Jump to content

Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Here's a link to a story demonstrating water boarding: Video of a volunteer being waterboarded Msandersen 06:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Dunking witches

Not at all sure that dunking witches is much like waterboarding. The dunking was a trial by ordeal, and the victim was told that she was being tried. I.e. the goal was not to convince her that she was to be drowned, but rather to tell her that she was being disciplined and tried. No doubt the effect was torture, and no doubt it was barbaric, and no doubt it was absurd sadism, but I think it's sufficiently different from the calculated effort to dupe a victim into believing that he is dying to not be germane to this article. Geogre 02:26, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, it was mentioned as an act of torture, and dunking witches is, well, quite similar to it. Maybe note the difference between ordeal and not? -- towo 10:42, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)
Text has been changed so that I think both the antecedent of dunking and my hesitation are reflected. Looks like it's in as good a shape as such a horrid subject deserves for now. I pray no one ever has a need to add more examples of its being practiced in the future. Geogre 02:42, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think this whole section needs to go - being held under water is very different - Dunking can and will drown you, even if just for one second due to water in the lungs, Waterboarding will make you think it - but won't drown you, it can cause other damage, including mental scaring and suffocation. Too much of a stretch.Anyone else in agreement? Someone with more wiki experience needs to make the call and wipe it. Rcnet 01:07, 2006 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Proof?

No evidence is cited that the US has at any time used waterboarding in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib or anywhere else.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866&page=1
6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.
According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.
"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.
There is your source. Travb 17:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The reference to current U.S. usage on detained suspects has more to do with the CIA black camps (Washington Post Article)

The use of water escape techniques for training in the military (which I've experienced) is in no way akin to water torture. It is training under controlled conditions which allows the individual to learn survival techniques without risk to life or limb.

What you're implying? that U.S. military are teaching AlQaeda terrorists to breathe in water? SSPecter Talk|E-Mail ◆ 14:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC).

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html Pincus, Walter, "Waterboarding Historically Controversial; In 1947, the U.S. Called It a War Crime; in 1968, It Reportedly Caused an Investigation" Washington Post, 10/5/2006, pg. A17. There was a front page picture of a U.S. soldier waterboarding a prisoner in 1968, which reportedly caused an investigation.Edison 04:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

More precisely....

I was a US Army interrogator during the Cold War, and we used waterboarding in our training of infantry troops to simulate torture in mock POW exercises. Our waterboard was inclined, and the subject was positioned such that the feet were on the rasied portion of the board, with the head lower than the rest of the body. The subject was strapped and/or held down, and massive amounts of water poured down his (or her) mouth and nose creating coughing, gagging, spitting, crying, and a feeling that drowning was imminent. Im not a doctor, but the theory was that with the head being lower than the lungs, drowning couldnt really occur. The most useful application of this technique was not in trying to get some John Wayne-wanna-be to give up information, but rather to force him and his unit to watch the meekest, cutest female in the unit get "tortured" for his refusal to talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeeMo (talk • contribs)

you are talking about the water cure I believe, (but may be wrong) the US military has a "proud" history and tradition of using this torture too. Thanks for sharing your comments, interesting. 69.150.209.25 17:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


What is described above is waterboarding, not the water cure. It is the strapping of the subject to a board which makes it waterboarding. Also, every description of waterboarding I have read has the part about the head being lower than the feet. The above post provides the first explaination of why: To keep water out of the lungs.

POV in article

I the deleted POV word "terrorist" and returned the word "suspected"--since no court has convicted these torture victims of being terrorists. Historically, since 9/11, many of these victims of torture and jailing have been released without any charges brought against them.

I deleted "had occasionally engaged" and "was routinely engaging" because the cited ABC article does not seem to mention either words--without a source it is better to use "engaged" without the POV, unsubstantiated "occasionally" and "routinely" adjectives. Feel free to add back these synonyms when you can reference a source.

I find it repugnant that anyone would downplay torture against any group--as the anon did on this recent edit--but that opinion is irrelevant to the NPOV of this article.Travb 17:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

IN response: terrorism is not a legal term. It is a descriptive term. One doesn't need a birth certificate to be born, nor does your child need to have one for you to be a mother. Legal sanctioning is not required for one to "be" something, especially in non-legal matters. Red is red without a legal declaration-- excluse the simplicity; I don't know how else to describe this. Terrorism may involve violating criminal laws, but it is not intrinsically a legal matter. It is natural to call someone a "terrorist" if they belong to a terrorist organization (an organization that targets violence against civilians for political purposes or to create terror).
In any event, I changed "often used" to "may be used" because without evidence, it is hard to believe that captors all over the world are commonly using waterboarding. The use of waterboarding is more specialized. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.168.98 (talk • contribs)
Please sign your posts using ~~~~
69.95.168.98 wrote: "One doesn't need a birth certificate to be born, nor does your child need to have one for you to be a mother."
Your analogy is weak and falacious--probably a straw man tactic. You are taking a "descriptive term" and then trying to liken it to an analogy that no person could argue with.
"to be born you need a birth"
"child needs a mother"
"Red = red"
Then, your real fallacious leap of faith:
Men that are tortured = terrorists.
To show how weak your analogy is:
So, Americans in Vietnam who were tortured by the Vietcong are terrorists?
Can you be certain with 100% certainty that every person America has tortured is a terrorist? (If so, you must be God himself.)
Don't dress up your contemptable, dispicable justification of torture with word games. You sound like Gonzales: "The Geneva convention doesn't apply." Or applicable to this article, Teddy Roosevelt, "water torture really doesnt hurt anyone." Disgusting and immoral. (See footnotes in the section Water cure, which I created because someone didn't want to face historical facts.)
"terrorism is not a legal term. It is a descriptive term...Terrorism may involve violating criminal laws, but it is not intrinsically a legal matter." Terrorism is not a legal term? I guess all those law classes in law school about terrorism really aren't about terrorism. Actually, it is both.
69.95.168.98 wrote:"Legal sanctioning is not required for one to "be" something, especially in non-legal matters."
Again, a weak argument. First of all, your argument makes a few assumptions:
  • First, that "terrorism" is not a legal term, that it is only a descriptive term.
  • Second, but less obvious, you are assuming that every person that America has tortured is a "terrorist". The ACLU just filed a lawsuit with a German man against the US government: America has a fine history of torture. I just got done a few days ago wasting an ignorant jingoist who was attempting to downplay the torture committed in the Philippine-American War.
  • Third, your definition of terrorist appears to be so broad, that it includes every person that America tortures.
"It is natural to call someone a "terrorist" if they belong to a terrorist organization (an organization that targets violence against civilians for political purposes or to create terror)."
Again, a simplistic argument. First of all, what is a terrorist organization? Is it the list that America puts out every year? FYI, the list of terrorists that America puts out changes, groups drop out and are included back all the time depending on current geopolitics. So one day, terrorist group A is a terrorist, and therefore it is okay to torture them, and the next day they are freedom fighters against a new American enemy, and it is not okay to torture them.
Your argument is also incredibly ethnocentric. Who makes the list? What is the criteria? If the CIA trains and hires death squads are they now terrorists?
By your simple reasoning you appear to live in a world of simplistic absolutes. Like Al-Quaeda does. I find it so ironic how many jingoists on both sides of this war are so very much alike. If the world was only as simplistic as you make it sound.Travb 09:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Your post begs the question, is a "jingoist" someone who likes, or someone who fails to dislike, America? I'm curious which it is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.181.12.201 (talk • contribs)

Sen. Kennedy's Claim referenced here from the Washington Post is wrong

In WWII, the Japanese who were convicted were not just convicted for waterboarding, but serious beatings. In comparison, some Japanese soldiers who didn't waterboard, were sentenced much harsher penalties. <a href="http://disturbinglyyellow.org/2006/10/05/i-was-duped-by-kennedy/">http://disturbinglyyellow.org/2006/10/05/i-was-duped-by-kennedy/</a>

Further, it was on American civilians, not combatants. Shouldn't we reflect this?

The Congressional Record (9/28/06) comments included many forms of torture for which Japanese soldiers were prosecuted. Whether this was on POW's or civilians did not seem to create any distinction. I am convinced to remove the final sentence of this excerpt as a subjectively political comment by Edward Kennedy which is intentionally misleading. Since Asano is mentioned outside this quote, the reader should be sufficiently informed that the water boarding was "among" the types of torture used (burning with cigarettes and severe beatings were others). Water boarding should not be singled out without support. Dfoofnik 00:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Modern Waterboarding is only about USA

Is there a reason why the entire 'modern waterboarding' section is nothing but USA waterboarding? Have people forgot this isnt a blog to post anti-american 'sources' but to actually give useful information about the particular subject. Are any of the mentioned pieced together sentences in this section actually useful information on the topic? This isnt a news blog its an encyclopedia. Other than the first two paragraphs, this entire section should just be removed completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.22.3 (talk • contribs)

If you think there is something too US-centric about the "modern waterboarding" section, I suggest that the appropriate action is to add some information about the use of the practice in other countries, not to delete the information about what is done by US practitioners. If no other countries are known to actively use the practice, then I don't think it is a problem that the US is the only country discussed there. —Wookipedian 08:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
At http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/09/this_is_what_wa.php you can see photographs of a waterboard that was actually used by the Khymer Rouge in Cambodia, along with a painting by a former prisoner showing how it was used. The photos were taken very recently in Tuol Sleng Prison in Phnom Penh, now a museum that documents Khymer Rouge atrocities.
The photographer, Jonah Blank, wrote:
The similarity between practices used by the Khymer Rouge and those currently being debated by Congress isn't a coincidence.[...] [M]any of the "enhanced techniques" came to the CIA and military interrogators via the SERE [Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape] schools, where US military personnel are trained to resist torture if they are captured by the enemy. The specific types of abuse they're taught to withstand are those that were used by our Cold War adversaries. Why is this relevant to the current debate? Because the torture techniques of North Korea, North Vietnam, the Soviet Union and its proxies [...] were NOT designed to elicit truthful information. These techniques were [...] designed specifically to generate a (usually false) confession, not to obtain genuinely actionable intel.
I leave it to more skilled writers than I to add the relevant information above in a suitably NPOV manner. PeterLinn 05:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


I deleted the last line from Brian Ross description blockquote. Whoever added it "over clipped" a third paragraph that was not descriptive but instead a POV from a so called human rights group. I'm new here, hope I did it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.78.136 (talk • contribs)

Watch this space for multiple US instances, Drop by Drop: Forgetting the history of water torture in U.S. courts, still draft. Rcnet 01:13, 04 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Suspected

Again the anon condones,embraces, and downplays torture. In the cited article, the article states 3 times that these people in captivity are "suspects" or "suspected" of being terrorists.

"However, ABC News was told that at least three CIA officers declined to be trained in the techniques before a cadre of 14 were selected to use them on a dozen top al Qaeda suspects in order to obtain critical information."
"Currently, it is believed that one or more former Soviet bloc air bases and military installations are the Eastern European location of the top suspects."
"Khalid Sheik Mohammed is among the suspects detained there, sources said."[1]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Travb (talk • contribs)

CIA and KSM comments

I'm not sure if the ABC News link is apt citation for these comments. The ABC article doesn't say where the information came from, and since CIA operations and the status of terrorist leaders like KSM are all highly secretive can we really trust these unnamed "sources" the article suggests? --NEMT 15:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, in particular the paragraph that begins '"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true.'--agr 19:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
So editorial conjecture is fact now? Ok, good to know, for a second here I thought we were writing some sort of encyclopedia. --NEMT 20:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The policy I cited speaks directly to the issue you are raising and explains why it has to be this way. We give the source of the quote. Those who believe ABC News passes off "editorial conjecture" as fact-checked news are free to disregard what they say.--agr 22:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
NEMT personally, I will believe ABC news over some guy on wikipedia. I think most wikipedians would agree. If you don't like what ABC news says, find a verifable source which contradicts ABC news, otherwise your arguments have no merit or standing.
I have no problem deleting the ABC news quote, if you can acutally find a news source which contradicts it.
It is a common, illogical and irrational tactic for people to label a source deragatorily that they disagree with, such as your term "editorial conjecture". Labeling a view in no way lessens the verifiablity of the source. It is an irrelevant argument.
Next you will be calling ABC "liberal pinkos", great label, but it is irrelevant.Travb 05:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Section deleted

I removed the following, since it is not sourced, and rather extrodinary to believe:


In some cases the stomach of the victim would be hit with an object or the interrogator's fist causing the stomach to explode or severe damage to the stomach. In most cases, the urethra of the victim would be closed off and massive amounts of water forced down their throat into their stomach. During the inquisition, one case records a man actually "exploding" causing his belly to be ripped open and him to die in a matter of seconds. Please source the info, using ref tags

Travb (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Waterboarding is due to become a banned practice"

The linked article (5th citation) is about UN criticism - I don't see any statement from the U.S. that waterboarding or other "professional interrogation methods" will become banned. That sentence should be either properly cited or changed to match the article. 27 August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.60.87 (talk • contribs)

Wrong title for article?

I question the title of this article. The "Modern waterboaring" section describes waterboarding. The two prededing sections deal with other, earlier forms of water torture, but they are not waterboaring: they don't use a board. Also, many of the linked terms relating to water torture techniques and devices are largely duplicative of one another, in whole or in part. Some of the links are to redirect pages. Does anyone want to try to clean up this area? Finell (Talk) 05:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the "Medieval waterboarding" technique, as described, does indeed involve using a board. I don't see a little duplication in the content at the destinations of some links or the inclusion of some redirects as a major problem. However, the article could probably use some improvement. –Wookipedian 06:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Several of the references in the Waterboarding in Popular Culture section also allude to non-waterboarding water-torture techniques. The Pirates of the Caribbean and A Clockwork Orange references are the only two I know of personally, but the others should be reviewed by folks with first-hand knowledge. I'm not going to delete them at this point as I expect this article will probably split into a general 'Water Torture' article and a Waterboarding article with actual references to waterboarding. 68.169.200.61 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed text

An anon added this, I added a fact tag, then another user removed it:

Khalid Sheik Mohammed revealed imminent terrorist attacks on the U.S. after the CIA obtained valuable information from using the water boarding technique. Those attacks were then thwarted by U.S. authorities.

Please add source to add back to article. Travb (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

MUST be considered torture?

I am a wikipedia novice, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the very first para of this article strikes me as an unwarranted POV statement.

The passive construction ("It must be considered...") is a clear attempt to elide the question: Exactly *who* considers?

More appropriate: "The practice has been heavily criticized by individuals and organizations that consider it a form of torture," or something similar.

Alaska Jack 23:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The opening paragraph currently says:

In modern practice it produces a severe gag reflex and makes the subject believe his death is imminent, while not causing permanent or lasting physical harm. For this reason-and its reported use in the interrogation of US War on Terrorism detainees-its recognition as torture is disputed.

I don't understand the middle part of the last sentence. Is it saying that calling waterboarding torture is disputed because it is reportedly used on US War on Terror detainees? i.e.: It's not torture if it's used in a "good" cause? Though that claim has indeed been advanced by some, it seems too obviously specious to be included. Perhaps there was some other intention, which should be clarified.
Is a source needed for the statement "its recognition as torture is disputed"? Initially I found it beyond belief, but a quick google for "waterboarding is not torture" found plenty of such disputation, e.g.: asserting that waterboarding "causes no more damage to the subject than when a toddler holds his breath as an act of defiance." (http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/006107.html) Is there a more authoritative source for this view? PeterLinn 06:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that the Bush administration has ever acknowledged that it has used waterboarding to interrogate prisoners nor has it officially made the claim that waterboarding is not torture. Plenty of its supporters have, though some, like Senator McCain have emphatically state that it is torture. Permanent physical damage has never been considered necessary for torture and indeed that are many techniques designed to "leave no marks", e.g. electric shock to sensitive places such as the genitals. Water torture is in that category. I think all this should be noted in the article. --agr 11:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This is absurd. Quite obviously, whether the Bush administration claims waterboarding is torture or not has no bearing on the issue. The fact that *other* techiques, widely agreed to constitute torture, do not leave marks is also obviously irrelevant. We are talking about a subjective judgement here: What consitutes torture? The fact that you, or anyone, in their heart, passionately believe that waterboard is torture has no relevance. The FACT is that MANY CONSIDER IT TORTURE -- AND MANY DON'T. It doesn't mean you're wrong, you may very well be right. But it is a subjective viewpoint that both sides can argue. That is a FACT. Why not just say so?

Alaska Jack 19:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Is murder a subjective judgement? Rape? Lynching? Torture is a crime under U.S. and international law. It has a dictionary definition. It has a legal definition, all of which are met by waterboarding. I'm sure there are people who believe killing Jews isn't murder or that hanging blacks without trial isn't lynching. That does not mean Wikipedia has to give their views equal consideration. See WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Here, by the way is the U.S. legal definition:--agr 21:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Chapter 18 United States Code § 2340. Definitions As used in this chapter— (1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

OK, I have a couple thoughts about this. First, your dragging murder, etc. into the conversation proves *my* point more than it does yours; a wide majority of people *do* agree on what consitutes murder, except in fringe cases (where of course the question is put to a jury). Second, I respect your point about undue weight, but you can't so easily dismiss the opinions, on a subjective issue, of so many people who can make a reasonable argument. This is not like insisting the world is flat in the face of physical evidence to the contrary. Finally, your bringing the USC definition into this is terrific. It is an appeal to authority, and thus obviously not the last word on the subject, but it is an important part of the puzzle. You should put it on the main page. Something like: "Critics of the practice consider it a form of torture. Others contend that, while harsh, it does not cross the line into torture. (USC Chapter 18 defines 'torture' as ... etc etc)." I would find such an approach neutral and highly informative.

Alaska Jack 22:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe a wide majority of people in the world do agree that waterboarding is a form of torture. Can you name one government or official body or other authority that says it isn't? I'd be happy to quote them in the article. I dare say most of the people in the U.S. that support its use agree that it is torture. They simply support whatever measures are needed to prevent terrorist attacks. The statement that waterboarding isn't torture seems a perfect example of doublespeak as defined in 1984:


--agr 04:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Bush speech removed

In regards to this deletion: [2]

As per discussion with anon:

Anon wrote:

I do not understand. The material I am deleting is not relevant. It says nothing. Why am I not allowed to delete it? I thought this was a community effort, you seem to imply that your view of this topic is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.120.186.133 (talk • contribs)

I agreed with anon that it is not relevant, and deleted the info.

Actually, looking over the quote a second time, it is relevant, Matt Lauer specifically asked Bush about waterboarding, and Bush refused to answer. I added the comment back....Travb (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Bush's refusal to answer does not validate Lauer's comment. Bush explained his reason for not answering the question, but the author fails to include it. Adding this section demonstrates bias on the part of the author and adds no additional knowledge about waterboarding. Mossy64 03:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Gestapo

The Los Angeles Times says that waterboarding "was one of the Gestapo's favorite techniques", though it does not cite any sources [3]. Do you think that should be confirmed first or is this a sufficient source? ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 15:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Do I remember correctly scenes of waterboarding in the movie Battle of Algiers? 71.192.244.223 15:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)KWillcox@wnsh.com

Movies are not sources. Information on the Gestapo has become full of so many false 'truths' and urban legends (IE the Gestapo did ___ fill in the blank with something horrible and someone will beleive it) it is hard to know what was ever employed, short of speaking to a former staff member. The Waffen SS is my area, the Gestapo was an intelligence service so I dont follow it really. user:Pzg Ratzinger


Pincus in Wash Post=

This cite was moved down to the Legality section, but it was also the source for the 1968 use in Vietnam, so I moved it up there and used the name= function to include it in the Legality section. Otherwise the 1968 use was attributed to sources which do not support it to my knowledge. The hazards or reorganizing where text is in an article: later editors may find unsupported claims whose support got moved.Edison 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was Ted Kennedy

The paragraph from the Congressional Record by Senator Kennedy does relevantly apply to "Waterboarding", its application, and its listing as an offense subject to prosecution. However, the final sentence did not meet objective review and was intentionally misleading. That waterboarding was considered torture is undeniable, but to attribute a prison sentence to THAT act, exclusive of the (soldier's?) other severe criminal inflictions of harm, is purely subjective and justifies the editing of that quote. Had a Japanese torturer used ONLY waterboarding, we might have had an indication of how serious the court regarded it, in comparison to other criminal acts.

(also appended to "Senator Kenney", -5- above)Dfoofnik 01:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheney Interview October 2006

I removed the text added by 69.247.105.32, "In October of 2006, Vice President Dick Cheney confirmed in a radio interview that U.S. interrogators subjected captured suspects to the controversial interrogation technique.[2]" Despite the conclusions of the reference given (^ "Cheney confirms that detainees were subjected to water-boarding" by Jonathan S. Landay, McClatchy Newspapers, October 25, 2006, http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/columnists/jonathan_s_landay/15847918.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_jonathan_s_landay), from the official transcript (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061024-7.html), no absolute admission of use of the technique was given. If we are to include such a definitive statement, we must have better sources than a reporter's (possibly mistaken) interpretation of the interview. -- 128.104.112.58 14:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I restored the discussion in a separate section quoting what Cheney actually said, along with a report of the WH denial that he had confirmed its use. Readers can form their own conclusion. --agr 20:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV - Torture - Subjective? Please weigh in.

This article is incredibly biased. Just the first 6 words are highly contentious:

Waterboarding is a type of torture...

And dunking is not very similar to waterboarding. Nathanm mn 03:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The reasons cited above make no attempt to explain why this author considers the article to be "incredibly biased", if they want this to be seriously considered, they need to cite reasons and possible remedial action - not just make claims.

Pandora’s box is open, and it is not the mission of Wikipedia to close it.

How can something which is unquestionably a mock execution, as the mind and body believe drowning is imminent, not be torture, as defined by numerous international treaties, ratified by the US and other countries which are also suspected of practicing it?

The fact that current events and revelations are not exactly welcomed by a particular administration does not render it biased per se. Everyone has skeletons in the closet, this one got out - citing the Skelton’s existence is not necessarily biased. I believe this article should be locked until well after the elections, as it is clear that some people are unwilling to get past denial.

Though some are doing great work improving the article, others can’t get past the Torture question. Sufficient international treaties and authoritive opinions have been cited, yet some people for political reasons will not accept that, as they wish to suppress this inconvenient truth as it doesn’t agree with their political philosophy. This should be about logical reasoning, not emotive politics.

There is no question it needs internationalization. Yes, many countries are probably at it, but many countries are not known to be at it, and I’m not aware of any other nation claiming the high moral ground to be facing such well backed allegations. As such I contend this is not a biased article - it could use improvement, but it’s not biased. By improvement, I mean the addition on other modern occurrences and definitions, in addition to the well established content written on the US –which at this stage should just be cleaned up with no more political edits. Pandora’s box is open, deal with it.

I would add that even under the 2002 Justice Department memo (which the Bush administration later disowned) that suggested physical torture "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death," waterboarding would qualify as torture. If you can find some authoritative Bush Administration source that we can cite that says waterboarding is not torture, I would agree it should be included in the article.--agr 14:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Classifying waterboarding as torture is entirely subjective. There's no way to come to a consensus definition of torture, so the article needs to reflect this to stay neutral. Also, the article shouldn't be just about the Bush administration. Aside from the POV parts of the article and ridiculous inclusion of dunking witches, there's some good information in it (though it definitely needs a rewrite). Until someone edits it, I'm putting the NPOV tag back in. Plus, anonyomous user from 24.23.199.240, please register for an account and sign your edits in Talk. Nathanm mn 19:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not subjective. Torture is defined under U.S. law (Chapter 18 United States Code § 2340. scroll up to see it). There is also a United Nations Convention Against Torture, ratified by 141 countries and any dictionary has a definition. As mentioned in the article, the U.S. accused and convicted a japanese officer of committing torture by waterboarding. Senator John McCain says it is torture. If you are aware of any recognized body that defines torture in a way that excludes waterboarding, we should reference it. There are people who say the Holocaust never happened, that 9/11 was a CIA plot, that NASA faked the Apollo moon landings. We are not required to give marginal views like that equal weight under Wiklipedia's NPOV policy, certainly not without a citable source. Dunking is another mater and I agree the discussion of it, beyond some related to/see also link, belongs elsewhere e.g. water torture.--agr
It is not subjective. Torture is well defined in US and International Law. About the only dissenting legal opinions are a few now disowned DoJ memos. If anyone can find any body of law that says clearly this is not torture, speak up and cite your sources, else leave it alone. I contend that the sole governmental agencies who would not define this as torture would be it's practitioners and cheerleaders.
An other aspect is being overlooked. When this article keeps getting sanitized by some for the inconvenient truth that it is torture, they tend to use a replacement to state Waterboarding is a form of interrogation. Punishment, maybe - interrogation, no - Interrogation is designed to get someone to reveal truthful answers. Torture will get people to say anything to stop the suffering - and this will take the form of saying what it takes to stop it, whether true or not. Torture is not an interrogation technique. It will get confessions, but worthless ones. This IS torture, this is NOT interrogation, and that is NOT subjective. there is a very large body of evidence to show that torture is not a workable form of interogation, but this is not the article for that issue, this is "What is Waterboarding" Rcnet 06:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Witch dunking is totally out of place, but this is NOT subjective, much as the previous poster reminds about the Holocast, Apollo and others. Would you have Wiki speculate on Elvis's current location because a small amount of people adhere to such faith? Removed NPOV - Cite reasons and evidence why it should be here, or leave it alone. And please remember the body of what you have to overcome:

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984

  • Article 1
    • For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (PrepCom) held in New York from June 12 to 30 2000:

  • Article 7 (1) (f)Article 8 (2) (a) (ii)-1
    • War crime of torture
      • Elements
        • 1. The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons.
        • 2. The perpetrator inflicted the pain or suffering for such purposes as: obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
        • 3. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
        • 4. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
        • 5. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
        • 6. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

  • Article 7
    • Crimes against humanity
      • (e) "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;

Political opinions, as shown by the lack of explanations and citations do not justify the creation of a Bias tag. Should you overcome these citations with something more authoritive, we'd all be glad to admit error and submit to your opinion that this is biased. Rcnet

The definition of torture is subjective. Equating word definitions and historical events is comparing apples and oranges. Words can change meaning over time and mean different things to different cultures and people. Legal definitions add even more complexity. Laws can have multiple interpretations and they only apply in certain jurisdictions. OTOH, facts are--by definition--objective. Even if some people interpret them differently, they can't dispute that they happened (at least without ridicule). As the saying goes "You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."
On a side note, some of the arguments in this Talk are pretty weak:
  • Just making a laundry list of laws and treaties is an example of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
  • Any opinions, without being qualified as such, clearly justify the NPOV tag. That's exactly what it was designed for.
It's funny that anonymous accused me of trying to suppress this inconvenient truth, since I wasn't suppressing anything. I merely flagged the article with NPOV to draw attention to the problem.
As the article reads now, I see no further need for NPOV. In just a few words, Gazpacho changed the tone of the article drastically. I couldn't have written it so concisely, which is why I didn't edit it myself originally. It now sounds mostly neutral, and that's all I was looking for.
Oddly, it seems we're all in agreement that witch dunking doesn't belong here. But my main objective has been accomplished. I haven't followed any of the related links, so I don't know what to do with it. I think I'll leave that to others. Nathanm mn 00:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
"I think I'll leave that to others.", as shall I. Others, weigh in on subjectivity please. As we aren't a court, and laws will conflict the only option I saw was to climb the ladder as high as it went to avoid legal cherry picking, International Law and treaties which are ratified.

And the witches need to go.Rcnet 01:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You've still got to watch out with international law and treaties though. Int'l law isn't just some body of laws that magically obligates everyone on the planet. I'm sure you realize that, but the way its bandied about in the media these days, some people seem to think that way. Also, many countries (notably the US) hold their own laws to supersede int'l law and judges rule that way in the event of a conflict. And just like any law, if they're not enforced, they're worth about as much as the paper they're printed on.
The same goes for most treaties. Many countries sign and ratify treaties, then completely ignore them. That's what's happening with the Kyoto Protocol. Many of the countries that signed and ratified it are doing worse with their CO2 emissions than the US. I'm still mildly amused over the uproar when Bush "unsigned" it, since the Senate voted 95-0 against its ratification. Nathanm mn 02:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the first six words of the Intro, I think it's it's pretty clearly POV. It's a POV that I share, mind you, but it's still POV. The fact that there are referenced authorities in positions of power and credibility (perceived or otherwise) on both sides of the question, means that it's POV, especially since it can't be deemed torture by virtue of an entry in a dictionary (Dictionary.com, and The American Heritage Dictionary for example, don't have entries for it). I mean, is there anyone here who argues that it is tortue as a matter of fact? Or diction? If no one can illustrate that idea, then I think a simple compromise would be to reword the Intro to something like, "Waterboarding is a controversial interrogation technique widely believed to be a form of torture." Wouldn't that resolve the POV dispute? Nightscream 06:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Research and sources to reduce hearsay

I added this into the US section of Talk, however it looks like it is shaping up to be a good COPYRIGHTED research history of waterboarding as it applies to the US. Google is your friend, this can be used to give us leads to check sources and further remove the hearsay from the article, vital in such a politicized issue.

Drop by Drop: Forgetting the history of water torture in U.S. courts, still draft. Rcnet 01:22, 04 Nov 2006 (UTC)

NPOV rehash

This article seems bound for an edit war. In order to try and avoid one, I added the Controversial tag to the Talk page and NPOV back to the article. Note: Before we get into another argument over whether the article is neutral or not, please actually read the NPOV box. It says: "The neutrality of this article is disputed." It does not say the article is decidely non-neutral, just disputed. It's pretty obvious based on the quantity of edits and animosity of discussion that the neutrality is in dispute. Nathanm mn 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded Rcnet 07:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The torture vs interrogation edit keeps happening and reverting, I do see that far more registered users seem to accept the original definition as being an explicit form of Torture. I propose to revisit that question later this week and remove NPOV if there isn't a significant body of registered users disagreeing. Please speak up users. Both Nathan on one side, and 3 of us on the other will wear each other out editing back and forth, it's pointless. Someone needs to step in. ONE ISSUE NEEDS ANSWERING: In view of available sources law, citations, and common sense - is Waterboarding Torture? Yes / No; and if it is not torture - What is it? Thus far two users say it is not a form of torture, and is just interogation. Rcnet 07:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

We all seem to agree, as shown by edits that: 

Waterboarding xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx simulates drowning by producing a severe gag reflex, making the subject believe his or her death is imminent

We agree it simulates drowning.

No one has expressed issues with 

akin to/form of/type of mock execution

Can anyone cite anything which shows mock execution not to be torture?

Ergo it is torture. Rcnet 08:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


I don't think a vote is appropriate. It does not matter what Wikipedia editors' opinions are. If there is a notable source that says waterboarding is not torture, it should be mentioned in the article. We can then contrast that position with others. The problem is that no government official or agency that I am aware of has publicly taken that position (unless you count Cheney's interview). The U.S. Government official position is "no comment". Yesterday I heard the BBC's Owen Bennett Jones interview a U.S. State Department spokesman at some length on the question, and he could not pin him down. Even in the blogsphere, I find more supporters of the Bush Administration who say waterboarding is torture but America needs to use it, nonetheless, than those who argue it isn't torture. So unless someone can come up with a citation, there is no other viewpoint to discuss. --agr 12:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Think of it this way. IF you believe waterboarding IS NOT TORTURE, they you must let YOUR CHILDREN be tied down and waterboarded.

Oh, You're NOT going to let your children be waterboarded?

QED.

---

QED? Hardly. Sorry, the above is ludicrous. Consider the following: "IF you believe monitored house arrest IS NOT TORTURE, then you must let YOUR CHILDREN be subject to monitored house arrest. Oh, You're NOT going to let your children be subjected to monitored house arrest?"

How we would have our children treated is not germane to the discussion of the treatment of POWs, sir.

---

Arguments about whether or not it is torture are completely irrelevant. This article is not meant to be a battleground where one side eventually 'wins' and gets their point of view to be the only one represented. It is meant to inform, and it should do that. Whether or not you believe it's torture, it should be obvious that your view, whichever it is, is not unanimous by any means. Instead of arguing about whether it is in the form of edit wars, we should state that it is in contention and place the *valid* arguments either way in the article; probably under the legality section, or possibly under a new section about its disputed status as torture.

DrkWraith 09:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Wikipedia's NPOV policy:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.
If it is so obvious that the status of waterboarding is contested, it should be easy to find a public source that argues it isn't. We don't, for example, have to say "many people think sex with a child is the crime of statutory rape" just because some pedophiles think is should be legal. --agr 10:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It is easy. It's a bit bogged down on the internet since I refused to use any of the numerous bloggers as sources, but there's still tons out there. I've used a variety of different links to sources that claim it is not torture. Even the many of the sources you use that claim it is torture acknowledge that others believe it isn't. As for your example, how many people have had to write letters and collecting signatures to argue that statutory rape is in fact a crime? You're using bits of the argument on this as sources, while refusing to admit that there is an argument. Since major news organizations and the government are not valid sources, what should I use?DrkWraith 18:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The opinion of a regime or one of its constituent organizations that practices torture, as stating that it is not torture is utterly useless as a source. Of course "anonymous sources" (maybe Cheney will name them again) within the CIA or executive wish to change its characterization as torture, after all they are the ones facing a retirement in the Hague. Anyway this is all moot, the regime has NOT said it is not torture. Anonymous Source is No Source, as it bears no credibility. 71.204.133.75 04:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The U.S. government has never publically taken the position the waterboarding isn't torture. There certainly has been lots of innuendo and I left in the ABC story that cited annon sources saying the CIA does not deem it torture. --agr 23:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by Department of Defense User

I just reverted some vandalism here - by 214.13.114.254 , I find it funny that he/she said "We can fight them in ther back yard or fiht them at home.", but the kicker is their IP trace: 214.13.114.254 = Department of Defense Network Information Center

I rest my case.

Putting in for an check on whether this poster corresponds to a contributing user ID Rcnet 08:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems I also accidentally zapped the NPOV tag when pulling the rant out, sorry Nathan - though I strongly disagree with this tag, by definition I can't remove it, others will have to. Rcnet 23:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
You reverted a well-reasoned comment on a talk page. WTF? Maybe you don't agree with him, but enforcing NPOV on talk pages is news to me. The worst he did was misspell lots of words and forget to sign. Unless he also did other stuff to the article (which you failed to mention), banning him was surely an abuse of admin privs. AlbertCahalan 07:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Integrity of the Article

I concur with what ArnoldReinhold said. While a vote would show where the consensus is among wikipedia editors, facts and logical arguments can't be decided by a democratic vote. Rcnet's cogent argument has yet to be rebutted by anybody who is against recognition of waterboarding as torture. I agree that this article can be continually refined and improved, but until there is a substantial body of citations and logic -- not political rhetoric and deceptive euphemisms -- underpinning the nouveau view that waterboarding is not torture, the well-substantiated and recorded view that it is should prevail. I believe that part of the reason that the Bush Administration refrains from using the term is precisely because it is so universally recognized as torture. A "dunk in water" is a thinly veiled code term that seems mild and innocuous, well-suited for the audience Vice President Cheney was addressing in his interview with a right-wing conservative talk radio host. --Trick311 21:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody in a position of authority will even use the phrase, so I don't see any rebuttal source coming. As others have pointed out, there is a body of opinion who believe waterboarding should be used, these people currently don't care if it's torture or not(for example last night's DoD graffiti vandal). There is a body of circumstantial evidence suggesting they may believe it is torture as per US war crimes law - one instance is the suspicious legal immunity recently provided to recent practitioners - if it were not torture what would be the need for this? Unlike in the case of the ICC, where the administration inaccurately claimed risk of foreign politically motivated trials (a bogus claim), it can hardly be claimed that such would be the case domestically under domestic US law.
Is anyone willing to state what this immunity from War Crimes prosecution recently passed is aimed at if there is not torture?
No relevant source has ever said it is not torture, many excellent citable sources say it is torture - so why is this thing being edited to and fro? How many objectors does it take to retain an NPOV tag when NO sources and justifications are provided for it. There's another tack we could take here... Should an involved party (US user) be considered in an objective position to NPOV this at all - I think not, especially given your current election environment.
Instead of complaining about neutrality, a better tack would be to build out this article and document other known cases, definitions and practitioners, as the US did not invent this practice. The time would be better spent adding in South American, European, Asian and other users - then Americans viewers can sit back and see that this is not some puerile anti-American article. If you want to make the perception more neutral, don't tinker with the torture definition, and instead pull more non-US practioners into it. Rcnet 23:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

International conventions & statutes

If you want to cite any of these, you'll need a published source that specifically relates them to waterboarding. Making a determination on your own as to whether waterboarding falls under a particular international definition of torture is original research. Gazpacho 22:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly something in what you said, but where do you draw the line between a plain english reading reading - and legal interpretation/original research? We need to look much more closely at this point before changing a long settled definition which others (not you) have been reverting anonymously, or vandalizing (a DoD IP recently). The torture or "something else" issue is long standing here.
There are very strong indicators pointing at this definition, no one has ever offered any citable sources to say that Waterboarding is not Torture. The object of the first sentence in this article is to clearly define "What is Waterboarding". Placing it in a category is required to define this. Torture is the best match, and does not require original research. Interrogation is certainly not applicable, though this is used in it. We could instead just say what is done in the performance of waterboarding, but that argument would lead to the abolition of the existence of categories, would we then prevent "Airplane" from being considered a type of "Flying Machine"? - that requires basic interpretation.
As to the ICC, I think that is a moot argument compared to the substantial issue of definition as torture - As a result of the debate on the substantive issue this was marked NPOV. The non-ratification by the United States is not relevant to it's operation, as this is a Universal Jurisdiction system designed to target the worst offenders regardless of nationality or agreement. Like a criminal doesn't get to disagree with the definition of murder, the ICC doesn't allow individual nation states to disagree. No country has a ICC veto, this includes non-signatories. Rcnet 00:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, I can find no person, nor source who would not consider Waterboarding to be a form of mock execution. No original research is required to find Mock execution to be a form of torture. There are a lot of people should would love to be able to cite evidence that waterboarding is not Mock execution, and if they could cite it, they would have so as to accomplish their goal of sanitizing torture from the definition.
You edited "Waterboarding is a procedure used in interrogations and punishment that simulates drowning by...". How would you reason that "simulates drowning" does not constitute a mock execution?
Merriam -Webster Online, Torture definition
Encylopedia Britanicca Torture = Infliction of intolerable physical or psychological pain.

Rcnet 00:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a citation to the U.S. legal definition of torture, which is equally clear cut. I also added some quotes from John McCain who is unambiguous on it being torture and mock execution. If we were talking about a situation where guards were having sex with prisoners at gun point, would it be original research to call it rape?--agr 02:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the distinction is that you're talking about laws, and no law is "clear-cut" in the hands of a lawyer. If you want to cite human rights groups applying the statute to waterboarding, do so. When it comes to international law, it's fundamental that the parties do indeed get to choose whether to accept jurisdiction. Gazpacho 03:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Resolution

It's clear something needs to change. I along with many other supporters of the torture definition would not agree with it simply being removed, or becoming "widespread claims", perhaps we could create a new section under the definition, linked to the definition, leaving the sources for and against it being torture. I can't see how anyone could think it otherwise in light of the evidence, but that is a POV.

OR...

We all know, that what is now a slow moving round of reversions, will eventually become an edit war, leading to a locked article, which one view or the other will disprove of. I personally do not want to throw dice as to the outcome.

I propose:

  • We archive all non-active parts of this talk page to a sub page (it's already too big)
  • Create a discussion, and a proposition section.
  • Post proposed edits here for comment, in a proposition section.
  • Allow at least a week before making a proposition live.
  • The below moderators, and others, would revert and guard the 1st two paragraphs from edits which do not stem from this "slow down, resolve, and improve" editing process.
  • ArnoldReinhold & Gazpacho should admin the release from draft, as both are active here, and both have used reason and TALK to help advance this article.
  • Everyone should participate.

This should reduce the reversion level, and will inevitably produce a better all round replacement. 24.23.199.240 05:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Rcnet, (not logged in...)

FYI I'm not active, even if my contribs suggest otherwise. Gazpacho 09:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Nathan? Rcnet 12:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The article has been pretty stable for the last few days, so i am not sure any more that the ordinary editorial give and take plus discussion here is needed. If that changes, maybe your proposal should be followed. I'd be happy to see a "he said, she said" controversy section on whether waterboarding is torture. The problem is a lack of citable sources that take the position that it is not. The U.S. government simply refuses to comment. The Vice-president did comment but then denied that he was talking about waterboarding. I'd be happy to quote a Senator or even a Wall Street Journal editorial that said it wasn't torture, but I haven't found one. There is a whole other viewpoint that says torture may be justified in extreme circumstances, but that doesn't help the "it's POV to call it torture" position.
By all accounts waterboarding causes severe suffering and creates a fear of imminent death. That is squarely within the three legal definitions cited, as well as the dictionary definitions I've checked. Even if some country does not accept the jurisdiction of certain international laws, they still express the opinion of humanity as a whole. And one of the legal cites is to American law. The view that the law has no meaning once the lawyers get hold of it is quite cynical and not the accepted view of society. The U.S. definition of torture (18 USC 2340) is part of the criminal code and it is a basic principal that everyone is supposed to understand the clear meaning of criminal statues. Ignorantia juris non excusat. --agr 00:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Nicely put. Looks stable now, it seems election fever has passed, whew! With no one prepared to cite a usable source saying it is not torture, we can even consider losing the NPOV tag? Rcnet 23:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe comment out the tag with a note saying if you want to put it back please cites source for other opinion. --agr 15:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the first six words of the Intro, I think it's it's pretty clearly POV. It stood out to me before I even read this Talk Page. It's a POV that I share, mind you, but it's still POV. The fact that there are referenced authorities in positions of power and credibility (perceived or otherwise) on both sides of the question, means that it's POV, especially since it can't be deemed torture by virtue of an entry in a dictionary (Dictionary.com, and The American Heritage Dictionary for example, don't have entries for it). I mean, is there anyone here who argues that it is tortue as a matter of fact? Or diction? If no one can illustrate that idea, then I think a simple compromise would be to reword the Intro to something like, "Waterboarding is a controversial interrogation technique widely believed to be a form of torture." Wouldn't that at leat resolve the dispute over that passage? Let me know what you think. Nightscream 06:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No one has offered any referenced authorities to say it is not torture though - that's the point, plus it's more than interogation - in fact it's a weak case that it is indeed interogation henc ethe inclusion of punishment. If someone can cite any referenced authorities saying it is not torture speak up. Rcnet 08:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's boiled down to the fact that there is no one willing to offer any sources, references or citations against the definition being used here, we've been asking for weeks; including during the very active (and emotional) period when the US wiki editors were in the midst of a volatile election. Hence I reverted; I will even go on to suggest that the POV tag be removed if much more time passes without anyone offering any sort of case against the definition. Thus far (I do not include Nightscream, who gave it a fair crack) the legions wishing to make this more politically palatable to the US audience (and future judges?) have been unable to offer any case against this definition. Speak up people. Rcnet 08:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The only argument I see to saying that Waterboarding is not torture is that torture is subjective. However, supposing that torture is actually subjective is quite problematic; as it would then require saying whose viewpoint one is ascribing to when calling something torture. Furthermore, the word torture is not by default subjective; that is to say that to posit such requires an argument as to why it should so be; although a feelings about torture are subjectuve, and it seems to me that the subjective argument people are actually talking about this. Lastly, even subjective words have some scope and are not completely ambigous, they have meaning, thus given a subjective class there are some things that neccesarily fall in it. Hence, my question would be what acts would you say are definitely torture? In what way do they differ from waterboarding? --Phoenix1177 19:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Phoenix1177

Removed NPOV, no one offered any sources, references, or anything that challenges the current definition. We have been asking over and over again here. Rcnet 05:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Waterboarding a word?

This has been nagging me for a while... Has anyone addressed this? Is the correct english langauge phrase a construction "Water boarding"? and if so - we should shift this article to it's correct usage, aliasing the common - but probally WRONG usage "waterboarding". My background is Experiemntal Physics, I have no business with this question - literates please weigh in! Rcnet 09:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

ABC News: [History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding]

I have removed the [Fox link], here's my reasoning: The Fox link is portraying DUNKING, not waterboarding. Given Fox's impartiality issues I can only surmise the purpose of this video is to mislead people as to what constitutes waterboarding so as to further sanitize it for domestic consumption. Dunking is not waterboarding, we've already had that discussion with the witches - it would not inflict the same psychological damage and physical pain. Being dunked will lead to the build up of CO2 and some level of panic, and minor chest pains. Being waterboarded is a very different thing - As the body knows there is air there, it will breathe, thus causing inhalation to the lungs of small quantities of water - leading the body to believe and feel that it is drowning. This will not occur in dunking, or if it does - the quantites involved would cause death. Waterboarding is not "dunking" and should not be portrayed as such.

If waterboarding was dunking, as illustrated in this Fox video, it would not be torture, or at least it would be far too grey an area to make such a definition here on Wikipedia.

A major issue with waterboarding is psychological - the victim believes death is near - AND FEELS IT, this is a mock execution. On this basis alone as the volunteer knew this was not the case, yet afterwards did not describe the difference, I would consider this to be biased political spin a-la Mr. Snow, and not suitable here. Misleading.

There's also the fact that we were linking pirated content on the article itself. Rcnet 10:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What was shown in the video pretty much matches how waterboarding has been described in the press, particularly the third iteration.Where did you get the notion that the victim is supposed to aspirate some water? Everything I've seen is to the contrary. Also I think it is all the more notable given that it is from Fox since the reporter-subject clearly states that it is torture. Finally, as to whether the content is pirated, that is between Fox and Google. Fox can have the clip taken down if they are concerned. I would like the link restored. --agr 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I've restored it until this can be better analyzed by others. I'll do some more digging myself later, but initially I'd point to the image being used at the top - Cambodia, which IMHO is an accurate portrayal of the technique and to the first external link which is a portrayal of the same method, this would cause water aspirate as breath holding would be very unnatural in such a non-submerged scenario. Fox's torture comment is pertinent yes, but the method shown contradicts everything I've ever heard about waterboarding - it looks like plain dunking. That's IMHO, I'll try to back it up later when I have time. Rcnet 03:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Page protection request

This is tagged as a controversial subject matter - as such we have requested "Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.", unfortunately, there are those who have been unwilling to do the work and cite sources etc., and instead have resorted to anonymous slow moving edit wars - with fundamental content revisions lacking any sources, references or citations. As such this article should be placed into protected status until we can sort this out.

I would recommend Semi-Protected status (no anons or <4 day users), as we have also had numerous instances of vandalism (long-dong 67,000 dead, DOD IP ranting etc). I had hoped that this would die down following the US elections, however it has not.

In some cases Anons are revising with no sources. This is not grounds for protection by itself of course.
Anons then will get frustrated and instead revert, or vandalise this article. This is cause for Semi-Protection.
  • During protection, we should work to make this article better, and well referenced/cited.
  • We should also internationalise it as discussed above, there are MANY nations practising these techniques, we should add - which will reduce the non-existent, but perceived Anti-American bias in this article, which is causing high emotions leading to vandalism and edit wars.
  • On completion we should then remove protection

Rcnet 02:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for improving the article, but I'm not sure we nee any special protections at the moment. Things have quieted down a lot since the U.S. elections. I'd rather save that measure for when we really need it.--agr 16:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

RV POV Check

I have reverted the POV Check tag inserted by anonymous user 68.57.162.192. The reason is that this tag said Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page., yet the author, anonymous user 68.57.162.192 did not actually make any contribution, or argument on this article. Drive by edit. Talk says this is controversial, of that there is no doubt, there are a lot of important people who would like to practice some revisionism with this definition. The Talk tag says cite sources, and discuss. If this is not done it will become a pointless edit war waged on personal political views - this is not what Wikipedia is meant to be about. Everyone should get involved and try and trash out a solution in Talk, and achieve a consensus edit. Rcnet 02:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


Added new source | 100 U.S. law professors defining as torture

In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code. Rcnet 02:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"unproven" edits

I am reverting series of edits by user:67.14.215.240 that insert the term "unproven" in several places and also delete well sourced information. Existing language makes clear these are reports, not proof. Sourced material should not be deleted without discussion here. --agr 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This section should be deleted. While certainly the prevailing societal attitudes about the technique are relevant, this should be ascertained from cited secondary sources, not a laundry list of primary sources that are merely mentioned as showing the technique. The current section adds nothing to the reader's knowledge of the technique except a list of places that it can be seen. Without further analysis, this information is useless. --Eyrian 19:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists of references in popular culture are common in Wikipedia articles and they are one of its unique features. I know of no other resource where one can reliably find such information. Clearly many editors think they are useful. People who don't can skip the section. And I see no problem in citing a published literary work as the source for a statement that it contains a certain scene or depiction. We don't need a secondary source to say "let's kill all the lawyers" appears in Shakespeare.--agr 20:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism and vanity are also common to Wikipedia articles. It doesn't mean they should stay. That's just an appeal to sophistry. While what belongs in Wikipedia is a very broad debate, what belongs in a specific article is much clearer. Should the article on suicide list every example of the practice in popular media? Why is that any different? Is there a threshold of commonality that is required? While, surely, the articles for the various media found in the list should include a link to waterboarding, a simple list of occurrences is not cleanly on topic. People might find the information useful, but that's not an argument for keeping something in a particular article.
And, no, we don't need a secondary source to state that a primary source contains a particular depiction. However, relying solely on that primary source would only provide enough verifiable information to mention mere containment, which is not a meaningful amount of information. Content derived from a secondary source discussing the presence of waterboarding in popular culture and what that says about societal views is on-topic and interesting. A laundry-list of occurrences is not. --Eyrian 21:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism and vanity are not approved of on Wikipedia. Lists are. See WP:LIST. As for your Suicide example, a list of every occurance of the practice in popular media would be too long for the main article. And it would probably have to be broken down into separate lists by type of work. However such lists would be totally unexceptional in, say, Category:Lists of books or Category:Lists of films, or the sharper Category:Lists of films with features in common. Note that there is already a Category:Films about suicide and a Category:Suicidal fictional characters. There are far fewer waterboarding instances, so if we were to start a separate List of waterboarding scenes I'm sure there would be an Afd suggesting it be merged into the main article. And that's where it belongs.--agr 22:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like half the entires in Category:Lists of films with features in common are up for deletion. The remainder of your examples describe lists based around a major theme. The popular culture here is, by and large, a list of bare-mention trivia. Should the article on dreidels have a list of each time they appear in a work? That wouldn't necessarily be long, it'd just be stupid. Now, if for some reason there were a lot of films made with dreidels as a major theme, then you might have a basis for making a list, or mentioning them in the article. But simply being seen isn't a sufficient threshold for inclusion. --Eyrian 18:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
There are lots of other examples in Category:Lists of films, Category:Lists of books, etc. And by the way the is a List of films about suicide. As for dreidel, the article has exactly the sort of list you describe. Waterboarding is currently a matter of great controversy (at least in the U.S.) and fictional references to the practice are surely more important than the fact the dreidel song was once sung on South Park.--agr 19:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Dreidel most certainly does not contain such a list. It has a mention of a parody song that is about dreidels. Not a list of times the dreidel has appeared in media. As I said, a list of films about suicide is a list of films about suicide. Not films mentioning suicide. And I'm not going to question that waterboarding is important in U.S. Culture; it most certainly is. What should be present in the popular culture section is a cited analysis of how waterboarding's portrayal in the media shows societal attitudes. A list of bare-mention occurrences does not do that. It just dumps a lot of useless information on the reader. Without further analysis (which cannot be done from a primary source), it's just trivia. --Eyrian 01:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The dreidel article has a "Trivia" section that had two items until you removed one of them, the one I cited. The article does not have 'a mention of a parody song that is about dreidels,' it mentions an acapella drag queen quartet that happens to sing a parody of the dreidel song. Please explain why that group has more signifigance to dreidels then the films in question have to do with waterborading. And, for that matter, under what principle the pariody song, which doesn't even mention dreidels, is more deserving of mention in the dreidel article than the South Park episode which does. And finally, do you really think it is appropriate in a discussion like this, when some content in an article is cited to rebut your argument, to delete that content and come back and say it isn't there?--agr 01:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed inappropriate material; it doesn't matter when. And I'm not sure I understand your comment about the song; the entry mentions a specific song that is a parody of the dreidel song. It mentions who sand it as a matter of course. And yes, the dreidel song has much more to do with that musical than the collection of hazy connections and bare-mentions in the popular culture section here. Seriously, half of these references aren't even waterboarding specifically, merely "water torture". --Eyrian 03:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

water cure - water torture - Waterboarding

These 3 articles are very related but they are not properly connected to each other: water cure - water torture - Waterboarding. There is need to either merge them or interconnect them.Farmanesh 21:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

POV issues

This article, especially the lead, is way too suggestive of waterboarding being a form of torture. I've tried to establish a more neutral term of "enhanced interrogation technique" but it was reverted. I agree with the editor who reverted my edit because that edit, which neutralized the begininning of the article, was inconsistant with the rest. In short, the whole article should probably be looked at again with the hopes of making it more neutral. └Jared┘┌t┐  21:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the phrase "enhanced interrogation technique;" it's meaningless doublespeak. --Eyrian 21:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Well to play devil's advocate, torture is not appropriate either. So there's the problem. Enhanced interrogation technique is the word used by the United States for this practice, so why not use it. └Jared┘┌t┐  22:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Because other people (such as the referenced law professors) use another term. --Eyrian 22:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a better reason that that. The U.S. Government has never acknowledged that is uses waterboarding or that it calls it "enhanced interrogation technique." It has prosecuted others for using the technique as war criminals. And it has banned U.S. military personal from using waterboarding. If it's merely an "enhanced interrogation technique," why would the U.S. deprive its soldiers in harms way from using it? And waterboarding clearly meets the definition of torture under U.S. law. Absent some notable source that says waterboarding isn't torture on the record, there is no reason to use weasel words in the article.--agr 04:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
But there also isn't reason to make a political statement through using "torture" rather than a more politically neutral word choice. I'm putting {{POV-check}} on the main page until this can be worked out. └Jared┘┌t┐  15:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It was worked out long ago, read up the page. 71.204.133.75 04:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not a political statement, that would have no place in the article. It is simply a factual and cited definition, and one with the most widespread acceptablity to English langauge speakers. Now, the definition does have political consequences, but that does not make it a political statement. If some government somewhere wanted to rename say rape to "enhanced sexual suggestion" to make it less legally dangerous for the perpetrators, would that be ok? The phrase "enhanced interrogation technique" is nothing more than an spin to reduce the risks of future prosecution for war crimes, and an ICC warrant. If you feel torture is not the appropriate definition, please find an acceptable source that says so, and preferably not a perpetrator saying so; else leave it alone. Wiki is not meant to be politically correct, it is meant to be accurate and sourced. 71.204.133.75 04:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You have arrived very late to this issue Jared, and use of administration spin, such as the more politically palatable non-phrase "enhanced interrogation technique" is not suitable, it is nonsensical phrase created by people who would wish the truth, and the popularly accepted definition were otherwise, so as to reduce the prospects of a retirement in the Hague. Revisionism. This is well cited, well explained, and was settled long before you discovered this article. 71.204.133.75 04:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
In short, the talk about the problems may have died down, but the issues in this article have certainly not been taken care of. (On a side note, I had always heard that Wikipedia was a very liberal encyclopedia but I had never noticed this in any articles until I saw this one.) So, I don't think that anything that I do here would be of any help, so I'll leave it up to you to hash out and if I ever stumble upon a more appropriate definition, then I will be glad to provide it in the body of the article. └Jared┘┌t┐  00:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not about one country's political slants of Liberal or Conservative, its about fact - regardless of which side's arguments it supports. In this case I can see how this could be uncomfortable in certain quarters, but the recent revisionism "professional technique", or "enhanced interrogation technique" is pure spin, and meaningless anyway, given that the United States has prosecuted people for torture as a result of water boarding, and has criticised other countries for using waterboarding , describing it as a torture. Sorry but Do as I say, not as I do from the US regime isn't going be able to revise and delete long precedent on this definition. It is very clear, and well cited that the United States has long legally considered waterboarding a form of torture, and the vast majority in the civilized world also holds to this understanding, so I see no reason to offer a special accommodation to one political view point, in just one country, which would rather this subject went away - that would be a very slippery slope for an encyclopaedia to go down. 71.204.133.75 22:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Just as a linguistic sidenote: The "meaningless doublespeak" term "enhanced interrogation technique" is a free translation of the German phrase "verschärfte Vernehmung"--a euphemism for "torture" used by the Gestapo. Details here: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html PeterLinn 23:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I could find one hundred U.S. attorneys who believe that abortion is murder. Using it as a citiation to state it as fact, however, would be ludicrous. Instead, let's focus more on stating the actual facts which is that it is an interrogation technique that many people believe to be torture. Becuase only then will the 100 attorneys be a proper citation. User:Bellowed||3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |)]] 20:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I would think it more to the converse - A method of torture method that some consider to be an interrogation technique.71.204.133.75 03:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
And you could find a hundred people to tell you that the dragons exist and astrology can tell your future. It's a wide world, filled with the misinformed and gullible. Misrepresenting a minority view is against Wikipedia's policies. --Eyrian 21:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Misrepresenting a minority view is against Wikipedia's policies. Exactly. A minority view, held almost exclusively by supporters of one particular wing, of one particular country is a Minority View. Spin.71.204.133.75 03:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not an issue of representing a minority viewpoint; Many prominent people do not believe waterboarding to be torture. Let's keep that in mind. Waterboarding is a controversial topic still; so let's err to the side of caution and not come to conclusions for everyone here.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 21:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Eyrian, I like your edit for the most part; however, I don't think that the cited source supports the word "typically" whereas I do believe that it does support the words "many believe". |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 21:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Many prominent people believed the world is flat, and currently don't believe in evolution. That doesn't change the massive consensus of independent experts. --Eyrian 21:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The difference here is that no prominent people today believe the world is flat. Today, however, it is hotly debated among prominent people today as to whether or not waterboarding is a form of torture. So stating, unequivocally, that waterboarding is torture is the wrong thing to do. It taints the rest of the article and makes it un-neutral. I will say that I think part of the problem is that the word torture is a very broad term. Waterboarding is a psychological form of torture that, by design, does not cause physical harm. Yet it is lumped into the same category with thumb-screwing and crucifixion. This is the real reason that people debate it's status. Anyways, I think we need to come up with a better phrase than "typically considered" because a letter w/ 100 signatures does not warrant the status of "typically considered." Any ideas?|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, the definition of torture under U.S. law includes both physical and psychological pain: "'torture' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering..." So there is nothing inappropriate in lumping waterboarding with thumb-screwing and crucifixion. Second, just who are these "prominent people" who argue on the record that waterboarding isn't torture? Provide some reliable sources that quote these prominent people (not bloggers, talk show hosts and the like) and we certainly should include their viewpoint in the article. --agr 22:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Today, however, it is hotly debated among prominent people today as to whether or not waterboarding is a form of torture.. Hotly debated by just who exactly? If this is so, why are they not being cited, as that could change the consensus already achieved as to what it is. See the top of TALK's tag, needs citation. There is no shortage of people who think it is justified (generally only Amercians though), but I have yet to hear of one prominent person who does not consider it torture. Plenty of editors have initially thought in the past that the treatment and definition was inaccurate - both views then went looking for references and backup so as not to engage in Original Research. No one found ONE CASE of anyone of any prominence stating that waterboarding was not torture - in actuality, in the case of the United States, the entire matter is denied.71.204.133.75 03:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Cheney and Giuliani are just two prominent individuals who don't believe that it is torture. Now, Giuliani of course believes that it should only be used in very unique cases, but nonetheless doesn't believe that it is torture. Let me remind everyone also that the letter signed by 100 attorneys does not constitute stating, unequivocally, that waterboarding is torture. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 04:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Does the fact that if it is torture Cheney is in deep trouble under the command responsibility, for promoting, defending and justifying war crimes, make his view on the matter not suspicious?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 05:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Put that aside. Where is a citable source that says Cheney and Giuliani believe waterboarding isn't torture? Cheney's remarks during the radio interview are cover in detail in the article. But the White House denies he was talking about waterboarding. Giuliani's answer during the South Carolina debates could be interpreted as meaning he does not believe waterboarding is torture, but they could also mean he opposes torture in general, but in the extreme circumstance posed by the moderator, a terrorist who knows where an atomic bomb is hidden, it would be ok. To accuse them of denying that waterboarding is torture, we need a clear, citable statement. (And it's not just the 100 law profs. It's John McCain, the only US Senator who has been tortured, the plain language of US law and international treaty, past US prosecution, dictionary definitions, etc., against ambiguous answers, rumor and speculation.)--agr 11:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I think that may be important, later. Should Cheney ever admit its existence, and claim it was not torture - it would be very notable for article inclusion, but it would not be usable as a reference to change the first line casting doubt on its status as a form of torture - as his voiced opinion would be highly suspect given the prospect of a retirement in The Hague.71.204.133.75 18:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Where?, When? Link please. Cheney has made no such claims - he won't even admit to its existence, and Giuliani has not stated it is not torture, though there is a dispute as to whether he may approve of it regardless of its status as a form of torture. 71.204.133.75 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Giuliani's belief that waterboarding is not torture is right here: Q: Let's say terrorists mounted 3 successful suicide attacks in the US, and a 4th attack was averted and the terrorists captured. How aggressively would you interrogate those being held about where the next attack might be? A: If we know there's going to be another attack and these people know about it, I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of. It shouldn't be torture, but every method they can think of.

Q: Would you support enhanced interrogation techniques like water-boarding?

A: Well, I'd say every method they could think of, and I would support them in doing that. I've seen what can happen when you make a mistake about this, and I don't want to see another 3,000 people dead in New York or any place else.

So Rudy's position is that waterboarding falls into the "every method they can think of that is not torture" category.

As for Cheney, you actually have to look no further than this very article to find:

" Vice President Dick Cheney told an interviewer that he did not believe "a dunk in water" to be a form of torture but rather a "very important tool" for use in interrogations, including that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.[7]"

And the CIA? They are also on this article: "In November 2005, anonymous sources told ABC news that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency uses waterboarding, but does not deem it torture.[5]"

I think it also might be appropriate for everyone to read this tidbit of Wikipedia NPOV policy:

It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe..." as is common in political debates.[4] A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. In addition, this source should be written by named authors who are considered reliable.

Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups.

A balanced selection of sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. For example, when discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

Since there are many opinions on this subject, we need to give the facts that the competing viewpoints exist without implying that either of them is correct. So, in other words, we need to let the reader know what waterboarding is, that there are opposing POV's as to it's classification, not imply that either view is wrong, and let the reader formulate their own opinion.

And again, I also have to say that sourcing "waterboarding = torture" with 100 US attorneys signed a letter that said so is very problematic. 100 US attorneys' opinions do not make it fact, especially when other prominent individials believe the opposite. We must state the fact that there are opinions of people, not the opinions of people as though they are fact. Therefore, I'm going to change it to waterboarding is a controversial interogation technique that many view as torture. The words "typically viewed" were used before, but since 100 US attorneys does not warrant such a phrase, we have to change it to something else. But I'm certainly open to suggestions. If someone can come up with a better phrase that can be supported by the letter to Alberto Gonzales, then I think it's definately something worth discussing.

Also, guys, I'd like you all to keep in mind that there is no such thing as a final edit on Wikipedia. It can always be improved. And I know it's only natural for people to think that a newcomer to this page is ignorant of the entire waterboarding debate that has occured on this talk pages, but I want everyone to know that I have read those discussions and I have come to my own conclusions based on neutral policy. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is called undue weight. Although the Bush administration and its supporters might disagree the rest of the world, including the UN, considers it torture. No need to mention any fringe opinion, even if it is by one would-be President. When the majority of Congress thinks like that we may mention it.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 01:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
And most conservatives believe it not to be torture either. That's millions of people who dissent. You make it sound like it's the Bush administration on one side, and every other person in the world on the other. This is not a weight issue; it is a very contorversial topic that many, many people disagree on. Look no further than the top of this page at the tag that says, "This is a contorversial topic."|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 01:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Said tag also says Make sure you supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information in highly controversial articles. And it is certainly a case of weight, one regime and (just some of) it's supporters do not consider it torture - this being the same regime that is believed to practice it - It is fair to state that the vast majority of people on this earth consider it torture first and foremost. To even consider it a form of interogation as a secondary is somewhat dubious and in dispute (though still mentionable) given the extremely comprehensive research, not to mention common sense, that people will often say anything to gain relief from torture be it physical or psychological.71.204.133.75 21:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Please desist from vandalizing this article to make it politically palatable to Torturers. Your views, that it is primarily an 'enhanced interrogation technique' hark back to the Nazis (see above). This is a global encyclopaedia. You are pushing a minority POV, held almost exclusively by supporters of one particular wing, of one particular country and offering absolutely no references to back up your continuous attempts to make waterboarding appear to be an acceptable thing. 71.204.133.75 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Of a particular wing or a particular country? So obviously you do not believe that it is held by a tiny minority? Therefore your argument of undue weight is invalid since countries or wings do not constitute a tiny minority. And I object to your vandalism accusations. You really need to cool off.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Bellowed is ignoring consensus, engaging in sophistry, and engaging in disruptive edits on this page, and a few others. Admins, please watchlist his account, as it seems we're heading for an RfC. --Eleemosynary 00:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
A small proportion of the conservative supporters of the US Republican party, is a tiny minority - and its view has since been added today to the article for completeness, but it certainly doesn't add significant weight. The world is a much bigger place than one small clique inside one wing of one party in one country - not to mention that a defence from a practitioner is highly suspect, Should Charles Manson declare that Murder is not homicide, would you have the world take note? It might be worth mention in a comedy section - but little more. In pushing your POV, you have been vandalizing. Deleting the first line, and a large number of reference tags, to replace it with a completely unsourced piece of spin (enhanced interrogation etc) is highly disruptive. Has it occurred to you there is a reason it was removed from the US army field manual - they are hardly going to remove all legal methods available to them in pursuit of protecting US lives... 71.204.133.75 01:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It's far from clear that conservative supporters of the US Republican party seriously consider waterboarding not to be torture. Rather their real position is that torture is permissible when dealing with terrorists who know of imminent threats. Giuliani's final answer when asked about waterboarding was "I'd say every method they could think of." Do you really think if the moderator had asked about thumbscrews he would have said, "Well, no, not that, that's torture"? He would have been hooted off the stage. --agr 08:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, a very small minority of this group would consider it torture. I added that line in the article to try and reduce Bellowed vandalizing the main component, though it could easily be dumped - or clarified. I still haven't heard of one notable person stating it is not torture. 71.204.133.75 04:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The First Sentence

Today I reviewed the policy on undue weight and saw reason to change the sentence. It states that views should not be represented if they are not from a "tiny minority." Clearly if the CIA, Cheney, Giuliani, Romney, Brownback, O'Reilly, even Dennis Miller--not to mention millions of conservatives--do not view waterboarding as torture, then it's no tiny minority. Worldwide, we may be talking a minority view taken here, but not the view of a tiny minority. Further, the source does not justify the statement made in the first sentence as I said earlier. I am going to change it back to the version by Nescio since that is the only version that is, not only neutral, but more importantly properly sourced.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And it will be reverted, as you have ignored consensus. --Eleemosynary 05:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
And your revert will be reverted as you and an anonymous editor ignore policy.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
And your ongoing vandalism WILL BE REVERTED. CIA, Cheney, Giuliani, Romney, Brownback, O'Reilly say it is NOT torture? - If you could cite that we would be very interested - and more substantial than the Giuliani answer which could go either way. We have anonymous (and useless) (maybe from CIA) CIA claims. BTW - there is not requirement to register.69.181.32.194 21:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. It would be nice if Bellowed employed something besides idle threats, untruths, and transparent sophistry. But I guess that's too much to hope for. : ) --Eleemosynary 00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Accusations of vandalism, ignoring policy, and sophistry galore. Please have a look at what isn't vandalism. That word gets thrown around a lot.--Chaser - T 04:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

POV check tag

I stated several reasons why I did not believe this article to be neutral on the basis of the first sentence "Waterboarding is a form of torture." I believed that this statement was controversial and supported that belief with several reasons. Furthermore, I do not believe that the supports for this statement actually support it. Everything I had to say on this can be read above. I made an edit that I thought made the article neutral and another editor, Nescio, improved on it and I thought after his edit that the article was entirely balanced.

Since then, Eleemysonary and an an anonymous editor (and who knows who he might be?) have reverted my changes. They claim that I am defying consensus. I'm no longer disputing the edit because I don't want to defy consensus; but it still does feel like it might be un-neutral and I would like for this article to get checked for its neutrality by an expert.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Who knows who an anonymous editor might be? Who knows who you are? What is the difference? Wikipedia maintains a clear policy not requiring registration to edit, please do not cast aspersions. This article has certainly been checked for neutrality, and a consensus was achieved. We have now started to improve it by providing mention to the few (if any?) people who would disagree. We still have no good and clear citation of anyone of note saying Waterboarding is not a form of torture; all we have is a wishy washy political non-answer from a former city mayor, and anonymous claims that may or may not be authentic from an organization that is known to practice waterboarding and other forms of torture & general criminality. 24.7.61.14 02:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Bellowed is being very tiresome in trying to push his own politically motivated POV on to this article; at least he has stopped mangling the text, but is still putting in Neutrality Check tags. What is the Neutrality question? This is like book burning, should something abhorrent be subjected to revisionism because someone he supports now practices it? How is this not Neutral? Does it not mention the tiny minority who hold a differing view of the subject matter? Should the commonly held understanding of Waterboarding being a form of torture be subjected to weasel words to appease the tiny minority who practice torture, or support its practitioners? I fail to see how this is not Neutral. Sometimes the truth hurts. This is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for revisionism, censorship, and political correctness. 24.7.61.14 02:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. To use the NPOV tag merely because one cannot back up one's argument is thumbsucking. For more on User:Bellowed's deliberate ignorance of consensus, please see this excellent summary by James M. Lane: [4] --Eleemosynary 02:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Very insightful, thanks.24.7.61.14 02:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thumbsucking? Saying that I haven't backed up my argument? Your further harassment is documented. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 18:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take that childish ascii tag and your childish POV vandalism elsewhere. No sources, no edits - this is tagged controversial. We are all tired of you harassing him. 24.7.91.244 19:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Just what do you mean by No editor, much less an anonymous one, do you know how wikipedia works, or are you just making it up as you go along, harassing people who try to restrain your POV pushing, and casting negative aspersions? Give it a rest, if you persist in attacking other editors it is inevitable that they will close ranks against your hostility and return the favour.24.7.91.244
Excellent catch on the ascii tag. --Eleemosynary 00:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what an ascii tag is and I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about my identity. I don't know how you found out that information about me, but placing it here on Wikipedia, trying to expose my identity, is a serious thing. I removed your comments because I don't want my identity to be here. Say anything again and you will be reported. And by the way, the pov tag stays--I have an admin who thinks it's ridiculous for it to be removed. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 17:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the "ascii tag" is referring to your sig. --Eyrian 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That does not reveal your identity, it is just describing a (alleged) job type, of which there are 100,000s of people in. And you stated it clearly, yourself, in wikipedia. 24.7.91.244 18:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


Please stop POV pushing on this article, and deleting items written by others in talk. This is not personally identifiable information, but anonymous information published under a GFDL-compatible license, very readily available, and serves to illustrate my point quite effectively. 24.7.91.244 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Please read meta:right to vanish. --Eyrian 18:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree as to how that covers this (if you decide to leave Wikimedia projects - didn't leave, or change user). Making revisions on a user page does not ban the rest of us from refering to older edits under this Meta. I will agree that under this definition, alleged job type could well fall under personal info. However I have am not going to pursue this. 24.7.91.244 18:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
OK deleted that info from my talk page some time ago; I don't appreciate your attempt to resurrect it here. Please stop the harassment. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 18:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"Not to be confusd with wakeboarding"

Is this necessary? The first line of the article is "Waterboarding is a form of torture" so I'm not sure how it would be confused. It seems a bit glib to have at the very top of the page. FilmFemme 20:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I could see where it could be helpful to someone looking for the sport. It seems harmless enough.--agr 20:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I took it out. It is glib and trivializes the article. If it is to be there we also need skimboarding, surfboarding, snowboarding, waterskiing, watercolouring, waterproofing etc. This was apparently some bodies idea of a bad joke.Bmedley Sutler 07:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Bush Rice Ashcroft explicit approval

Added a sentence with a cited quote from ABC news referring to Bush, Rice and Ashcroft approving waterboarding.

  1. ^ Orwell, George (1949). Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waterboarding/Archive_1&oldid=1158019846"