I'm nominating this article. It's been through hell and back again, including RFAR, non-stop drama, probation, attacks by SPAs and long-banned users, but it's growin incredibly stable, and incredibly sourced and detailed, in the wake of all of that. Thanks have been quite calm for some time now. It's definitely a group effort, and a perfect example of positive growth in an article. Lawrence § t/e 17:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Although the article gives good historical background of the practice, the article remains a WP:POV nightmare, with discussion on the discussion page that has gone on for years about the lede, "Waterboarding is a form of torture...". These discussions have been repeatedly raised by numerous goodfaith editors whose attempts to mitigate the POV have repeatedly been shot down by a small group of editors who have dominated the discussion board who say that the argument that waterboarding is not torture is subject to WP:UNDUE. With all respect to those editors, the page as it stands appears to affirmatively assert that waterboarding in all its forms is universally defined as "torture" which is a vague and politically charged word,(see discussion here), and this is simply not true. Although I think this topic is one of the most important of our time, and wikipedia's editors have taken a valiant stance in confronting this issue (wikipedia's article is first when waterboard is typed into Google), I do not believe the article sufficiently acknowledges the very noticeable POV problems and I therefore must oppose.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
An extreme minority of editors oppose the current lead, and for invalid reasons that discard NPOV--there is no NPOV issue here. When 230+ sources and authorities call a thing torture, but 6-10 American conservative sources say it isn't, there is no NPOV conflict; such opposition to the FAC can be disregarded. American views are of no special value to us. Lawrence § t/e 17:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Not of special value, but at least value. You would prefer to imply in the article that there is no disagreement at all.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Totally incorrect and false statement by you. The controversy, being limited to one nation and the definition disputed by only the smaller political party by population in that one nation, is detailed right here: Waterboarding#Controversy in the United_States. Please don't try to deceive viewers of this page. Lawrence § t/e 18:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I should clarify. You would prefer the lede of the article to imply that there is no disagreement at all, as was implied by my objection being about the lede. My apologies if I misrepresented your viewpoint. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I also dispute that only an "extreme minority" of editors oppose the current lede.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
There previously has been a false inflated number of users "opposing" the wording, but it was discovered through deep investigations, including Checkuser confirmations, that a massive amount of them were in fact a banned user and Conservative advocate (User:BryanFromPalatine). Other than that, and counting yourself, there have 4-5 users in good standing that I can recall, compared to the dozens of others that worked on the article. Lawrence § t/e 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I see a number of other users on this page alone who have expressed an opinion that the lede violate NPOV, and I saw a number of others on the discussion board. Whatever, this isn't a poll. It appears to be a question of law whether or not waterboarding is a form of torture in all circumstances rather than a question of fact.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If its a question of law then we have more than enough legal opinion and previous cases to say waterboarding is torture, but all the legal opinion is based on medical opinion which is uninamous that it is torture. The only case that it is not torture under your claim is when a)its not on US Controlled teritory (as opposed to a military base thats 80 years old) b) its not performed by US military c)they've been told its OK by the OLC. Thats it! Thats the only time it Might not be torture under US LAW. Who cares (well other than those waterboarded), just because they have found a legal loophole to push torture through does not mean we should change our definition. (Hypnosadist) 14:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
So you concede the point that there's a possibility that it might not be torture in limited circumstances? Which cases are you talking about? --Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No its Torture(medically defined) every time its done, to whom ever it is done to. I concede that POTUS can stack enough of a legal deck for it to escape prosecution. (Hypnosadist) 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
What is "Torture(medically defined)"? What cases were you referring to?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I mean that torture is defined by doctors not lawyers or loopholes. If you have been tortured it can be determined scientifically, recorded and studied scientifically, and weaseling by lawyers does not change that. CDOG your entire argument is based around the presupposition that one POTUS not doctors decide what the WORLD AND HISTORY WIDE definition of torture is, this is utterly flawed. (Hypnosadist) 05:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You still don't cite any cases so why don't I just cross your unfounded assertion out. Although the legal opinions may be persuasive (I personally am persuaded that waterboarding can rise to the level of being torture from what I've heard and seen about the process) but those opinions do not appear to be legally binding and they are NOT unanimous. To address your point that doctors define torture, I don't know where you're getting that idea and I'm not 100% sure what you're talking about. Scientifically? Let me refer you to the difference between Plato's Theory of forms, and Aristotle's Scientific method. Torture is an abstract concept that is defined by human beings based on certain a posteriori facts, not an inherent thing in existence that would exist if there was no one there to observe and define it. The real problem is that "torture" is ill-defined and a loaded word. You're right to say that we shouldn't just base our arguments simply on what the President thinks. Just because he doesn't believe in Evolution doesn't mean that that article should be altered. (Plus there is another article that addresses some of those opinions). But waterboarding appears to fall in a grey area where there is real and ongoing debate (at least in the United States) about whether this interrogation technique actually does rise to legally defined level of torture. The medical facts are important because the legal definition of torture relies of the infliction of a certain level of pain, but the definition of torture itself is legal in nature. If it wasn't there would be no way to punish someone for torturing someone else.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
"You still don't cite any cases" Read the sources, heres one to get you going why don't you find some cases were waterboarding is proved to be "not torture".
"The real problem is that "torture" is ill-defined and a loaded word." No we have a clear definition provided by UNCAT and the EUCHR and multiple expert sources BOTH medical and legal that waterboarding violates both. The loaded aspect comes from the seriousness of the crime (like rape).
"But waterboarding appears to fall in a grey area" not according to any expert sources, one says it MIGHT not be illegal, thats not the same as it being torture.
"but the definition of torture itself is legal in nature." This MIGHT be true if every country in the world used the same laws but they don't. As far as i'm concerned if POTUS created an executive order that said waterboarding is not torture under US law it should only get a passing mention and certainly not change the leads first six words. (Hypnosadist) 06:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect to an editor who likely has more experience here than I do, 6 to 10 vs. 230 does not indicate no NPOV conflict. Even if those who said waterboarding wasn't torture were as few as 6 to 230, that's still 2 1/2 percent of the population. If someone said, "Adolf Hitler was a murderer," they could probably get 220 to 224 out of 230 people to agree with them. But I warrant that lead in a Wikipedia article would get changed very quickly. And in America at least, the bill that would have banned waterboarding in the U. S. passed by a margin that was significantly less than the 2/3rds that would be necessary to overturn President Bush's veto of March 8, 2008. Over a third voted against it being banned. There's also the issue of, if some waterboarding is torture, is all waterboarding torture? If the article says it "is," as fact, then waterboarding CIA agents and military personnel as part of their training is torture. And yet some of the very people quoted in the article who say waterboarding is used as torture claim that they were not tortured. "Is" is an absolute. If I may be allowed to quote a section from Wikipedia:NPOV Jimbo Wales said the view of a significant minority should be presented, and "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." We have named prominent adherents, including the president of the United States of America. It's difficult to get more prominent than that. Wakedream (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we just fix the NPOV problem? "Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that consists of..." If waterboarding in the modern form is widely considered to be torture, the article can say who thinks it is torture and name sources. The problem we've had is that a few bad actors have been pushing the "not torture" POV, and this has made everyone over sensitive. We have to get beyond this problem and fix the article. I really value the feedback from uninvolved reviewers here. JehochmanTalk 02:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggested this form of wording a couple of months ago and got shouted down. Good luck trying it again :) --ROGER DAVIEStalk 04:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both of us--let's keep it NPOV with "interrogation technique." If people believe it's torture, they ought to believe the facts in the article can speak for themselves without us saying it's so. Wakedream (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - i read only a piece of the article, and there's too pov! MOJSKA666 (msg) 17:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
What is too POV? Lawrence § t/e 18:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This objection is so vague as to be unfixable, and is therefore invalid. Raul654 (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per criterion 1e (stability). This article was placed on probation by ArbCom less than one month ago. A review of article stats indicates the following edit history for the last 6 months:
As much as I appreciate the massive ongoing effort put into the article, it is, well, ongoing. This is just not stable. Maralia (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The technique section is a trainwreck. The 1st sentence of the Technique section is out of place. The "Two televised segments" paragraph is confusing and poorly worded. And finally the lead does a better job describing the technique than the technique section.
The "Mental and physical effects" section would be better if it described the effects and used Dr. Keller's words as the reference. The section also seems wrapped up in mention "testimony" and "open letters" etc. It should simply describe the effects.
Article is overly focused on the US. A "waterboarding controversy in the united states" article might be a good idea . I stopped there. -Ravedave (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"A "waterboarding controversy in the united states" article might be a good idea"I've been asking for that to happen for ages. (Hypnosadist) 01:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Right off the bat, the opening sentence is POV, claiming as fact a highly disputed and disputable statement about the subject. Seems the article needs to be re-written from a Neutral Point of View, not as one convinced of something about the subject. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Query - If this is an article about a form of torture that dates back to the Spanish Inquisition, why is so much of this article devoted to current controversies/practices in the U.S? Since its clear that the point of this article is to discuss inhuman activities of CIA/whoever, wouldn't be better to move all this contemporary stuff to an article called "Waterboarding by the United States" (or something like that), while this one gives a more general account and history about Waterboarding? As of now, this article about a old torture is completely dominated by this American controversy, making it very unbalanced. indopug (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"wouldn't be better to move all this contemporary stuff to an article called "Waterboarding by the United States"" I've been trying to do that for what seems like years! (Hypnosadist) 01:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Not if you're trying to make a POV fork. The U.S. stuff can be easily cut down to appropriate lengths within the current article. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1)As an inclusionist Nothing well sourced should be deleted when it can be Split. 2)To cut down the US stuff you would have delete most of it which would bring more weight issues. 3)This is a temporal fork not a POV one, those are common in history topics. (Hypnosadist) 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hypnosadist, if I could suggest, you should simply be bold and make a separate article. These theoretical deletionist/inclusionist articles don't really accomplish much; if you have a vision for the article, let's see it. Those who argue against splits in such cases are often persuaded when they see the quality of the resulting article. -Pete (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I was bold (2 months ago) and it got speedied before i could put more than a few lines in it. (Hypnosadist) 05:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't let a little thing like a speedy delete stop you! Set it up in user space. Tweak and refine, get some outside input before moving to main space. I'd be glad to help. It's a good idea, and should be given another effort. -Pete (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Note This article had 465,000 views in February. With so many people looking at it, we should make a push for better quality. JehochmanTalk 02:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. As a non-American, I am often surprised and sometimes amused at the squeamishness many Americans exhibit in these matters. I suppose it goes with the tendency towards such whiter-than-white "clean-hands" practices as extraordinary rendition. Look, if you see the need to torture citizens of other countries (including my own: Australia), at least call it what it is. Since when was simulated drowning – obviously risking brain-damage, long-term psychological damage, and death through clumsy practice – rationally classified as anything other than torture? When American and Australian troops did it Vietnam, it was torture, just as surely as when they had it done against them! If a citizen of your country or mine did it to a fellow citizen, it would be considered shockingly inhumane, and subject to the full righteous wrath of the law. But hey: war is war, torture is torture, and in war torture is used. Always has been. Mind you: I'm against it! But... Confucius was right! The rectification of names is the first requisite of good governance: first call things what they are.
Now, what's "point of view" about any of that? Calling things by names that you are not comfortable with is not, eo ipso, "point of view".
I have examined the article. It is perhaps defensive, quite understandably, in making its case so thoroughly, with such excellent documentation. There are one or two minor infelicities that a light copyediting for punctuation and style could easily fix. (I'll happily attend to that, if asked nicely.) It is a well-constructed article on a important theme, and it is hard to see how it could be managed any better, salva veritate. And let's face it: saving the truth is a paramount goal for an encyclopedia.
You are so biased, you don't even realize the things you say are debatable, and the conversation isn't divided between normal people and psychos, but intelligent people who can disagree on things. The article is written in a similar tone of "We're normal and right, and a few psychos disagree with us". The people defending this article desperately need to read up on W:NPOV. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You have personalised this, Judgesurreal. That is uncivil, and in this case amounts to a personal attack. I wonder what impels you to do that, when there is an obvious opportunity to deal with issues, instead? I have said nothing personal about any editor, nor any group of editors. You have said I am biased. I call on you now to justify that assertion, or (preferably) withdraw it immediately. This is no place for you to start such an exchange. You have not engaged with what I actually said. I said that there is a positive benefit in calling things what they are. Separate three issues, please: whether waterboarding amounts to torture; whether waterboarding is used; and whether waterboarding should be used. Failure to distinguish these issues makes reasoned conversation about the present article impossible. To let our attitude to one issue affect our treatment of other, separate issues is a prevalent and pernicious error of reasoning. You might like to read that Confucian link, Judgesurreal. Quite apt for our times, and for the conduct of the present discussion.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
None of those issues you raise are what we are talking about, the "issue", if you will, is not the issue. It is the attitude that "waterboarding is torture", and those who dissent are basically to be ignored or disregarded. Also, "calling things what they are" is not helpful at this point as exactly what things are is the fundamental question that is being debated, and to start an article with a statement of this sort is the same as starting the article on God by saying "God is the lord of the universe who loves his creation". I could use your same argument in that article too, saying "Sure atheists dispute this, but what are they, 10%? And most of the world is monotheistic, so that's a majority right? So that makes it true and indisputable. That is basically the treatment of the issue being given in this article, even the nominators have stated that is the way they view American conservatives on the issue, and that is the way it comes across when the article opens with a definitive statement over a very controversial topic. It is not the role of Wikipedia to make judgment calls about these issues, but present them for consideration in a neutral point of view. And finally, I say you are biased in that you fail to understand that just because you or a supposed "majority" believe something, in this case "waterboarding=torture", doesn't mean it is going to be presented that way (or that it should), and those who disagree aren't a bunch of fools or have bad motives. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Judgesurreal777 NPOV is acessed by looking at the RS. As you believe that this article is biased, help it by finding medical sources, any legal journal or non-american lawyer that say waterboarding is not torture. (Hypnosadist) 01:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a candidacy, I have not nominated it, and it is not my obligation to fix it. It is biased, as many have now pointed out, and what is needed is a rewrite not more sources, from what I can see. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Judgesurreal, if you had not wanted to engage in rational discussion, why didn't you simply say so, and save us from wasting time? Whether waterboarding is torture is not a matter of "attitude", any more than the true age of the earth is a matter of attitude. It is a blindingly simple question of definitions. We know that, if it is imposed as a technique of interrogation, intimidation, or punishment, any act causing extreme pain or distress, and the fear of loss of life or well-being, along with the actual risk of those, is an act of torture. We know that waterboarding qualifies by that definition. There may be borderline cases (like uncomfortably elevating the air temperature), but waterboarding is not such a borderline case. Denying or doubting this is like denying or doubting that the earth is many millions of years old. In each case, the rationally determinable answer to the question is so pellucidly clear that an attempt to lend credibility to any other answer amounts to bias. Attitudes contaminate rational process. Again, this is well captured long ago by Confucius, and hosts of other philosophers interested in the norms of well-founded inquiry.
Since you are immune to appeals to distinguish orthogonal issues, there is no point engaging in discussion with you. I will therefore not attempt to continue.
I am not saying waterboarding isn't torture, in my personal opinion it probably is, but I am saying that the question is not settled one way or the other to such an extent that we can say a definitive statement on this topic, and that your opinion is not necessarily the only one, and that is the way the article sounds, and can't be featured that way. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I second what Judgesurreal777 just said.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Then find expert RS's that say its not torture, because there arn't any at the moment. (Hypnosadist) 14:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to agree with him but John Yoo is a legal scholar who claims waterboarding is not torture. He allegedly wrote most of the Bybee memo. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
John Yoo's legal opinions - along with his untenable philosophy that the president is a unitary executive, i.e. a king - are not worth the paper they are written on. His beliefs are so far distorted from reality that no serious legal scholar gives him a scintilla of credibility - his legal opinions are to the law what the flat earth society is physics. He's not a reliable source for anything where the law is concerned. Raul654 (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I am beginning to see why there are no opposing opinions in the article. Why is he being ruled out? It is cause he said that one crazy thing? Or is it because he disagrees with current liberal positions and beliefs? Or is there another reason? I am curious, because it seems like everyone who doesn't think waterboarding is torture is labelled a nut or unqualified. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
John Yoo's legal advice on If POTUS could order waterboarding is covered in the article. He does not say it is not torture just that POTUS can order it done legally (in his opinion). (Hypnosadist) 06:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose This candidacy is far too premature. (The article isn't even good article status, mind you, so I would invoke WP:SNOW here.) I've voiced my concerns on the page, with minimal discussion but no changes to the article. As it stands, the article is far too American orientated. There also quite a few things that could and should be fixed with a simple proofread and copyediting. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Good article status is not required to become an FA. Raul654 (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That very well may be true, but the fact that the article actually got degraded from a good article ought to tell you something (like it's not a good candidate for FA status). ~ UBeR (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Degraded? I don't think so -- it looks like it simply didn't pass its review, which was December 20, 2007. The nomination clearly describes the article's recent history. While there might or might not be stability issues, I don't think the GA review has any bearing on the present nomination. -Pete (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose primarily due to the article's current lead which states that "Waterboarding is a form of torture...." In my opinion, it begins by violating Wikipedia:NPOV. If this were changed to "Waterboarding is an interrogation method...." and then described it as sourced, I might reconsider my opinion. Wakedream (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Uh, no. It's pretty clear this has been discussed ad infinitum, that the vast majority of users agree that the intro is correct as is, and IMO it's pretty clear this is a case of calling a spade a spade. Raul654 (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
And also, a mountain of biased users and "experts" does not make a controversial topic any less controversial or disputed. If I have 100 liberal scholars and 5 non-liberal scholars, majority voting does not yield "truth" but strong armed bias. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There are ZERO scholars that say its not torture, as for political bias are ALL the military sources such as the JAG's and the head of the DIA "pinko commie scum" when they say its Torture. (Hypnosadist) 03:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment—overall this article has some good material and I think it would make a decent FA. I don't mind the first sentence too much, although I think that "is considered torture" would make it more neutral. But I have some other concerns (beyond those mentioned above).
This article is excessively bloated and the majority is dedicated to the case against the U.S. I think that needs to be moved to its own article and summarized here. The other historical usage receives only paltry coverage and may need more details.
What is a "third degree interrogation" technique? It is not clearly explained; only implied.
Why is the technique termed a "water cure" at one point?
There are some formatting issues with the citations, such as inconsistent date styles. For example, "Bush, George W. (2007-07-20)." and "Katherine Eban (July 17, 2007).". I see several bare links and some that only give the article title.
Strong support. I proposed on the article talk page that it should be nominated. The article is exceptionally clear and informative. The points usefully mentioned by RJHall should be addressed, but there are potential drawbacks as well as advantages to splitting off the current debates into a separate article.Itsmejudith (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If it isn't split off, then I still believe that the non-U.S. material is too brief by comparison. To be considered comprehensive, one of the requirements for an FA, it needs deeper historical coverage than at present. Otherwise the article appears unbalanced.
P.S. I find the number of "strong support"'s (rather than a simple "support") a little disturbing here. It makes me concerned about the objectivity of some reviewers.—RJH (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. Just because a topic is controversial or will be difficult to manage NPOV does not mean that it should avoided and hidden. This is a valuable article which contains very good, verified information and could help educate many people on a topic relevant to contemporary society and current events. The effort would be worth the payoff.Helixweb (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
And very biased, which should Never be featured in that condition. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Judgesurreal, I really have to come back here and express concern at what you doing. You've already made your position perfectly clear. Now back off, and let others have their say without you reflexly and raucously reiterating your dissent at every opportunity. You are one voice among many voices; be heard once, and then shut up.[Amended. See below.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T–]
Noetica, keep a civil tone. Judgesurreal has every right to express his opinion and you have no right to censor him. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your remark, Gdogsimmons. It, along with the message you left at my talkpage, raises some procedural concerns. I may decide to take those up separately, elsewhere. Meanwhile, Judgesurreal (who interestingly enough agrees with your position on the article), has more than once accused me of bias. The supposed grounds for that accusation seem to be these: (1) that I regard those who disagree with me as "psychos"; (2) that I irrationally take it as demonstrable fact that waterboarding (as defined by everyone) is torture (as defined by every disinterested party); and (3) that I say a minority must not be right. Those are the claims he or she made against me, in effect; but all three are ill-founded. As I pointed out, it was uncivil of him or her to accuse me of bias; I suggested a retraction or a justification. But I got neither. Nevertheless, I now retract what I suppose you have objected to in the post I made before this one (see above). Again I call on Judgesurreal to withdraw the accusation of bias against me, and not to take every opportunity to counter a fresh comment supporting the article by repeating what... some may consider to be a militantly biased push on her or his part. Such stridency risks intimidating newcomers to the discussion, and is entirely unproductive. We have heard him or her; let's now encourage others to have a say, rather than browbeating them with blunt repetition.
If any of that is uncivil, I it put to editors here that I have been provoked by serious misrepresentation of the points I have made. Let me know precisely which phrasing you don't like, and again I'll consider striking it. (And then, please treat others the same!)
Finally, I have "censored" no one. There has, to my knowledge, been no overt or covert censoring in this discussion. Yet.
Oppose because of POV and unstability. References 6, 9, 14, 28, 43, 49, 58, 64, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 104, 105 and 112 have formatting problems. References always go after a full stop or comma with no spaces in between. I also see a few short paragraphs and unreferenced paragraphs. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou Kaypoh for a constructive Oppose. (Hypnosadist) 08:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome. :) --Kaypoh (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed as many of the refs as i know how. (Hypnosadist) 08:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Per above comments. 8thstar 02:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. As bad as the reasons for it may be, the topic of whether waterboarding is torture is of worldwide interest in light of recent events. The lead takes a position on that. It is the correct position, but without offering any insight into why it is the correct position. But my reason for opposing runs deeper than this. I made the above argument on the talk page, hoping to spur some discussion and improve the lead. The response, in my view, reflects a community of editors that is still in a reactionary mode, following the major content battles of recent months. There's nothing wrong with this, I think it's a perfectly natural situation in light of recent events. But waterboarding is a living topic these days; international developments will require careful and dispassionate review for inclusion. The lead is presently insufficient, and I don't see a community of editors that is, at present, well disposed to deal with this or other touchy issues. This is no reflection on the individual editors involved. -Pete (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you unintentionally touch on something very important. The lead takes a position; THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD NEVER DO. It is not our place to make calls on issues, but to reflect, in a neutral way, the opinions that are yielded from reliable sourcing. Too many of the people that are pushing this article are arguing their personal opinions, and this is totally inappropriate to do especially in a featured article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that is what it is being used as in this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with what you say, Judge -- and maybe was sloppy with the term "takes a position." The fact that waterboarding is torture is not a "position," It's the truth, according to the definition of what waterboarding is, and what torture is. But that fact that is prominently and frequently called into question, resulting in a great deal of curiosity about its basis. This demands a lead that exposes why it's the truth, rather than merely asserting it. -Pete (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn't my personal opinion, it is what wikipedia is about, encyclopedic content, not essay writing or a position paper. The people who read this encyclopedia aren't idiots, and we shouldn't treat them that way; they don't need to be bludgeoned with the "truth", let them decide based on a neutral presentation. And yet again, Pete, you like other supporters, throw out those who disagree with the articles opinion as irrelevant and unimportant, and that they only disagree because they are confused? We are not supposed to be propagandizing about what is "true", that's the whole point of "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Judge, it may be that you and I are not so far apart. I don't know. These semantic debates tire me out quick these days. As I said, the rigidity of the editorial community that has evolved around the article is the main reason for my oppose to FA; I'm going to let this drop for now, and may revisit it at some point in the future. Hope to see you around, and maybe work together on something where there's a chance of making a difference ;-) -Pete (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This article does not "take a position" on some american political debate, it repeats what the EXPERT SOURCES say, that happens to be "Waterboarding is a form of torture". I also understand petes reason for opposing this FA, and agree with it a bit but not to the extent of stopping the FA..(Hypnosadist) 07:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.