Jump to content

Talk:Panetta Review

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

Sources

[edit]
  • Feinstein transcript
  • Mazzetti, Mark (January 20, 2015). "C.I.A. Report Found Value of Brutal Interrogation Was Inflated". The New York Times.
  • Eaton, Joshua (February 25, 2015). "Powerful Senate Republican tamping down torture disclosures". Al Jazeera.
  • Watkins, Ali (December 22, 2014). "The Other Torture Report: The Secret CIA Document That Could Unravel The Case For Torture". The Huffington Post.

torture/euphamism/lede

[edit]

I shortened the lede to eliminate references to enhanced interrogation and to the CIA. The reason is: the Senate Report and other sources indicate the abuse of prisoners went far beyond anything authorized by John Yoo in the torture memos as enhanced interrogation. And the CIA was not the only offender; indeed it was perhaps the lesser offender. Most abuse occured at places like Abu Ghraib, under the auspices of the military. These refinements can be discussed in the body of the text, but the lede should limit itself to an introduction to the subject. Finally, I could not find the word euphamism in the lede, to which a previous editor appeared to object: was it the edit summary that was objectionable? ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 16:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was the lack of reliable sourcing. The first sentence and its sourcing still need work. We should hue closely to the sources about the Panetta Review and be careful to avoid synth. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2014

Stub/not a stub?

[edit]

I added, another editor deleted, a third editor re-added, and a fourth has re-deleted, a stub tag. On reflection I agree this article is not exactly a stub. Perhaps we can agree on calling it: unfinished. That's in part, because we don't know the end of the story yet, or the significance of this aspect of it. I am not sure that the wrestling over who should have access to the Panetta report is of more than passing significance. That happens a lot in Washington. Certainly if the information the CIA was hoping to keep away from the Senate is ultimately made public, the bureaucratic wrestling over it may seem a little silly, a current event that is no longer current, of little enduring historical value. Worth maybe a sentence, or maybe as much as a whole section, in the larger article to come on the Senate Report. But maybe not a stand-alone article. So, in sum, I guess I am saying lets wait and see. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 18:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger?

[edit]

Saw this merger tag but not seeing where the discussion should be, I started this section. This stand-alone article is a bit much for a report nobody has seen that is notable mostly because the CIA infiltrated Senate staffer computers to find out who might have seen it. We still don't know what the report says. So in sum, I SUPPORT cutting this down and merging it.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 22:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Elijah, these are all separate things that have each received substantial independent coverage. FWIW, I've proposed renaming Enhanced interrogation techniques to United States detention and interrogation programs during the presidency of George W. Bush. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]