Jump to content

Talk:Pharmacological torture/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Could someone add redirects to following words. I am new and I do not know how to do them. The Parkinson's type symptoms need to be redirected to Parkinsonism. The other is vegetative state needs to be redirected to Persistant Vegetative state. If I figure out how to do it, I shall fix it myself. Thank you in advance. Mbcap (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure

I am not sure if these two sources meet RS. QuackGuru (talk) 05:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with QG's concerns about the sourcing. Per WP:NEWSORG, "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. " Also, almost the entire article is being built up from one source. Allegations of torture are serious business, and if we cannot find more than a single source for such allegations, I am not sure we should build an entire article around that source.

In the event that additional sources are found, this should probably be merged with the Torture article. There are thousands of ways to torture people, and I'm not sure why pharmacological torture is so qualiatively different from electrical, blunt force, oxygen deprivation, or other forms of torture that it needs a separate article. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input QuackGuru. The second source about the senate report on torture are not questionable, please expalin why you disagree. In relation to the first source from truthout.org I have explained on Formerly98's talk page. They have used reliable primary sources from the US's offices of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff. Even still I will aknowledge that you may have a point regarding taking statements of facts from less well established news outlets. In which case there are two documents which I have found. They are as follows:
I am not familiar with merging texts on wikipedia yet or the reasons for doing it so I will leave that to you. Mbcap (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
how about if you just directly use the sources that Truthout used instead of referencing Truthout itself? I think that will address the problem. @QuackGuru:, would that be acceptable to you? Formerly 98 (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a primary source because it is a government website. User:Mbcap, I hope you can use a secondary source instead. We can use the sources that Truthout used instead if they are secondary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


I will do that when I get time QuackGuru, thank you for being understanding. I also want to make clear that I am not happy with Formerly 98's conduct during this editing process. You have been very unreasonable, even after I provided ample credible sources such as the 2 above and also the sources within the truthout article which are from the US Offices of the Sectretary of Defense and Joint Staff. At the very beginning you deleted the entire USA section and I assumed good faith but now that you have deleted the anti-malarial drug bit, it has gone too far. I had to reason with you to have the section reinstated. Thankfully half of it is still there. Hopefully when exams are done, I will be back to reinstate the deleted portion from the USA bit in the article. If you are still adamant then I will again write out the extra sources:
Some sources used by truth-out.com are:


I am deeply unhappy about your deletion of the section about giving anti-malarial drugs. Mbcap (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I will be happy when used use secondary sources. Things will move forward a lot faster with better sources. QuackGuru (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a secondary source:
Regards to the bit about CIA senate report and poisoning of food allegations I have used a primary source which is allowed under [[WP:PS}}: ": Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Therefore I have only put in what the report says and have provided no interpretation.
Maybe I am missing something. But during my break I will read around the different guidlines, I may realise I am mistaken if that is the case. Mbcap (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Mbcap,
It takes a little while to get used to the rules here. Basically, this is an encyclopedia. We don't add things that might be true, ideas that are not mainstream but which the world needs to be more aware of, or even things that are probably true. We add things that we can be pretty damn certain of. And the extent of the certainty required varies with how exceptional the claim is.
In the present case, you are making claims of torture. It may well be that these fall into the "probably true" category, but its a pretty extreme claim and we are looking for very strong, very reliable sources, because we are encylopediaists and not investigative journalists here. You have many, many claims drawing on a single book as a source, and that's pretty close to my limit of comfort. In the case of using malaria drugs for torture, these claims would fall under the even stricter standards of WP:MEDRS, because they are health related. My read of the literature is that the claim is overblown, because giving people a malaria drug at a standard dose for mild to moderate malaria is not going to cause psychotic and other extreme side effects in most people. Otherwise, that dose would not be used to treat malaria. You would need to find a high quality review article in a peer reviewed medical journal to back up this claim according to WP:MEDRS. Furthermore the source you have provided, which is not adequate to argue that the medical treatment given was inappropriate, does not definitely conclude that torture was the motive for treating with the drug, only that it was one of several possible explanations.
There is in fact a fairly simple explanation for giving all these prisoners a dose of malaria drug that is standard for treatment rather than prophylaxis. Many of them are coming from malaria-endemic countries, while Cuba itself is malaria free. Humans are an obligate host for the development of the malaria parasite, which then is spread by mousquitos. Bringing people into the country who are infected with malaria risks reintroducing malaria to Cuba, and by treating everyone upon arrival, one prevents that possibility. Diagnostic tests are only moderately sensitive. There is no need to hypothesize any other reason for administering the drug. It will not have "torture" properties at the administered dose, but it will have the desired effect of forestalling any possible re-introduction of the malaria parasite into cuba.
As for being unhappy with me, I'm sorry that is the case. But you don't have any absolute right to add material to any Wikipedia article just because you think it belongs here, we make decisions by consensus. There is a good essay on this WP:consensus which you should review. User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


Well did you read the review article in the journal of Tropical Medicine and International Health (this would satisfy your even stricter standards of WP:MEDRS? Did you read the drug abuse report from Seton hall? To be honest I did not make claims but just stated what is known. I never said the intention was torture, if that is how it read I apologise. Both of the above secondary sources say that normal medical practise was not followed. A prophylactic dose is 250mg which is what you can give without testing. As for the tests having moderate sensitivity, please be more accurate in your definition. Diagnostics in malaria have a sensitivity and specificity of about 85-90% which is accurate. At the very least the information from the 2 secondary sources should be incorporated into the article.
Also your assertion that it is to prevent transmission into cuba is wholly false as the review article states:

"While the mass administration of the drug to Guantanamo detainees may have been ratio-nally motivated for other purposes, the claim that prevention of malaria transmission was among them is firmly refuted."

It says "firmly refuted". I really do not know from where you are synthesising your information from. You also say that there is no need to hypothesize any other reason for administering the drug. I am not. Secondary sources are saying it was not to prevent or reduce transmission. I agree with you that I have no right to add material just because I think it belongs here. But I do have a right to add material that is encyclopaedic. You state at the start that we do not add information that might be true. Yes I agree. This is something that is true; namely that this drug was administered for a variety of reasons none of which are flattering and do not include prevention of transmittion (please read executive summary of drug report from Seton Hall for more inforamtion on this,p3-4). So I suggest we add the section back into the article and state what the possibilities are, either gross medical malpractice or to bring about side effects.
You state that we are not investigative journalist. Yes I agree. I only came here because when I joined 3 weeks ago I asked at the teahouse how I could help which lead me to this. My aim was to take it out of stub class. I have no burning interest in the area. You keep mentioning how a single souce is close to your limit of comfort. I used the limited time I had to expand the article. If you are uncomfortable, please do contribute to the article using other sources. Mbcap (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Mbcap, the fundamental human rights of the prisoners at Guantamano were violated in a hundred different ways, but calling the administration of a normal, therapeutic dose of an antimalarial drug "torture" is an extraordinary claim that your references do not support.
  • The Tropical Medicine article you have cited is not a WP:MEDRS compliant source (it is a primary source, not secondary). Further the article does not unambiguously conclude that the adminstrattion of mefloquine with the goal of torture, stating only "This analysis suggests the troubling possibility that the use of mefloquine at Guantanamo may have been motivated in part by knowledge of the drug’s adverse effects" So it doesn't unambigously say that the drug was used for torture and it wouldn't be an acceptable source for the claim if it did.
  • The Seton University School of Law document fails WP:MEDRS and even the more relaxed standards of WP:RS. It is WP:SELFPUBLISHED, not peer-reviewed, and consists mainly of lawyers arguing about what constitutes appropriate medical practice.
  • The fact that the sources you are finding for this are both self published pieces or in third tier journals speaks to the fact that the mainstream does not accept this as an example of torture. Pubmed contains 128 articles on Guantanamo. Force-feeding and psychological torture have been covered in dozens of articles published in Pubmed indexed journals including the BMJ, Lancet and NEJM. Many of these are broad reviews of torture at Guantamano, but while they cover psychological torture, waterboarding, forcefeeding, water and sleep deprivation, extended isolation, beatings, forced positions, sexual assault, and many other forms of abuse, but mefloquine is not mentioned.
Formerly 98 (talk) 11:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Formerly 98, I will not respond to this discussion anymore in light of my inexperience with wikipedia guidelines. I am still not keen on what you are saying in regards to the purpose of giving anti-malarials but I think debating with you on the issue is not the purpose of the talk page. I am going to take a break from this article and familiarise myself with the wiki guidelines you have posted. Hopefully when I return, armed with a clearer outlook we can work together to improve the page. I have made my view of the whole situation clear but regardless I thank you for your patience and apt explanations. All the best. Mbcap (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I put a request for comments over on the Medicine Project Talk Page to get some outside input on this. Hopefully that will break our impasse. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
By all means, please feel free to continue this discussion here, Mbcap. Though your point of view may not be confirmed in this discussion, it sounds like you are learning a lot about how Wikipedia works, which will improve the quality of your future edits. Your contributions here are valued, even if consensus is not always in your favor.
As to the question of whether this paragraph of information should be included in the article, I would argue that while truth-out.org is not a qualified medical source, it is a qualified news source. As such, I would support inclusion of this accusation into Pharmacological torture. With the topic of torture, which is not a strictly medical topic, this article does not fall squarely under the medical field so sourcing a reputable news organization source is sufficient to include relevant information
Since this is not a WP:RSMED source, other editors may choose to add qualifying language that whether or not this use of the drug qualifies as torture is debated within the medical community. Other editors are free to add sourced content attesting to its controversial nature. The immense amount of debate across multiple sources is a testament to the notability of this information, and that it should be included in the article. If the amount of content grows greater than a couple paragraphs, this topic may even warrant its own article. Mamyles (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Nevin, Remington L. (2012). "Mass administration of the antimalarial drug mefloquine to Guantánamo detainees: a critical analysis". Tropical Medicine & International Health. 17 (10): 1281–1288. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3156.2012.03063.x. ISSN 1360-2276. PMID 22882560.
User:Mbcap, I formatted the ref for you. The source might be reliable. There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Pharmacological_torture. They know better than me which sources are reliable and if in-text attribution is required. QuackGuru (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I think I will wait to see if anyone else comments. Thank you for ref btw. When time permits, and if there is support for inclusion, I will start work on the mefloquine use in gitmo. Mbcap (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Biased toward U.S.A. and its allies

I added the United States to the list, with some specific examples that had already been vetted by WP, and they got deleted almost instantly. I received a condescending / patronizing message from the deleting party. MK Ultra is a very obvious example in the US, and there are many examples of psychiatry (and associated drugs) being used in a way that the UN defines as torture. All these edits were deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exonerated torturee (talk • contribs) 04:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this was your set of edits, and I reverted in this dif with an edit note: " am sorry but none of those sources are OK - we can discuss on the Talk page if you like". So thanks for opening a Talk page discussion. Please do see WP:RS for an explanation of what reliable sources are. If after reading that, you think the sources comply with that guideline, please reply here and we can discuss. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 05:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This page is obviously biased, and I think it's now clear why. Just look here:Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States#Psychological_and_torture_experiments. This person has taken it upon itself to delete references rather than simply challenging the source or attribution style. (is it normal for another person to take it upon themselves to reposition text such as this to the bottom of the page?). This Jytdog person has provided just about the rudest and most passive-aggressive, condescending "welcome" I can recollect. Exonerated torturee (talk) 05:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
If you believe the article is biased, please fix it! You just need to edit following the policies and guidelines, including using reliable sources. It takes a bit of time to learn, but it is not that hard. About the how comments are ordered on Talk pages, please read the talk page guidelines; yes there is a guideline for talk page behavior, too. There is nothing new under the sun in Wikipedia. Yes, people look at the bottom of Talk pages to find what is new. Jytdog (talk) 05:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I am afraid to fix it, because I was indirectly threatened on my user talk page about something like "if you continue to do this, you'll get in fights and be banned" Exonerated torturee (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
That was not an indirect threat of any kind. What i said, was that if you don't pay mind to the policies and guidelines and try to follow them, but just push for what you want, you will get in lots of bad arguments, and those arguments will end up on noticeboards, and you will be wrong and will get blocked for a short time, and if you keep doing that, it will happen again for a longer time, and that will iterate until you get sick of it and leave, or get thrown out. All you have to do is try to edit like a Wikipedian - to not add unsourced content, and to use sources that are reliable, and to just talk things through, based on the policies and guidelines, when you get in disagreements with people (which happens all the time, and most times it gets worked out just fine). None of that is hard to do, especially if you try to learn and ask questions, and know you are learning. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
If you would please refer to the Wikipedia policy on courtesy, you'd see that it's expected that editors should welcome new people and assume good faith. By your assumption that I should "at least try to edit like a Wikipedian" (which I heard in the voice of Bill Lumburgh) (see here), it seems that you are not assuming good faith. :Exonerated torturee (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I have been doing my best to help you and I remain ready to help you. You added content, i reverted it and explained why, and have been trying to explain why, and you have just argued with me. If at any point you would like help actually creating content instead of complaining, just let me know. Jytdog (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Content about Congressional hearings

This has again been changed to reflect more kindly on the United States. The editor made a note that it was not a joint session of Congress (which is spelled out very clearly in the referenced PDF file hosted by the New York Times), and has diminished the US involvement by choosing to reflect only on time span of highest activity. This seems to be fitting a pattern. Exonerated torturee (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not contributor. The source that was introduced is very clearly titled: Joint Hearing Before the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources. United States Senate, Ninety-Fifth Congress, First Session August 3, 1977 . To indeed spell that out, it was joint between a senate committee, and a senate subcommittee. A Joint session of the United States Congress is when the Senate and House meet together. The content was not accurate. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Content about Congressional hearings

This has again been changed to reflect more kindly on the United States. The editor made a note that it was not a joint session of Congress (which is spelled out very clearly in the referenced PDF file hosted by the New York Times), and has diminished the US involvement by choosing to reflect only on time span of highest activity. This seems to be fitting a pattern. Exonerated torturee (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not contributor. The source that was introduced is very clearly titled: Joint Hearing Before the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources. United States Senate, Ninety-Fifth Congress, First Session August 3, 1977 . To indeed spell that out, it was joint between a senate committee, and a senate subcommittee. A Joint session of the United States Congress is when the Senate and House meet together. The content was not accurate. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

"Hyoscine-pentothal" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hyoscine-pentothal. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 21#Hyoscine-pentothal until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jontesta (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Issue with neutrality

The "Alleged Uses" section introduction clearly takes a dim view of psychiatry and violates Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. I have not edited the text, but perhaps someone should consider rewriting it. 75.117.65.0 (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to rethink the morality of violating the constitution utilising lobotomy cults. Taking away someones freedom and lobotomising them is cult behaivour at best . Psychiatry is - per definition - the attempt at sociopathy. The elimination of social constructs

Wiki Education assignment: SSC199 Hon

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 November 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Plubell (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mmswens.

— Assignment last updated by Mmswens (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pharmacological_torture/Archive_1&oldid=1170953541"