may have great lasting significance, too early to say, but mashable isn't a reliable source. Let's see how the mainstream media picks this up. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Section on Alleged Inaccuracies in Allegations of Torture?

Should there be a section on alleged factual inaccuracies about the allegations of torture in the report? This would be distinct from 3. Reception/3.1 Domestic politicians, which contains interpretative claims along the lines of “a bunch of hooey” and “absolutely, totally justified,” and instead list notable claims of specific factual inaccuracies about the allegations of torture. I haven’t seen any; in particular, former Vice President Cheney conspicuously failed to provide an example (http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-transcript-december-14-2014-n268181), but it’s possible I’ve missed some. Looking at the Minority Report’s table of contents and apparently relevant sections (http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/12/09/sscis3.pdf), I've also so far failed to find any.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Keiiri (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A separate section is inappropriate. Rebuttals to the findings as a whole should go in the "Reception" section. Rebuttals to a specific finding should be placed immediately after that finding in the "Findings" section. That way readers get the full debate about a finding without having to hunt through the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, but absent a notable claim of factual inaccuracy, I’ve made a one-word change to tone down an unsourced overly-broad claim in the introduction.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"Enhanced interrogation techniques" versus "torture"

Is there any reason to use the euphemism rather than the real word? This is an encyclopedia: we aren't obliged to make people feel better about torture. I think it's enough to mention in the beginning that the euphemism is a phrase used to describe CIA torture. -Darouet (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:EUPHEMISM agrees that we should use the real word.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

CongressEdits

I saw @CongressEdits removed the a euphemism for torture part, and tried reverting it, then decided to bail because I wasn't sure if there was any later edits that would be deleted by reverting to this version, but I wasn't able to find a button to cancel the revert, I may have messed up the page? if so that wasn't at all my intention, and honestly I'm not sure how to revert my revert, verify that this is the only edit that will be affected, and then properly revert it. sorry. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)