Talk:Short shackling

Untitled

In your recent edit you say that confirmation that short shackling includes shackling both the hands and feet to the ring bolt is not mentioned in -any-- military report. There have been something like a dozen. Some remain classified. Are you are sure you checked them all? If you only checked the unclassified ones, perhaps it would be better to say it is not mentioned in any unclassified report?

Do you have a list of all the reports? I think this is something missing from the wikipedia's article space -- a list of all the inquiries that were devoted to or touched on abuse of detainees in the GWOT. The ones I know about, by name, are:

-- Geo Swan 15:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to but this has not been confirmed in any government reports. - if you can find a report other than the one cited as a reference (which details only the hands ) then add it. Short of that the article can not be NPOV if it misrepresents the available information. Triddle 15:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the statement that short-shackling involves shackling of the feet, since no appropriate source has been added to support this statement (and the "it is believed that" seemed like weasel wording, too). This unsourced statement seemed to the only issue at the moment anyone's referred to as a POV problem, so I'd recommend that the POV tag now be deleted (and am happy to do so at a later time). As Triddle has said though, if someone can find and link a credible source suggesting that the feet are chained too, great. The idea certainly makes intuitive sense, I'm not sure how a prisoner could be forced into the fetal position with just wrist restraints.CowboyBear (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag deleted as per above comments. CowboyBear (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikki

I suggest that this article is pretty much a dictionary definition and as such it should be transwikkid to wictionary.

Secondly, the dod reference should be listed as a reference not as an external link. It helps in asserting the importance of the topic that a clear reference exists, which does define what short shackling is.Ga rr ie 22:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV Dispute

I agree that this is not a neutral article. I've tried to clean it up by removing specific mention of the Guantanamo Trials - the article is about a technique for internment, not about who has been accused of employing the technique.BWH76 (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the report that is sourced is quite old - it refers to cases from 1992-1993. BWH76 (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing inherently non-NPOV in discussing notable uses of the technique the article describes (as long as the discussion is appropriately sourced). Take a look at the |Waterboarding| and |sleep deprivation| articles. That said, it looks like the paragraph you deleted wasn't sourced, so I'd agree with the deletion. CowboyBear (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]